House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Angela Rayner
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have been appointed Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and it is great to be back answering questions from this Dispatch Box—in fact, I like it so much that I thought we would do a statement straight afterwards as well. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), and his team for their hard work.
Our new national planning policy framework strengthens support for green spaces by requiring local plans to set standards for green infrastructure and increase support for new and improved community facilities and public service infrastructure.
Josh Newbury
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State and her team to their places. It is fantastic to see my right hon. Friend back at the heart of Government.
This summer’s relentless wildfires have brought home to us in Cannock Chase the vital importance of green spaces and woodlands. However, I have heard from residents of new estates such as Norton Hall Meadow in Norton Canes that their woodlands have been badly neglected by private management companies. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, as we build new homes across the country, the planning system ensures that green spaces are available to all and maintained properly for decades to come?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of private management companies; I recognise the situation he is describing and how unacceptable it is. It is clear that the current system is not delivering for ordinary people, and the Government are committed to reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements and ending the injustice of fleecehold. We consulted on the proposals—I think that was in March—to increase the adoption of amenities and new estates, and we will respond in due course. It is the wild west at the moment, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is undertaking important work to tackle it.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State has doubled housing targets for Maldon district, causing it to fall behind on its five-year supply; that is putting green spaces at risk in villages such as Tollesbury. These villages are building more homes but, importantly, this is affecting their ability to plan their strategic infrastructure and community growth. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) to discuss the targets and the impact that they are having on the community and on green spaces?
Angela Rayner
I thank the right hon. Member for her question. We have set out our targets within the national planning policy framework and local plans, and I encourage authorities to make sure that their local plans are up to date. Natural England’s standard on accessible green space stipulates that everyone should have access to good quality green and blue spaces close to home for health and wellbeing and contact with nature. Hopefully, the right hon. Member will be able to see that we are putting things in place to ensure that we have the housing and the green spaces people want.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place alongside her team. Guildford borough council’s latest green-belt assessment found that 92% of its green belt now meets the Government’s grey belt definition, and its assessed housing need has been doubled by the Government from 562 to 1,168 homes a year. That has left many of my residents worried about the loss of green spaces, about unsustainable development without appropriate infrastructure and about the loss of the distinctive historic character of their villages.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of planning policy on green-belt land in my constituency, which falls within the Guildford borough area? Can she outline what steps her Government will take to protect green spaces for communities by ensuring that developers are directed towards genuine brownfield sites first, rather than development being concentrated on land around Guildford that was previously protected by the green belt?
Angela Rayner
What we have been doing is making sure we are strengthening and clarifying the rules around the release of grey belt, but brownfield has to be first. We are also strengthening policy provisions to support local authorities in planning for green space at a strategic level, to ensure that green space is available and that we have the housing and infrastructure people need, but brownfield has to be used first. I encourage the hon. Lady to work with her local authority to look at its local plans.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government do not collect data on how much land within green belts has been formally identified as grey belt by individual local authorities. It is for local authorities themselves to determine whether land in their areas constitutes grey belt, either through plan making or through looking at specific applications. On 27 February 2025, the Government updated green-belt planning practice guidance to support a consistent approach to assessing green belt to identify grey-belt land.
Mark Pritchard
Is the Minister aware that speculative developers want to build 800 new houses in Albrighton, in my constituency, inside the green belt and outside the local plan? Let me be clear: the constituents I met in a public meeting on Friday are not against housing—they are just against housing at the wrong scale and in the wrong location. This is not about nimbyism, but about protecting nature, open spaces and the green belt. On consultation, nearly 4,000 signed a local petition against these flawed proposals. Does the Minister accept that Shropshire’s green belt needs to be protected from this destruction?
Matthew Pennycook
I am aware of the case. My understanding is that Shropshire council refused planning permission for the development on the basis that the land was not grey belt and therefore building on it would constitute inappropriate development in the green belt. In general terms, when it comes to determining whether a site is classified as grey belt, the relevant inspector will, at appeal, consider relevant legislation; national planning policy, including the national planning policy framework; planning policy guidance; and any other relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The new national planning policy framework, published on 17 August, includes a number of new policies designed to increase densification inside settlements, including by encouraging the upward expansion of existing homes and the creation of new dwellings in existing plots.
Bradley Thomas
I just heard the Secretary of State say that there should be a brownfield-first approach, but what is going on in Bromsgrove, and in many other constituencies, is contradictory: an 85% increase in the housing target in a constituency that is 90% green belt. I challenge the Secretary of State to think again and prioritise urban densification, which is fundamental to the redevelopment of towns, cities and urban centres that are in desperate need of renewal. Why does she not just admit that she has got this wrong and change tack?
Matthew Pennycook
We have not got it wrong: the new NPPF does prioritise urban development and densification. As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman a number of times, local authorities can justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the standard method on the basis of local constraints, such as land availability. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify the release of green belt, and we fully expect them to first demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The gate streets in Gloucester city centre are in urgent need of regeneration. Does the Minister agree that one way to breathe more life into our city centre is to convert the empty upper floors of shops into good-quality housing? What steps are the Government taking to unlock those opportunities?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work to look at what more we can do to revitalise our high streets. The Secretary of State and I are looking specifically at what more we can do to arm local authorities with the powers they need to bring empty homes back into use.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Planning permissions for new homes, of which there are already around 1.5 million, are one thing, but getting those units built is another. With Savills reporting that two thirds of London boroughs have seen net zero new housing starts under the Mayor of London, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that units with permission actually get built, rather than concreting over our green belt?
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister is absolutely right that house builders across the country face challenges with viability, not least owing to the implications of the ongoing conflict in the middle east. London has a number of challenges particular to itself that the rest of the country does not face; that is precisely why we brought forward an emergency package with the Mayor of London, specifically to get those stalled sites in the capital moving.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Local planning authorities are expected to plan effectively for infrastructure provision through local development plans and infrastructure funding statements. To support them, the Government have strengthened national planning policy in respect of community facilities and public service infrastructure, and we provide direct financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes.
Ben Maguire
To protect its profits, Wain Homes is now backing out of £350,000 of promised infrastructure funding in my town of Bodmin. But with more than 3,000 homes to be built by 2030, Bodmin now faces an infrastructure emergency. Just last week, the Prime Minister said:
“Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back…life chances”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.]
Will the Minister please consider greater control over infrastructure levies, like that enjoyed by other local authorities, as part of Cornwall’s bespoke devolution package?
Matthew Pennycook
My colleagues on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s request on the devolution offer that needs to be made to Cornwall. He cited a case where the developers backed out of their commitments: specifically on developer contributions, I should say that communities rightly expect necessary infrastructure to be provided and any commitments made to be met. Section 106 planning obligations help, obviously, to mitigate the impacts of a development proposal. They are legally binding and enforceable. If he wants to write to me with the particular circumstances of the case, he is more than welcome to do so.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
A development of 1,500 properties is proposed for near Weelsby Woods, which is a designated nature corridor in my constituency. Within that, there are no designations of social housing, no suggestion of doctor’s surgeries and no consideration of the potential road congestion. All the while those 1,500 homes are promised, 2,000 sit empty in the town centre. Is any action being planned for empty town centre homes?
Matthew Pennycook
As I just said to a previous question, we are looking at what more we can do to give local authorities the powers they need to bring empty homes back into use. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific applications being made, but councils can, through section 106 agreements, seek to negotiate with developers to bring forward the necessary infrastructure and amenities, and affordable housing, on particular sites.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My constituents and people across this country are fed up with more and more housing being built without the proper infrastructure in place first. There is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 about forcing developers to put schools and GP surgeries in place at the same time as new developments. Will the Minister look again and commit to listening to existing residents about bringing changes in legislation, to ensure that there is infrastructure first?
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the shadow Minister to the Front Bench on a well-deserved promotion.
The previous Government had 14 years to resolve this problem; they did not do so. I say to the shadow Minister honestly—he knows this full well as a former local councillor—that there is no single, simple answer to the problem of getting the necessary infrastructure in place. As I said, we have strengthened national planning policy to ensure that community facilities and public service infrastructure are brought forward. Again, we are strengthening developer contributions. We directly finance land and infrastructure. There is more to be done, and we will do it.
Lewis Cocking
Well, the Government have had two years—that will not wash with my constituents, who have seen thousands of new homes built with no new infrastructure. Healthcare services are of particular concern: when there is new housing, that makes it much harder for everyone to see their GP. This Government are taking on more political control of the NHS, so can the Minister tell me what discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care about ensuring that new healthcare facilities are in place when there is new housing?
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister raises a justified point, in that in some cases securing the necessary public service infrastructure is about ensuring that the buildings are brought forward through the relevant developer contributions and other infrastructure funding streams. In some cases, there are other issues, such as workforce challenges in particular. We regularly speak to colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that we get that infrastructure up front and alongside development.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Florence Eshalomi
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Young people must be seen and heard. We are giving 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK a vote in elections. We are working across Government and with our partners to prepare them to exercise that right, including through our £2.5 million Democratic Education Fund.
Ms Minns
I very much welcome the Government’s plans to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but blind and visually impaired young voters will still be disenfranchised as long as there is not legislation that requires them to be able to vote, in secret and independently, like their peers. Will the Minister please reiterate the commitment she gave last week that the Government will table an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to provide fully accessible voting to all voters of all ages?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all her work highlighting this important issue, and I am happy to reiterate my commitment on Report. As she noted in that debate, the Government have indicated their readiness to act during the passage of the Bill so that visually impaired voters can vote independently and in secret. We will continue to work with her and other hon. Members to deliver that outcome.
Alex Baker
This summer I had great conversations with the latest cohort of work experience students from Farnborough sixth form college, who came to spend time in my office. They all agreed that their citizenship education from the various local secondary schools they had attended was a bit hit and miss in terms of what they had been taught about how democracy works, and how they can participate in it. Does the Minister agree that if we want more young people to engage with our democracy, we must give them the knowledge and confidence to do so? What more can the Government do to ensure that young people leave school understanding how they can make their voices heard?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has highlighted. When we are going out and speaking to young people across schools and sixth forms, it is important to ensure that they are equipped. We want them to engage with the democratic process and to ensure that they continue that into adulthood. That means equipping and empowering them with the knowledge and understanding that they need. The Education Secretary is considering recommendations for the curriculum and an assessment review, alongside the Government’s ambition to transform technical education from 14 through to 16. We expect there to be a full public consultation on proposals for the curriculum, and an assessment in due course.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
My local schools do an excellent job of engaging young people in democracy, and pupils at Brompton Community primary school deserve particular praise for taking action. They gathered evidence, took local views, and came to speak to me and the council about implementing a 20 mph speed limit outside their school—something now being actively worked on. Will the Minister join me in praising their effort, and agree that they are an inspiring example of what young people can do when they get involved in the democratic process?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work; it is good to see that he continues to be an active constituency MP. One of the best parts about this role for us all is going to visit our primary and secondary schools and meeting young people—we never know what questions we are going to get. I praise the campaigning efforts of the young people from Brompton Community primary school, and encourage all young people in other schools to carry out similar community engagements.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I would like to put on the record some fantastic youth organisations, such as Harrogate Youth Council in my constituency, that do their bit to engage young people in democracy. My office manager will attest that I also do my bit by having an endless stream of work experience students through the office door—much to her frustration given the number of people who are interested.
One of those students, Benjy, told me recently that he is really excited that in future young people will be able to vote, but he said that there was an unequal opportunity in education when it comes to accessing social media for young people. One way that young people will get information about voting will be through social media. What steps is the Minister taking with other Departments to ensure that young people can find information online?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. It is important that we understand that young people receive information about voting through many different means, including through social media, and I know that colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are looking at challenges around misinformation and fake news circulating online. It is important that we look at the places where young people spend the majority of their time—schools and educational settings—and ensure that our teachers, trainers and carers are equipped to engage with our young people in the right way. The democratic engagement fund will be key to helping with that and the Electoral Commission is also looking at the issue of online engagement.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The national planning policy framework contains strong protections for the green belt, making clear that inappropriate development in it should not be approved unless justified by very special circumstances. It is for local planning authorities themselves to set and review green-belt boundaries in accordance with national policy in the NPPF.
Monica Harding
The Government changes to planning rules are of considerable concern to my constituents and are leading to speculative applications everywhere. Theoretically, the changes could mean that the whole of my constituency, which is 50% green belt and has seven stations, will be concreted over. My constituents are certainly not opposed to growth or house building, but they do not want to be ignored. The long-standing right of councillors to call in applications has been removed, which runs counter to the new Prime Minister’s values on devolution. That is why I wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 July. I have not had a reply to my question, so will she meet me to answer these questions directly?
Matthew Pennycook
I fully appreciate the hon. Lady’s concerns about inappropriate development around stations, such as Hersham and Claygate in her constituency. It is right that we seek to promote good development around well-connected stations, outside of settlements or on green-belt land, as those are some of the most sustainable locations for new homes in the country. However, the new NPPF makes clear that development proposals around such stations should not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location, and must also be of a scale that can be accommodated, taking into account existing or proposed availability of infrastructure.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
We are building the homes this country needs through our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, the £16 billion in the National Housing Bank and the most ambitious planning reforms in a generation. The Greater Manchester combined authority and its fantastic new mayor has received £258 million from the national housing delivery fund and Ministers have intervened to ensure that Stockport’s local plan is consulted on, so that we can provide the homes that Stockport needs.
Navendu Mishra
I congratulate my good friend the Secretary of State and the Ministers on their appointments. As a fellow Stopfordian, she knows Stockport well. In Stockport, nearly 10,000 households are on the waiting list for housing, and Stockport council has spent more than £2 million on temporary hotel accommodation for people who have nowhere else to go. Stockport also has one of the highest levels of residential tower blocks in Great Manchester. Many residents are living in ageing high-rise homes, including those in Lancashire Hill in my constituency, and they are raising serious concerns with me about the condition of their housing and their flats. Will the Secretary of State set out how her Department will support councils not only to build new social homes in our communities, but to invest in and protect existing housing stock, so that everyone has a safe, decent home to go to?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituency, which includes the town of my birth. I have fond memories of Lanky Hill as a child—it was where my nan lived. We announced initial allocations of the social and affordable homes programme that will support the delivery of tens of thousands of new council and social homes. We are supporting councils to invest in existing homes, with a 10-year rent settlement alongside the warm homes funding.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sally Jameson)
We will be giving mayors greater flexibility to deploy funding within integrated settlements, and mayors will also retain a share of business rates in place of Government grants from April 2027. We will replace further grants from central Government with a share of local income tax from 2028.
Janet Daby
The Bakerloo extension line project would help to revitalise Catford, a town in my constituency. In fact, it would unlock thousands of new homes in the area. Will changes to regional funding allow the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority to make decisions to back the Bakerloo line and progress the project?
Sally Jameson
I know my hon. Friend has been campaigning on this issue. She will be pleased to know that we are committed to empowering mayors, giving them further levers to invest in their communities and their areas, including through retaining a share of income tax. Further details will be set out as part of the fiscal devolution road map at the Budget. The Bakerloo extension line will be a decision for the GLA and Transport for London, and I will continue to work with them to support their work and future projects.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Labour has also said that it wants to devolve NHS funding. The NHS uses a standard metric of 2.4 additional patients for every new dwelling constructed. To give a practical example, in south Essex, the 63,000 homes envisaged in Basildon and Thurrock would mean 151,000 extra patients for Basildon hospital, which unfortunately is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission and is part of a trust that is one of five in the country in intensive special measures because of poor management. In short, how on earth can Basildon hospital cope with 151,000 additional patients because of Labour’s housing targets when it can barely cope with the patients that it has at the moment?
Sally Jameson
That is probably a question best directed to health oral questions. The Government are committed to working with all areas as part of our devolution road map to ensure that authorities and health providers can deal with the devolution we have planned. I would be happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that further.
Mr Speaker
I allowed the question on the basis that it was about funding that follows housing growth, so I think it was fair.
I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
With the Government having earlier today briefed the media that much of their devolution programme is being paused, with only Surrey looking like it is going to get its way—I am sure it is the subject of relentless lobbying by Labour Back Benchers—can the Minister tell us how many of the new mayors promised by this Government after their election will be in place by the next general election?
Sally Jameson
Following questions, the Secretary of State will be making a statement on that very issue, setting out what we will be doing in going further with local government reform and with mayors.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that newly formed local authorities will not be forced to have a strategic mayor in order to benefit from devolution. However, the key to success will be ensuring real fiscal devolution to support and deliver services and economic growth for residents. Will the Minister set out how the Department will ensure that for non-mayoral strategic authorities, including the emerging foundation strategic authority in Surrey, where my constituency is based? How will she ensure that our area receives the financial resources to make meaningful funding decisions at a regional level, including by accessing funding streams currently available only to mayoral strategic authorities?
Sally Jameson
Our ambition is to ensure that everywhere in England has or is in the process of establishing a strategic authority by the end of 2027, and that strategic authorities are in place everywhere by the end of 2028. It is right that we will not impose mayors on areas that do not want one, but we consider directly accountable mayors the strongest form of governance, which is why they have a different set of available powers and money. I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady. We will be setting out more information about our plans for devolution in the coming months.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
To help restore high streets across the country, we have announced measures to tackle organised crime, cut business rates for pubs and stop the spread of vape shops and gambling outlets. Later this year, we will publish a high streets strategy setting out a longer-term plan for bringing life back into our town centres.
Fleur Anderson
I welcome all those on the Front Bench to their places, and I welcome back the Secretary of State. I thank the Minister for meeting me to talk about Putney high street. We love our high street in Putney; we want to see it thrive even more, and especially to open up empty shops. Will the Minister give hope to every high street by reviewing and reducing business rates, and by making the high street rental auction zone policy work more effectively by cutting unnecessary red tape and providing councils with the financial support they need to bring vacant properties up to a lettable standard?
Jim McMahon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing Putney and her high street, and for attending the roundtable. Councils need both the tools and the support to bring vacant properties back into use, which is why we introduced high street rental actions. To make powers as straightforward as possible, we have published guidance and templates and established a dedicated support mechanism for local authorities. We are reviewing new burdens funding to ensure councils are appropriately resourced, and have announced £10 million to tackle long-term vacancies and bring empty units back into productive use. On business rates, this Government are committed to reforming the system to create a fairer approach that fully supports investments and high streets such as my hon. Friend’s.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
We recognise that many councils are facing significant financial pressure on their HRAs. The Government have already taken a number of steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including fundamental reform of the right to buy scheme, a 10-year social housing rent settlement and social rent convergence. We will continue to explore further ways in which we might support councils to expand their stock of social homes, including low-cost borrowing options.
Jayne Kirkham
This Government have committed to council housing and taken steps to boost it, which is fantastic. Cornwall council’s housing revenue account has struggled to build because it has had to invest in repairs, meaning that it has had to reduce the amount of funds available annually for new homes. Of course, another of the barriers to delivering new council homes is debt; over £90 million of it is the result of self-financing arrangements dating back to 2012. If that debt were reduced, Cornwall council and others could do more. Will the Government consider options to write off HRA debt, or at least provide lower-cost financing such as that made available to registered providers through the National Housing Bank?
Matthew Pennycook
As I made clear, we have already acted to build capacity in the sector, and will continue to explore further ways in which we might increase the headroom available to councils and housing associations, not least through low-cost borrowing options. With regard to the HRA, we remain of the view that the principle of self-financing is the right foundation, but as I said, we are fully aware of the impact of HRA debt on many councils’ ability to build more and will continue to explore ways in which we might further support them.
Dame Meg Hillier
My right hon. Friend is aware of the challenges with housing in my constituency and across London. Every home built that provides a foundation for people’s lives saves the state money as well, given the temporary accommodation costs that are saved when people are able to get that foundation in life. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to talk to Treasury colleagues about how to look at those maths, to make sure we understand that tackling issues with debt can save money in the long term? I recognise that it might be a long haul, but will he promise to start?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of building more homes in London—I am acutely aware of the housing delivery challenges that the capital is facing. It is really important that a big proportion of those homes are social rented homes and council-delivered social rented homes. I am really pleased that in the early years of the social and affordable homes programme, 30% of the funding will go to London. That will allow London to deliver at least £6 billion of initial allocations, over half of which will be for council housing. However, there is more we need to do in this area, and I am more than happy to have a discussion with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber about what that is.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Councils such as Dorset sold their housing stock many years ago. Their social housing is entirely operated by housing associations; they therefore have no HRA, making it more expensive and complex to influence the social housing network in their areas and support constituents living in poor-quality, overcrowded social homes. What additional measures are being considered to make sure we do not end up with a two-tier system between those with an HRA and those without?
Matthew Pennycook
We have made changes to help more councils access an HRA, raising the threshold from 200 homes to 1,000 homes to provide support in that area. Over time, we want to see a deeper partnership and more working between councils and local authorities, but we are giving consideration to what more we can do to ensure there is sufficient public control of private registered providers in an area to meet housing need. We may discuss this issue further on Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill on Thursday.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The average house price in my constituency is 12 times average household incomes, so the desperate need for more social housing is plain for everyone to see. Westmorland and Furness Council does now have a housing revenue account, inherited from the previous Barrow borough council, but it is unlikely to spend any of that money—unlikely to build council houses—while the right to buy remains unfettered. If council houses are built in the lakes and the dales, they will be sold, and they will become Airbnbs and second homes before the year is out. What will the Government do to encourage the likes of my local authority to build with confidence that people can have affordable homes that they can guarantee will remain so?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman is hopefully aware, we have already taken action to reduce maximum right-to-buy cash discounts. Through the Social Housing Bill—as I mentioned, it has its Second Reading on Thursday—we are taking further action to increase eligibility and banning the right to buy on new build social homes for 35 years. I hope he can get behind that Bill on Thursday and support it.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) to undertake a rapid review of the local government reorganisation programme. I have withdrawn the decisions made in March this year for four areas: Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; and Suffolk. The review will look at the programme as a whole, including the decision that was taken for Devon, Plymouth and Torbay.
Martin Wrigley
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her place in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I welcome her team, too. I thank her for her upcoming statement and the review that she has just started, which address my question and that of my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), about the Devon local government reorganisation, which had been described as bonkers. Next time around, will the Government include the local MPs in the process? Will the local councils be refunded the costs incurred this time around?
Angela Rayner
I hope that local MPs and councils will be engaged. I have made a commitment, which I will go into further in the statement after this Question Time. It is about making sure that we make the right choices for local areas. Where costs have been incurred, there will be conversations with my Department, which was allocated money to support local government reorganisation. We are still committed to local government reorganisation, but with people.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
The Prime Minister has set a clear ambition to end rough sleeping at the earliest opportunity, backed by the full support of central Government. The Government will convene an interministerial group to work to drive progress in the PM’s ambition and towards the commitments made in the national plan to end homelessness.
Steve Yemm
I recently wrote praising the determination of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to make tackling rough sleeping a priority, and I highlighted how the Old Eight Bells in Mansfield was turned from a derelict building into a lifeline for adults who need supported housing, bringing new activity into our town centre. Does the Minister agree that if that approach were backed in our fight to end rough sleeping, it would be a significant helping hand?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend raises an example of a good local initiative as we look at how we can end the scourge of rough sleeping. We have to be honest that central Government alone cannot achieve that task. We have to work with the local voluntary groups, councils, community groups and charities that are doing fantastic work across the country. I would be pleased to look at the example that my hon. Friend set out to see what lessons we can learn.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
My constituency has among the highest levels of deprivation. Unfortunately, subways and bus shelters are home to the most vulnerable. I know that £440 million has been allocated, but I do not know how much has been given to Birmingham city council. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can address this issue?
Florence Eshalomi
It is truly shocking that we are still seeing people having to sleep in poor and worrying conditions on the streets. I am happy to look at how much funding the hon. Member’s local authority has received from the new funding. The Government have committed £442 million in new funding in the Prime Minister’s ambition to end homelessness, and I am happy to give the hon. Member additional detail on the impact that will have for his constituency.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
Encouraging progress has been made against national homelessness and rough sleeping targets in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. In particular, the number of families in B&Bs for more than six weeks in Greenwich has decreased by 96% year-on-year, from 100 households to four—congratulations. More than £168 million in new funding was announced for London last month in the rough sleeping programme. That funding will be used across key areas to tackle rough sleeping in the winter and beyond, including the Erith and Thamesmead constituency.
Ms Oppong-Asare
Women who are experiencing rough sleeping are often hidden from official figures. Will the Minister ensure that there is a specific focus on that during the forthcoming homelessness summit, and will she ensure that new guidance is backed by the resources that councils need in order to provide safe, trauma-informed support?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We have made it clear that authorities in all areas should look at providing accessible support for women, including specialist support, where needed. Our ending rough sleeping programme will require a whole-society approach. This autumn, the Prime Minister will bring together a diverse range of leaders from businesses, finance, charities, faith, health communities and many more areas to consider a range of options to meet the needs of different people and, most importantly, the needs of women.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
The number of families in temporary accommodation has decreased in Southport year on year, and in June 2026 no people were sleeping rough in the West Lancashire borough council area. Funding for the national rough sleeping programme was announced last month, with £340,000 allocated to Sefton, £6.7 million to the Liverpool city region and £189,000 to West Lancashire borough council. That will ensure that people sleeping rough in Southport can be offered a roof over their head and be off the streets by Christmas.
Patrick Hurley
Light for Life, a homelessness charity in Southport, tells me that some of the rough sleepers with the most complex needs are precisely the people least able to navigate the bureaucracy associated with finding that roof over their head. Will the Minister consider creating a distinct pathway for entrenched rough sleepers, and allowing trusted local bodies to triage people directly and to get them into emergency accommodation, rather than expecting those with addiction issues, poor mental health and chaotic lives to navigate the bureaucracy before they can obtain help?
Florence Eshalomi
It is important that we highlight the complexity and challenges faced by many people who are sleeping rough, and it is important that we recognise that that those with complex needs can be the least able to navigate traditional services. Our new £442 million rough sleeping programme will fund routes off the streets, as well as settled accommodation and intensive support. It will bring together the multi-agency support response that is often needed to move people off the streets for good. Local authorities will have the flexibility to work with trusted voluntary organisations that can reach those who are furthest from the services. I am happy to look into the experience that my hon. Friend has described, and the experience of Light for Life in Southport.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The definition of “reasonable walking distance” is set out in the glossary of the national planning policy framework. For the purposes of policies relating to land around well connected stations, the glossary makes it clear that it should be considered to be about 800 metres, or about 10 minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability or quality, or physical barriers
“would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away.”
Saqib Bhatti
This policy has created a huge amount of consternation in my constituency, and it puts a huge amount of green-belt land at risk, especially in historical, beautiful villages such as Hampton-in-Arden, because there is one way in and one way out. There is a small GP surgery, and a school with just one form entry. My constituents fear that they will be overwhelmed and their green belt will be overrun. Would it not be better for the Minister to focus on growing housing in places like Birmingham, which needs more housing, and on ensuring a brownfield-first, infrastructure-first approach?
Matthew Pennycook
We need more housing in all parts of the country. We do have a brownfield-first approach, and we do want to see infrastructure delivered in a timely manner alongside housing developments, but it is absolutely right that we focus development within reasonable walking distance of train stations within settlements, or well connected stations outside settlements, including those in the green belt. As I have said, these are some of the most sustainable locations for new housing in the country. We have defined well connected stations by the 80 travel-to-work areas of the country, and we have also linked minimum density requirements to service frequency. There is a link between the number of trains that a station receives per hour and the amount of development that we want to see. However, I am more than happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issues in his constituency.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
Last Thursday marked the two-year anniversary of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report. We remain committed to ensuring that the Grenfell tragedy is not forgotten and never happens again, and we will continue to work closely with the community and the building industry as we deliver lasting change.
Olly Glover
Some constituents are facing exorbitant service charges for retirement properties inherited from a family member that are proving impossible to sell. One of my constituents is paying £770 a month in service charges for an empty one-bedroom flat, after inheriting the home from their late mother. What steps will the Government take to regulate the sector and stop these companies ripping people off?
Angela Rayner
I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member says, and the Housing Minister has just indicated that he would be happy to meet him. That is something that we want to tackle. We have been very clear on service charges and fleecehold, and we will make sure that we bring forward legislation that protects people from unfair charges.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector. Although housing associations remain independent organisations that are responsible for their own asset management decisions, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are exploring what further steps could be taken to protect much-needed social housing stock.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her position, and to welcome her to her place. What steps is she taking to proactively protect the green belt?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said, there are strong protections in the national planning policy framework. It is for local authorities to decide whether exceptional circumstances exist for the release of green-belt land, and whether very special circumstances exist that would outweigh the harms involved when it comes to inappropriate development. Those safeguards remain. We are committed to preserving England’s green belts, which have served our towns and cities very well over many decades.
Gareth Bacon
I agree with the Minister’s last point, but I am not too sure that I believe the preceding point. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and generating new housing, one of the best ways of doing both would surely be to ensure that planning permissions are actually built, but according to the Local Government Association, there are up to 1.4 million housing units that have been granted planning consent over the past decade and have not been completed. The Government may claim that they are serious about solving this problem, and point to their planning reform working paper, entitled “Speeding Up Build Out”, but that paper was published in May last year and requires primary legislation for it to have any effect at all. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and getting homes built, where is the legislation?
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, knows full well that development can stall at particular sites for a variety of reasons, not least the viability pressures that we discussed earlier. We are taking action to get sites moving, and the NPPF strengthens expectations in this area. On the specific matter that he raises, primary legislation is not needed. Primary legislation was taken through by the previous Government, and we have a plan to switch on the necessary secondary legislation to ensure that we have transparency over build-out rates. He does not have long to wait for that to come forward.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I think that the matters in question will fall to another Minister, thankfully, but I am more than happy to join that meeting if housing issues are involved.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
Places for People will no doubt have heard the concerns the hon. Gentleman has raised today. Social housing providers are regulated on the basis of consumer standards, and they are inspected on that basis. We have introduced Awaab’s law, which provides that landlords have to fix hazards within specified time limits. If he wants to write to me with further information about the development in question, I will be happy to look into it.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
As I mentioned earlier, I think it is important to look at local initiatives. I repeat that the Government’s new £442 million rough sleeping programme and the ending homelessness fund will look at that. Brighton and Hove has received £1.35 million through the rough sleeping programme allocation, while Brighton Women’s Centre has been allocated £371,380 through the ending homelessness in communities fund, subject to grant agreement completion.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Last week, police and Trading Standards carried out co-ordinated visits, led by our local police officer, to retail premises on Fleet Road over suspected criminality, which is of increasing concern to me and my constituents. How is the Minister working cross-departmentally with the Home Office to keep our high streets safe and lawful?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
The hon. Member highlights an issue affecting many town centres and high streets, which is that, for far too long, organised criminal gangs have been acting in plain sight and getting away with it, but now they have a Government who are ready to take them on.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
Homeowners should not be expected to shoulder the financial consequences of defective work. However, the case of Goodrich Mews is a challenging one, in that the legal liability appears to now lie with the resident management company. My hon. Friend knows that I have been looking into the matter for her, and I am more than happy to meet her again. I believe that my office has been seeking further information from hers, which we would be grateful to receive.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Increased energy costs, increased material costs, the increased cost of employing people, particularly young people, the increased cost of bureaucracy and business taxes are all pushing up the cost of building and squeezing the viability of projects. Does the Secretary of State not realise that her Government’s policies are making it harder for young people to get on the housing ladder, or does she simply not care?
Matthew Pennycook
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not agree with minimum energy efficiency standards? Is he saying that he does not agree with a modernised decent homes standard? These measures are driving up the quality and the safety of homes, and we can do that while increasing supply.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important initiative in Harlow. Housing First is an important intervention, which evidence has shown can transform the lives of people with complex needs. We are funding Housing First and other forms of housing-led accommodation through our £2.7 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for areas like Harlow. That includes, as I have mentioned, the £442 million for the rough sleeping programme.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Campsea Ashe is a tiny village with 100 residents, no school, no high street and no major employer, but it has a train station and a planning application that would double the size of the village. If the Secretary of State will not reconsider this blanket policy, will she at least intervene on this specific application?
Matthew Pennycook
It is not a blanket policy; it relates to well-connected stations. I have set out the definition, with appropriate minimum densities to go with it.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Empty shops that are rundown because of absentee landlords are a blight on our town centres, but Labour-run Erewash borough council is fixing the problem through clean-up orders, such as the one served to the Burton building in Long Eaton—as soon as it was renovated, new businesses moved right in—but clean-up orders can be very time-consuming, so what more can the Government do to tackle absentee landlords and bring shops back into use?
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for his work championing his high street. The Government have allocated £24.8 million to the Long Eaton town deal, which is funding high street redevelopment projects such as public realm improvements. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Last week, at the successful Reform conference, I launched a series of bold planning proposals that will make it easier to regenerate our town centres and easier to build on brownfield sites, by making it cheaper and faster to get planning consents. Will the Secretary of State consider those proposals? They have been well-received by the industry. I urge her to consult and to meet me.
Matthew Pennycook
We take the hon. Gentleman’s planning policies about as seriously as the country took his conference.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the £14 million of funding released this month to create opportunities for young people in my constituency. The money will train them in jobs for construction in net zero sectors. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach that the Government have taken to empowering and funding local stakeholders to grow local economies should be adopted by the SNP Scottish Government?
Jim McMahon
Since summer ’25, the Department has been working in partnership with the offices and partners in each nation to deliver the local growth fund in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are committed to ensuring that funding is spent on projects that really matter to local people. It is really important that every arm of Government, regardless of where it is in the UK, drives down on that investment so that local people feel empowered in the places where they live.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council’s debt—[Interruption.] Listen. The debt now sits at £620.1 million, up from £585 million last year, and £36,000 a day is paid in interest. The previous Government issued a best value notice to ensure that the debt was reduced, but this Government scrapped it. Why are the Government so unwilling to take the Liberal Democrat council to task for ripping off my constituents?
Jim McMahon
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we do not shy away from intervention when it is required. We also think that the Government ought to work in partnership with local government and that councils, where they need support, find a partner in central Government. He can be absolutely sure that, when it comes to value for taxpayers’ money and holding the sector to account, the right checks and balances are finally in place.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s plans to deepen devolution, but can the Minister reassure me that they will mean no alteration to the commitment to a Cambridge development corporation?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government remain fully committed to delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge. As my hon. Friend is well aware, we have established a centrally led urban development corporation to take it forward in partnership with local leaders.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
When the Prime Minister was campaigning to be the MP for Makerfield, he said that all of the £39 billion affordable housing fund should be dedicated to building council homes. Will the Secretary of State explain to the 3,180 families in temporary accommodation across Manchester and Tameside, many of them in Gorton and Denton, why the Government have now backtracked and are instead continuing with the lack of ambition we had under Keir Starmer, rather than building as many secure, truly affordable homes as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
There is no lack of ambition when it comes social and affordable housing from this Government. At least 60% of that historic £39 billion will go to social rented homes. We have delivered the highest number of council homes since records began in 1991-92. We are taking a pragmatic approach. There are social homes ready to be built by housing associations, but we will ensure that more of the funding goes to councils for direct delivery.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Community-led housing plays a vital role in meeting our housing targets. In my constituency, the Stirchley Co-operative Development has built 39 social and affordable homes, but delays and cost overruns by the housing association have pretty much dropped everyone into despair. Will the Minister meet me to bring a resolution to the issue?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend about the issue.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The Home Secretary will potentially soon be asking the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to use a Crown development order to approve planning in Linton-on-Ouse for an asylum centre. I ask the Secretary of State to reject that as undemocratic, and to ensure that the application goes through the locally elected North Yorkshire planning authority.
Matthew Pennycook
It will depend on whether the application in question meets the criteria to allow it to proceed down the Crown development route. Obviously, the applicant is separate from our Department; we are the stewards of the process and will make the determination on the basis of those criteria.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s focus on social and affordable homes. In South East Cornwall we really need first homes, not just second homes, as local people face an affordability crisis that is particularly acute among younger people. Cornwall is well placed and eager for a strategic place partnership with Homes England, so will the Minister meet me and other Cornish MPs to discuss that as part of a future devolution deal?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I recently met a homeless man at the homelessness charity the Matthew 25 Mission, who said that he had been “dumped” in temporary accommodation in Eastbourne by Brighton and Hove city council without the support that he needed. The previous Minister promised that she would review the out-of-area placement guidance for local authorities on this matter, so will this Minister meet me to discuss the progress of that review?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Matthew should not have had to go through that. I am happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
With the Kingswood area of my Bristol constituency currently being targeted by landlords of houses in multiple occupation, can the Minister set out the Government’s current thinking on how powers to restrict HMOs can be made more effective?
Matthew Pennycook
There is a variety of practice in the country, and we want to better understand whether local authorities are making full use of existing powers, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we keep the matter under review. We have to ensure that we are regulating HMOs properly.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Government want Buckinghamshire council to develop 91,000 homes, but 2,890 of those are basically to be adjacent to Northamptonshire, and it will be my residents in Brackley who are affected by that. They are going to have none of the help in developer contributions or a proper say in the matter, so will the Minister meet me to discuss this concerning issue for my constituents?
Matthew Pennycook
That is precisely why we have introduced strategic cross-boundary planning through spatial development strategies—[Interruption.] The hon. Member says that it is not working, but it is not in place yet. We passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act last year, and it will be in place in short order. I am more than happy to have a conversation about it with her.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Yesterday I visited the Shri Guru Ravidass Sikh gurdwara in my constituency, where I was told about the weekly drop-in they run to help rough sleepers without the right to stay in this country and advise them on how to reconnect with family and go home with dignity. Would the Secretary of State congratulate the work of the gurdwara and tell us how we can further help those kinds of organisations?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example of the fantastic work carried out by the gurdwara. It is important to mention that we will work with all organisations, including charitable organisations. Faith communities play an important role, as a number of people who are sleeping rough seek sanctuary with faith communities. I am happy to look at the example my hon. Friend has raised and at what further work we can do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we move this along a bit, because a lot of Members are still standing and we have nearly come to the end of Question Time? Stuart Andrew will set a good example.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
Despite what we have heard from the Minister, colleagues have been talking about the issue of developments near railway stations. That has a practical consequence for the rural village of Long Buckby in my constituency. Land that is currently in open countryside, beyond the village boundary, will now be designated as a priority area. That gives no consideration to the distinction between a rural village and an urban area. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue in detail?
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily meet the right hon. Gentleman.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister meet me and the leader of City of York council? The fair funding formula is not working for our city because it does not use the lower-tier data with regard to the indices of deprivation, meaning that we are the worst-funded local authority. Can we have that meeting?
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Despite swift action from Dacorum council to tackle a 6-acre unauthorised development in the Chilterns landscape, it had to choose between occupation and restoration, as tackling both would potentially have dragged the case out for years. What are the Government doing to help councils with powers to ensure that these cases can be tackled sooner?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Lady is referring to unauthorised development. We have strengthened national planning policy in respect of intentional unauthorised development, making it harder to grant permission after the fact where there is evidence that development was carried out intentionally without permission. However, it has become evident—we have had a meeting on this subject—that we are seeing the prevalence of a more structured pattern of unauthorised development, and we are working across Government to see what more action might be taken to bear down on that.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
New towns should be an opportunity to better manage development pressures, not add to them. I thank the Housing Minister for hearing our campaign to ensure that any attempted new town counts towards my local authority’s housing targets, not in addition to them. How can we now ensure that proposals are considered at pace so that, if approved, they can count towards our local housing plan and the local planning process as quickly as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support for the new towns programme. We will bring forward final decisions in short order, responding to the consultation that we undertook earlier this year, and those proposed seven new town sites.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on local government reorganisation. This Government are committed to delivering good growth across the country and power in every postcode, with places able to set their own ambitions and integrate services to meet people’s needs. Achieving that requires a fundamental rewiring of the state, giving power held by Westminster and Whitehall back to the people and the places where they live and work. As we set out in the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state, effective and sustainable local government is the vital foundation of our devolution ambitions.
As we are now determined more than ever to devolve power closer to the people we represent, it is only right that I, as the new Secretary of State, ensure that everything we do is working towards that plan to change Britain. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have had this before, Mr Mayhew. I want to hear this statement; it affects my constituency and others. The last thing I need is you meddling.
Angela Rayner
The Prime Minister told the House last week that he was
“prepared to look at local government reorganisation”,—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 65.]
and he asked me, as his Communities Secretary, to do that. Throughout this process, the Government have listened to representations from Members of this House, councils and the public, and I want to be clear on how critical this is to me, given their importance to our democracy and the services they provide for local people. However, there will always be a wide range of divergent views, which means that achieving perfect consensus will never be possible.
I understand that feelings run high and people naturally have strong views in different directions. In that context, and in the light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself first that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law. Secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of the new Administration and the new Prime Minister, and any additional considerations.
With those two considerations in mind, I have decided to withdraw the decisions made in March this year for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitary authorities. The Government’s legal representatives have notified the court of this step.
I have also decided to conduct a full review of the local government reorganisation programme, including the decisions that were announced in July this year for a further 14 areas, and the two areas where decisions have not yet been taken, and ask that reorganisation activity be paused. These 14 areas are Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitaries.
I do not take this lightly. I recognise the huge amount of work that has already gone into progressing reorganisation in each of these areas, and I am very grateful for it. I know that many Members of the House and many council leaders will have lots of questions about what this means for them and their communities, and I will try to address those questions as best I can today.
First, we are working across Government on rewiring the state following the Cabinet statement. We recognise that effective and sustainable local government is fundamental to our ambitions for a devolved country that works better for and with communities, and we will consider this issue as part of our wider approach.
Secondly, as an immediate step, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth to undertake a rapid review of the current local government reorganisation programme, including the position of the four areas where we have withdrawn and the further 14 areas that we are reviewing and pausing, alongside the two remaining areas. The new councils for East Surrey and West Surrey will be unaffected because they are already established in law, have had their first elections and are on track to go live in April 2027.
Thirdly, I want to be clear about what this means for elections scheduled for next May. Elections will go ahead in May 2027 on existing council boundaries. Finally, my Department will provide support to council leaders, officers and Members representing impacted areas, and the Minister for Local Government has written to leaders and copied in Members of this House.
I want to ensure that all those who represent these areas feel fully included in considering their future, and I will update the House at the earliest opportunity. My ministerial team and civil servants from the Department are ready to discuss and work with those representatives. My team will proactively reach out to discuss the local implications in detail. My Department remains committed to working in partnership with local government, both in this immediate period and in the longer term. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that it is refreshing to hear an announcement first in this Chamber, rather than on TV? I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box, and I thank her for early sight of her statement. I am not sure that this was the triumphant return to the subject of devolution that she had in mind, because our councillors and the communities that they represent are looking aghast at yet another shambolic U-turn from this Government. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances to this House from that Dispatch Box that have not been honoured, and it speaks volumes for the Government’s sense of priority that, this far into this Administration, only Surrey has proceeded with its reorganisation—despite all those assurances.
The Secretary of State has already told the House that she is not satisfied that the process that was followed by her predecessor was lawful. Can she tell the House from the Dispatch Box why she is not satisfied that it was lawful, and will she place all the non-privileged documentation and correspondence relating to this debacle in the public domain and in the Library?
Given that the Government have agreed to pay the legal costs of councils that have challenged them on this matter, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has she made of the legal costs that will be borne by taxpayers as a consequence of this U-turn? Given that the Government have been banking on millions of pounds in savings—we have challenged them on those savings repeatedly across the Dispatch Boxes—to mitigate costs, which include the massive rise in national insurance that has driven many councils to the verge of bankruptcy, what assessment have Treasury colleagues made, and what advice have they given to the Secretary of State about how they will need to mitigate this further delay in any of those savings being achieved, should they ever materialise?
The Secretary of State has told the House from the Dispatch Box that elections will go ahead. We have all heard that promise made at the Dispatch Box before; indeed, in some cases it has been reversed literally the following day. Given the promises made and that all our political parties have selected candidates who have been campaigning for mayoral elections and new unitary authorities that the Government promised were coming into being, with elections to take place next May, will she give a categorical assurance that those new authorities will be in place, or promise the House clearly that they will not be? Will she tell us what is the timetable—if there is one at all—for bringing those new mayoral combined authorities into existence, particularly given the store by which the Government have set those as their path for devolution?
Finally, I appreciate that the Secretary of State has returned to the role after others have been stewarding it, but will she apologise to all those councillors, all those local government officials, all those political candidates and activists and all those businesses who have engaged in good faith with the Government’s process? All of them have been shamefully let down by this betrayal of local democracy.
Angela Rayner
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and thank him for his constructive comments. It is disappointing that I have had to come to the House to make this statement. I recognise the work that local authorities, Members of the House and others have put into getting us to this point, but when I took over the role recently and the Prime Minister asked me to look again at the reform, and upon receiving legal advice, I wanted to satisfy myself as the Secretary of State that the process was robust and legally sound. That is why I have made this decision today, but I understand why hon. Members will be disappointed.
I was asked about legal costs. Those will be determined in the usual way. Local government reform is often contested in the courts. It is right and part of our democratic system that important issues can be challenged. The Government engage legal advisers to defend decisions whenever challenges are brought; that does bring costs.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about savings. The Government have made savings in the past through local government reorganisation, but for me it has got to be about not savings but the outcomes for people in their local area. That is what has driven reorganisation from my point of view.
In terms of the new mayoral authorities and what will happen, I am really clear that it has to be done correctly and right. As Secretary of State, I have to believe, in good conscience, that I have dotted every i and crossed every t. That is why I have made the decision I have today.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a long process for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, where we have ducked and dived as best we can with the announcements that have come over the last two years. The thing that we really care about is devolution, because where the line is drawn on councils is important, but the real powers unleashed by devolution would make a real difference to my constituents. Can the Secretary of State give some indication of the impact on the timetable for moving towards mayoral combined authorities for places like Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, where currently the opportunity does not meet our aspiration?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right to raise the opportunities of devolution. The Prime Minister is really clear that the Government’s ambition is to ensure that every area in England has, or is in the process of establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028. The process that I have put in place today is about making sure that we have a rapid review and make the right and correct decisions on reorganisation.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I have almost lost track of the number of times I have stood in this Chamber and warned the Government about problems with their local government reorganisation plans—yet here I am again. It appears that the Government have finally listened, but they have done so too late and the damage has already been done. Thousands of residents have been denied their right to vote over the course of this process, because of plans that many of us in this Chamber warned were on a very uncertain legal footing. Councils have poured enormous amounts of time, effort and money into proposals they were repeatedly assured were legally sound, only to discover that they are now being abandoned. The abortive costs are likely to be substantial. Worse still, a number of authorities were relying on reorganisation as part of a strategy to address serious financial concerns. Those councils are now being left in limbo.
In my own area of Surrey, councils were forced down a reorganisation route that now appears to be effectively abandoned by the Government and questionable on a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Surrey MPs and the new authority leaders to discuss how our county can avoid the risks and uncertainty that the Government say have prompted this decision elsewhere? The Government need to acknowledge the significant democratic harm caused by this episode and take responsibility for it, including by issuing an apology, so will the Secretary of State set out clearly what happens next for communities and local authorities left in limbo by today’s announcement? Will she also publish the legal advice so that Parliament and the affected communities can understand what went wrong with the original process?
Angela Rayner
I have set out already that I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure myself that they are the right ones, and I think that is the correct course of action. Respecting the court process means that the way to do this is to withdraw and consider afresh. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. The review will consider implications for the timetable, as the hon. Lady mentioned. Local elections scheduled to take place to existing councils in May 2027 will go ahead unless we are in a position to hold elections to new unitary councils at that point. The review does not include reorganisation of Surrey, where councillors have been elected and new councils go live from 1 April.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
There is a real appetite for change in my constituency. We are not scared of it; we are eager for it. Only today, we have seen the former Reform Lancashire county councillor for Skelmersdale East defecting to the Labour party because he knows that Labour will deliver for Skem. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will meet the ambition of my constituents, and keep pushing for change and a better system for Lancashire?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. I commend the local representatives in Lancashire for their work. I have been really clear that I have paused to have a review of those places in order to make sure that I am confident, as the Secretary of State, that I have dotted every i, crossed every t and worked with local people to ensure that we give them the best possible local government reform and devolution package.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half? I represent the Gainsborough South-West ward—the most deprived ward in the entire country. I am on the Pride in Place board. What was the point of dividing Gainsborough and leaving it out on a limb from the rest of the county? Will the right hon. Lady look at our viewpoint in a positive way?
Angela Rayner
I thank the Father of the House. I can feel his frustration, but I also acknowledge the plug he gave for the Pride in Place funding, which is making a real difference to some of the most deprived areas. I reassure him that this review of the decision is about me making sure that it is the right one. It is about giving me the time to listen to what hon. Members and leaders are saying, so that I can ensure that I have got the correct advice. As Secretary of State, I take that responsibility very seriously and I will make sure that it is done as quickly as possible.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today. I support local government reorganisation and the two-unitary option for Derbyshire, but Chris Emmas-Williams—the leader of Amber Valley borough council—and myself have repeatedly made representations against the decision to split Amber Valley in two. My constituents do not want it, and I have concerns about the capacity to deliver that divide while maintaining the high standards of service that my constituents deserve. Will my right hon. Friend commit to meeting me to discuss this further?
Angela Rayner
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to represent her Amber Valley constituents. As I have said, there is a pause while we review the programme. I am sure that the Local Government Minister will arrange a meeting with her and local leaders to ensure that we have a full understanding of Amber Valley’s challenges and opportunities, so that we can take this forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her announcement, which, however she dresses it up, is in fact a decision about common sense and listening. I put it to her that, in Essex, most of the district councils, the county council and most MPs want to stay with two-tier local government. Is that an option? Will she acknowledge that and listen?
Angela Rayner
I am glad that the hon. Member said “common sense and listening”, because I am trying to listen, use my common sense and be pragmatic. As I said when I embarked on local government reform, it has to be about services for local people. On the two-tiered approach to local authorities, we have always been clear about ensuring that the split is absolutely right, so that we get the scale and so things like education and other services can be delivered. That is why we always said that we would consider those proposals and how best to deliver unitary councils in this Parliament.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State and her Ministers can attest, throughout the reorganisation process I have been fighting to protect my city’s proud identity and its important, but often neglected, position in Hampshire. I am sorry for all the confusion and politicking that residents have had to face—it is simply not good enough. As she reviews local reorganisation in Portsmouth, will she reassure my residents that any decision will maintain Portsmouth’s strong identity, and will she confirm that today’s announcements will not delay the Government’s plan for devolution and putting power closer to the people we represent?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion for the people of Portsmouth since being elected to Parliament, and I do not think any of us will try to take that identity away from the people of Portsmouth—I am sure that she will be pushing that. She is absolutely right to talk about devolution; we need to grasp the nettle on local government reform so that we can put areas in a strong place for devolution. We will be working with her in the coming weeks to ensure that that happens.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The current proposals for Devon were the brainchild of Exeter and Plymouth and were endorsed by the Conservative leader of Torbay council, and they resulted in a rural rump for Devon. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the rural rump of Devon will not rear its ugly head again?
Angela Rayner
Like I said, I have paused that decision today, and we will be reviewing it. I am sure that the Local Government Minister will be happy to meet with Devon Members to discuss the challenges that they face.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
This decision, to put it mildly, is frustrating for everyone in Lancashire who has been involved in the process, and I feel for councillors, council workers and all the service users for having to deal with that frustration. What are the legal reasons, so I can go back to my constituents and explain them? Having listened to this statement, I have nothing I can take back to constituents to explain why this happened, when the next step will be, or whether the boundaries that were just announced in July are going to change. Give us something to go back to people with, please.
Angela Rayner
I considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process, and the decision to withdraw the decision reflected updated legal clarity. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. I have been clear that I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure, as the new Secretary of State, that they are the right ones. We will consider the programme in the round in the light of the Government’s priorities, as set out in “Rewiring the State”, and Ministers will meet with Members of this House and will set out decisions at our earliest opportunity.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement, but I have to confess to being a bit more confused now than I was when I walked into the room. When it comes to Hampshire, is this a pause or a cancellation? When will we know whether this titanic waste of council taxpayers’ money will re-emerge? The Government’s top-down reorganisation plans have cost councils across Hampshire so much time and money, at a point when finances are already stretched to breaking point. Has she calculated the cost? Will local authorities be reimbursed for the time and money already spent? When will we know what is in the plan?
Angela Rayner
Again, I said that we would work at pace, but I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure that they are the right ones, respecting the court process. That means the way to do this is to withdraw and consider afresh. On the costs so far, I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the financial commitments that have been made. I say to the hon. Member that this work is not wasted, and the Government have committed to providing transitional funding.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
There have been lots of different views about reorganisation in my constituency, but one thing everybody is fully agreed on is that Kent county council is a failing organisation. It is too big to be effective, and it consistently lets down residents right across the county. It is critical that we get this right because it is residents who live with the results. While the pause is under way, how can we ensure that momentum is not lost in improving local services and ensuring that Kent and its different communities start to receive decent services? For instance, in my case, I am disappointed that we have lost the Thames Estuary growth board. How can we ensure that we will get the structures and powers we need to succeed and thrive?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the work that has been done already. We want to work at pace to review the programme, and we will report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully, the work that has been under way is already paying dividends for those areas. I do understand the frustration, but I ask Members who have worked well in bringing these proposals forward to bear with me as I review this and take us forward at pace.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On 26 March, I said that people will ask whether these reforms are an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism, or gross incompetence and stupidity. I think today we recognise that it is both. The right hon. Lady has only just returned to the Dispatch Box, so it cannot really be her fault, so who has screwed up? Who is it that has wasted the time, effort and money of people in Essex and other parts of the country? She has the opportunity now to tell us where, how and why this went wrong, and I encourage her to do so.
Angela Rayner
Again, I have made it clear that I want to be able to review the decisions. I have made it clear that legal advice was provided to me as part of the JR process, and I have made the decision to withdraw because of where we are up to and to review the decision. I want to also say that a great number of dedicated and professional public servants have worked on this in both central and local government, and I want to thank them on the record. But I want to be sure, as Secretary of State, that I am making the correct decision with all the information available.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Most Gloucester residents are not interested in the detail of who is running what services. What is important to them is: will their services improve, will we feel the benefits of devolution, and will we reverse the years of cuts under the previous Government? Can the Secretary of State confirm that taking time to get this decision right will achieve those three aims?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely, and I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has been undertaking as well. After 14 years of the Conservatives, who took money out of local government and, in fact, boasted about taking money out of the most deprived areas, I was clear that I would work to rebuild the foundations and resilience of local government. Local government reorganisation for me is about ensuring that local areas feel the benefits and also can take forward devolution. I want to ensure that I get that right as Secretary of State, and that is why I have made the decision today.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I want to impress upon the Secretary of State the anger that my local councillors, across all parties, are feeling at yet another pause, because pauses create more uncertainty for local authorities, when they should be planning for the future so that our residents get better services in the long term. Does the Secretary of State believe that a single resident in West Sussex is better off because of the reforms that were announced two years ago?
Angela Rayner
If we get this right, it can unlock benefits through local government reform, and whether in education, transport, local services, or social care, I absolutely believe it can unlock such reform. I am a big champion of local government. I am a creature of it; I spent a long time there, and represented members who work in local authorities, so I want to get this right. The hon. Member is correct to pull me up on this and say that people are frustrated. I understand that, but I want to ensure, in good conscience, that I have all the information available on working with local areas to get this right.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
Back in July I called in this place for a review of the decision about Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, so I hugely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the pause and review. The Secretary of State is a long-standing friend of mine, and whatever noise she receives today, she should know that listening and pausing is a sign of strength, not of weakness. Will she assure me that during the review, the views of local residents in Gedling and of local councillors, and indeed my views as the Member of Parliament, will be properly heard, taken seriously, and genuinely reflected on, whatever decision is ultimately made?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely, and I commend my hon. Friend for his years of service to local government. I had the privilege and honour to be reappointed as Secretary of State, and my No. 1 priority is to get it right for hon. Members, including those from different political parties who have invested so much into local government because they believe that it will unlock potential and support for their constituents. I want to ensure that I have taken the time to get this right, and that is why I have made the decision.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
In the Government’s own consultation on whether to expand Leicester, nine out of 10 people said no. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions against it, yet until Ministers hit this legal snag they tried to press on anyway. When I wrote to them, Ministers said that they would not publish any of the advice or guidance they had been given ahead of making this decision, leaving local people wondering what they had to hide. Will the Secretary of State at least answer this? Why do Ministers sat here in London believe that they know better than local people in Leicestershire what local people in Leicestershire want?
Angela Rayner
I say gently to the hon. Member that what we are trying to achieve is working with local members to get better outcomes for local people. That is why I have made a decision to pause and review this. I am happy for him to meet the Minister who will be taking this forward, and ensure that his views, and those of his local members, are fully engaged and part of this process. I believe as a principle that local government reform can unlock great potential for local areas. I remain committed to that, but I am going to do it properly and right.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. When the announcement about Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland came forward in July, I wanted reassurance from the then Secretary of State about barriers to growth, which for Leicestershire are not having a mayor and being without a devolution settlement. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give in the light of this announcement that my constituents in North West Leicestershire will no longer feel the delay caused by not having a devolution settlement?
Angela Rayner
I have been clear that the Government’s ambition is to ensure that every area in England has, or is in the process of establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028. I agree with my hon. Friend that achieving good growth requires a fundamental rewiring of the way our country works, and I want to work with her and her local leaders to ensure that they reach their full potential.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Less than two months ago, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor rushed to the House on the last day before recess, to say how essential these measures were, and Conservative Members warned that it was gerrymandering. It is not that the Secretary of State has listened; she has been told by her lawyers that it is gerrymandering. The warning signs were there two months ago when plans for Cambridgeshire were paused. When again announcing a pause for Cambridgeshire, will she tell my constituents how long the pause will be, and how much it will cost?
Angela Rayner
Again, I have said that I want to do the review at pace and I will be working on that. I want to place on the record that there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) or my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern). They are quite correct that we must review the processes and learn lessons, and I am pleased that we will today announce the new permanent secretary in my Department, who has an impeccable track record in public service, including local government. I will ensure that we continue at pace to ensure that we get the best local government reform for the right hon. Gentleman’s area.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, our councils, businesses and voluntary organisations were all preparing for new unitary councils. They will be disappointed with the news, but we must get reorganisation right. Will the Secretary of State assure the councils struggling to recruit and retain high quality officers, the businesses wanting to invest and the voluntary organisations preparing to restructure, that the pause will not be an undue delay and that the towns and villages in my constituency will not be left behind without the investment that devolution will bring?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenges but also the opportunities that can be unlocked as part of this process. I appreciate the specific work that has been done that needs to be paused, but councils can continue with cross-cutting things like data sharing. My officials will be in touch to ensure that we are giving the right support to her local area, so that we can get back on track and ensure that we deliver for her constituents.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Earlier in the year, the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s decision to cancel elections for 5 million people was overturned on the eve of its going to the courts, amid allegations of gerrymandering. Now, her predecessor’s decision to reorganise local councils has been overturned on the eve of its going to the courts, amid allegations of gerrymandering. What is going wrong in the Secretary of State’s Department? How is she going to reassure people that this Government take decisions fairly and in accordance with the law, and actually respect local democracy?
Angela Rayner
Let me be really clear: this has not been overturned. As Secretary of State, I have made the decision to withdraw so that I can have a look and clear sight of what is going on, and review those decisions. I have done that in good conscience because I want to ensure that we get this absolutely right.
I dispute the gerrymandering allegation—I do not believe that that is the case. I am really clear that local government reform can unlock potential in the right hon. Gentleman’s area and in areas across England, and that is what I want to do with local people. I understand that we will not get consensus and it is probably going to be a highly litigated area, but I want to work hard to get this right as quickly as possible, so that we can deliver for his constituents.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to her position. I have been an advocate of local government reorganisation, but my thoughts today are with the local government officers and councillors who have been working so hard for so long, including in some instances people who have been employed specifically to manage the transition. Will my right hon. Friend give them some reassurance? What they need, above all else, is certainty, so can she tell the House that for Hertfordshire, where she has promised a full review, she will come forward as soon as possible with clarity about the timeline and what comes next?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend about the amount of work that has gone in from local officers and council representatives as part of the process; I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the financial commitments as well. I say to the House that this work is not wasted. We are reviewing at pace so that I can come to the House at the earliest opportunity, and the Government have committed to providing transitional funding. I urge my hon. Friend and his local leaders to contact my Department.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
In Worcestershire, what has happened has thrown everything into disarray. Now that we are asking people to stand as district councillors next May, will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will be for a four-year term?
Angela Rayner
What I have said is that the elections next year will be on the old boundaries. We will continue at pace with local government reorganisation, working with areas to ensure that we get it right. I urge the hon. Lady and her local leaders to make contact with my Department and Ministers so we can take that forward.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Before the summer, I raised the concerns of my constituents in Hyndburn about the proposals for a Pennine-Lancs authority, which could become the most deprived in the country. As Ministers undertake the review, will they look at that issue very closely and consider the perspectives of my constituents?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those issues. We want to ensure that we get this right and work with local leaders; I am sure that she will have the opportunity to speak with Ministers and my officials as we look at the review.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
North Norfolk has more than 2,000 people waiting for housing, a coastline that we are trying to prevent falling into the North sea and endless challenges from being an underfunded rural authority. Now it has been made to waste £600,000 on a local government reorganisation programme that the Secretary of State demanded and has now gone back on. One question will be about the future of devolution for Norfolk, but what people in North Norfolk will be thinking first is, “We want our money back.” Will she give it to us?
Angela Rayner
I would push back a little on that, because I do not think that money has been wasted. I have said that I want a review, and I have put a pause in place to carry out that review and ensure that I get it absolutely right as the Secretary of State. I do not think that money is wasted. I have been really clear that the Government have committed to providing transitional funding. I want to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman’s local leaders so that we can get local government reform on track, but I want to be confident that I am making the correct decisions for his local area and with his local area, delivering what it wants.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. A pause in the review is clearly the right step, but my constituents—particularly those in East Saltdean, Peacehaven and Telscombe—will want to know what comes next. Will she answer two specific questions? First, will the review that she has announced look again at the precise boundaries announced in May, as well as the legal process that got to them? Secondly, how will my constituents have a chance to shape that decision? Will it be through MPs? Will there be another consultation? How can they feed in so that we can get this right and make LGR the success that we both know it can be?
Angela Rayner
The review will look at those issues; I will then be able to give a more detailed response to how that happens with Ministers. I want to ensure that local Members feel that this review takes into account the issues and concerns that people raise and that it is done in a prompt and inclusive way, so that we can make the right decisions for my hon. Friend’s local area.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Building 1.5 million new homes and doing LGR at the same time was clearly bonkers. From freedom of information requests that I have submitted, I know that local councils in my area have already spent more than £1 million trying to do LGR. That much-needed money could have been spent on special educational needs and disabilities and other critical things in my county. Before any more money is wasted, will the Secretary of State be very explicit about what is happening in Devon? Will elections be happening next May? Can she give an indication of when a decision will be reached?
Angela Rayner
I have said that we will look at the review happening as speedily as possible. The Government have committed £63 million for transition costs to support councils, including £900,000 per unitary. Again, I do not think this money is wasted. Certainly, from my perspective as the Secretary of State and from the perspective of the Prime Minister, local government reform is about delivering for people in their local area with better services. I want to work with the hon. Gentleman and his local leaders to ensure that that happens.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I know it was incredibly difficult to make, but I also know how disappointed and concerned local residents, businesses, organisations and councils will be—they have put a huge amount of work into this area, not least in the six months since the original decision was made.
However, this issue is not just about looking to the past; it is about looking forward to the future. That is why so many people, including me, are championing Greater Ipswich or Ipswich and South Suffolk, alongside an East Suffolk council and a West Suffolk council. Just when we were on the verge of thinking that a new future was possible, this statement has changed everything. Will the Secretary of State offer some reassurance to all my local residents, businesses, organisations and councils that we are not going to go right back to the drawing board?
Angela Rayner
I recognise the amount of work that local leaders, my hon. Friend and others have put into this matter. Effective and sustainable local government is key to our ambitions on devolution, and as part of that we are looking at the overall programme timings, but we are not moving back from local government reform—I absolutely believe in that. As the Secretary of State, I am ensuring that I review those decisions and take them forward in a way that satisfies me that I have delivered what is expected of me in my obligations to this House. I would rather come to this House and say, “I have had to put in a delay to satisfy myself of that,” than make in haste and regret at leisure.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Having consistently raised concerns about the proposed east Lancashire authority, which would group together some of the most deprived communities in the country, I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision today to pause these plans. Will she assure me that this review will look at deprivation and economic stability and that it will deliver for Blackburn and the surrounding areas? Will she meet me and other Lancashire MPs before any new proposals are made?
Angela Rayner
I assure the hon. Member that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, is in his place and will be meeting Lancashire Members. We want to make sure that we unlock the potential of that area. The Prime Minister talks about growth in every postcode, which includes making sure that devolution and local government reorganisation deliver for everybody across the whole of Lancashire. That is what we want to do through this review, and it is at the forefront of my mind.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I have to say that I am really disappointed by this decision. Councils have spent months working on proposals; resources and precious time have been spent—or, I would say, wasted—on them. Growth is meant to be a priority for this Government, and Oxfordshire is a high growth delivery area, yet we have no devolution, no local government reorganisation and no timescale for either. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) to discuss the shortcomings in this high-value growth area?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely; the Minister and I will happily meet my hon. Friend as part of this programme. The new Prime Minister has made absolutely clear that we want growth in every postcode; in order for the UK—and England in particular—to raise its growth agenda, every area needs to feel that. The Chancellor made a statement earlier today about how he sees that as a priority and about devolution being part of that programme. We will be in touch with my hon. Friend to support his area.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am delighted by the reprieve—the New Forest was to be split, and part of it swallowed by Southampton. Will the Secretary of State accept my representation that we want the integrity of the New Forest to remain, and the last thing we want is for it all to be swallowed by Southampton?
Angela Rayner
I am glad to have pleased the right hon. Member; I do not think I have ever done that before. Of course, I am happy to work with him going forward, and you never know—I might even visit the New Forest, without the split.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Back to Lancashire: the residents of Lancashire—in particular the residents of the two authorities that I represent, Chorley and South Ribble—are rightly really disappointed with this new Secretary of State. However, can she reiterate and commit that local government reorganisation in Lancashire is still a commitment of this Government—that this is a pause, that she will be reporting back, and that we will hopefully go to the four unitary model?
Angela Rayner
I am absolutely committed to making sure that areas such as Chorley and Lancashire more widely get local government reform, and that we take that forward. This is a pause. I have not taken that decision lightly, but I want to review the decisions and make sure, for my peace of mind as Secretary of State, that I have got this absolutely right; that I have taken on board the legal advice given to me recently; and that I can go to the Prime Minister, who tasked me last week with reviewing these decisions, and say that I have reviewed them and we are making the right decisions. I accept that I will not get the consent of everybody around the House, but I want to make sure that I have at least heard everybody’s views.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
At the Government’s request, councillors and council officers have put a huge amount of time into preparing for these proposals—time that could have been put into improving council services. If there is going to be another extended period of instability, that will further worsen that situation. Does the Secretary of State accept that local government funding is extremely stretched, especially for councils that run services such as SEND and social care, and that councils very little money for anything else? Does she agree that if local government reorganisation is to go ahead and devolution is to be meaningful, it needs to put money into the hands of local people, and there needs to be proper funding for local government?
Angela Rayner
This Government have recognised that, after 14 years of failure by the Conservatives, local government had faced the brunt of austerity, and we put in additional funding. We also recognise that the most important thing about local government reorganisation is delivering better services for local people. The Prime Minister has recognised that in terms of devolution. We recognise the investment that has gone in—that is why we put transitional funding in place to support councils—and I want to work to get this policy right, because I absolutely believe that it will be the best thing for the hon. Member’s constituents.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box today for two reasons. First, there is no question but that the two-tier system is very bad for people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey and across Kent, so I welcome her commitment to press ahead with local government reorganisation. Secondly, at the same time, the geographies announced by her predecessor just before the summer recess were terrible for the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. How can local councillors, local residents, businesses, other organisations locally and I feed into this review, which I am grateful will be happening?
Angela Rayner
My Department will be reaching out to local authorities and the areas affected to make sure that we are taking into account all the information that we have at hand. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, is willing to meet representatives of the local area to ensure that we get this right. I do not want this review to go on for a considerable time; I want to do it rapidly, but I want to be reassured that the decisions we are making are the right ones.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Labour leader of City of Lincoln council has put forward suggestions that votes should be weighted on the basis of deprivation, leading to proposed wards with an electorate of 2,100 electors per councillor and others with 4,700 electors per councillor. Does the Secretary of State agree that all our votes should be created equal?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right. Does the Secretary of State agree that any new structures that emerge should be based on economic growth and dynamism, rather than having to be built on existing districts? Those building blocks were established in a very different economic era.
Angela Rayner
I agree with my hon. Friend. In our past lives, we worked in local government and on local government policy for some time. We have to take time to get this policy right, and he is right to make the distinction between local government reform and devolution, but the two can intertwine to help us on our way. This review does not impact on the timetable for devolution. Unitary local government can help with smoothing the functions of strategic authorities, but that is not a prerequisite.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Devon is one of 14 areas where local government reorganisation is being reviewed and paused, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having listened to Liberal Democrats in Devon and perhaps also to her legal advisers. When the rapid review takes place, will the Secretary of State please consider the greater costs associated with delivering in the countryside, such as rural Devon?
Angela Rayner
One of the challenges that rural areas face is transport. One of the reasons that the Prime Minister has been so eager to make sure that devolution happens is that those who are closest to what is going on in their local area know what challenges are being faced and how we can unlock some of the potential, and Devon can take the positives from that. We want to work with Devon to make sure that people in Devon get the right local devolution and local government reform for them. That is why I paused the decision.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
My constituents, and people in Kent generally, cannot wait any longer to see an improvement in their roads, bus services, social care and SEND provision. They were let down by decades of Tory administration, and are now being let down by Reform. Can the Secretary of State reassure them that this pause will not create more uncertainty, and will not lead to any further decline in public services?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right to mention what happened under the Conservatives. This Labour Government recognised what local government had been through, and took steps to build back resilience and deal with funding pressures. For me, local government reform is about ensuring that people receive the right services at the right level and that we can deliver the best for their local areas, and that, hopefully, is what we will be able to do. I still believe in and am committed to local government reform; I just want to make sure that we get this right.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Since the Secretary of State first announced these plans, when she last held this role, the Labour Government have played fast and loose with our local democracy, cancelling elections and creating chaos and uncertainty in our councils as they struggle to deliver key frontline services. As she goes to work on this review, will she publish, alongside the legal advice that she has received, the financial costs that councils in Essex have faced as a result of this massive U-turn? Has she assessed the adverse impact on local services caused by the time and resources spent on these changes?
Angela Rayner
Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me gently say that this is not a U-turn. This is me, as Secretary of State, reviewing the position and ensuring that we get this right. I still believe that local government reform in the right hon. Lady’s area in particular can deliver for her constituents, and I want them to engage with us. We have provided transitional funding to give support, and her local authorities and those in her local areas can get in touch with my Department to discuss it.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome the Secretary of State back to her place? I especially welcome this statement, as will many people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme who only wanted to be listened to.
Back in July, in the strongest terms, I asked the Secretary of State’s predecessor to pause and think again. Today the Secretary of State has done that, and I am grateful. I hope that she will also listen to the many representations that I have made to her Department. May I go one step further, however, and ask her to focus on establishing the new mayoral authorities, which will provide the comprehensive cross-party, cross-community support that we need when it comes to changes of this scale?
Angela Rayner
The Prime Minister has been clear about what he wants to see in terms of our devolution agenda, and we will be taking that forward. As I have said, this will be a rapid review. I want to make sure that that is done and that the decisions are the right decisions, but we are moving forward with devolution, and we will be engaging with those in my hon. Friend’s area so that they can unlock their full potential.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My constituents never asked for local government reorganisation. They do not support local government reorganisation, which they see as leading to decisions being taken by a more remote, more expensive and less accountable authority. Will the Secretary of State confirm that maintaining the status quo is at least an option as a part of her review, and will she also say whether the intention is still to go ahead with the mayoral election in Essex in 2028?
Angela Rayner
Let me gently say to the right hon. Member that, as I have already said, I think that local government reform can unlock potential for areas, but we want to do this with areas, and, indeed, to look into how we can deliver for his area and improve services for his local constituents.. There are opportunities, but sometimes there is duplication, so I welcome that discussion. As for taking forward the devolution agenda, I do not envisage that being interrupted by this process.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
It is never too late to make sure that a decision is the right one, but I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State recognise the challenge that this pause presents to local councils such as my district council, Rushmoor borough council, which has worked so hard to deliver local government reorganisation in our community. However, it also has an impact on businesses, schools and community organisations across Aldershot and Farnborough, which have spent months committing time and energy to preparing for this reorganisation on the basis of the Government’s decision. Does the Secretary of State recognise how frustrating it is for them to have that certainty pulled away, and has the Department considered the cost and disruption that this decision will cause beyond local councils themselves?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend and members of her local community for engaging in local government reform. I reiterate from the Dispatch Box my commitment to that, but we need to make sure that we get it right. The example that I can give, especially to the young people in her area, is that if they feel that they do not have all the information, it is okay to say so and to take that forward in the correct way. That is the right and correct way forward. We are committed to providing transitional funding, and I urge my hon. Friend and her local leaders to be in touch with my Department so that we can take a look at this issue.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As we heard a short while ago from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), Lincolnshire county council welcomes the review, but in the north of the county, where the two unitaries are, I and my two constituency neighbours, who are Labour colleagues, favour the status quo, as do council leaders. May I urge the Secretary of State to take an early decision to continue the status quo in respect of the two unitaries?
Angela Rayner
I want to give clarity to the hon. Gentleman and his local leaders, and I will review the situation at pace to make sure that we are able to do so.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My constituents in Gillingham and Rainham want local government that works for them and delivers the services that they need. Could the Secretary of State provide some reassurance that while the review is taking place she will continue to look at local government funding and finances, and particularly at how councils such as mine—Medway council, which is in a non-mayoral area— are able to access investment and growth opportunities in the way that other devolved authorities are able to do?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. As the Prime Minister set out, it is really important that every area and every postcode feels the benefits of growth and that we can unlock potential through devolution. Local government reform is part of that process but not the only bit. I believe that we will put areas in a strong position through devolution, and that we will be able to deliver better services for her local area and start to repair some of the damage that was done by the cuts to local government under the previous Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the mayoral election in Cumbria will go ahead as planned and that the planned combined authority will be introduced without further hindrance, disruption or uncertainty? Will she also take this opportunity to review the other mistake that this Government have made on devolution in the last couple of years: the errors when it comes to what is referred to, wrongly, as “fairer funding”? Westmorland and Furness is the most rural unitary authority in England, and for that crime it has borne the penalty of a 31% cut in its funding from the Government, meaning that devolution no longer looks like devolution of power and instead looks more like a delegation of cuts for the people of Cumbria.
Angela Rayner
I recognise what local government has been through after 14 years of the Conservatives—in fact, I think the hon. Gentleman’s party was involved at the time. In trying to recognise the challenges that areas face, I believe that what I am saying today about local government reorganisation does not impact on the timetable for devolution. I believe that that will go ahead, and unitary local government can help with the smooth functioning of strategic authorities.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
In Chesterfield, there will be unmitigated despair at the statement we have heard today from my right hon. Friend. For the authorities for which she is doing a review—the 14 that thought they had got their decision in July—could she clarify the basis of that review? Is she still attempting to achieve what we were attempting to achieve previously in terms of the size of authorities, or is she relooking at the basis of what reorganisation should achieve? We were told in February, when the 2026 elections had been cancelled and then the cancellation was cancelled, that this reorganisation would definitely not happen in 2027. What has actually gone wrong? There is a real lack of confidence that what we are being told one day is the same thing that we will be told the next.
Angela Rayner
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s frustration, but I have considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process. The Prime Minister asked me to review this process, and I took the decision that I needed more time. I really appreciate how that has left people, and their frustration. This is not the end of local government reform. We remain committed to unitary councils, and the review will consider proposals for how best to deliver unitary councils in this Parliament, and to ensure alignment with the priorities of the new Administration.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Communities like mine in Eastleigh are being denied funding opportunities because they do not yet have an elected mayor. With the timeline for local government reorganisation and elections now thrown into doubt, will the Secretary of State ensure that funding opportunities are offered to all local authorities, whether or not they have an elected mayor?
Angela Rayner
Devolution can unlock funding and potential, but an area does not necessarily need to have a mayor. I think the Prime Minister outlined that in his statement, when he took questions for over three hours; the hon. Member should look back at that. This is about making sure that devolution can be unlocked for areas at the pace they wish. As I said in my statement, I do not believe that this pause will have an impact on people’s ability to continue with the devolution agenda.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I understand the limits on what my right hon. Friend can say today, but it seems that there have been real failures in the official process. The situation in many of our constituencies is being put on hold. She is taking accountability, even though she is not actually responsible for this. Will she assure me that she will investigate any failures of process that have occurred, and that have led to this situation, so that we can learn the lessons, and so that this does not happen again?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right that we have to review the process and learn lessons. As I said to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), we are announcing our new permanent secretary, who I am sure will be listening to this debate and will want to take this forward. I want to place on record my thanks to the dedicated, professional public servants from both central and local government who have worked on this, and to my predecessor. I want to reassure the House that I have taken this action, as Secretary of State, to ensure that I have all the facts, so that I can make the decision.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have to confess to the Secretary of State that I am even more confused now than my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was 40 minutes ago. Could the Secretary of State just be clear with my residents that the combined authority elections due next May are off, and the borough council elections are on, but the combined authority elections might be on if she gets her skates on and the borough council elections might be off? If the combined authority elections are off, when will they be on, and is the mayoral election in 2028 on or off? If it is off, what is going to happen to police governance?
Angela Rayner
I have said that the review is on and the elections are on, and I am ready to get on with it. I am sure that the right hon. Member will work with me to make sure we get it sorted—and it is on.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
One of the policy goals of LGR is to encourage economically important cities like Exeter to better play their role in generating jobs, growth, housing and better place-based services. In our case, devolution does not work if Exeter is not in the strategic authority, as it is one of the two big economic drivers of the region. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this remains the case, and that after the rapid review, should it have a positive outcome, we can move forward with both LGR and devolution in Devon quickly?
Angela Rayner
I reassure my hon. Friend that I have said that this review should be rapid, and that we should get on as quickly as possible with engagement, but also that the timetable for devolution should not be affected. We need to make sure that we make the right decisions on local government reform, but we want to take forward devolution at pace.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is apparent to absolutely everyone that this local government reform is now a shambolic, incompetent mess. I just want to put on record how much time, as well as money, has been spent by councillors and council officials right across Norfolk, where this has been a massive, monumental distraction, not for months, but for years. The independent Local Government Association says:
“There is no excuse for the Government’s mishandling of this process.”
Does the Secretary of State agree?
Angela Rayner
No. What I have said is that I have reviewed the decisions. I have said on record that people across Norfolk, and representatives from across the whole conurbation, have put in a great amount of work. I want to respect that work, as the new Secretary of State, and make sure that I am listening, that I have reviewed the decisions, and that I am making the correct ones. I do not believe that is a waste of the time and resources that have been put in. I believe that local government reform is an opportunity for Norfolk. I will work with local leaders at pace to give them certainty. I wanted to ensure, out of respect for their work, that I take that work into consideration, as Secretary of State.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I echo the comments of Lancashire colleagues, particularly on the opportunity to review the boundary decisions, but I also think that all those councillors and officers in Lancashire who worked so hard on reorganisation and made so much progress deserve an apology.
More fundamentally, every day and every week that goes past, Lancashire falls further behind our neighbours in Manchester and Liverpool, simply through lack of an effective structure and the capacity and capability to deliver our growth potential. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s recommitment to growth in every postcode. Will she meet me, along with Lancashire colleagues, to agree how we can properly resource Lancashire’s growth potential? We cannot wait; we need to do it now. We need to properly resource it, and we need to deliver on our potential through this period of uncertainty.
Angela Rayner
Again, I say to my hon. Friend that I recognise the work that has gone in. That work is not wasted. The pause will be about working with local areas at pace to get this right, but it does not mean that we cannot take advantage of unlocking growth in every postcode. The Ministers here will be happy to work with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from his area to ensure that we get the right devolution, and a package that works for them.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am going to try a different tack, rather than commenting on the hokey-cokey of this process. The more serious point is that local government reorganisation was always a significant risk to the voluntary and community sector. Many funders are reluctant to fund organisations with annual incomes exceeding £1 million, leaving those organisations reliant on commissioned contracts from local government, NHS bodies and other public sector departments. The proposed transition to unitary authorities was already disrupting funding streams; today’s announcement creates further disruption. Can the Secretary of State reassure those important community organisations that they will have the funding, and give them certainty about the direction of travel, so that they have the confidence to start and continue providing services for my community?
Angela Rayner
Again, I want to reassure the hon. Member that this is about getting the process right. I want him and those local organisations to get in contact with my officials, so that we can be sure that we are doing everything possible to support the process. I have said that unitary local government can help with the smooth functioning of strategic authorities. I also recognise that the Government are committed to providing transition funding, so please go ahead and get in touch with my Department.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. It will be met with some disappointment and frustration locally, not least because many businesses, community groups, charities, councillors and council officers have put an enormous amount of effort into the proposal for a north Hampshire authority. I believe it is still the right course to set up a north Hampshire. Can she reassure those people that their effort has not been in vain, and that she will provide certainty and take a decision on the new proposals as soon as possible?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely provide that reassurance. I needed that time. With the advice that I received during the judicial review process, and with the Prime Minister asking me to look at this again, it was only right that I did so, in a timely way. As I have reiterated, I am absolutely clear that I want to take this forward. Local government reform is a priority, and I want to undertake it at pace, as do Members across the House, including my hon. Friend and his local leaders.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
There is a video circulating online that claims the three most difficult things to say in life are “I’m sorry,” “I love you” and “Worcestershire”. It is fascinating to see that the right hon. Lady struggles with at least two of those three things. I am glad that she has abandoned, or at least paused, her decision to destroy the well run, low-tax, Conservative-controlled Wychavon district council, but is she aware of the chaos and cost that she has caused to councils in Worcestershire and across the country? She is giving very strong vibes that she does not know what she is doing. Is that because she does not know what she is doing?
Angela Rayner
I am sorry, but I am not sure that I love the hon. Gentleman, but I love something—and Worcestershire. I apologise. I do know what I am doing. I know that this has been a disappointment for some areas. I do not make this statement to the House lightly, but I am doing this, in all sincerity, to get it right. I hope that hon. Members from across Worcestershire and every other area where we are looking at local government reorganisation appreciate that. Even if I cannot say “I love you”, hopefully the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he loves me at the end of this process.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
First, I thank the councillors and council officers from East Staffordshire borough council and Staffordshire county council for the hard work that they have put into the process. The rapid review is essential to give residents and council workers the certainty that they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said, it should be seen as being apart from mayoral devolution, which is the real prize for our communities; it will bring power out of this place and into Staffordshire. Will the Secretary of State commit to a meeting in No. 10 North with Stoke and Staffordshire MPs, so that we can talk about getting that deal in place?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right that devolution can happen at pace, and that it will unlock potential. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to meet him and my colleagues from No. 10 North to ensure that we unlock the potential of his area.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I absolutely share the shock and anger of councillors and council officers at the announcement. At the heart of this are councillors who are working so hard to deliver frontline services, whether that is education, housing or social care. It is they who are battling this change. I am still uncertain about what will happen in May, so will the Secretary of State please reassure the people of Hertfordshire, and say what they will be voting for in May? Will councils be reimbursed for the money and time spent, so that the money can go to the services that are desperately needed?
Angela Rayner
I gently say to the hon. Member that while I appreciate she uses language like “shock and anger”, it was important to me, as Secretary of State, to make the right decision, so I came to this House and spoke to hon. Members to ensure that I do that. I still believe that local government reform will unlock potential for the hon. Member’s area. I want to ensure that I am doing this with local people’s consent; I know that we cannot get everyone’s consent, but I absolutely believe that we can design services that will improve her area. We have committed to providing transition funding. Hopefully, through local government reform, we can transform some of the thorny issues that have been around for a long time, like adult social care, as the Prime Minister said, and build resilience at a local level.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office set out their plans last week to rewire the state, and effective local government remains fundamental to that. Will the Secretary of State double down on her commitment to listening—as she did so well with us in Cornwall—to Members of this House, local councils and members of the public in this process?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. Last week, I said clearly that I recognised the work of those in local government, and how difficult this has been for our local government colleagues, given the changes that have happened in our communities and the demands and pressures put on local government. I absolutely believe that local government is critical to ensuring that we get the devolution agenda right, and that we must build back resilience at a local level, so that councils can carry on delivering excellent services to their residents.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Local government reform in Essex has been a farce from the outset, because the people never wanted it. The council tax payers themselves never had any desire for this process. I welcome the fact that Labour’s five gerrymandered unitary authorities are clearly now stone dead, but I want to give the Secretary of State some honest advice: drop it and walk away—including the mayoralty. We have got by in Essex for 1,000 years without a mayor, and the last thing we want in our county is another Sadiq Khan. Just get rid.
Angela Rayner
I will not drop it, because I believe that the people of Essex and people all over England deserve good local services. Where there is something that I believe will improve local services and is worth exploring with local leaders, whether in Essex or elsewhere, I am up for that challenge. I am not ready to drop it. I think we can work together to improve local services, and I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his local leaders, to progress that.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I welcome the review, which gives us a real opportunity to get local government reorganisation right for my constituents. I hope that they will now be heard. Infrastructure in my constituency is creaking at the seams due to years of neglect by the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the real concerns in my constituency about planning, local infrastructure and local government reorganisation, as well as an exciting opportunity to create a local country park?
Angela Rayner
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, Sherwood Forest and a local country park—I am really up for that. When I was in the Lake district over the bank holiday weekend, though, I managed to fall halfway down a mountain—that is why my legs are not used to bouncing up and down at the moment, because my knees are not so good—so I am hoping that the park will be a bit flatter and that the gradient will be a little better for me. My hon. Friend asks if we can meet, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to discuss how we can progress, ensuring that her area, including Sherwood Forest, benefits from devolution and local government.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Large numbers of my constituents took part in the Government’s consultation on proposed boundaries for the East Sussex unitary authority in good faith. They were appalled by Brighton and Hove city council’s attempted land grab in our area, and together, we resisted it. Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear for my constituents on whether she intends to reopen the discussion over East Sussex’s local government boundaries as part of this review?
Angela Rayner
Again, at the moment I can give the hon. Member an assurance that I am looking at the areas, and that I will look to ensure that all the consultation, information and advice is correct and that we are making robust decisions. I want to ensure that I do that. I am happy for him to be in contact with the relevant Minister or myself to ensure that we hear what he is saying about that process, but I have heard him today.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I appreciate that the Secretary of State is new in post, so the issues that she has outlined today are not necessarily of her making, but I must tell her that this is extremely frustrating for people in Derbyshire, and that service delivery and business confidence will be undermined while this pause goes ahead. I am at a loss as to how it has proceeded so far without it being totally legally watertight. I would appreciate any assurances the Secretary of State can give me that it will not be torpedoed in the courts again. Crucially, we are going to be asking people to stand for the existing local authorities in Derbyshire next May—people of all parties; civic-minded, community-spirited people. How long will they serve for? I think we owe it to them to tell them how long their term will be, because they will be making professional and family sacrifices. If she could offer me that information, it would be very helpful.
Angela Rayner
Again, I do recognise the frustration that my hon. Friend has expressed at parts of this process. I want to ensure that we take this forward and that it is robust, and that is why I have come to this House to say that I want to review the decisions on the basis of the legal advice provided as part of the JR process. I want to ensure that the rationale for those that go forward, including the 14 other areas, is absolutely watertight. I ask my hon. Friend to meet the Ministers as part of this process and we can iron out some of those concerns.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
When the Secretary of State embarked on local government reorganisation for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, her Department accepted the principle that the Isle of Wight council should remain a stand-alone unitary authority. Now that she is reviewing local government reorganisation, will she reconfirm that the Isle of Wight council will remain a stand-alone unitary authority and that it is not, and will not be, at risk of merging with a part of the mainland?
Angela Rayner
I think it is fair to say that there is a very strong argument and rationale for it. I will make sure that the review happens speedily and that we can give those reassurances as part of the process after the review.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I have repeatedly argued with colleagues that LGR is extremely complex but extremely important. It therefore did not need to be a term-one priority for this Government, and I remain of that view, because for me our councils should be building council houses, tackling homelessness, strengthening trade standards and regenerating high streets, not focusing on administrative structures. Assuming that LGR still goes ahead in some form—I advise the Secretary of State to think deeply about that—will she please explain how the views of Rushcliffe and Nottinghamshire residents, many of whom felt ignored through the last process, will be fully considered in this new approach?
Angela Rayner
Again, we will ensure within the review that people are engaged in the process. I say to my hon. Friend that local government reform is challenging and complex, but the aim for me is to deliver better services for local people. That means building the homes that we desperately need and renewing our high streets, which this Government are taking forward. We can deliver better services, we can reorganise and we can do better. I believe that working with local leaders is the way forward to deliver for the people of this country. I am committed to local government reform, and I want to make sure that we get it right. That is why I have made the decision to have the review.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I am the only MP in the House who represents constituents in both East Sussex and West Sussex and three district councils, including Lewes, which was previously potentially going to be split previously, along with West Sussex. The confusion around devolution and LGR in West Sussex is a terrible mess, because we have different speeds and approaches and an unclear mayoral timetable. The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the two previous East Sussex and Wessex Sussex leaders spent huge amounts of time on this process and brought positive energy to it. The right hon. Lady rightly talks about outcomes, but what can she tell my constituents about how their services, including education, social care, roads, and infrastructure, will be delivered in the future?
Angela Rayner
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s local leaders and the work that they are doing in local government. I recognise the challenges that they face, and I have outlined what has happened to local government over the decade and a half that her Government were in power. I have tried to build up that resilience for local leaders. Previous Ministers chose to take more time to consider the proposals—she referenced two of the places involved—and we will consider these alongside the wider review of the programme.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
When I am out on the doorsteps in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, residents tell me that too often they feel distant from decisions that affect their lives. I want residents to feel that decision making is being brought closer to home and that locally we are taking better decisions about improving our buses and houses and giving young people the skills that match their potential. Can the Secretary of State please confirm that devolved powers are still coming to Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire and that they are coming at speed, because we cannot be left behind?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. Devolution is at the heart of our plans to rewire the state. I am making this statement today exactly to ensure that that happens.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
We are 26 months in, and the Secretary of State has already admitted that the real cost that the Government have not assessed are the costs of the lost programmes, projects and services that have not been delivered in West Sussex and Arun because the bandwidth, headspace and resources have been devoted to LGR. Can she tell me, first, what has been the financial cost—nationally, in West Sussex and in Arun—of this so far failed experiment with LGR? Secondly, how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?
Angela Rayner
Again, I do not see local government reorganisation as a wasted endeavour. I have been really clear about the reason for the pause: to get the decision right. We have committed to providing transitional funding. Where local government reform has happened in the past, we have seen that there have been savings, but my motivation is to work with local authorities to improve their services. Local authorities recognise that we could do that. I am absolutely committed to continuing that, and we will work at pace to deliver for the hon. Member’s area.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to her role and thank her for her statement. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is no longer in his place, because I wanted to assure him that, far from being swallowed up, his constituents would have had a warm welcome and excellent local public services as part of Southampton.
I understand the difficult decision that the Secretary of State has had to make, but I must express disappointment that after all the hard work across councils and across parties, the five unitaries for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will not be going ahead. Will she confirm that, after her rapid review, Southampton and the surrounding councils will still have the opportunity to reorganise if they so wish, or is this the last we will hear of LGR?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely want to reassure hon. Members that this is not the end of local government reorganisation, because I am absolutely committed to it. I commend my hon. Friend for his work, and his local partners and others across the House who recognise what local government reorganisation could do for their area. I want to work at pace to put us on a firm footing, so that I as Secretary of State am clear-eyed about the decision I am making and that we can go ahead, with their consent or not.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
From the LGR options that were on the table for Devon, the Government opted for a Labour-led proposal to create three urban growth areas, with all the rural bits that were left behind dumped together into one huge, unworkable authority that divided communities, had no economic hub and had little chance of being sustainable. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that she will review the decision, although it is not clear how the review will happen, who will do it or how long it will take. Will she commit to meeting all Opposition Members who represent rural Devon so that we can discuss the best proposal for the for the biggest number of people across Devon? The one we had was going to leave rural Devon behind, and we want to ensure that does not happen again.
Angela Rayner
I want to reassure the hon. Member that we do not want to leave rural Devon behind, either. As the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), has just had to nip out for another meeting, I will volunteer him for the commitment to meet those Members. It is of serious concern for me to ensure that people are heard in the process. That is why I decided to have the review.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I know that the pause will be frustrating for people in Adur and Worthing who want to see the back of West Sussex county council and have power and money brought closer to them, but I do accept that it is important to take the time to get this right. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the review will not diminish the Government’s plans to devolve power closer to my constituents?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. We are committed to devolution and to devolving power. The Prime Minister has made it really clear that that is one of his priorities. We want to ensure that we do this right, with local people, so that the power is there and we give areas the resources and support they need to flourish.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Local councils across South Cambridgeshire spent time and money in good faith preparing for local government reorganisation according to the Government’s criteria and timelines. Businesses in one of the fastest growing areas of the country welcome the prospect of certainty with a final decision, yet further delay leaves them all in limbo. Does the Secretary of State agree that chaos is not good for local democracy and not good for investment? Will she meet me and local council leaders to understand the implications of this decision for Cambridgeshire?
Angela Rayner
I totally recognise that Cambridgeshire has a huge amount of potential, and we will absolutely ensure that a meeting is set up with myself or the Minister. I gently say that I understand the implications of me coming to the House today, as Secretary of State, and reviewing these decisions. I have said that I want to do it at pace, but I have also made it really clear that I felt that I needed to put that review in place so that I could satisfy myself that we are doing it correct. These are some really big reforms, as the hon. Lady is aware. I want to make sure we get it right so that her area can reach its full potential, and I am sure it will.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When the right hon. Lady came to the House last year to announce her consultation, I called it a mess. Fast forward 18 months: there is now chaos in the outcome and decisions. Make no mistake, the reason we are here now is the threat of the courts. My concern comes because in Leicestershire, we had three applications go forward and the Government chose their own fourth application. Will the Secretary of State ensure that her review involves not just the process but the boundaries as well, because the biggest contention in Leicestershire is the massive land grab coming from the city, and nine out of 10 people in her own consultation said that this was not acceptable?
Angela Rayner
I reassure the Member that I am going to review those issues and make sure that I am confident in the decision that is made, including within the boundaries, to ensure that any decisions that are made are the right ones. I will update him, and work with him and other Members to ensure they have that clarity. We might not agree, but I will make sure that I have listened and that I at least know where I am going and make the decision confidently.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I was not in favour of the decision announced by the right hon. Lady’s predecessor before the summer break for a single unitary Gloucestershire. I would have preferred something more Cheltenham-centric. However, that decision seems to reflect the political consensus across the parties in Gloucestershire, so I have to ask the Secretary of State: is she in the business of overturning the political consensus across party locally in Gloucestershire? If not, will she just let us get on with it so that the councils can get on with doing the things that my residents want, including ensuring that there are no unwanted cuts to fire services because of cuts from Westminster to our budgets, that the town centre in Cheltenham is fixed up and that we get a tip reopened for Cheltenham? Those are the things my residents want. They are not so bothered about boundaries, even if they are concerned about Cheltenham losing its historic voice.
Angela Rayner
This is not about overturning or overpowering local decisions. This is about me reviewing these decisions and making sure that there is a robust system that says, “This is where we want to go”, and taking that forward. I hope to do that within a matter of weeks—not too long a process—and to get it right. That is fundamentally the first and foremost point: I want to get it right for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents so that they can get on and get the things that they absolutely want and desire.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that the right hon. Lady emphasised listening to local people, empowering local communities and making decisions with their consent, does she agree that local communities such as those in Leicestershire should have local referendums before decisions are imposed upon them, such as being dragged into an enlarged Leicester city council area?
Angela Rayner
I have to say that I am not a big fan of referendums, if I am really honest. That is my personal opinion, but I am open to having discussions about how we can make sure that the hon. Member’s local residents feel like they are engaged and see the benefits of local government reform. That is my ultimate aim as part of this process, and I look forward to working with him on that endeavour.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a district councillor on East Cambs district council. The residents of Ely and East Cambridgeshire will be relieved that they are not going to have the wrong unitary imposed on them, but they will be worried about the chaos and uncertainty that we have heard about, and about what happens next and when. What is the remit of the review? How is it going to be run to ensure that local people get their voices heard? And what is the real timetable? “As quickly as possible” and “at pace” are all great, but what is the actual timetable? Also, the Secretary of State appeared to say that May’s elections would be held on the existing district council boundaries unless the unitaries were in place by then. What did she mean by that?
Angela Rayner
I have asked the Minister for local government, devolution and regional growth to undertake a rapid review of the local government reorganisation programme. That is a review regarding the decisions that were announced in March and July, and the two remaining areas of West Sussex, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. I have said that the review will cover 18 decisions already taken and the two areas where decisions have not yet been made. I want the programme to be reviewed at pace and will report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This process has been a complete shambles from start to finish and has failed to have Worcestershire’s best interests at its heart. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether this is actually being paused or whether, in reality, the can is being kicked down the road, under the veil of the process being delayed, rather than the Government admitting embarrassment? If it has been paused, and she is going to revisit the decision, will the evidence base be revisited, and will there be a new consultation with stakeholders, including residents? If so, will the Secretary of State meet me, as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, before she takes a decision? I think she said earlier that the Government had allocated £63 million to support councils across the country in this process. How much of that £63 million has been spent so far?
Angela Rayner
This is a pause. It is a review—I have made that absolutely crystal clear—for me to consider the legal advice that was provided as part of the JR process, as well as for me to be able to do what the Prime Minister asked us last week, which was to look at the local government reform programme. That is what I am doing. I did talk about the £63 million. That money is earmarked. If those areas have financial concerns regarding the money they have spent on local government reorganisation, they can contact my Department.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
This sudden U-turn is greatly disappointing for my constituency, after so much work by council officials, residents, councillors and other partners, and after so much money wasted on LGR costs. Given that the two-unitary model in Warwickshire—South Warwickshire and North Warwickshire—was championed by my constituents, the majority of local council leaders and the majority of Warwickshire MPs, will the Secretary of State reassure us all regarding the timescale for this review? Above all, will she reassure us that the decision will respect the democratic input of the people of Warwickshire who contributed to the previous LGR process?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely, I reassure the hon. Member that this is about me reviewing the decisions and making sure they are absolutely correct. I want to do that. I recognise the work that has gone in from her local area and those representatives, and I pay tribute to the work that they are doing. I have indicated that I want the review to take weeks rather than months. I do not want to kick the can down the road; I just want to ensure that the decisions that we made are robust and take us forward in the spirit of co-operation with local areas.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
When I led a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the impact of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, I could not possibly have anticipated that it would have been powerful enough to stop it dead in its tracks. I welcome the pause to tranche 3, but I want to get a bit of clarity for the councillors in my constituency. The plan is going to be reviewed. If it comes back, will we potentially see local elections in May 2028 for a new shadow unitary? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and Huntingdonshire district council to discuss some of the topics that are still outstanding and the reason why Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was delayed in the first instance?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for his comments; I believe that he enjoyed the Westminster Hall debate with the Local Government Minister. I am sure that the Minister would like to continue that conversation to ensure that we get the best deal over the line. I do not want to pre-empt the review, but I want to ensure that we have heard from the hon. Member and his local representatives about the challenges. I am sure that the Minister will set a meeting up in his diary as soon as possible, so that we expedite the process.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituents in Esher and Walton, in Surrey, are left wondering whether they have been thrown under the bus by a Government who failed to be secure in the legal advice and the costs from the very beginning. This is incompetent. Will the Government release the legal advice? What are the legal implications for Surrey? What extra support will she give Surrey regarding the cost implications, given the gross underestimation of how much LGR would cost and the significant debt that Conservative Surrey has amassed in the two years that this has been going on under the unfair funding formula?
Angela Rayner
I say again that the review does not include the reorganisation of Surrey. Councillors have been elected and new councils go live from 1 April.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
You wait a while and two Surrey questions come along at once! One of the potential unintended consequences of today’s announcement is to leave Surrey in the slightly discomfiting position of being in an experimental cohort with a sample size of one—the one county being reorganised under this legislation. We all know why: it is because the Conservative-run Surrey county council begged the Government to put it on this rollercoaster with no known destination and, as it turns out today, with legally slightly shonky rails. Do the legal concerns that the Secretary of State has expressed today also relate to Surrey? If Surrey is affected by those legal concerns, what faith should my residents have that this experiment is not going to come fully off the rails before 1 April 2027?
Angela Rayner
I gently say that, for me, this is not an experiment; it is about working with local areas to deliver local services and improve on them. The review does not include the reorganisation of Surrey. As I said, councillors have been elected already, and the new councils go live on 1 April 2027. I hope that Surrey, with the two new unitary councils, will be able to deliver across the area on vital services, like adult social care, transport and those good services that people want to see across their area, and I will work with them to deliver that.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing—I have fluffed it now. Forgive me, I have had a two-hour wait, and I have completely lost my train of thought.
Over the last two years, the people of Essex have faced a dizzying array of changes, from council elections—off and on—to over-subscribed hospitals and 30,000 new homes to be built, many of which will be on greenfield land. The question is: how can we trust this Government to deliver on anything when they say one thing and do the other?
Angela Rayner
I appreciate the hon. Member’s frustration, but—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) may wish, out of courtesy to this House and certainly to the Secretary of State—and to his constituents and my constituents—to stay in his seat to listen to the response by the Secretary of State.
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) raised these issues before, and I do appreciate the frustration in Essex. In response to the right hon. Member, who was here a while ago and raised these issues, I made it really clear that local government reorganisation is about delivering—
Angela Rayner
I know you’re still here! I made it really clear that local government reorganisation is delivering for people across Essex. I understand the pressures on local services. Essex does have a need for more housing and more infrastructure, and a need for local government reform. This Government are there to work with the local people of Essex to deliver that.
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
With permission, I will make a statement on public order following the protest activity seen on the south coast this weekend. I know many in this House, and outside, will have been concerned by the events of the past two days, and I welcome the opportunity to set out what happened, as well as to update Members on the action that the Government are taking to address the issues at the heart of the protests.
It is right to begin with the facts. At around 7.30 on Saturday morning, around 150 individuals descended on the port of Dover, many of them wearing face coverings. Kent police deployed rapidly to the scene of what the force has described as a “no-notice” protest. No arrests were made and the crowd eventually dispersed some hours later, at which point full access to the port was restored. Nevertheless, the impact was felt by local residents and workers, for whom the scenes will have been unnerving, as well as by ferry passengers and motorists who faced delays as a result.
Let me turn to the second incident in Portsmouth. In the early afternoon on Sunday, a boat carrying approximately 120 people reached British waters near the Isle of Wight, which is considerably further west than the majority of small boat crossings. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, under the direction of HM Coastguard UK, met the boat and directed it towards Eastney marina in the wider Portsmouth area. At around 8 pm, a group of more than 200 protesters arrived at the harbour, intending to block three coaches that were due to take the arrivals for processing. Many of those protesters were dressed in all black and wearing face masks. Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary, with the support of other neighbouring forces, used a dispersal notice to ensure public safety. Officers were forced to use batons and PAVA spray to maintain order in the face of some aggression. They worked through the evening and into the early hours of the morning, and at around 4 am, protesters began to disperse and the coaches eventually set off. Again, no arrests were made on the night, but investigations are ongoing, and where criminality is identified those responsible should expect to face the consequences.
These types of incidents require careful handling by the police, and I place on record my thanks to all those who were part of the operational responses in Dover and Portsmouth. I am especially grateful to those on the front line whose efforts were essential to bringing the demonstrations to a conclusion. I have today spoken to key policing partners and, as the House would expect in the wake of such incidents, work is ongoing to establish any lessons and ensure that relevant intelligence is shared at pace across our law enforcement system.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy and must be defended, but so too is the right of other citizens to go about their lives without undue interference. There can be no excuse for threatening behaviour or serious disruption. Let me therefore make clear to the House and the country that disorder of any kind will never be tolerated, and those who cross the line from peaceful protest into illegality will face the full force of the law. This Government condemn the intimidating and thuggish behaviour shown by some of the protesters this weekend. We are working closely with the police in Kent and Hampshire, alongside the National Police Co-ordination Centre, all of whom have our full backing in taking any necessary step to uphold public safety and maintain the peace.
None of that is in any way to minimise the very valid concerns of law-abiding people when they see vile criminal gangs exploiting our nation’s generosity, and people making illegal and unnecessary journeys to reach this country. Let us never forget that the frustration we see in our communities today is a product of chaos and crisis in the years that preceded the general election of 2024. Since then, this Government have taken action to fix the broken system we inherited and bear down on the people smugglers. We have doubled the number of National Crime Agency officers tasked with dismantling organised immigration crime, system-wide arrests are up 70%, more than 1,100 boats and engines have been seized, and in partnership with French law enforcement we have prevented over 48,000 attempted crossings. We are now taking that partnership further with a landmark new deal, which was signed in April, securing a 40% increase in French boots on the ground and taking the total to more than 1,000, as well as enhanced surveillance technology and new specialist units.
At the same time, we are removing the incentives that draw people here illegally in the first place. Since the election, we have made over 6,000 small boat returns—a 64% increase on the last two years of the previous Government—and we have removed more than 80,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals from these shores. As a result of the action this Government have taken, this summer saw the lowest number of small boat arrivals since 2020. So far this year, the number of crossings is down by over 43% on last year.
Progress is being made, but we are not complacent. We must and will be unrelenting, not least in response to any shift in tactics by the gangs. The use of larger boats, with over a hundred people crammed on board, is a clear cause for concern, and we remain alert to the potential for crossings on less frequently targeted stretches of water off our coastline. The gangs are never going to go quietly. They are responding to the impact our work is having, and we will adapt in turn, both in terms of our enforcement, in partnership with France, and our response here.
Our priority will always be the safety of the British people. As such, we will continue bearing down on small boat crossings and the criminal gangs behind them, as we deliver the strong, secure borders the people of this country expect and deserve. At the same time, we will keep working closely with police forces to maintain order on our streets. While we must protect our ancient right to free speech, what we will never tolerate is the disruption of people’s daily lives or the intimidation of our communities. I commend the statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Policing and Crime, for advance sight of her statement.
I am sure that we all agree that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but the right to protest should never be violently exercised or cause serious disruption to other people. I am sure all of us would equally condemn any form of protest where those guidelines are abused, and support the police in ensuring that protest, where it occurs, is lawful and peaceful. However, these events should be a wake-up call for the Government. It is not just the protesters in Dover and Portsmouth who feel so angry about large-scale illegal immigration. Millions and millions of people up and down this country feel angry as well.
Since the general election, over 80,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, all illegally and all unnecessarily, because France is a safe country—nobody is fleeing persecution in France. Almost 20,000 have crossed this year alone, and 625 crossed yesterday, with more coming in the early hours. Every day when the sea is calm, hundreds of illegal immigrants cross the channel. The numbers this year would have been higher, were it not for rough seas in the past few months. The Government should not be complacent at all. This problem is not solved and I do not think the plan is working, if indeed there even is a plan.
I was on the beaches of northern France just a few weeks ago, waist deep in water as one such dinghy embarked with about 100 illegal immigrants on it, while 10 members of the French gendarmerie nationale, who we pay for—who the Home Secretary pays for—with £660 million of our money, almost all of it unconditional, stood by and did nothing. They could easily have stopped the boat embarking in knee-deep water. After that happened, I asked one of the gendarmes why they did nothing, and he said they were under orders not to intervene. Almost all the French officers are prohibited from preventing embarkations in the water and they do not prevent the migrants getting to the water’s edge either. As long as that continues, the crossings will continue as well.
The Minister mentioned return numbers, but what she did not mention is that the return of 6,000 small-boat migrants in the past two and a bit years amounts to only 8% of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. That is to say, 92% of illegal immigrants crossing get to stay. There is no deterrent whatsoever in that. The people who cross illegally are costing billions and billions of pounds to accommodate in hotels and apartments, and then costing even more once they get asylum and start claiming welfare.
The people are angry—not just because of the numbers and the expense, but because of the crime being committed. A few weeks ago, I met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, who was brutally murdered by a Sudanese illegal small-boat migrant called Deng Majek. Rhiannon was stabbed 23 times, including in the neck. Numerous rapes have been committed by small-boat illegal immigrants, including the rape of a girl in Nuneaton aged just 12.
The Government are using sleight of hand. They are moving illegal immigrants from hotels into apartments, then granting them asylum on an industrial scale. Just this afternoon, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—hardly a bastion of right-wing extremism, I am sure the Minister will agree—said that Home Office asylum decision making meets its own standards in only half of cases. The UNHCR, no less, said that many illegal immigrants being given asylum do not deserve to be granted that status under the Government’s own rules.
A whistleblower in The Times today said that only 1% of asylum claims are really genuine. I cannot give all the many examples, in the interests of time, but they cited one example in which apparently hundreds of Pakistani men claimed to be gay, based on a letter from an individual claiming to be the sexual partner of all of them. That is quite clearly fabricated with the assistance of immigration lawyers. When the system is being abused on that scale, it is no wonder that people get angry.
This Government repealed most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prohibited illegal immigrants from ever getting citizenship. If the Minister wants to create a deterrent, I strongly suggest that she reinstitutes that measure. This Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme, which would have seen illegal immigrants getting deported, before it even started. If the Government are serious about fixing this issue and ending public anger, they need to get serious about the measures, leave the European convention on human rights and deport illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive—then people will not be so angry.
Sarah Jones
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the start of his remarks; I think we would all agree that the right to protest should never be violently exercised. We all agree that it is not just protesters who feel angry about the current system, and we are doing all that we can to bear down on it and change what we inherited.
I know that the shadow Home Secretary was in France—we all saw and enjoyed the videos over the summer. He claims that the weather accounts for the improved situation we find ourselves in. The 43% cut in the number of people coming across on small boat crossings this year compared with last year cannot be accounted for by the weather; that is just a fact, and I hope he accepts that. I also know that he spoke to some land officers, who were not maritime officers—the officers who can enter the water. We have footage, which he has hopefully seen, of maritime officers going into the waters and doing exactly what he wants them to do. I hope he can learn a bit more about what our deal is and what responsibilities we are paying for.
The shadow Home Secretary said that we are just giving the French money without results. He knows that the new deal we have done with the French introduces payment by results for the first time. Under his Government, there was nothing; we were throwing money with no payment by results. Some £110 million of what we give to the French is dependent on their delivering results, which is why we are seeing an improvement. We are also funding more than 1,000 French police—a historic level of funding—and working in partnership with them to ensure that we are doing the things we need to do to stop the small boats from coming and to strip the criminal gangs of their armoury. Germany, for example, where a lot of the boats were being warehoused, has just passed a law to make it an offence to sell them for use in this kind of smuggling activity in another country. We are doing every single thing that we can and pulling every single lever, and the results speak for themselves.
Sadly, I think the shadow Home Secretary is the only person in this place who thinks that the Rwanda scheme would have worked. The rest of us—including, I suspect, people on his own Opposition Benches—have come to the conclusion that it was a gimmick and would never have worked. The numbers and the results we have seen over the last two years speak for themselves. In partnership with French law enforcement, we have prevented over 48,000 attempted crossings. That is substantial.
Of course, we have a lot further to go, and the shadow Home Secretary is right to have met the family of Rhiannon Whyte. What happened to her is horrific—nobody would claim anything else—and it is in her memory, and the right thing to do for every single one of our constituents across our country, that we take control of our borders and make sure we have a fair migration system. The Government are doing the hard work of restoring control at our borders. We are seeing progress. We are not complacent—we will continue to work—but I will end where I began, which is by agreeing with the shadow Home Secretary that we must allow the police to exercise the powers they need to exercise to stop thuggish and violent protest behaviour. That is what we are looking at, and if we need to learn lessons from what happened over the weekend, we will learn them. I am working closely with the police, as the shadow Home Secretary would expect, and we will make sure they have the resources they need to do their job.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her extremely important statement. As we know, on Saturday, hundreds of masked men, dressed uniformly in black, travelled from around the country to Dover, blocked key roads around Britain’s busiest port, intimidated my constituents and caused disruption. This has been described as a “dummy run” by the group. It was not spontaneous; it was well organised. Will the Minister please ensure that the intelligence picture is strong enough that the police can respond accordingly to future incidents? Will the Government also look again at whether the law on face coverings at protests goes far enough?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was pleased to be able to talk to him earlier today, and we were in touch over the weekend as well, as the House would expect. As the Member of Parliament for that area, it is absolutely right and proper that my hon. Friend should lead the way in asking for the right lessons to be learned from what happened.
I spoke to Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling and Assistant Chief Constable Nicola Faulconbridge today, and they took me through the order of what happened and how it happened. It was a no-notice protest—with a lot of a protests in this country, the police are told in advance, and can then think about whether they want to impose conditions and what those conditions should be. This was a no-notice protest, in the sense that the police were not told about it. Clearly it was planned, and clearly it was people from outside the area coming in and causing chaos.
Of course, we need to learn whatever lessons we need to learn when it comes to intelligence. Since the 2024 riots, we have beefed up the structures around the national co-ordination of protests and intelligence sharing, giving us a stronger capability to look across the internet and see what we can find out there. There is more co-ordination, and the offer of mutual aid worked very well this weekend, as it always does. However, I will of course listen to any intelligence that my hon. Friend has, and we will make sure we learn the lessons.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
How is that far-right thugs in balaclavas were able to close Britain’s busiest port without the police receiving any prior intelligence? How is it that an apparently separate group with some commonalities was then able to blockade another site the next evening? Will the Minister tell the House whether she will review why the police were caught off guard? More shockingly still—or perhaps just as shockingly—no arrests have been reported. People have drawn comparisons this weekend with the hundreds of sign-holding protesters who have been arrested since July 2025 on other protests. Can the Minister understand why people are confused by the difference in approach? Can she also answer questions from Portsmouth Liberal Democrat council leader Steve Pitt about the lack of local consultation on identifying appropriate landing sites? That is a key question that needs answering, because it clearly caused problems in Portsmouth.
Britain’s transport infrastructure cannot be left vulnerable to far-right mobs. It is a disgrace that this weekend, Reform MPs took to social media to fan the flames alongside people like Musk and Robinson. It is a disgrace that Members of this House support such vigilante action. It was the decision to leave the European Union, championed by those Reform Members and their allies in the Conservative party, that created the small boats crisis in the first place. We will only get a safe and controlled asylum system in line with British values if we join the EU migration and asylum pacts. That will also save taxpayers’ money. The Government are paying at least £500 million for a three-year agreement with France. More money will follow when the agreement is struck with Belgium. The UK’s contribution to join that pact, which would bring order and safety to the asylum system, would be significantly less than what we are currently pledging to pay in those agreements. Joining the pact must be top of the agenda when the Prime Minister meets EU leaders later this year.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman asked about the lack of intelligence. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on specific intelligence matters in these cases, but we are of course looking at all decisions that were taken, and we will learn any lessons. The two events happened on consecutive days, and there was crossover in the online activity, but they were very different. One was clearly organised by a group called the South-East Patriots, which I think is part of Patriot Platform, which is a kind of far-right racist platform. That was clearly organised, whereas what happened in Portsmouth was a response to a series of events that led to this boat having to dock at Eastney marina. It will have been a mix of local people who were concerned and bad actors who were whipping up activity online and responding in kind. They were two separate events, but we will learn any lessons that we need to.
The hon. Member asked about the landing site and why it was picked. We are making sure that we understand what exactly happened, but taking a step back, Members will have seen a bit of a trend towards people leaving France further to the west. We are looking at what that means and making sure that we are responding in the right way and that enough resource is going into that. We have pushed some of that resource from the French police down the coastline, but we will be monitoring these things.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
This is a sad day for Portsmouth. My city saw peaceful protests turn into disorder last night with people coming from outside the city, some wearing face coverings, to intimidate those working on land and sea and to damage police vehicles. This morning, I spoke with residents, including one elderly resident who attended the protest because she felt so strongly about it. She and so many others are angry and worried about small boat crossings into the UK. They are now on our doorstep, and that resident has every right to protest peacefully, but she and I agree that that cannot extend to criminal behaviour.
I have heard the Minister’s statement today, and I welcome the Government’s progress, but more must be done, and the emergence of these new routes in larger boats is deeply worrying for my city. What more are the Government doing to stop the boats and tackle the vile criminal gangs behind them? Will the Minister come to Portsmouth to listen to residents and stand firmly against those who come to our city to cause trouble, intimidate communities, stir up hatred and put our emergency services at risk and further pressure on our borders?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing, and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who is in his place today, but cannot speak as he is a Minister. I have spoken to him about the conversations he has been having with local businesses, local individuals and the local police. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is absolutely right that there were people who were concerned about what they are seeing, but they are very different from the kind of racist, far-right thugs that we also saw over the weekend. It is important that we distinguish between the two.
My hon. Friend asked what more we are doing, and I have listed the improvements we are making in terms of the National Crime Agency, the intelligence we are gathering, and our ability to go after the criminal gangs. We also need to do more to reduce the incentives for people to come into the country. The asylum grant rate, which is a statistic that I have not mentioned yet, has fallen from 77% in 2022 to 38% this year. That is another marker of progress, and we are reforming the asylum system more widely. Last November, the then Home Secretary set out the reforms that we are working through. We have had a consultation on the standard qualifying period for most migrants. All these things are all part of trying to create a fair system that does not incentivise people to come here from France.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, and the public are completely fed up. There is only one solution, and that was put to the Minister by the shadow Home Secretary. There is no deterrent. They know they will not be deported. We have to get out of these outdated conventions, detain immediately and deport immediately. Will the Government take action?
Sarah Jones
With the greatest respect, I do not know if the right hon. Member was saying, “Frankly, we are being invaded” when his Government were in charge, when the number of people coming into this country was at an all-time high. When the shadow Home Secretary, my neighbour from Croydon, was in the Home Office, net migration was at an all-time high. The boats are down by 43% from last year to this year. [Interruption.] The Father of the House shakes his head, but that is just a fact.
Sarah Jones
They are still coming, but they are coming at a 43% lower rate than they were, and the action we are taking is ensuring that we will keep going and keep building on the success we have had. We have the increased police resource in France, the changes to the asylum system and the way we are getting through the case backlog so that we can remove people from this country who have no right to be here or are foreign national offenders. All those things add up so that when the criminal gangs are looking at where they can make the most money, they think, “No, the UK is not somewhere where we can easily make money. We will not do this crime, and we will move on to something else, somewhere else.” We are pulling every single lever that we can. With the greatest respect, we are having a lot more success than the right hon. Gentleman’s Government.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I am sure that the Prime Minister will be glad to hear that the good weather is now attributable to a Labour Government. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of the RNLI who put themselves out to sea to save lives without fear or favour. The Isle of Wight salutes them all, unlike the masked bullies in Portsmouth. Lots of misinformation has happened over this weekend regarding the Isle of Wight. As we do not have the infrastructure, and cross-Solent transport is an issue for us, can the Minister confirm that there are no plans for an asylum centre on the Isle of Wight?
Sarah Jones
The RNLI does an incredibly difficult job in dangerous circumstances, and we are grateful for the work that its people do. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point in this House. As for any of the plans going forward, we are reducing the numbers and we are reducing the hotels, which are massively down. We are reducing the incentives for people to come here, and we are making sure that we are removing people as quickly as possible. I am sure that the Minister responsible would be happy to have a conversation with him, but our direction of travel is to reduce the numbers to a much more manageable level, so that we have control of our borders.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Yesterday afternoon, MPs across the Solent region were scrambling for reliable information with complete radio silence from the Home Office. As a result, we were not in a position to calm fear and tension. We still know very little about this extraordinary mega-dinghy turning up on our shores. This is not just west a little bit from Dover; this is halfway down the south coast. Will criminal gangs launch more small boats in the direction of Hampshire? Will the Minister share that intelligence with coastal MPs? Where was the intelligence on this incident? Can she also answer claims that the police were not properly resourced? More than 140 officers were dragged away from our communities and from communities as far away as London to police and deal with this incident. Can she please assure us that such incidents will be dealt with better in the future and that she will be doing everything to ensure that it does not happen again?
Sarah Jones
I appreciate that the hon. Lady will have been concerned over the weekend, as a local member of Parliament. I am always there, if she wants to contact me, and if she is struggling to get through to anyone, I am happy to give her my number and to have another chat about this. Obviously, this was a moving picture, and it is not always possible for the police dealing with an incident to respond in a way that one might want.
The hon. Lady asked whether attempts to land further down the coast were an emerging problem. We are aware that, partly because we are making it harder for people to launch boats from “traditional” places, they are starting to launch them further west along the French coast. There is no evidence to suggest that they particularly want to land anywhere that would not enable them to get to Manston, which is where they would normally go, but we will of course totally keep all this under review.
The force was given the mutual aid that it asked for. There were several forces around, and in the end, the people causing the problem were dispersed. It is not uncommon for forces to offer mutual aid. For instance, when problems arose in Cleveland in recent weeks, 600 officers went in, through mutual aid. If I may make a slightly wider point, I think that makes the case for reform—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Not that Reform; reform of policing. If there was a national police service, which we are introducing, agencies would be working together much more closely, because they would be part of the same organisation. Rather than relying on mutual aid from other forces, everyone would be joined up and sharing intelligence, which I think would be a better system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Given that we have such a tight schedule tonight, could the Minister shorten her answers a bit?
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
We have seen pogroms in Belfast, riots in Southampton, and then, of course, the chilling incidents in Dover and Portsmouth over the weekend. What is difficult to contend with is that this appears to be becoming more frequent and normalised. We cannot normalise the activities of organised far-right gangs. Will the Minister condemn the racism that was at the core of the activities and actions that took place this weekend? What can she say to those who cover their face for religious, health or work reasons, and who will be feeling particularly vulnerable at this time, about the Government and police response?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right: we cannot normalise this kind of behaviour, nor will we. It would not be right for any Government to do so. What we saw in Dover involving Patriot Platform, a far-right group engaging in a lot of racism and thuggery and disrupting people’s daily lives, cannot be tolerated. Of course, we will always ensure that the police have the resources that they need. We recently legislated for new powers for the police to insist that people remove their face coverings at protests, but, of course, when people are going about their daily business, it is absolutely fine to wear them for religious reasons, and that will continue.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
No small boats arrived on Hayling island or in any other part of my constituency yesterday. Nevertheless, residents are concerned, and agree with me that anyone who enters the UK illegally should be deported within a week and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Minister also agree, and will she and the Home Secretary meet me, and other Members on both sides of the House, to explain the police and Home Office responses, and why Labour has lost control of our borders?
Sarah Jones
As I have said, Labour is doing the hard work of restoring the control at our borders that was lost under the last Government. We have made progress, and we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that we have that control and have a fair system, and to ensure that those who are genuinely claiming asylum are given a safe haven on our shores, as we have done for many years. However, we will also reduce the incentives for people to claim asylum here, rather than in other places, and we will make sure that we regain that control.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The protest on Saturday caused widespread disruption across east Kent. It affected not just Dover residents and people travelling to the port, but communities further along the A20 and the M20, including those in my constituency. Some Opposition Members have failed to condemn the mob mentality. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we should always uphold the right to lawful and peaceful protest, the intimidating and unacceptable behaviour that we witnessed over the weekend was completely un-British, and should be condemned by everyone who genuinely values freedom of expression and the rule of law?
Sarah Jones
Of course disruption was caused well beyond the immediate protest, because of the nature of the roads and the protest on the A20 and the surrounding roundabouts. That had a huge impact; a great many people wanting to go about their business were unable to do so. The police response, however, was good. The protest started at 7.30 am, and well before midday the protesters had been dispersed. The police established a gold command structure, as they do in such cases, declaring a major incident and ensuring that the protest was stopped. However, this behaviour is very disruptive, and the wearing of masks is clearly intimidatory. We will do everything to ensure that the police have the powers that they need to stop such protests.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I was in Portsmouth harbour this morning, near Eastney marina, speaking to local people in Fareham and Waterlooville. This is the message that they wanted me to send the Government. They are terrified, furious and desperate. They are not far-right racists. Only last week, a migrant man was arrested on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old boy in the area, and what are the Government doing? They are handing out leaflets to illegal migrants, asking them not to rape British girls and women. The Government’s response has been, frankly, pathetic.
Given that these are unlikely to be the last illegal migrants in Portsmouth, I have two questions for the Minister. Will she give the House a guarantee that in no circumstances will a migrant processing centre, temporary or permanent, be established in Portsmouth? What assurance can she give me that the national security of the naval dockyard in Portsmouth will be maintained, given that the invasion has now reached Hampshire?
Sarah Jones
Of course people are scared and angry about the fact that, as they see it, the borders are not secure. As the right hon. and learned Lady will know from her time in the Home Office, we have come some way since then, and have improved the system significantly. More than 1,000 boats and engines have been seized, system-wide arrests are up by 70%, 48,000 crossings have been prevented, there has been a 40% increase in French boots on the ground, and we have increased surveillance technology. There has been a huge 42% drop in the number of boats coming over, and we have removed more than 80,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals. People are right to express a view, and it was disingenuous of the right hon. and learned Lady to suggest that I was calling those people racist, when I had made it very clear that there were people in Portsmouth who were concerned, and that local residents were coming out because they were angry. We have heard about that, and the actions of those people are very different from those of the racist thugs we see in other places—and who were there as well—and from the whipping up of hatred online. We will continue to bear down on illegal boat crossings.
Let me pay tribute to Kent and Hampshire police. Kent police dealt with 1,300 calls to 999 on Saturday, and Hampshire police dealt with 1,000. While these incidents were going on, a lot of work was being done to keep us safe across the counties.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We should be opposed to gangs wherever we find them, whether they are gangs of smugglers or mass gangs in Southampton and Dover, and I wish that this House was a little more united in its resolve to oppose both types of gang. Peaceful protest strengthens our democracy; what weakens our democracy is intimidation and the abuse that we have seen. This Government passed the Crime and Policing Act 2026 because we wanted to tackle concealment linked to criminality. Those powers apply in police-designated areas where protest is happening under certain conditions. In Southampton and Dover, we clearly saw concealment linked to criminality in non-police-designated areas. Will the Government consider extending the parameters of the 2026 Act to tackle that?
Sarah Jones
We keep all legislation under review when it comes to public order, and there is a big piece of work that Ken Macdonald—Lord Macdonald—has done for us, which we are considering. There are other powers on face coverings in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but we will always look at these things.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
May I pay tribute to the brave lifeboat volunteers from Bembridge, on the Isle of Wight, who responded to the migrant crossing yesterday?
The Isle of Wight is more than just a little bit west of Kent. This is a really concerning development, a potential failure to contain the geography of small boat crossings. The Minister likes to talk about the reduction in numbers, but what assessment has she made of this potential new development in where people smugglers are willing to operate from? In this case, they travelled across 80 miles of open water. What is she doing to ensure that resources are targeted properly not only in France, but on the south coast, so that local communities like those on the Isle of Wight and in Hampshire can respond to this, which is something that they have not seen at scale before?
Sarah Jones
We are keeping all these things under review. There is no intelligence to suggest that people who leave France from further west want to land anywhere other than where they normally do, but we keep all these things under control. Today I have spoken to multiple people at the National Police Co-ordination Centre and in Border Force, and to the police more widely, and these things are kept under review. There is no evidence of what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but the criminals are being disrupted over here, and we know that they will try to change tactics. However, there is no evidence at the moment about where they are trying to land.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The far right and the British fascists reared their ugly heads on the streets of Dover and Portsmouth this weekend. The protests were allegedly spontaneous, but hundreds of people were mobilised. They were dressed as fascists of the past, hiding their identity. Their behaviour was not just thuggish and intimidatory; it went far beyond that. Their protests were about hate, division and racism. Even though the police had powers, the protests went largely unchecked. Can the Minister tell us why there appears to be a two-tier system? If people sit quietly with a banner, they get arrested, but if they are masked up and attack the police, no arrests are made.
Sarah Jones
There was no two-tier policing in this situation. My hon. Friend is right to say that if people hold banners supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation, they will get arrested, and she is right to say that the protests were not spontaneous. The Dover incident was obviously planned, and was obviously a tactic by a nasty organisation called Patriot Platform or South-East Patriots—I think it calls itself various different things. No notice was given to the police—that is why it was described as “spontaneous”—but it was clearly planned and intended to be intimidatory. I have talked to the police today, and I know that they are reviewing the closed-circuit television footage, the automatic number plate recognition data and all the evidence to see where criminality has occurred, and they will take action where it has occurred.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The sight of massed far-right thugs causing mayhem and disruption on the English south coast was as nauseating as it was frightening, and it was so reminiscent of a dark period in our history that we thought was long behind us. Does the Minister agree that the growth of the far right is the most dangerous development in our politics, and if so, when will the Government start to take it seriously? There were no arrests at all over the weekend, and there is no real challenge to the disinformation that the far right puts out to all our communities to cause this disruption and division. When will this Government stop pandering to this right-wing agenda?
Sarah Jones
We are not pandering to the right-wing agenda at all. The police will come down hard on criminality, as we would expect. No one was arrested in Dover on Saturday, or in Portsmouth, but as I just said, the police will review all the evidence from the weekend. Where crimes have occurred, they will make the appropriate arrests.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
At the weekend we saw masked men, dressed all in black, block roads, block a port and intimidate people in Dover and Portsmouth. We know that a large proportion of the people arrested at other disorderly anti-migrant protests had already been reported for domestic abuse. In fact, the leader of this weekend’s protest, Danny Thomas, spent two years in prison for trying to kidnap someone at knifepoint. Does the Minister agree that this is not about a legitimate policy debate? The men who decide to come out in balaclavas are not driven to thuggery by political passion; they simply like violence and intimidation, and they should not be given the fig leaf of political legitimacy that some people in this place wish to give them.
Sarah Jones
I agree that we should not give them political legitimacy. Of course, there are well-known connections between violent men and the types of violence they inflict, and it is not always in one area; it can be across lots of different behaviours—sexual violence, domestic abuse and the rest. We have no truck with these awful groups, and the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers seems particularly awful. Of course, the police will do what they need to do. They need to disrupt and remove the protesters so that people can go about their business, and in both cases that is what they did. We will ensure that we learn lessons and that arrests are made where they need to be. From the conversations that I have had today with the police about their response, it is clear that they were proportionate and managed to get the result that we wanted, which was the removal of the protesters and enabling people to go about their business.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am grateful that it is the Policing Minister who is making this statement. I have spoken to North Yorkshire police, and there is a proposal for RAF Linton-on-Ouse to be made into an asylum centre. The trouble is that calling it an “asylum centre on a military site” does not paint what it is. It is just a mass hotel, because people are free to come and go, and they will all be men. The Home Secretary said in a statement that she would not allow an asylum hotel anywhere near a primary school or a nursery, but within 300 metres of the entrance to the base is a primary school and a nursery. North Yorkshire police have made it clear that they would find it exceptionally difficult to constantly police protests, and these protests are coming from far and wide. Given the change to the way that protests are happening, the fact that North Yorkshire police would find it very difficult to police them, and the fact that there is a primary school and a nursery close to what would be a mass hotel for 1,500 people, can the Minister confirm that it is still the policy of the Home Secretary that she will not open such hotels near schools and nurseries?
Sarah Jones
I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has already had conversations with immigration Ministers about this particular case, and I suspect he is making the same arguments to them. I would not want to get in the way of that, and I am sure the relevant Minister would be happy to have those conversations. We need to bear down on the overall number of arrivals, which is what we are trying to do. We are not just closing the hotels, but reducing the number of arrivals and reducing the incentives for people to come in, which is why we are introducing the raft of policy interventions that I spoke about earlier.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for managing to handle two really difficult challenges that are facing the country at the moment. First, the small boats crossings are obviously very concerning to people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, as they are to many people in Kent. It has not escaped my notice that the protest in Dover at the weekend happened at a time when the boat crossings are falling. The second challenge is the increasing far-right activity. We have had uniformed thugs on our streets who have been organising relentlessly behind the scenes and publicly on Facebook, and we have to come down hard on it.
I would like to ask the Minister two things. First, we have seen this before—this is not the first time that the country and other countries have faced this. In the 1930s we banned uniformed political parties and uniformed political activists. Obviously we now wear slightly different clothing from what was worn back then, so has the Minister looked at how we can update the law to address these thugs and make sure that it is fit for purpose in the modern world?
Secondly, the local independent news outlet Kent Current reports that these thugs were mustering in nearby villages the night before the incident in Dover. Local people picked this up and had been reporting it, but that seems to have been missed. Can the Minister look at that and make sure that intelligence from concerned people on the ground in Kent is also factored in?
Sarah Jones
As I said earlier, I cannot comment on the intelligence situation of what happened with these two incidents, but we will of course learn lessons. What we knew in advance, and what was or was not done about that, will be a very important lesson for us to learn. As well as the intelligence that the local police are able to gather, we now have the national co-ordination of the NPCC, which has extra resources for things such as internet intelligence investigations. We can reach further and co-ordinate better than we could before, but I am sure there will be lessons to learn. I will take away my hon. Friend’s question about the uniform of political parties.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Over the past year or so, Poole has seen planned protests by groups calling themselves patriots that have been travelling to the town and specifically targeting the RNLI headquarters because they, like firefighters and other emergency crews, rescue those at sea without fear or favour. Concerns have been raised with me that no arrests were made this weekend, despite serious intimidation, injuries to the police and criminal damage, in sharp contrast to the treatment of elderly people holding placards. What message does it send to our brave RNLI rescue crews if the police stand aside during these events while they put their lives at risk day and night?
Sarah Jones
As I have said, any lessons we need to learn from these cases will be learned. However, I know from conversations I have had that the police were dealing with an emerging problem in quite a difficult geographical area, particularly in Portsmouth, with one road going in and out. The police had a lot of vulnerable people—I am speculating about their physical health, because I have not yet had a full briefing, but I suspect they were having to deal with hypothermia and all kinds of issues—and they were having to deal with an increasing number of about 200 people protesting. They definitely had to use batons and other interventions, so that may not have been the right point at which to arrest those people, but there will be investigations, with CCTV. So I genuinely ask the hon. Member not to draw any conclusion from the fact that no arrests were made at that point, because there may well be arrests. The police have to do the right things at the right time and in the right order, and in that emerging difficult situation, they may have taken a decision to do those things for the safety of everyone there and to turn to investigations afterwards.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
When a Reform UK councillor says that Nigerians should be “melted down to fill in the potholes”, and an ex-Reform councillor had to resign because they used racial slurs against a black family, I am disgusted at their overt racism. Does the Minister agree with me that the racist Reform UK and the ethno-nationalist Restore Britain are contributing to the scenes we have seen in Dover and Portsmouth?
Sarah Jones
Anyone who is whipping up this kind of activity and breeding racism is to be condemned. I notice that other Reform MPs are bobbing to ask their questions, so perhaps one of them could address the issue of the Reform member who wants—I am sorry, but I hate even to repeat the words—to see Nigerians melted down. Perhaps one of the hon. Members would like to respond.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Minister said that there was a lack of intelligence in Dover, and I am sure she was not referring to the local MP—the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp)—but is she aware that, since this illegal invasion started, hundreds of young girls have been raped in our country? We have had an 80-year-old man raped, a young girl in Ashfield raped and a 14-year-old boy raped, so does she understand why people in this country are so furious and taking to the streets? Does she understand?
Sarah Jones
First, just to clarify, I do not think I said there was a lack of intelligence; I said I did not want to comment on the intelligence—there is a difference. In the case of Dover, the police had not been informed of the protest. That is not to say there was not intelligence that I cannot comment on or would not know about. I just want to be clear about that, as that is different.
Of course, all crimes need to be punished. We need to ensure that people who commit vile sexual and violent offences go to prison or, if they are not from this country, are deported, and that is what we are doing. The number of foreign national offenders being sent home and the number of people who have been turned down for asylum and are being sent home are significantly up on when the Conservatives—the hon. Member’s previous party—were in power. We will continue to do that, but of course that is not to say that we are not intensely sympathetic and sorry for people who have been victims of awful crimes.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Home Office will turn its attention to the growth of far-right organisations across the country and the racist activities they undertake? The people who arrived in Dover and Portsmouth behaved in a violent, disgraceful and racist manner, including abusing RNLI volunteers. Will she also recognise that the plight of refugees all across Europe is a serious human rights disaster, and we do need co-operation between all Governments across Europe to ensure that we deal with this in a decent and humane way, and not allow people like these Reform Members sitting in front of me to just routinely abuse anyone who is trying to seek a place of safety?
Sarah Jones
There are of course very difficult issues of people who are fleeing war and conflict, and I say to the shadow Home Secretary and everyone else here that we in this country have an honourable tradition of being a place of safety, which must continue. The issue we have seen in recent years is that, when the Conservatives were in power, anybody who came in was not dealt with, was not turned around and was not returned. So the criminal gangs understood that when people come to this country, nothing happens and they get to stay here forever, regardless, and they make money from that vulnerability. So we are trying to improve the system, and improving the system is not a lack of compassion; it is exactly the opposite.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The sight of the Government escorting illegal migrants into Portsmouth harbour, the home of the Royal Navy, was a national humiliation. Sometimes I wonder whether Members of this House have no appreciation of the level of anger there is in the country at the rapes, the murders and the billions being wasted that should be being spent on the British people. Will the Minister put the Royal Navy in the channel today to escort those illegals to France? As Reform proved on Saturday, that is operationally, legally and now diplomatically possible. It is a matter of political will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, can you please keep your answers short, and will Back Benchers please make sure their questions are short too?
Sarah Jones
There is absolutely nothing that the Government have said that would suggest we do not understand the level of anger about the state of the country in which the right hon. Gentleman left us, and we have a big job to do. We of course understand the level of anger, but this Government are doing the hard work of restoring control at our border and fairness in our migration system, and no rhetoric from the right hon. Member—who does not have a leg to stand on, given his own personal involvement in the situation we find ourselves in—is going to stop us.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank hon. Members who share my disgust at the sight of intimidating, fascistic gangs and squads of men in black on our streets in Dover and Portsmouth, but the roots of organised violence are political and this needs a political response. So does the Minister agree with me that it is time to start naming hard-right and fascist politics when we see it, recognise how frightening this is for people in our communities, and stand up to the racists on our streets and here in the Chamber, rather than pandering to, repeating and accepting anti-migrant propaganda and lies.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for the question, but I just disagree with her analysis. I think I have been very clear in calling out the racism we have seen. I have been very clear and straightforward in saying that, where criminal activity has occurred, the police should use the full force of the law. We have named far-right actors in this place today. If others do not do so, that is a matter for them, but thank goodness they are not in government currently. We will do everything we can. We can call out racism and call out the thuggery we have seen, while also accepting the anger that individuals feel about our borders, and the two are not incompatible.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
While we condemn any violence against the police, we cannot ignore the deep public anger, frustration and outrage over the illegal migration now seen across Britain. No one voted for this, yet the boats keep coming and they are no longer small. Will the Government finally declare a state of emergency in the English channel?
Sarah Jones
No one voted for it multiple times, when they elected a Conservative Government promising to stop the boats, which did not happen. The number of people coming over this year is down 43% on last year so far. That is real progress. Is it enough? No. Will we go further? Yes.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a sad state of affairs when ordinary people feel compelled to take direct action against illegal immigration into our country as a result of successive Governments failing to stop the invasion of our country by illegal immigrants, aided by criminal gangs. Does the Minister not recognise the part that her Government continue to play in perpetuating the problem by housing those who come, by providing them with better health services than some people in our country can access and by setting such a low standard for asylum criteria that 92% of them stay? Would it not have been better to put the people back on the boat—
Sarah Jones
The proportion of people being granted asylum has shrunk massively in the last few years, and we have removed more than 80,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals from this country. We are improving the system and making the changes we need to make, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does the Minister acknowledge the seriousness of what we are now witnessing: organised militia-like groups of masked men taking to the streets, stopping cars, confronting members of the public and leaving ethnic minority communities terrified in their own towns? Will she plainly say what action, if indeed any, will be taken against these vigilante groups? What responsibility does she believe politicians in this House bear when inflammatory claims of an invasion translate into terror on our streets, racial fear, intimidation and street vigilantism?
Sarah Jones
It is not appropriate for me to comment on the intelligence and the situation, and who is or who is not going to be charged with these two incidents. We do not know enough at this point. The police are operationally independent for good reason and politicians should not be involved in that day-to-day process. Are we looking at the threats that we face in this country, of which there are many? Of course. Is the Home Secretary alive to all of those threats and doing everything she can with all the levers at her disposal? Absolutely.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
One image in 2015 changed public opinion. It was of a toddler, Alan Kurdi, a two-year-old whose frail body washed up on the shore with his face buried in the sand. That changed public opinion, because as humans—and as a nation—we are compassionate. Some 250,000 Ukrainians came into this country, and we allowed them to utilise our services, but there seems to be selective outrage in this House. Does the Minister agree that we need proper safe routes that can prevent the exploitation by criminals and allow those who are desperate and fleeing war-torn areas sanctuary in this nation?
Sarah Jones
On the one hand there is selective outrage, whataboutery, “let this sink in” and all the nonsense that people put on social media all the time. At the same time, there is a significant problem that we have to deal with. The two are true. We have to deal with the control at our borders, and we will bear down on that control to make sure we have what we need. At the same time, where there are malicious actors stirring up hatred and division, we have to—I would hope this House would—come together to promote the unity, solidarity and the compassion of which he speaks.
Economic Growth
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s plan to deliver good growth in every postcode.
At the G20 in North Carolina last week, the Chancellor and I met Finance Ministers from leading economies to discuss our shared economic challenges. Global instability, conflict and trade frictions are continuing to drive up inflation and interest rates around the world. While these shocks are international in nature, their impact is also being felt here in the UK—from the cost of the weekly family shop to the cost of Government borrowing.
Britain has shown resilience in the face of these pressures and the economy is now turning a corner: our growth was the fastest in the G7 in the first half of this year, Government borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years last year and interest rates have been cut six times since the general election. We are building on our strengths—our world-class universities and our world-leading sectors, such as life sciences, defence, technology, creative industries and financial services—and, because of the choices that this Labour Government have already taken, we are in a stronger position today to capitalise on the opportunities for growth across our economy.
In the context of a more uncertain world, we must continue to make responsible choices. Fiscal discipline will underwrite every promise this Government make. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear their commitment to meeting the fiscal rules, with a buffer against uncertainty. We will address the long-term pressures on our public finances to put debt on a sustainable downward path. As the Chancellor said earlier today, there is nothing progressive about spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest.
In his statement to this House last week, the Prime Minister laid out a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong in our economy: political power was centralised, the economic fundamentals were privatised or outsourced, and our country was de-industrialised. The solution is a fundamental shift in the way our country works. No. 10 North and the Treasury are working together to build a stronger, more strategic centre of government and a more active state. Together, we will support the ambitions of local leaders and exert public influence and direction over the essentials, including transport and housing. We will devolve power and resources to local leaders. London is of course an economic powerhouse, but if our city regions could emulate the success of second cities in France and Germany, growth in our country could be transformed.
The Chancellor has instructed public investment institutions to focus on regional growth. To build on our high growth areas, the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the northern growth corridor, he has today announced a new £150 million northern scale-up fund, delivered by the British Business Bank, to back the most innovative and fast-growing firms from Liverpool to Newcastle. The new Northern 500 will also bring together 500 of the north’s most ambitious mid-sized businesses into a single growth community, focused on scaling, investment and productivity. The National Wealth Fund will establish new strategic partnerships with South Yorkshire, the Liverpool city region, the north-east and Cardiff, giving those areas support to build their investment pipelines. At the Budget next month, the Government will go further, with a road map for fiscal devolution—a permanent transfer of power and resources from Whitehall to our regions. This plan will drive economic growth and productivity in three key areas: supporting investment, boosting innovation and getting more people into good jobs.
First, I will turn to investment. Business investment has increased by nearly 5% since the general election, but in a highly competitive world we must do more to reduce the barriers that firms face. The Government will tackle the thicket of consultation, litigation and administration that is holding up private investment, including by extending our reforms of judicial review from energy to all major infrastructure. We will bring an end to the consultation culture across Government, supported by new guidance from the Attorney General on legal risk to give Ministers confidence to make decisions. As the Chancellor has set out, we will make further changes to the Treasury’s Green Book, reducing the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%, to ensure that the Treasury rulebook does not go against key regional infrastructure projects and that places across the country get a fairer hearing in spending decisions. Work is already under way to progress place-based business cases in Plymouth, Birmingham, Liverpool and Port Talbot, and at the Budget we will publish guidance to allow more areas to do the same.
The second driver of growth is innovation. The UK has a fantastic record on innovation. We are world leaders in frontier technologies, quantum computing, nuclear fusion, space technology and AI. But too often, ideas born here have to go elsewhere to find the capital they need to scale. Today we are setting out a new ambition to double the number of unicorns in this country. The Government will identify and back these high-potential firms, providing them with the necessary capital to scale. New cross-economy sandboxing powers will also enable firms to test frontier technologies safely. Building on the important work already taking place in defence and sovereign AI, the Chancellor will work with Government Departments to earmark new, dedicated funds to back British innovation.
The third vital driver of growth is jobs. Our objective is to get more people into good, highly skilled jobs, and to make the most of the untapped talent that exists across the country. That is why, two weeks into office, the Prime Minister set out a bold new plan to transform technical education, and why, this autumn, Alan Milburn will set out his full recommendations to Government on how to address the blight of youth unemployment. This is our moral duty—not only our fiscal duty—because it cannot be right that so many young people are stuck on benefits.
The plan for growth is underpinned by fiscal discipline. It will hand power to local leaders and unlock the potential of our regions. It will build a strong, strategic centre of Government and enable greater public direction and influence over the essentials. It will back British business, goods and exports, creating wealth and prosperity in all parts of the country. It is a plan to build hope and optimism across our economy, and to drive good growth in every postcode. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for early sight of it. On a day when the country was listening for a message of change, it was the same old, same old: a continuity Chancellor, with continuity policies and a continuity team of Ministers in the Treasury. Does the Minister recognise the harsh irony that—given the Government could find plenty of money to hire 14,000 more civil servants in SW1—the Chancellor chose to go to the west midlands, just a few miles away from Jaguar Land Rover, but had nothing at all to say about it?
The Minister talked about Government borrowing falling to its lowest levels, but I wonder: can she also talk about the cost of Government borrowing? Can the Minister confirm that the cost of Government borrowing for 30 years is now at its highest rate for 28 years? The Minister talks about there being nothing progressive about spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest—well, amen to that—but why then did this Government choose to increase borrowing by £500 billion over the course of this Parliament? The Minister talked about the northern scale-up fund, which is an interesting initiative, but can she advise us who will be making the investment decisions and assure the House that they will not be subject to political direction?
The Minister talks about a National Wealth Fund with new strategic partnerships and a permanent transfer of power and resources from Whitehall to the regions. Did she listen to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government say that local government reform is on hold? Can she confirm to the House what proportion of the country will qualify under that measure to be part of Labour’s largesse? My fear is that many parts of the country will not.
The Minister did talk, smartly, about removing the thicket of consultation and looking at judicial review and the consultation culture. The Opposition will be supportive of measures that she comes forward with in that regard. But then, after a brief moment of common sense, the Minster talked about reducing the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%. Can she confirm that the cost at which the Government are borrowing is going up and up—5.9% for 30 years—yet she has chosen this moment to reduce the rate at which the Government expect to get money back from 3.5% to 3%? Can she explain how those numbers add up?
Then, of course, there is the final cherry on the parfait: the Government will “identify and back” unicorns in this country. How will the Government identify those unicorns, and can the Minister explain how that is different from the discredited policy of Governments picking winners?
The Minister then returned to common sense with the announcement that Mr Milburn will set out his recommendations to the Government. Will she please advise the House—many Members will be concerned about this—on what date Mr Milburn will make his recommendations?
Today, the Government—the Minister and the Chancellor—had an opportunity to at least have mentioned the high cost of energy that is crippling British manufacturing. They could have ruled out tax increases, providing more certainty for businesses that they can invest. The Government could have said that they would take up the offer from the Conservative Leader of the Opposition to work together on meaningful reform and reductions in welfare, so that we make work pay. But we did not hear any of that. Instead, we are heading to a Budget where a Labour Government have again run out of money and where a Labour Government will once again increase taxes to cover their fiscal incompetence—same old continuity Labour.
Emma Reynolds
It is a great pleasure to be opposite the hon. Gentleman again, as we were earlier in this Parliament. I will address his points, but I say kindly to him that I would rather be continuity Labour than continuity Liz Truss.
The hon. Gentleman was right to mention Jaguar Land Rover. It is a concerning time for the workforce, and the Business Secretary is working closely with the chief executive and the leader of the trade union Unite, bringing them together tomorrow to discuss the situation. Jaguar Land Rover has made clear that it faces competitive global headwinds, but we have done a lot to support the automotive industry, and Jaguar Land Rover in particular, given the loan guarantee that we provided last year in the wake of its cyber-attack. The Business Secretary and the Government are also providing help to the automotive sector to bear down on the cost of energy.
I think the hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with me in some areas, which is always good to hear. We can agree that there is nothing progressive about spending so much money on servicing our debt. As a Government we are committed to fiscal discipline and the fiscal rules because we want to bring down the cost of Government borrowing, but we are not immune to the global instability that means that the cost of borrowing is also increasing for every other G7 country. However, we have the fastest growth in the G7, and we are cutting our deficit faster than any other G7 country; business confidence and investment are up; productivity is up; interest rates have been cut six times since the election; and consumer confidence is up. While the hon. Gentleman talks down our economy, me, the Chancellor and the whole ministerial team will be talking up the British economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question about the northern scale-up fund. The British Business Bank will make those decisions independently of Government, as should always be the case. He is right to ask for reassurance about that, and I have provided it. We are a Government that are serious about devolving power to every part of the country. We will have more to say about that at the Budget and will set out a fiscal devolution road map as well.
The hon. Gentleman accused me nicely of talking smartly about the thicket of consultation, saying that I had some common sense, and I thank him for that. He has been in Government too, in the Treasury, and I fondly remember our meetings together back then. It is good that there is agreement across the Chamber that we need to ensure that those sorts of things do not gum up the system, that Ministers are able to take decisions, and that we are able to get infrastructure built in this country.
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the Green Book discount rate. We say proudly that we are reducing the discount rate to 3%, because there have been times in the past when the Treasury has stood in the way of good regional infrastructure projects that have a long-term benefit. I am proud that we are ensuring that those projects get a fairer hearing.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made changes to tax to support unicorns in last year’s Budget, and we are opening up opportunities to public procurement. I think he mentioned pudding at the end—parfait, I think it was—and although I am a big fan of pudding myself, I will not respond to that.
On the serious question of the Alan Milburn review, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timeline, but I will repeat what I said in my statement: it is our moral duty as a Government to ensure that we have more young people back in the labour market. That is why we have already introduced the youth guarantee, so that young people who have been out of work for longer than 18 months will get a paid placement by the Government, as well as introducing a grant for businesses that take on unemployed young people. It is a very serious issue, and one that we will address.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and her commitment that the British Business Bank’s new fund will not be interfered with politically, because when the Treasury Committee looked at the National Wealth Fund, we were very clear that it needed to be able to get on and do its job crowding in that private investment. There should not be a chop-and-change approach to the policy; it should not be a delivery vehicle for different Government policies, as Governments can change.
I have spent my career backing devolution, but there is a challenge here, is there not? The Chief Secretary has to ensure that the money that taxpayers give to Government to spend is spent well, but there is a gap, with our regionally elected mayors, in the oversight and scrutiny of that public spending. Devolution is a good thing, but what is she going to put in place to ensure that those mayors and the devolved authorities can report back about how well they are spending taxpayers’ money, and if they are not spending it well, what will the consequences be?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question, and I agree with her: public financial institutions must make independent decisions about the businesses that they support. The Chancellor has talked today about new strategic priorities for the NWF, and that is also the right thing to do. That goes in parallel with what my hon. Friend was saying.
On oversight of mayoral strategic authorities, my hon. Friend is right that if we are going to devolve more power and, critically, more resources, there should be more oversight. The First Secretary of State has talked about the role of others, including Members of this House, in holding mayoral strategic authorities to account when they receive those new powers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor and the Minister for their speech and statement. We know that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has hit national GDP by as much as 8%, costing the country up to £90 billion a year in lost tax revenues. Will the Government now pull the largest zero-cost growth lever available to them by negotiating a growth and defence partnership with the EU, including joining the single market and a new customs union, rather than clinging to the same failed red lines, which are costing businesses billions every year? Being outside the single market and the customs union directly links to the 13% fall in the UK’s export of goods since 2022, which has hit traditional manufacturing regions the worst—the same places that the Government’s reindustrialise-the-north agenda claims to prioritise. I would like to understand whether she acknowledges the reality of that linkage or not.
I welcome the Chancellor’s emphasis on the importance of fiscal credibility and, linked to that, meeting the fiscal rules. However, the reality is that those rules have been easily gamed by successive Governments, with our budgetary process being summarised as speculation without scrutiny, short-term headroom chasing and gaming the system, with an approach of jam today, which is spending, and pain tomorrow, which is tax, but tomorrow never arrives. The result is that it has been more than 25 years since we had a balanced Budget, and our national debt is now six times larger than 20 years ago.
Will the Chief Secretary demonstrate that she is serious about tackling our debt and agree that a key way to do that is to grow our economy? Will she consider what we can learn from how other countries such as Switzerland, Sweden and New Zealand have addressed and solved their budget process problems?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and will try to do them justice in the short time available. The Chancellor said this morning that Brexit has hammered British exports. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a link between the fall in exports and the barriers the previous Conservative Government put up with our nearest and biggest trading partner, which is exactly why this Government are renegotiating a reset with our European partners. We promised in our manifesto that we would not join the single market, but we will bring down those barriers at the border, particularly with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that we are currently negotiating with the EU—there will be further announcements on that in due course—which will benefit our agrifood industry by making it easier to export to the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the fiscal rules. I do not agree with his analysis: we have brought forward the fiscal rules to apply over three years to get around some of the gaming that he talks about. We are serious about tackling our debt and, as I said in my statement, we are reducing our deficit at the fastest rate in the G7.
I am always interested to learn from other countries; I think we should always be open to that. I would be interested to hear more about what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have the Health Bill debate later on today, so we are pressed for time. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Minister to be on point.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and agree that London is indeed a powerhouse for growth. However, as a Member of Parliament for an outer London borough, I know, and she will recognise, that that wealth is not felt by every Londoner. With industrialisation and job creation being priorities for the Government, will the Minister reassure us that those priorities will reach the postcodes of my constituency?
Emma Reynolds
I absolutely agree. As the Chancellor stressed this morning, and as the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, this Government will drive good growth in every postcode. My hon. Friend is right that the situation in London is not simple; it is an economic powerhouse, but there are high levels of poverty in many parts of London. I assure her that we will focus on Barking and other parts of London, too.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Last week, the Prime Minister boasted in the same breath that we had the fastest growth in the G7 and that the decade of slow growth was caused by Brexit. If we are ahead of the pack, it cannot be caused by Brexit, can it?
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I strongly agree with the Government’s policy on devolution and better technical and scientific education, but all that will be for nought if we do not do something about the cost of energy. We cannot grow and compete as an economy when we have higher energy costs than our major industrial competitors. We have closed more than half our oil refineries in the past 20 years, which means we are now importing a majority of our energy. Will my right hon. Friend do something about those destructive policies?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. The cost of energy for UK businesses is higher than for those elsewhere. That is why the Business Secretary, working hand in hand with the Treasury, is bearing down on that cost through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, particularly for the industrial strategy’s eight growth sectors—we have done that for automotive, aerospace and other sectors that are key to driving economic growth.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not the case that the bond markets are losing faith in the Government’s economic policies, and that the cost of borrowing, as we have heard from the shadow Minister, is at an 18-year high? That means, of course, that mortgage rates will increase, putting even more financial pain on many of our constituents. What does the Minister say to my constituents, who are likely to see three or four mortgage rate increases over the next 12 months?
Emma Reynolds
What the right hon. Gentleman is observing underlines the need for the Government to stick to our fiscal rules. The Chancellor is right to say that fiscal discipline is the bedrock of our economic security and national security. That is why we have committed to meeting those fiscal rules. In fact, we are meeting one of them early.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s comments about regional growth and the active state are music to my ears, but rather than simply picking winners or de-risking private investment, how will she ensure that we get detailed local industrial strategies that build our domestic productive capacity and supply chains?
Emma Reynolds
I am glad to know that some of what I say is music to my hon. Friend’s ears. I can reassure her that that will be for mayoral strategic authorities to take forward. She is in a part of the country that has had great success in taking forward devolution and using those powers to drive economic growth. I am sure that her area will thrive under this Government, too.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister spoke about global instability. There is no doubt that energy costs are having an impact on the cost of doing business, but this summer, local businesses told me that domestic Government had raised the cost of doing business, through national insurance and business rates rises. Will the Chancellor do something about that in the next Budget?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman invites me to write the next Budget, and I am not going to do that.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is right that the UK has a vibrant ecosystem of innovative companies, but too many are looking to go overseas to realise their scale-up potential and become globally consequential companies, so I very much welcome the focus on using the state as a strategic partner to help them do that. That was exactly the message I heard from the chief executive officers and founders of companies whom I met in the summer. How will the Treasury work across Whitehall and the wider public sector to help drive that cultural mindshift?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on this agenda. I reassure him that, as the Chancellor set out this morning in his growth speech, we will work across Departments to ensure that we open up public procurement to smaller and start-up businesses, so that they stay here, rather than go elsewhere when they scale up?
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that putting up taxes is good or bad for economic growth?
Emma Reynolds
Sometimes it is necessary, in order to fund improvements in our national health service and to fill the £22 billion fiscal black hole that we inherited.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I make a pitch to the Minister for a part of the country called the midlands, which I know that she knows well? Not everything is about the south or the north. There is a swathe of counties that form a band of engineering and manufacturing prowess in this country, from Shropshire through to Lincolnshire. They do not have the powerful mayors of the north or the economic growth that the south has had. In my constituency, the chemical industry talks to me about UK REACH double regulation, the steel manufacturers talk about the tariffs, and ceramics industry talks about access to the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger. If she wants good growth in every part of the country, including the midlands, how will we overcome those immediate challenges?
Emma Reynolds
Being from Wolverhampton, I agree with my hon. Friend that the midlands is a very important part of the country. He is a really powerful advocate for his area, and he will know that we have put forward a ceramics support package to ensure that his area, and others in the region, thrive.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the reference that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made to the Oxford growth corridor and localising power and resources, but my constituents are deeply concerned about ensuring that infrastructure comes before the many developments that the Government have in mind. Can she confirm that along the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor there will be an “infrastructure first” approach, and can she let me and my constituents know which Minister now has responsibility for that corridor?
Emma Reynolds
As the Chancellor set out this morning, we are determined to speed up infrastructure provision. Frankly, compared to other countries, we are just too slow at building high-speed rail and other types of rail. We are determined to press ahead and ensure that we speed up infrastructure provision, so that we can develop other areas. I also have an interest in the Cambridge-Oxford growth corridor, because my constituency is not very far away.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
We are now on the fourth round of consultation on East West Rail, the latter rounds of consultation consulting on the outcomes of the earlier rounds of consultation. At the same time, we are in the middle of building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race because of the four rounds of consultation required for Sizewell C. When we tried to build the lower Thames crossing, the total consultation for the development consent order process was 359,000 pages. That is 250 times the length of “War and Peace”. It is right to go to war on these consultations, but can the Minister tell us how she will stop at nothing to ensure that we get infrastructure projects built more efficiently, so that we can save taxpayers far more money and drive economic growth?
Emma Reynolds
I share my hon. Friend’s impatience. I want to get things done, and so does the Chancellor. The Attorney General will provide guidance to Ministers, so that we can make quicker decisions. She will advise on where we need consultation and where we do not. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be impatient for change; I am too.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Is it not bizarre that just a few hours after the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government came to the House to pause local government reorganisation on the basis of legal risk, so that she can have more consultation, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “We will bring an end to consultation culture and, with guidance from the Attorney General on legal risk, give Ministers the confidence to make decisions”? Will they have a greater appetite for legal risk, or will they pause to have more consultations? The two Ministers are saying opposite things.
Emma Reynolds
We have to get local government reorganisation right, so I make no apology for the Secretary of State coming to the House to update colleagues—for a couple of hours; it was a very long statement. I know that lots of Members from across the House have strong views on the issue, but it is important that the Government get this right.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I will ask a slightly different question from the one I originally intended to ask. Every time we come to this Chamber to discuss the economy, we spend a lot of time debating public spending, but we never seem to discuss our trade deficit. We have not been in surplus since 1998. What will the Government do to ensure that we start paying our way in the world again?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the trade deficit. When I was at the G20 in North Carolina last week, there was a discussion about global trade imbalances, and that is something that we are considering putting on the agenda for our G20 presidency.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Labour promised £200 million for Grangemouth, none of which has materialised. Labour promised 1,000 jobs for GB Energy, and it turns out that a third of the 130 delivered so far are not actually in Scotland. If the Prime Minister’s localism project is not just for Manchester, what extra powers will be devolved to Scotland as a result of the decisions being made?
Emma Reynolds
Can I say gently to the hon. Lady that Scotland has rightly had plenty of devolution, but that does not mean that the two decades of SNP Government have been successful?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
On that note, after two decades of failed SNP governance, 29% of children in Clackmannanshire are living in poverty. The Labour Government have lifted the two-child benefit cap, which will reduce that figure and help life chances. Improving economic growth is, of course, laudable, but could we go for some classic Labour redistribution of wealth, and also look at taxing multimillionaires and billionaires?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is simply not acceptable that we live in a country where children are in poverty. The last Government plunged 900,000 children into child poverty. We are proud to be the Labour Government who lifted the two-child limit and lifted 450,000 children out of poverty.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
On a day when Jaguar Land Rover has announced 4,000 job losses, how many more jobs have to be lost before the Government change course?
Emma Reynolds
As I said in response to the shadow Minister, the Business Secretary is working closely with the chief executive and leadership of the company. Jaguar Land Rover employs 30,000 people in different parts of the country. We supported the company last year in the wake of its cyber-attack. We are supporting automative with £4 billion in capital and research and development funding to manufacture zero-emission vehicles. My thoughts are with the workforce; this is a very difficult time. As I understand it, the company has said that, by and large, this will be done by voluntary redundancy as much as possible, and over two years.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Since 2020, Governments, Prime Ministers, Ministers, UK Research and Innovation and businesses have all supported the BioYorkshire project, which will address issues to do with the environment and the climate crisis, as well as providing good-quality jobs and a return for the Treasury. However, the Government have not been able to get money out of the door, so can the Minister say more about how she will invest and spend that money?
Emma Reynolds
I profoundly believe that we have to drive a win-win. We can deliver good infrastructure and good jobs and limit the number of consultations, and have an eye to the impact on the environment. I will come back to my hon. Friend on her specific question.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Imagine that you are a worker at JLR worried about your future, and you have the misfortune of watching the Chancellor’s speech, which contains searing economic insights like,
“I want to see businesses make a profit.”
There was nothing about scrapping electric vehicle mandates, bringing down energy costs by getting rid of net zero targets, or bringing down the cost of employing people by getting rid of the increase in employers national insurance. Is it not the truth that it is the Government who are killing the British car industry, and they need to wake up and take action?
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Like many parents all over the country, this month, my wife and I will drop off our child at university for the first time—in this instance, to begin an engineering degree. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic benefits of helping more young people into secure work? What assurance can she give all our young people starting in education or training this month that the Labour Government are alive to their fears about rising costs, technological changes and global uncertainty, and are working hard to ensure that economic conditions mean that they have a job when it is time for them to enter the jobs market?
Emma Reynolds
The Government are on the side of young people—both young graduates and those who pursue technical education. As the Prime Minister set out in his first two weeks in power, we want to ensure parity between technical education and university education, and to drive good growth in every postcode, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, many of those Jaguar Land Rover employees live in my constituency, but they are across the whole midlands. In August, the Government committed to consulting on the zero emission vehicle mandate. Will she undertake to ensure that the consultation is as quick as possible, so that we can give our car manufacturing firms the best chance to compete globally?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. We were once parliamentary neighbours, so I understand the concern that he is expressing. Over the weekend, I spoke to the Business Secretary about this issue. We are holding a consultation, which will be a quick one.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I heartily welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in her new role. In 1954, the Co-operative Permanent building society opened its office in Peterborough. In the 70 years since—now as Nationwide—it has provided advice and support for lenders and people buying a house. There are few better examples in this country of a commitment to our high streets and to growth in every postcode than building societies and the mutual movement. We have a manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual economy. We talk about growth in every postcode; will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that the building society movement can play its part in rebuilding our country?
Emma Reynolds
I can absolutely do that. May I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does to further the cause of co-operatives and mutuals? When I was Economic Secretary, I very much enjoyed working with the sector, because building societies often offer more innovative products—to first-time buyers in particular—and do sterling work.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The rhetoric might have changed a bit under the new Prime Minister, but it seems that we have a continuity Chancellor on the policy front. The Minister talks about the failures of privatisation, but where is the action to bring water back into public hands? She talks about the need for an active state, but where is the action to tax wealth fairly, so that we can invest in the services we need? Fundamentally, we cannot get good growth unless it is both green and fair. We will not build sustainable prosperity by trashing nature and the climate.
Emma Reynolds
I do not believe in trashing nature and the climate either, but if we want to tackle climate change, we cannot stop every renewable project from going ahead, which is what the Greens would have us do, just as they would prevent the building of new nuclear power.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend talked about good growth in every postcode, which I welcome, as well as the £150 million scheme with the British Business Bank, but there was nothing for the midlands, which was ironic given where the Chancellor delivered his speech. The truth is, the midlands is being squeezed from the north and from the south. Will she help me to revisit the limit, resurrect the previously canned scheme on the A46, and meet me to discuss investment in our region?
Emma Reynolds
May I reassure my hon. Friend? One of our trailblazer projects in the place-based business cases is with Birmingham, which is obviously the beating heart of the west midlands.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Chancellor promised growth in every postcode, which must include rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton, and not just our cities and towns, yet rural England’s productivity sits at just 69% of the non-rural rate, costing our economy billions in lost revenue every year. That is not just a rural problem but a national one. What is the Chief Secretary doing to create opportunity in the countryside and unleash the full potential of rural Britain?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member will know that rural communities are close to my heart, given my previous ministerial role and because I have a semi-rural constituency. There is huge potential in rural communities. The Prime Minister visited rural Cornwall in his first few weeks in the job. We will do more, and we are doing more, to improve local transport and rural connectivity, including the £2 cap on bus fares. She is right to say that there is great potential, which we must realise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Too often decisions have been made in Westminster with an assumption that investment, opportunity and growth flow naturally to the south, but in reality Portsmouth has been ignored and faces real pressure on housing, transport and education. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that my city and the people of Portsmouth are no longer an afterthought but at the heart of the Government’s plan for growth and opportunity?
Emma Reynolds
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The Government are intent on driving good growth and job creation opportunities across the country—in the north, the south, the midlands and every other part, too.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Government insisted on applying the social time preference rate to the disastrous Chagos deal to make an appalling deal look slightly better. Will the Minister confirm that the changes she has announced today as part of her Green Book revision will increase the cost of that deal by £288 million, which is 10 times the amount that she proposes to cut from the Army training budget this year?
Emma Reynolds
The Green Book discount rate is a tool of economic analysis. It does not change the cost of the deal.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the reforms to judicial review of infrastructure will apply to the West Yorkshire mass transit project? Does she consider that project to be nationally significant infrastructure?
Emma Reynolds
We are working with the mayor on that issue. Our colleagues will get back to you on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Hopefully they will get back not to me, but to the hon. Member.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Sea Shanty café on Ynys Môn is desperate for hope. Paying 20% VAT is simply unsustainable. Hospitality is a major employer on the island, but our businesses are being squeezed by rising costs. Cutting VAT to 10% would be a quick win, driving growth by giving businesses some breathing space and protecting jobs. Will the Chief Secretary consider that?
Emma Reynolds
The Prime Minister is clear that the hospitality sector is close to his heart. It is one that he worked closely with when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester. Earlier this summer we announced the business rate reductions for pubs, social clubs and live music venues, and we will go further in the Budget.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Minister will know from her previous ministerial role that the cost of fuel is the single most important business cost for rural businesses. I am not asking her to write the Budget today, but will she convey to the Chancellor the importance of continuing the fuel duty freeze for rural businesses beyond the end of December?
Emma Reynolds
As I outlined to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), it is right that we focus on rural communities as well as urban areas and city regions. I will convey that message to the Chancellor, but I will not be writing the Budget right now.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Government talk a lot about how they will create economic growth. There is no way for them just to legislate their way to growth; there are, however, plenty of ways to legislate against it, as small rural businesses in North Norfolk know only too well. Will the Minister tell those rural businesses what she is doing to help them grow? More importantly, what things that get in their way will she stop doing?
Emma Reynolds
As I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), we take the economic success of rural communities really seriously. We are improving connectivity, whether digital connectivity or local transport connectivity, to ensure that the areas are more successful, but there is obviously more to be done.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
For some years I have known the proprietor of a small to medium-sized aviation company that has come up with revolutionary aircraft designs with both civilian and military applications, but every time the Government of the day have ended up supporting the big operators in this field. How will the right hon. Lady’s new policy towards unicorns benefit somebody like that?
Emma Reynolds
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. As I have said, we have given strategic steers to the public financial institutions to ensure that they are focusing on regional growth, and that is also about opening up opportunities for the kinds of businesses that he has mentioned.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor has rightly identified trade frictions as a major impediment to economic growth. As a result of the Windsor framework, the internal market in the UK has been severely disrupted by EU-imposed restrictions on trade, which mean customs unions, mountains of paperwork and physical barriers. What steps does the right hon. Lady intend to take to remove this barrier to economic growth in Northern Ireland?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when I was Environment Secretary I visited the port of Belfast and saw the kinds of checks that were going on there. The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that we are negotiating with the EU will help to reduce that friction.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Chief Secretary talks about £150 million for investment in the north. How much of that funding is actual new capital expenditure from this Government, or is it simply a repackaged, reannounced sum of money for the north?
Emma Reynolds
It is money that already sits with the British Business Bank, but the change is the focus on the north, on scale-up businesses, to ensure that we unleash their growth potential. We are not announcing new funding; we never said we were.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Dewsbury and Batley is the capital of furniture, bed and upholstery manufacturing in the UK, but after Brexit it lost a lot of its export business. What are the Government going to do to support furniture, upholstery and supply chain manufacturers in Dewsbury and Batley as part of their investment in the north?
Emma Reynolds
The trade deals that we are doing, and also the reset of the relationship that we are taking forward with the EU, will bring down barriers with our biggest and closest market.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister cites our world-class universities and an ambition to double the number of UK unicorns that run frontier technologies such as quantum and AI, but does she recognise that those breakthroughs often come from the curiosity-driven frontier physics research in our universities, and that that research base now faces a £700 million funding gap?
Emma Reynolds
UKRI—UK Research and Innovation —invests in that sort of research, and the Government will continue to do that through UKRI.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I, too, am a bit concerned that the Minister is missing a page of her statement, because there has been no mention of the east midlands. The Prime Minister was right when he blamed Margaret Thatcher for picking winners and abandoning whole regions, and that appears to be happening to the east midlands this time. In my constituency, Leicestershire and Rutland receives a grand total of zero pounds in infrastructure investment. On skills funding, Leicester gets £11.30 per head, compared with £52.10 in Greater Manchester and £66.19 in the west midlands, which is six times more. Can she reassure me, the people of the east midlands and my constituents in Leicester South that we will not be left behind?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman; the east midlands and the west midlands are really important. The changes that the Chancellor outlined to the discount rate today will benefit places such as his constituency, because they will ensure that we value the longer-term benefit of regional investment projects more fairly. As we have said, we will drive growth in every postcode and that includes his constituency.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The concept of devolution and localisation is to empower local communities by bringing the decision-making process closer to them. In Birmingham, the city council is being forced to relinquish its planning powers to the regional mayor. That is anti-devolution. Does the Minister agree, and what will she do to ensure that the council does not lose its planning powers?
Emma Reynolds
I would disagree, because the mayoral strategic authorities are about local authorities coming together in a combined authority and working together across the borders of the west midlands—an area I know extremely well. This is about driving growth and driving good decisions across the region.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Chief Secretary has promised good growth in every postcode. Blackburn has the talent, the institutions and the major employers—such as EG On the Move—that are willing to invest in local people, but we need Government investment to match that ambition. Will the Chief Secretary make Blackburn a test case for this plan and back an employer-led jobs and skills partnership to create good local jobs?
Emma Reynolds
We are working in close partnership with business, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to unleash talent and business investment in his own constituency and elsewhere, but as I said to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the way that the public financial institutions work is by independently assessing the potential of firms and then backing them. That is what the Chancellor was talking about today. We set the strategic priorities and those independent economic organisations assess projects for their potential.
Bill Presented
Health Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Clauses 1 to 61 and Schedules 1 to 8, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to women’s health, maternity, procurement and trade, and the workforce of the NHS | The moment of interruption on the first day |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Clauses 62 to 81 and Schedules 9 to 12, remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day |
Health Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
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 clause 97—Care and support: involvement of others and visitors.
New clause 1—National Maternity Commissioner—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, appoint a National Maternity Commissioner, situated within the Department of Health and Social Care.
(2) The functions of the National Maternity Commissioner are to—
(a) oversee NHS maternity services;
(b) act as an independent voice for women and families;
(c) ensure lessons are learned from identified failures and that the recommendations of maternity reviews are acted upon;
(d) promote consistency, safety and accountability across NHS maternity services; and
(e) advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the safety, quality and provision of maternity services in England.
(3) The person appointed as Commissioner must—
(a) be a person with knowledge, expertise and experience relevant to the discharge of functions of the role;
(b) have first-hand experience of working in maternity services, so far as reasonably possible; and
(c) not be a sitting Member of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to appoint a maternity commissioner within the Department of Health and Social Care to oversee national maternity services.
New clause 2—Assessment of risks posed by contracts with non-UK based suppliers—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK.
(2) In conducting an assessment under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) pay particular regard to contracts which provide technology companies with access to confidential patient data;
(b) consult national security experts on the risks posed to UK sovereignty by such contracts;
(c) consider risks associated with the sharing of confidential patient data with organisations based outside of the UK;
(d) assess public and NHS staff attitudes to relevant suppliers and any implications such attitudes may have on the use and effectiveness of products or services provided under the contract; and
(e) consider the background of relevant suppliers, known contracts with other states and organisations, and any relevant ethical considerations.
(3) Where any significant risk is identified, the Secretary of State must set out the Government’s intentions to manage and mitigate such risks, including its intention to use or develop domestic technologies, systems or products in place of those provided under the relevant contract.”
This new clause would require the government to publish a risk assessment of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside of the UK.
New clause 3—Duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic suppliers—
In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert—
1CD Duty to prioritise domestic suppliers
(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health and care service, the Secretary of State must prioritise the awarding of any contract that will involve the handling of NHS patient data to suppliers based in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Secretary of State may only seek to procure technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data from suppliers based outside of the United Kingdom where a viable domestic alternative does not exist.
(3) Before signing any contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) patient groups,
(b) national security experts, and
(c) staff unions,
on the proposed contract and lay a report on such a consultation before Parliament.
(4) Where it is proposed to sign a contract for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must arrange for a motion agreeing to the signing of such a contract to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and no such contract may be signed where a motion for its agreement is negatived by either House of Parliament.
(5) If a contract is awarded for the procurement of technology and information systems which will handle NHS patient data with a supplier based outside of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must place a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out whether the Government is taking, or is planning to take, steps to develop or support long-term domestic alternatives to the systems provided by the contract.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based, suppliers for technology systems and contracts handling NHS patient data, and places restrictions on the signing of contracts for such systems with non-UK based suppliers.
New clause 4—NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy (“an NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy”) which sets out the Government's approach to maintaining the security and resilience of relevant NHS information systems by—
(a) assessing, managing and mitigating risks—
(i) associated with foreign interference,
(ii) arising from reliance on foreign-supplied technologies, and
(b) preventing over-reliance on foreign providers by building domestic capacity.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant information system” is an information system with access to NHS patient data.
(3) An NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy published under this section must—
(a) include risks associated with—
(i) hardware,
(ii) software,
(iii) supply chains, and
(iv) procurement processes;
(b) include a specific focus on security and resilience in digital procurement processes, detailing how the Government intends to reduce strategic dependencies on foreign-owned service providers to mitigate the risk of systemic disruption;
(c) include a commitment to prioritise the use of technologies developed in the UK by UK organisations in relevant information systems to reduce reliance on foreign technologies;
(d) recommend steps to support and develop sufficient domestic capability where it does not currently exist;
(e) where risks are identified, state how the Government intends to address these risks by supporting the use or development of domestic technologies or systems.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish an NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy setting out how it intends to address risks to relevant information systems posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies, including by supporting the use of domestic technologies.
New clause 5—Health Data Charter—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, establish an independent body (to be known as the "Sovereign Health Data Trust”) for the purpose of creating a Health Data Charter.
(2) The membership of the Trust should include—
(a) people with a diverse range of backgrounds; and
(b) health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.
(3) The Charter must—
(a) set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS;
(b) include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data;
(c) ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs;
(d) provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment;
(e) set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS;
(f) be designed in such a way as to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space in technical terms, including through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles within the NHS.
(4) The Sovereign Health Data Trust will—
(a) hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment;
(b) have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit;
(c) ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available;
(d) publish detailed minutes of all meetings discussing potential uses of health data; and
(e) ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.”
New clause 6—Maternity Safety—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every NHS maternity unit is rated “good” or
“outstanding” by the CQC.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passage of this Act, establish a scheme to support NHS trusts to deliver the requirement under subsection (1), which includes—
(a) 24/7 consultant obstetrician cover on every labour ward,
(b) one-to-one midwifery care,
(c) a Director of Midwifery in every maternity service,
(d) ringfenced maternity service development funding, and
(e) a dedicated neonatal workforce plan.
(3) Within 12 months of the commencement of the scheme under subsection (2), and every 12 months thereafter, an annual report should be laid before both Houses of Parliament on the effectiveness of the scheme.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to create a scheme to ensure that every maternity unit in the country achieves a “good” or “outstanding” rating by the CQC.
New clause 7—Healthy life expectancy target—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make regulations to set a statutory target for improving overall healthy life expectancy for the population of Great Britain, and
(b) publish a cross-governmental strategy, renewed every 24 months, to set out how the target set by regulations under subsection (1)(a) will be achieved.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1)(b) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) Upon publication of a strategy under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must make a statement before the House of Commons regarding progress made towards the target set by subsection (1)(a).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years setting out how this target will be achieved.
New clause 8—Impact of trade deals on the NHS—
“(1) Any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
(2) Before laying regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment about how the trade negotiation will affect NHS frontline services and patients.”
This new clause would require any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
New clause 11—Duty as respects waiting times for women’s health—
“In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert—
“1CD Duty as respects waiting times for women’s health
The Secretary of State must exercise functions in relation to the health service with a view to ensuring that average waiting times for the diagnosis and elective treatment of conditions primarily affecting women do not exceed the overall average waiting times for NHS diagnosis and elective treatment.””
This new clause would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues do not exceed the average wait time for wider NHS elective treatment.
New clause 12—Inquiry into women’s health outcomes—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent inquiry into women’s health provision and outcomes in England.
(2) Any inquiry established under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the causes of—
(i) poorer health outcomes, and
(ii) disparities in patient safety,
for women;
(b) the effectiveness of existing commissioning arrangements in meeting the needs of women, and
(c) recommendations to assist the Secretary of State in discharging the duty to reduce inequalities in health outcomes under section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the inquiry before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes faced by women.
New clause 15—Public Health Committee—
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Public Health Committee within six months of the passage of this Act to ensure a cross-governmental focus and consideration of the promotion of public health in government policy and address national health inequalities.
(2) The Public Health Committee under subsection (1) must—
(a) include at least one minister from each government Department in its membership,
(b) include all cabinet ministers in its membership,
(c) be chaired by the Prime Minister,
(d) meet once in each annual quarter.
(3) Under subsection 2(b), cabinet members must attend at least three quarters of the Public Health Committee's meetings each year.
(4) Each government Department must publish an annual report on their department's consideration of public health in its policy and the extent of joint policy formulation with other government Departments.
(5) The Secretary of State must establish a Health Creation Unit to support the Public Health Committee.
(6) The Health Creation Unit must submit an annual report on its activities, decision-making and cross-government progress to the Liaison Committee.”
This new clause would establish a Public Health Committee and Health Creation Unit to promote public health and cross-government policy making.
New clause 16—Duty to promote public health—
“All Ministers of the Crown have a duty to consider health outcomes and the promotion and protection of public health when exercising their duties.”
This new clause will place a duty on all ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties.
New clause 17—Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing—
“(1) The Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before the House of Commons a copy of the Arrangement, and
(b) the Arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) Before tabling a motion under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects on the health service of implementation of the Arrangement.”
This new clause would require the Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be brought before the House for a vote.
New clause 18—Access to dental provision: Dental deserts—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to improve access to dental provision (“the Scheme”).
(2) The purpose of the Scheme is to end dental deserts.
(3) A dental desert is defined as any local authority area with fewer than ten active dental practices per 100,000 people.
(4) The Scheme must make provision to support integrated care boards to—
(a) guarantee emergency access to an NHS dentist,
(b) provide free dental check-ups for—
(i) children,
(ii) mothers within one year of having given birth,
(iii) pregnant women, and
(iv) low-income households,
(c) guarantee dental appointments for persons commencing—
(i) surgery,
(ii) chemotherapy, or
(iii) transplant procedures.
(5) The Secretary of State must, before publishing the Scheme, issue a reformed dental contract.
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the establishment of the scheme, publish a dental workforce plan to support delivery of the scheme.”
This new clause would establish a scheme to support integrated care boards to end dental deserts.
New clause 21—GP representation on integrated care boards—
“(1) An integrated care board must include as a member at least one individual who—
(a) is a registered medical practitioner, and
(b) has current or recent experience of providing primary medical services under Part 4 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
(2) In appointing a member under subsection (1) an integrated care board must have regard to the member’s potential contribution to improving—
(a) patient journeys across services,
(b) coordination and continuity of care,
(c) prevention and population health management, and
(d) integration of services at neighbourhood level.”
This new clause would ensure that each integrated care board includes at least one member who is a registered medical practitioner, and has current or recent experience of providing primary medical services under Part 4 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
New clause 22—Duty to engage primary care providers in integrated care boards—
“(1) An integrated care board must take all reasonable steps to secure the meaningful involvement of primary care providers in the exercise of its functions relating to—
(a) service redesign,
(b) integration of health services,
(c) development of neighbourhood health services, and
(d) population health planning.
(2) In this section, “primary care providers” includes—
(a) providers of primary medical services,
(b) community pharmacy contractors,
(c) providers of primary dental services, and
(d) providers of ophthalmic services.
(3) Under subsection (1), “meaningful involvement” includes—
(a) involvement at an early stage in the development of ICB proposals,
(b) provision of sufficient information to enable informed participation of primary care providers in ICB functions,
(c) opportunities for primary care providers to influence ICB decision making, and
(d) opportunities for primary care providers to deliver feedback on how their views have been taken into account in the delivery of ICB functions.
(4) An integrated care board must publish an annual statement describing—
(a) how it has complied with this section, and
(b) the impact of primary care providers’ involvement on decisions taken by the ICB.
(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the application of this section to which integrated care boards must have regard.”
This new clause ensures a certain range of primary care providers are consulted by integrated care boards in the development of their healthcare plans.
New clause 23—Duty of care for victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls—
“The Secretary of State and integrated care boards have a duty of care to consider the needs of victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls when exercising their functions in relation to the provision of healthcare services.”
This new clause would place a duty of care on the Secretary of State and integrated care boards to consider the needs of victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls when exercising their functions in relation to the provision of healthcare services.
New clause 25—Continuity of care and clinical responsibility—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that every patient has access to a named NHS General Practitioner.
(2) Regulations under this section must make provision for pregnant women to have access to a named clinician for the period of their pregnancy.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 29—Senior leadership training at NHS trusts—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review on the effectiveness of training for senior leadership in NHS trusts on—
(a) workplace culture standards,
(b) addressing bullying, and
(c) addressing discrimination on the basis of—
(i) sex,
(ii) race, and
(iii) any other protected characteristic which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) Within one month of the publication of the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish guidance based on the review for the Department of Health and Social Care to administer to NHS trusts.”
New clause 32—Privacy by design in NHS Single Patient Record and Federated Data Platform architecture—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that there is privacy by design as part of the delivery of the NHS Federated Data Platform architecture.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), privacy by design includes—
(a) patient data anonymisation outside its usage by clinicians and within the National Data Integration Tenant; and
(b) patient consent for the processing of personal information by NHS.”
New clause 33—NHS ownership of connection software—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that there is NHS ownership of any data connector software architecture used as part of the delivery of the NHS Single Patient Record or Federated Data Platform.
(2) In this section, a data connector means an interface or connection between the NHS Federated Data Platform and any other health system.”
New clause 34—Retendering of contract for the NHS Federated Data Platform—
“The Secretary of State must, before February 2027, commence a competitive retendering for the contract to provide the NHS Federated Data Platform.”
New clause 35—NHS contracting for IT or data services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by regulations establish a governance framework for the contracting of any IT or data services by the Department of Health and Social Care or any NHS organisation.
(2) The framework established under subsection (1) must include the following provisions—
(a) a party may not bid for any contract for services where such services have previously been provided by the party on a free trial basis;
(b) the automatic extension of contracts should be subject to audit by the National Audit Office;
(c) contract terms must include provision for the department or NHS organisation to take ownership of any bespoke system built or developed by the contractor during the delivery of the contract;
(d) the department or NHS organisation must, at the end of the contract period (or following any extensions) conduct a competitive retendering process; and
(e) where a retendering process takes place under subsection (2)(d), the contractor may not assist in the preparation of the contract specification.
(3) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 36—Transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the abolition of NHS England takes effect, prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out a transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England (the "strategy").
(2) The strategy must—
(a) identify and map critical functions and areas of expertise currently exercised by NHS England, including clinical, operational, analytical and patient engagement capabilities;
(b) assess the risk of loss of knowledge, skills and organisational capacity arising from the abolition of NHS England;
(c) set out the steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to ensure the retention and effective transfer of such functions, expertise, knowledge and skills; and
(d) assess the likely impact of the transition on the delivery of key health programmes and services, including cancer services.
(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of not more than 12 months, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the transition strategy.
(4) A report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) progress on workforce retention;
(b) arrangements for the transfer of knowledge, expertise and institutional capability; and
(c) any identified gaps in capability and the steps being taken to address them.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before the abolition of NHS England, setting out how critical functions and expertise will be identified, retained and transferred. It would also require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at least annually on the implementation of that strategy.
New clause 38—General Ophthalmic Services: national framework, tariff and protected funding—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish and maintain a national service specification for the primary ophthalmic services referred to in section 115 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (in this section referred to as general ophthalmic services, "GOS"), setting out the minimum standards of access and provision that integrated care boards are required to secure.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must establish and maintain a national tariff for GOS, setting out the prices at which GOS must be commissioned by integrated care boards.
(3) An integrated care board must commission GOS in accordance with the national service specification and national tariff established under subsections (1) and (2), and may not exercise any discretion to vary, restrict or reduce provision below the standards so specified.
(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that funding for GOS is allocated to integrated care boards as a ring-fenced, protected funding stream, which—
(a) may not be applied by an integrated care board to purposes other than GOS; and
(b) may not be reduced by an integrated care board in order to meet expenditure requirements in respect of other services.
(5) In determining any expenditure limits or resource allocations for integrated care boards under the National Health Service Act 2006, the Secretary of State must calculate and separately identify the GOS component of each board's allocation.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in each calendar year assessing the extent to which integrated care boards have complied with their obligations under this section.”
New clause 39—Community equipment and wheelchair services: standards, performance and outcomes—
“(1) Each integrated care board must publish standards which apply in its area in relation to the assessment for and supply of community equipment and wheelchair services.
(2) Each integrated care board must monitor its performance against the standards under subsection (1).
(3) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report including—
(a) performance against the standards under subsection (1),
(b) waiting times for the assessment for and supply of community equipment and wheelchair services,
(c) the number and proportion of people waiting longer than 18 weeks for such equipment or services,
(d) outcomes achieved for people by the provision of community equipment and wheelchair services, and
(e) steps taken by the integrated care board to improve the assessment for, and supply of, community equipment and wheelchair services.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“community equipment and wheelchair services” means equipment, aids, home adaptations or appliances provided to support a person’s independence, safety, care or daily living at home or in the community, including hoists, hospital beds, pressure-relieving mattresses, commodes, shower chairs, walking frames, grab rails, ramps, specialist seating, postural support equipment, associated mobility equipment, and wheelchairs.”
This new clause would require each integrated care board must publish standards which apply in its area in relation to the assessment for and supply of community equipment and wheelchair services and publish an annual report on their adherence to these standards.
New clause 40—Regulation of online fertility services—
“(1) The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 5 insert—
“5A. Regulation of online fertility services
(1) The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority shall be responsible for the licensing of organisations providing online fertility services in England and Wales.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision regarding the arrangements for the licensing of organisations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative procedure.””
This new clause would implement a recommendation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to extend its regulatory remit to include organisations providing online fertility services.
New clause 43—Duty to reduce variation in clinical research funding—
“In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—
(a) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access clinical research opportunities and participate in clinical trials, and
(b) reduce regional variation in the distribution of clinical research funding across England.”
This new clause would require the place a duty on the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities across England with respect to access to clinical research opportunities and participate in clinical trials and the distribution of clinical research funding across.
Amendment 46, in schedule 12, page 151, leave out paragraph 98.
This amendment is consequential on NC67.
New clause 48—National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation final report and recommendations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a response to the final report and recommendations of the National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation.
(2) The response under subsection (1) must include an action plan covering each of the recommendations of the Investigation.
(3) The action plan must have regard for hospitals—
(a) where negligent care has been identified in the provision of maternity and neonatal services, or
(b) where risk factors have been identified that are associated with potential negligent care in the provision of maternity and neonatal services.
(4) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament each year on the progress made in delivering the action plan.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an action plan in response to the final report and recommendations of the National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation.
New clause 50—Independence of appointments—
“The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that operational decisions regarding the appointment, suspension or removal of—
(a) chairs and directors of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, and
(b) chief executives of integrated care boards,
are made exclusively by persons employed in the civil service, upon strictly merit-based criteria.”
This new clause would ensure that any decisions over NHS trusts and ICB leadership are made by civil servants, rather than the Secretary of State, to ensure appointments are made on merit.
New clause 51—Accident and Emergency: waiting times”
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision relating to Accident and Emergency Department admission.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) must by regulations amend the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012 to place a right in the NHS Constitution for England for every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.
(3) The Secretary of State must establish and implement an Accident and Emergency Scheme (“the Scheme”) to support NHS hospital trusts to achieve the requirement set out in subsection (2).
(4) The Scheme must consider—
(a) creating safety-net social care beds,
(b) increasing step-down care,
(c) publishing a dedicated accident and emergency care workforce plan, and
(d) mandating a qualified clinician is present in every Accident and Emergency waiting room.
(5) The Secretary of State must have due regard to the final report of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in establishing the scheme.”
This new clause gives patients a new right in the NHS constitution to be admitted into A&E within 12 hours from decision to admit and requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to achieve this.
New clause 53—Right to a GP appointment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to provide every patient with the right to a GP appointment within seven days of seeking one, or 24 hours if urgent.
(2) The Secretary of State must amend the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012 to make the right under subsection (1) a right in the NHS constitution.
(3) The Secretary of State may review the scheme every three years from the day on which this Act is passed and amend it through regulations made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“GP appointment” means an appointment with an appropriate clinician within a GP practice.
“Urgent” means the current definition under GP triaging protocols.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to give patients a new right in the NHS constitution to receive a GP appointment within 7 days, or 24 hours if urgent, and establishes a scheme to deliver this.
New clause 54—Duty to identify and record unpaid carers—
“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—
“Duty to identify and record unpaid carers
(1) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to identify persons within its area who are unpaid carers.
(2) An integrated care board must make arrangements to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area—
(a) maintain appropriate systems for recording whether a person is an unpaid carer,
(b) use consistent coding standards for the recording of unpaid carers in health records,
(c) review and update records relating to unpaid carers at appropriate intervals, and
(d) ensure that the identification and recording of unpaid carers forms part of—
(i) primary care registration processes,
(ii) hospital discharge procedures,
(iii) care planning processes, and
(iv) other relevant patient contact pathways.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "unpaid carer" means a person who provides or intends to provide care for another person otherwise than by virtue of a contract or other voluntary work.””
This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to identify and record unpaid carers when they come into contact with NHS services.
New clause 55—Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers—
“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—
“Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers
(1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers within its area.
(2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by carers,
(b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health,
(c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and
(d) the need to ensure carers are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support.
(3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area—
(a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes,
(b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and
(c) provide carers with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing.
(4) In preparing a Joint Forward Plan, an integrated care board must include—
(a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of carers within its area,
(b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for carers, and
(c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by carers.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “unpaid carer"” means a person who provides or intends to provide care for another person otherwise than by virtue of a contract or other voluntary work.””
This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers.
New clause 56—National Respite Care Scheme—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) where a local authority carries out an assessment of the needs of an unpaid carer, under any enactment for the time being in force in England, it must assess whether the unpaid carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring responsibilities,
(b) unpaid carers to receive support to take breaks from their caring responsibilities to—
(i) maintain their physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing,
(ii) participate in work, education, training or recreation, and
(iii) participate in family and community life,
(c) a carer to receive appropriate support if a local authority carrying out an assessment under subsection (2)(a) determines that a carer is unable to take sufficient breaks from caring.
(3) Under subsection (2), “support” may include—
(a) replacement care for the cared-for person;
(b) respite services;
(c) any other steps a local authority considers appropriate as support.
(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient support to local authorities to ensure the scheme under subsection (1) is delivered in every local authority.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“unpaid carer” means a person who provides or intends to provide care for another person otherwise than by virtue of a contract or other voluntary work;
“parent carer” has the same meaning as in section 17ZD of the Children Act 1989;
“young carer” has the same meaning as in section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
New clause 57—Integrated Care Boards: Scrutiny Committee—
“(1) Each integrated care board must establish a Scrutiny Committee.
(2) Each Committee established under subsection (1) must—
(a) oversee the operation of the integrated care board,
(b) ensure accountability of the integrated care board with regards to—
(i) allocation of resources;
(ii) grievance and complaint management;
(iii) innovation and service redesign in line with Government objectives;
(iv) delivery of services;
(v) integration with social care;
(vi) advancing public health objectives;
(vii) issues relating to workforce or estate; and
(viii) any other issues as designated by the Secretary of State.
(c) have the power to undertake inquiries into innovation on services delivery and outcomes.
(3) The Committee must comprise—
(a) Members of Parliament representing constituencies in the area covered by the integrated care board,
(b) Chairs of local government health and social care committees in the area covered by the integrated care board,
(c) representatives from Healthwatch England or any patient participation network designated by the Secretary of State, and
(d) Representatives from trade unions including—
(i) two representatives from unions involved in negotiations on Agenda for Change, and
(ii) one representative from a trade union representing doctors or dentists.
(4) The Committee must meet six times each year.
(5) The Chair of the Committee must be elected at an annual general meeting of the Committee.
(6) The Committee must report to the Board of the integrated care board.
(7) The Chair and Chief Executive of each integrated care board and leaders of health providers and services must attend a meeting of a Committee when requested to do so.
(8) Each Committee will report to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.”
New clause 66—Maternity services: safe staffing levels—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that maternity staffing levels are sufficient to ensure all residents in England can access a staffed maternity unit within 45 minutes of their home.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure adequate workforce planning, including through delivery of a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist recruitment and retention plan, to ensure that maternity units are not required to close as a result of staffing issues.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on the progress made on national maternity staffing levels under this section.”
This new clause would ensure that no maternity units are forced to close as a result of staffing issues and that every person in England has access to a maternity unit within 45 minutes of their home.
New clause 67—Workforce planning and supply—
“(1) After section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—
“1ZA Secretary of State’s duty as to workforce planning and supply
(1) The Secretary of State must promote in England a comprehensive system of workforce planning and supply designed to secure that there are sufficient people with the necessary skills and experience to provide services as part of the health service.
(2) In meeting the requirement under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must exercise the functions conferred by this Act so as to secure that the workforce needs of the health service are assessed and met.
(3) The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for workforce planning and supply for the health service in England.”
(2) For section 1GA of the National Health Service Act 2006 substitute—
“Workforce strategy
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy setting out how the Secretary of State proposes to discharge the duty under section 1ZA.
(2) The strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current workforce of the health service;
(b) projections of the workforce required to meet the needs of the health service over periods of five, ten and fifteen years beginning with the day on which the strategy is published;
(c) an assessment of the expected supply of people available to meet those requirements;
(d) an assessment of any difference between the projected workforce requirements and expected workforce supply;
(e) the measures that the Secretary of State proposes to take to address any such difference; and
(f) an assessment of the financial and other resources required to implement those measures.
(3) In preparing or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) integrated care boards;
(b) NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts;
(c) persons providing services as part of the health service;
(d) trade unions representing persons employed or otherwise engaged in the provision of those services;
(e) professional bodies and professional regulators;
(f) persons concerned with the provision of education and training for the workforce;
(g) persons representing patients; and
(h) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The first strategy under this section must be published before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(5) The Secretary of State must—
(a) review the strategy before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which it was last published, and
(b) following each review, publish a revised strategy.
(6) The Secretary of State may revise the strategy before the end of that period if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of each strategy published under this section.
(8) The Secretary of State must have regard to the strategy when exercising functions in relation to the health service.””
This new clause places responsibility for workforce planning and supply for the health service in England on the Secretary of State, including ministerial responsibility to Parliament. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy setting out projected workforce requirements and supply, and the measures and resources needed to meet those requirements.
New clause 69—Self-care—
“In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1C insert—
“1CA Duty as to self-care
In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the importance of—
(a) promoting self-care and improving health literacy as part of the prevention of illness and the improvement of health and wellbeing;
(b) supporting people to manage self-treatable conditions independently where appropriate; and
(c) the role of community pharmacy in supporting self-care and prevention and helping people to access appropriate care.””
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when exercising functions in relation to the health service, to have regard to the importance of promoting self-care and improving health literacy, supporting people to manage self-treatable conditions, and the role of community pharmacy in supporting self-care and prevention.
New clause 74—Protection of pharmacy staff during provider failure—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish arrangements to protect the pay and essential employment protections of staff employed by a provider of pharmaceutical services where the provider—
(a) becomes insolvent,
(b) ceases to provide pharmaceutical services,
(c) has its arrangements for providing pharmaceutical services suspended or terminated, or
(d) is otherwise unable to meet its obligations to its employees.
(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) must provide for—
(a) the continuation, so far as reasonably practicable, of payment of wages to affected staff,
(b) the preservation of essential employment protections during the period of emergency intervention,
(c) the maintenance of staffing necessary for the safe provision of pharmaceutical services, and
(d) the transfer, continuation or replacement of employment arrangements where necessary to secure continuity of pharmaceutical services.
(3) The Secretary of State may make payments to, or in respect of, affected staff for the purposes of this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may recover from the failed provider any sums paid under subsection (3).
(5) Arrangements under this section must be capable of operating at the same time as arrangements made under section 133 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to secure alternative provision of pharmaceutical services.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the operation of arrangements under this section.”
This new clause would protect pharmacy staff's pay and essential employment rights when a provider fails, while supporting continuity of services.
New clause 75—Integrated primary care teams—
“(1) Each integrated care board must make arrangements to promote the provision of joined-up primary care services across general practice, primary dental services and pharmaceutical services.
(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) must, so far as reasonably practicable, provide for—
(a) general practitioners, dentists, pharmacists and other relevant primary care professionals to work together as part of integrated local primary care teams;
(b) the sharing of relevant patient information between those professionals through secure and interoperable digital systems;
(c) the use of common or interoperable care records, so that relevant clinical information can be accessed by an authorised professional involved in a patient's care;
(d) appropriate mechanisms for referral and communication between general practice, dental practices and community pharmacies;
(e) the reduction of duplication in assessments, prescribing, referrals and administrative processes; and
(f) improved continuity and coordination of care for patients with multiple or ongoing health needs.
(3) In exercising its functions under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to the need to ensure that patients can move between general practice, primary dental services and pharmaceutical services without unnecessary duplication, delay or loss of relevant clinical information.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) minimum interoperability standards for systems used by providers of primary medical, dental and pharmaceutical services;
(b) standards for the secure exchange of patient information;
(c) common data standards and clinical terminology;
(d) electronic referrals and communications between providers; and
(e) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers necessary to support integrated primary care.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) must include appropriate safeguards for patient confidentiality, information governance and the lawful processing of personal data.
(6) In this section—
“primary care team” means a group of health professionals and providers working together to provide or coordinate primary care services;
“primary dental services” has the meaning given by section 98C of the National Health Service Act 2006; and
“pharmaceutical services” includes services provided under Part 7 of that Act.”
This new clause would promote joined-up working between GPs, dentists and pharmacists to improve coordination and continuity of care.
New clause 79—Voluntary sector role in neighbourhood health plans—
“(1) In preparing a neighbourhood health plan, a responsible local authority and integrated care board must take and demonstrate reasonable steps to ensure the plan is co-produced with meaningful involvement by the local voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in that area, including the development, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the plan.
(2) In meeting the requirement under subsection (1) a local authority and integrated care board must in particular have regard to—
(a) organisations representing people with lived experience of health conditions;
(b) organisations working with underserved or marginalised populations; and
(c) the role of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in delivering community-based services.
(3) The responsible local authority and integrated care board must demonstrate how they have ensured ongoing and meaningful representation of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations across the governance, decision-making and commissioning arrangements relating to neighbourhood health plans at all stages of the planning process.”
This new clause would require local authorities and integrated care boards to take and demonstrate reasonable steps to ensure neighbourhood health plans are co-produced with meaningful involvement by the local voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the local area.
New clause 80—Power to enable reservation and prioritisation of contracts for the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector—
“(1) In exercising their commissioning functions, integrated care boards must take reasonable steps to secure the participation of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in the provision of services.
(2) The Secretary of State must through regulations enable integrated care boards to reserve and/or prioritise contracts to be delivered by voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations as part of their commissioning process.
(3) Circumstances in which contracts may be appropriate to be reserved or prioritised under subsection (2) include—
(a) services that are, or could be, community-based;
(b) services that are intended to reach populations that are underserved, marginalised, or experiencing health inequalities; or
(c) where voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations are best placed to deliver person-centred and/or culturally competent care.
(4) In exercising functions under this section, integrated care boards must have regard to—
(a) the need to reduce health inequalities;
(b) the importance of securing equitable access to services across different areas; and
(c) the sustainability of voluntary, community and social enterprise provision.”
This new clause would require integrated care boards to take reasonable steps to secure the participation of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in the provision of services through the ICB commissioning process.
New clause 85—Duties on integrated care boards regarding education, health and care plans—
“(1) The Secretary of State must exercise the powers in Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (children with special education needs) with a view to securing that integrated care boards (“ICBs”) are subject to the same relevant requirements as local authorities in relation to the duty to secure the specified special educational provision for a child or young person in the preparation of education, health and care plans (“EHC plans”) under that Part.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relevant requirements are—
(a) that the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC plan meets the needs identified by an EHC needs assessment;
(b) that ICBs can be required to provide such special educational provision;
(c) that ICBs must provide such special educational provision from the date the EHC plan is finalised or issued;
(d) that ICBs are subject to appeals to the First-tier Tribunal in accordance with section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014; and
(e) that any duty on ICBs to provide such special educational provision does not impact upon an ICB’s duty to arrange health care provision, where this is required by an EHC plan.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations placing a statutory duty on integrated care boards to ensure that where an EHC plan specifies special education provision, they are subject to the same duty as local authorities to ensure that this is arranged for the child or young person.
New clause 90—Duty to reduce health inequalities—
“(1) Section 2B of the National Health Service Act 2006 (functions of local authorities and Secretary of State as to improvement of public health) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “health” insert “and reduction of health inequalities”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for “may” substitute “must”; and
(b) after “England” insert “and reducing health inequalities between the people of England”.
(4) In subsection (3), after paragraph (g) insert—
“(h) collaborating with any government department or local authority.”
(5) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) In this section, “health inequalities between the people of England” means health inequalities between persons, or persons of different descriptions, living in England or in different parts of England.
(7) In this section, “health inequalities” means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants.
(8) In subsection (7), “general health determinants” include—
(a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety;
(b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water;
(c) employment prospects, earning capacity and any other matters that affect levels of prosperity;
(d) the degree of ease or difficulty with which persons have access to public services;
(e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health; and
(f) any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.
(9) In subsection (2), the reference to reducing health inequalities includes mitigating any increase in health inequalities which would otherwise be occasioned by the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions.””
New clause 91—Health improvement and health inequalities strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a health improvement and health inequalities strategy.
(2) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The strategy must include—
(a) long-term targets relating to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities in England throughout a person's life;
(b) provision for the establishment of a public authority with functions relating to the additional monitoring of, and reporting on, progress towards the targets included in the strategy in accordance with paragraph (a); and
(c) such other provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The long-term targets included in the strategy in accordance with subsection (3)(a) must include—
(a) at least one target relating to the improvement of the health of persons under the age of 18 in England; and
(b) at least one target relating to the improvement of the health of persons aged 18 or over in England.
(5) A Minister of the Crown must, in exercising the Minister’s functions, have regard to the strategy.
(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the implementation of the strategy—
(a) within 12 months of the publication of the strategy; and
(b) at intervals of no more than 12 months thereafter.
(7) In this section, “health inequalities” means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants.”
New clause 93—State of NHS Dentistry report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the state of NHS dentistry in England (“the State of Dentistry Report”) at least once every two years.
(2) The State of Dentistry Report must include an assessment of—
(a) access to NHS dental services and levels of unmet need;
(b) the adequacy, distribution and sustainability of the NHS dental workforce, including general dental services, community dental services, hospital dental services, dental public health consultants and dental academia;
(c) geographical inequalities in access to NHS dental services and oral health outcomes;
(d) inequalities in access to NHS dental services and oral health outcomes between different socioeconomic groups and populations, including but not limited to people living in care homes and people experiencing homelessness;
(e) demand and waiting times for dental treatment in community dental services and secondary care;
(f) the extent to which inadequate access to NHS dental services contributes to avoidable pressure on other parts of the NHS, including primary medical care, urgent and emergency care, hospital services and the prescribing of medicines; and
(g) the measures required to address any deficiencies or inequalities identified under paragraphs (a) to (f).
(3) The report must include such indicators as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for assessing each of the matters set out in subsection (2), and those indicators must, wherever appropriate, be presented in a manner that enables comparisons to be made between different areas and populations and over time, including by reference to population size, full-time equivalent workforce and other relevant measures.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure that NHS dental services are sufficient to meet the current and projected need for dental care in England.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of publishing a State of Dentistry Report, set out the measures the Government intends to take in response to the findings of the report.
(6) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for each State of Dentistry Report, and the Government's response to it, to be debated in each House of Parliament.
(7) The first State of Dentistry Report must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the state of NHS dentistry in England, assessing access to and unmet need for NHS dental services, workforce capacity and distribution, geographical and wider inequalities, and the pressure that inadequate access to NHS dental services places on other parts of the NHS. It would also require the Government to respond to each report and ensure that both the report and response are debated in Parliament.
New clause 104—NHS-funded In Vitro Fertilisation—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make arrangements for the standardised provision of NHS-funded In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF).
(2) Provision under this section must, in accordance with any existing NICE guidelines, set requirements for all integrated care boards in England relating to NHS-funded IVF.
(3) Requirements under subsection (2) include—
(a) standardisation of the minimum number of rounds of IVF available to one individual, and
(b) standardisation of the maximum and minimum age at which an individual can access IVF.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations standardising NHS-funded IVF provision across all integrated care boards in England, in accordance with existing NICE guidelines, including the number of rounds available to an individual and the age limits for access.
New clause 106—Report on the duty to co-operate—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on—
(a) the operation of the duty to co-operate under section 72 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (co-operation between NHS bodies) and section 82 of that Act (co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities), and
(b) the impact of those duties on the integration of health and social care in England.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider co-operation between—
(a) relevant NHS bodies, and
(b) relevant NHS bodies and local authorities,
in the delivery and commissioning of health and social care.
(3) Within six months of the report under subsection (1) being laid, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make provision to update guidance on the duty to co-operate, and
(b) implement actions to strengthen integration in the report which the Secretary of State considers most appropriate.”
This new clause would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament, within six months of the Act passing, on how well NHS bodies and local authorities are working together to integrate health and social care in England. It would also place a requirement on the Secretary of State to update the related guidance and take action to strengthen this cooperation six months later.
New clause 108—NHS ethical and sustainable procurement framework—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the NHS’s ethical and sustainable procurement framework.
(2) Following the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that contracting authorities can exclude companies from bidding for a tender on the basis of any proven—
(a) involvement in violations of international law and/or,
(b) breaches of internationally accepted standards of business conduct including—
(i) the UN Guiding Principles and,
(ii) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.”
New clause 109—Artificial intelligence governance and auditing—
“(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on the—
(a) governance,
(b) monitoring,
(c) assurance, and
(d) audit of artificial intelligence (AI) systems used in health and care settings.
(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—
(a) requirements for healthcare organisations to maintain an inventory of AI systems used in clinical and operational processes,
(b) requirements for proportionate monitoring, by the healthcare organisations, of AI systems throughout their operational lifecycle, including safety, performance and effectiveness,
(c) processes for identifying, investigating and responding to material deterioration in AI system performance,
(d) arrangements for documenting accountability and decision-making responsibilities relating to AI deployment and use,
(e) expectations regarding transparency, reporting, and ability to audit AI enabled services.
(3) Each health and care setting required to implement guidance under this section must designate a senior individual who is responsible for—
(a) the monitoring, assurance and audit of AI systems under subsection (1) in their health or care setting;
(b) supporting AI providers and vendors to perform their post market surveillance as required;
(c) addressing the governance of legacy AI systems; and
(d) addressing the governance and impact of decommissioning of AI systems.
(4) The Care Quality Commission must have regard to the guidance published under subsection (1) when exercising its functions.
(5) The Care Quality Commission should assess whether providers have appropriate arrangements in place for the—
(a) governance,
(b) monitoring, and
(c) safe use of artificial intelligence systems, and may require evidence that such arrangements are operating effectively.”
New clause 119—Report into digital health services in rural and coastal areas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the equality of access to and quality of digital health services in rural and coastal areas within 12 months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an action plan to ensure rural and coastal practices are able to provide remote consultations and electronic prescription services.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on equality of access to and quality of digital health services in rural and coastal areas.
New clause 120—Farmer friendly accredited general practice scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must create a farmer friendly accredited general practice scheme to recognise and resource GP practices that proactively reach farming communities.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1) should be modelled on Royal College of GPs’ Veteran Friendly Accreditation scheme.
(3) The Secretary of State must instruct the CQC to develop clear guidance for the farmer friendly accredited general practice scheme which supports delivery of care in non-clinical community settings with proportionate hygiene protocols that reflect the setting.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to create a farmer friendly accredited general practice scheme.
New clause 121—Continuity of specified national diabetes programmes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must secure that the programmes listed in subsection (2) continue to be provided, to at least the same extent as immediately before the abolition of NHS England.
(2) The programmes referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme;
(b) the NHS Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Programme;
(c) national provision for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for people with diabetes;
(d) the national roll-out of hybrid closed loop (“artificial pancreas”) technology for people with type 1 diabetes;
(e) the National Diabetes Audit programme, including the National Diabetes Footcare Audit and the National Diabetes Inpatient Safety Audit;
(f) any other programme specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Before making a scheme under section 2 for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities relating to a programme listed in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining how continuity of that programme is to be maintained.
(4) Before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and at least once every subsequent period of 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the provision of the programmes listed in subsection (2), including information on patient access, waiting times and outcomes.
(5) Regulations under subsection (2)(f) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain existing national diabetes prevention, treatment and audit programmes following the abolition of NHS England, to explain how continuity will be secured before transferring related functions, and to report annually to Parliament on their provision.
New clause 122—Report on effect of abolition of NHS England on diabetes services—
“(1) Before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 1 comes into force, and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter for the following 3 years, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of the abolition of NHS England on the planning, funding and delivery of diabetes prevention, treatment and care services in England.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) any change in funding allocated to diabetes prevention, treatment and care programmes;
(b) any change to the operation or continuation of national clinical audits relating to diabetes;
(c) the impact on patient access to diabetes technology, including glucose monitoring and insulin delivery systems;
(d) the impact on workforce capacity in specialist diabetes services.”
This new clause would require the Government to monitor and report to Parliament on the impact of NHS England's abolition specifically on diabetes services.
New clause 133—England and Wales cross-border healthcare: statement of values and principles—
“(1) The Secretary of State and each integrated care board must, in exercising functions relating to the provision or commissioning of health services to persons residing in an area of England or Wales close to the border between England and Wales, have regard to the 2018 England / Wales Cross-border Healthcare Services: Statement of Values and Principles.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “the England / Wales Cross-border Healthcare Services: Statement of Values and Principles” means the statement published by NHS England and the Welsh Ministers on 6 November 2018, or a revised statement designated by regulations under subsection (3).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a revised version of the Statement for the purposes of this section.
(4) Before making regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers;
(b) each integrated care board whose area is close to the border between England and Wales;
(c) each Local Health Board whose area is close to the border between England and Wales; and
(d) such organisations representing patients affected by cross-border healthcare arrangements as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State and integrated care boards to have regard to the England / Wales Cross-border Healthcare Services: Statement of Values and Principles when exercising relevant functions in areas close to the England-Wales border. It would also enable the Secretary of State to designate a revised version of the Statement, following consultation with the Welsh Ministers, relevant integrated care boards and Local Health Boards, and organisations representing patients affected by cross-border healthcare arrangements.
New clause 134—England and Wales cross-border healthcare arrangements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, seek to agree with the Welsh Ministers a revised England / Wales Cross-border Healthcare Services: Statement of Values and Principles.
(2) In preparing the revised Statement under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consider—
(a) the effectiveness of existing arrangements for the provision and commissioning of cross-border health care services;
(b) the interests of patients who live in England or Wales and receive, or may receive, health services on the other side of the border;
(c) arrangements for the commissioning and funding of cross-border healthcare services;
(d) arrangements for resolving disputes between relevant bodies in England and Wales; and
(e) the appropriate means of placing the principles governing England and Wales cross-border health care services on a statutory footing.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act—
(a) publish the revised Statement agreed under subsection (1), or, where no revised Statement has been agreed, publish a report setting out the steps taken to seek such agreement and the reasons why agreement has not been reached;
(b) lay the revised Statement or report before Parliament; and
(c) lay before Parliament proposals for placing the principles governing England and Wales cross-border healthcare services on a statutory footing.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to seek agreement with the Welsh Ministers on a revised England / Wales Cross-border Healthcare Services: Statement of Values and Principles within 18 months of the passing of the Act. It would also require the Secretary of State, within two years, to lay the revised Statement, or a report where agreement has not been reached, before Parliament and to bring forward proposals for placing the principles governing England and Wales cross-border healthcare services on a statutory footing.
New clause 135—Reporting on mortality inequalities for autistic people and people with learning disabilities—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the mortality inequalities experienced by autistic people and people with a learning disability.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must specify targets for reducing mortality inequalities between people without a learning disability and autistic people and people with any learning disability.
(3) Within 3 months of the publication of the report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must make regulations which require ICBs to publish an annual report which includes—
(a) mortality rates for—
(i) autistic people,
(ii) people with any learning disability,
(iii) people without a learning disability.
(b) identification of any areas in which data collection on mortality inequalities experienced by autistic people and people with learning disabilities is inadequate,
(c) a review of the reasons for any inequalities in mortality rates,
(d) a plan for reducing inequalities in mortality rates between people without a learning disability and autistic people and people with any learning disability.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) must make provision for the annual reports to continue for as long as mortality inequalities between people without a learning disability and autistic people and people with any learning disability exist.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report summarising the information in the ICB reports under subsection (3), identifying national trends in—
(a) mortality rates,
(b) reasons for inequalities in mortality rates,
(c) potential actions to reduce inequalities in mortality rates.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the mortality inequalities experienced by autistic people and people with a learning disability and make provision for ICBs to publish annual reports on such inequalities in their area and proposed actions for remedying such inequalities.
New clause 136—North Cornwall: Dental appointments—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must ensure that there is adequate provision of NHS dentistry in North Cornwall.
(2) Adequate provision under subsection (1) means—
(a) access to urgent dental appointments for any person with an urgent need, and
(b) improved access to routine dental appointments.
(3) The Secretary of State must explain any failure to meet the requirement set out in subsection (1) at a public event in the local area.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure there is adequate provision of NHS dental appointments in North Cornwall.
New clause 144—Prioritising British citizens for the UK foundation programme—
“(1) The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4, after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A person is within this subsection if they—
(a) are a British citizen, and
(b) hold a primary medical qualification from an international branch campus of a higher education institution in the United Kingdom.””
This new clause amends the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places.
New clause 145—Response to the Hughes Report: options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh—
“The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish the Government’s response to the Hughes Report.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the Government’s response to the Hughes Report within 30 days of this Act being passed.
New clause 152—Requirement for merit-based job allocations for doctors—
“(1) The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, at end insert—
“(2) Applicants eligible under this section shall be prioritised based on merit, determined by reference to the applicant’s—
(a) qualifications,
(b) professional competence,
(c) clinical experience,
(d) skills, and
(e) ability to perform the duties of the post.”
(3) In section 2, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Applicants eligible under subsection (1) shall be prioritised based on merit, determined by reference to the applicant’s—
(a) qualifications,
(b) professional competence,
(c) clinical experience,
(d) skills, and
(e) ability to perform the duties of the post.”
(4) In section 3, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Applicants eligible under subsection (1) shall be prioritised based on merit, determined by reference to the applicant’s—
(a) qualifications,
(b) professional competence,
(c) clinical experience,
(d) skills, and
(e) ability to perform the duties of the post.””
New clause 153—Redundancies—
“The Secretary of State must publish, within 12, 24, and 48 months of the passage of this Act, the number of persons—
(a) employed by the Department for Health and Social Care, and
(b) made redundant following the abolishment of NHS England under subsection (1) of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the number of staff in the Department for Health and Social Care and the number of people made redundant following the abolishment of NHS England.
New clause 154—Medical training places—
“The Secretary of State must increase the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by the year 2031-32.”
This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to double the number of medical school training places.
New clause 155—Self-care and health literacy in neighbourhood health plans—
“(1) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 14Z58 of the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by section 24(4) of this Act (neighbourhood health plan) must require that every neighbourhood health plan includes arrangements for—
(a) supporting self-care and self-management, including by enabling people to manage minor and long-term conditions, and conditions that are self-limiting, themselves where it is safe and appropriate to do so;
(b) improving health literacy and ensuring that people living or working in the area have access to trusted, quality-assured information, advice and digital tools to support them in managing their own health and wellbeing;
(c) facilitating access to community pharmacy services, including pharmacy services that support self-care, the management of minor ailments and medicines optimisation;
(d) supporting patients to access the most appropriate level of care for their needs, including through patient-facing digital services connected to any system established under section 250E of the National Health Service Act 2006 (single patient record); and
(e) reducing avoidable demand on NHS services through the promotion of self-care and prevention.
(2) In preparing guidance under section 14Z58 of the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by section 24(4) of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) improving health literacy,
(b) the role of community pharmacy as an accessible point of contact for self-care support and health advice, and
(c) the contribution of digital tools and patient-facing services to enabling self-care, self-management and appropriate care navigation.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the date on which this Act is passed, publish a self-care strategy for England (the "self-care strategy") which must set out—
(a) the national framework within which neighbourhood health plans will be required to embed self-care and self-management, including the management of self-limiting conditions, as a core component of local health and care services;
(b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to promote self-care and health literacy as part of the prevention and early intervention agenda across the NHS;
(c) the role of community pharmacy in delivering the self-care strategy, including the services and information that community pharmacy is expected to provide in support of self-care;
(d) the role of patient-facing digital services, including any system established under section 250E of the National Health Service Act 2006, in supporting self-care, self-management and navigation to appropriate care;
(e) the steps the Secretary of State will take to reduce avoidable demand on NHS services through the promotion of self-care; and
(f) the measurable outcomes against which progress in implementing the self-care strategy will be assessed, and the arrangements for reporting on progress.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the self-care strategy before Parliament on the day on which it is published and must review and update it at least every three years.
(5) In this section—
“neighbourhood health plan” has the same meaning as in section 24 of this Act;
“self-care” means the actions taken by individuals to maintain their own health, manage minor or long-term conditions, including conditions that are self-limiting, and prevent ill health, including through the use of over-the-counter medicines, health information and digital tools.”
This new clause would require neighbourhood health plans to include arrangements for supporting self-care and self-management. It would require guidance to the responsible local authority and integrated care boards to reflect the guidance and require the Secretary of State to publish a national self-care strategy.
New clause 157—Report on delivery of transformative technology commitments—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the Government’s approach to delivering the transformative technology commitments in the document entitled “Fit for the Future: the 10 Year Health Plan for England” published in July 2025.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must cover the following areas—
(a) data quality, interoperability and the use of NHS data for research and innovation,
(b) artificial intelligence,
(c) genomics and predictive analytics,
(d) wearables and real-time monitoring, and
(e) robotics and precision technologies.
(3) The report must include—
(a) the principal milestones and intended outcomes for patients and the health service in each of the areas listed in subsection (2),
(b) the main risks to delivery and the steps being taken to mitigate them, and
(c) how progress will be measured.”
New clause 158—Progress reports on the women’s health strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and at least once every two years thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on progress in delivering the renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England (published April 2026) or any successor strategy.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) a summary of delivery against the actions listed in the strategy’s action summary tables, including which actions are on track, delayed or revised and the reasons why that is the case;
(b) data from the women’s health data dashboard (or any successor data publication) on performance, access, outcomes and experience at national and neighbourhood level; and
(c) a summary of ongoing engagement with women, including through the women’s voices partnership and patient-reported experience and outcome measures, and how that engagement has informed delivery.
(3) The report may incorporate or cross-refer to existing published material (including the action summary tables and the women’s health data dashboard) where this meets the requirements of subsection (2).”
New clause 160—Annual report on specialised services—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the commissioning and performance of specialised services commissioned by integrated care boards.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include information relating to—
(a) patient outcomes;
(b) access to services;
(c) waiting times;
(d) workforce capacity;
(e) service sustainability;
(f) geographical variation in services;
(g) compliance with national service specifications; and
(h) arrangements for the coordination of specialist, community and neighbourhood care.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on specialised services commissioned by integrated care boards.
New clause 162—Specialised services: annual report and published data—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, prepare a report on the performance of specialised services in England, measured against the relevant national standards for those services.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.
(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the regular publication of data on the quality and outcomes of specialised services, including, but not limited to, data of the kind currently published as Specialised Services Quality Dashboards.
(4) In this section, "specialised services" has the same meaning as in section 3B of the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended by this Act).”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the performance of specialised services against national standards, and to maintain regular publication of data on their quality and outcomes, equivalent to the Specialised Services Quality Dashboards currently produced by NHS England.
Amendment 102, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) Before NHS England is abolished, the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document").
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the "workforce transition plan").
(4) The operating model document must include—
(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;
(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;
(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and
(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.
(5) The workforce transition plan must include—
(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;
(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and
(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel before NHS England is abolished.
Amendment 19, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the access to health services and outcomes achieved for them between coastal and inland areas, and
(d) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the access to health services and outcomes achieved for them between rural and urban areas.”
This amendment would create a duty for the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities between coastal and inland areas and rural and urban areas.
Amendment 80, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) reduce inequalities in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diabetes, including variation in access to structured education, glucose monitoring technology and insulin pump therapy.”
This amendment would make diabetes-related health inequalities an explicit, named consideration within the Secretary of State's general duty to reduce inequalities, rather than leaving diabetes provision to be addressed only implicitly.
Amendment 95, in clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—
“(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must act with a view to enabling patients to make choices with respect to aspects of health services provided to them, including to make choices as to the provider of those services.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that patients referred for a service to be provided outside a hospital setting (“out-of-hospital services”) are offered a choice of provider of that service from among the providers available in their integrated care board area and, where relevant, in neighbouring areas, in accordance with regulations made under section 14Z45B.
(3) Regulations under section 14Z45B must provide that, where an out-of-hospital service is to be provided to a patient, the integrated care board must—
(a) offer the patient a choice of at least two providers capable of providing the service, which may include NHS bodies and independent sector providers approved to provide that service under arrangements with the integrated care board;
(b) provide the patient with information about each available provider to support an informed choice, including—
(i) indicative waiting times,
(ii) the location at which the service would be provided,
(iii) the quality ratings or outcomes data applicable to that provider for that service where such data is available, and
(iv) whether any costs may be incurred by the patient in travelling to or receiving the service with each provider;
(c) not exclude from the list of available providers any provider approved solely on grounds of commercial interest or organisational type; and
(d) take all reasonable steps to give effect to the patient's choice within a clinically appropriate timeframe.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “out-of-hospital services” means services—
(a) provided in community, primary care or ambulatory settings rather than in a hospital inpatient or outpatient department, and
(b) which the Secretary of State specifies by regulations as being within the scope of the choice obligation under subsection (2).
(5) For the purposes of this subsection (4)(b), out of hospital services which the Secretary of State may specify by regulations may include—
(a) diagnostic services,
(b) audiology and hearing aid care,
(c) podiatry,
(d) dietetics and nutrition,
(e) physiotherapy,
(f) ambulatory cardiac monitoring, and
(g) such other services as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) In specifying services under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the potential for the expansion of choice to reduce waiting times for the relevant service,
(b) the availability of sufficient independent and NHS providers to make genuine choice meaningful, and
(c) the desirability of ensuring access to choice for patients in all parts of England, including in rural and deprived areas.
(7) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, within 12 months of the date on which this Act is passed, a statement setting out—
(a) the out-of-hospital services for which choice obligations under subsection (2) will initially apply,
(b) the timetable for extending the choice obligation to further services, and
(c) the support that will be made available to patients, in particular those with limited digital access or literacy, to exercise the choices to which they are entitled under this section.
(8) The Secretary of State must review and update the statement required by subsection (6) at intervals of not more than two years.”
This amendment strengthens the new patient choice duty inserted by Clause 5 from a general aspiration into a specific, enforceable right to choose between providers for out-of-hospital services.
Amendment 37, in clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State must ensure that innovation in the provision of health services is supported and developed equitably across all regions of England, including by reducing inequalities in clinical research funding and clinical research capacity between different regions of England.”
This amendment would ensure that in exercising their duty to promote innovation in the provision of health services, the Secretary of State must ensure that innovation in the provision of health services is supported and developed equitably across all regions of England.
Amendment 81, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) The duty in subsection (1) includes, in particular, promoting innovation in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diabetes, including through the adoption of glucose monitoring and automated insulin delivery technologies.”
This amendment would ensure that the existing duty to promote innovation is understood to cover the specific diabetes technologies (flash/CGM and hybrid closed loop systems) currently being rolled out by NHS England ,so that momentum on adoption is not lost through the transfer of functions.
Amendment 97, page 6, line 12, leave out clause 10.
Amendment 38, in clause 11, page 6, line 28, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
“(1) Where the geographic area covered by an integrated care board sits within a Mayoral Combined Authority, the relevant Mayor may give integrated care boards directions as to the exercise of their functions.
(1A) Where the geographic area covered by an integrated care board does not sit within a Mayoral Combined Authority, the Secretary of State may give integrated care boards directions as to the exercise of their functions.”
This amendment would give direction-making powers over integrated care boards to Combined Authority Mayors where boards sit within their authority. The Secretary of State would retain direction-making power where there is no relevant Combined Authority Mayor.
Amendment 39, page 7, line 4, after “Secretary of State” insert “or relevant Combined Authority Mayor”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Amendment 40, page 7, line 11, after “Secretary of State” insert “or relevant Combined Authority Mayor”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Amendment 103, in clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 33 to 39 and insert—
“(2) Before prescribing a service or facility under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the likely impact of such a prescription on—
(a) patient safety;
(b) clinical outcomes;
(c) equality of access to services;
(d) workforce capacity and specialist expertise;
(e) service sustainability; and
(f) geographical variation in access to, and outcomes from, services.
(2A) The Secretary of State must lay the assessment under subsection (2) before both Houses of Parliament.
(2B) In deciding whether it would be appropriate to prescribe a service or facility under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to the assessment published under subsection (2).
(2C) Where regulations made under subsection (1)(b) prescribe a service or facility for commissioning other than by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national service framework for that service or facility.
(2D) A framework under subsection (2C) must include provision relating to—
(a) service standards;
(b) care pathways;
(c) workforce requirements;
(d) rehabilitation and long-term follow-up;
(e) collection and publication of outcome data;
(f) coordination between specialist, community and neighbourhood services; and
(g) coordination of care for persons receiving treatment through multiple clinical pathways.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment before they make a decision to prescribe a service or facility under subsection (1)(b) of section 3B of the National Health Service Act 2006 and maintain a national service framework for any specialised service no longer commissioned directly by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 101, page 10, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this section coming into force, publish a specialised commissioning plan setting out—
(a) which services or facilities the Secretary of State intends to commission nationally under section 3B(1)(b), and
(b) the principles and criteria that will be used to decide whether a service or facility should be commissioned nationally or by integrated care boards.
(6) Before making regulations under section 3B(1)(b) that would make a significant change to the range of services or facilities commissioned nationally, the
Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a transition plan explaining the reasons for the change, the impact on patients, and the arrangements for continuity of care and clinical standards,
(b) consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (including patients who use the affected services or their representatives, clinicians, and the bodies that would gain or lose commissioning responsibility), and
(c) publish a summary of the consultation responses and the Secretary of State’s response to them.
(7) The specialised commissioning plan under subsection (5) must be kept under review and revised as appropriate, and any revised plan must be published.”
Amendment 53, Clause 14, page 10, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—
“(a) confers functions on integrated care boards in relation to commissioning primary care services, including the provision of alternative general medical services for patients who—
(i) are unable to obtain appropriate care from the general practice responsible for their usual catchment area, or
(ii) no longer reasonably feel able or comfortable to receive care from that general practice,
(b) requires integrated care boards to make arrangements to support access to such alternative provision where it is necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of those patients,
(c) transfers related functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and
(d) contains other amendments relating to primary care services.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to support and arrange alternative general practice provision for patients who cannot access appropriate care from their usual catchment GP practice, or who reasonably no longer feel able or comfortable receiving care from that practice.
Amendment 76, in clause 15, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements under subsection (2) are accessible and inclusive, having particular regard to the needs of persons with disabilities and persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements for public involvement in commissioning are accessible and inclusive, with particular regard to the needs of persons with disabilities and persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.
Amendment 79, in clause 16, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations under this section must, in relation to children and young people referred to child and adolescent mental health services, require integrated care boards to make arrangements for appropriate interim support during any period between referral and the commencement of substantive treatment or assessment.
(4) The arrangements under subsection (3) may include—
(a) regular appointments or check-ups with a GP or other primary care professional;
(b) support from a family support worker;
(c) regular wellbeing checks or support provided through a school, including by a school nurse or other appropriate professional; and
(d) access to appropriate peer support, youth clubs or other community-based support.
(5) The purpose of arrangements under subsection (3) is to ensure that a child or young person does not remain without appropriate support solely because they are awaiting the commencement of substantive assessment or treatment.”
This amendment would require interim support for children and young people referred to CAMHS while they are waiting for substantive assessment or treatment.
Amendment 32, page 12, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations under this section must make provision requiring integrated care boards to make arrangements which ensure that community equipment and wheelchair services are provided within 18 weeks of the date on which a person is assessed as requiring such equipment or services.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)—
“community equipment and wheelchair services” means equipment, aids, home adaptations or appliances provided to support a person’s independence, safety, care or daily living at home or in the community, including hoists, hospital beds, pressure-relieving mattresses, commodes, shower chairs, walking frames, grab rails, ramps, specialist seating, postural support equipment, associated mobility equipment, and wheelchairs.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which would require integrated care boards to ensure that community equipment and wheelchair services are provided within 18 weeks of the date on which a person is assessed as requiring such equipment or services.
Amendment 98, page 12, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must require the publication, at least monthly, of statistics on consultant-led referral-to-treatment pathways that include a breakdown of unreported removals, and the reasons for those removals, including distinguishing between—
(a) removals attributable to validation exercises (including administrative, technical or clinical validation), and
(b) other unreported removals.
(4) The statistics required by subsection (3) must be published—
(a) at national level,
(b) by integrated care board area, and
(c) by NHS trust and NHS foundation trust.
(5) In this section—
“unreported removals” means the residual figure calculated as the waiting list at the start of the period plus new RTT periods minus completed pathways minus waiting list at the end of the period;
“validation exercises” includes any systematic review of pathways for the purpose of removing those that should not remain on the waiting list.””
Amendment 99, page 12, line 10, at end insert—
“14Z45AA Prohibition on administrative minimum waiting times
An integrated care board must not adopt or apply any policy, contract term, activity planning assumption or other arrangement that has the effect of requiring or incentivising a minimum period of waiting before a patient may receive treatment, assessment, or a diagnostic test, where that minimum period is imposed for administrative, financial or capacity management reasons rather than clinical reasons.”
Amendment 34, page 12, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must impose a duty on integrated care boards to make provision for any person with a terminal illness diagnosis to be offered a conversation with a relevant healthcare professional about their needs for end-of-life care, including their—
(a) mental and physical health support needs, and
(b) financial support needs.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), if a person with a terminal illness diagnosis is unable to have the conversation, an integrated care board must ensure that the person’s next-of-kin are offered a conversation.
(1C) The regulations must make provision for any relevant authorities to have regard to the needs identified in a conversation under subsection (1A).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which make provision for the any person with a terminal illness diagnosis to be offered a conversation with a relevant authority about their needs for end-of-life care.
Amendment 28, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
“14Z45BA Patient choice: community services substituting for consultant-led elective care
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to enable patients to make choices in respect of non-consultant-led community services where those services are commissioned as a direct substitute for, or to prevent a referral to, consultant-led elective services.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a service is to be regarded as a direct substitute for, or intended to prevent a referral to, consultant-led elective services if it—
(a) provides assessment, treatment or management for a condition that would otherwise be referred to a secondary care specialist; or
(b) is commissioned by an integrated care board for the purpose of reducing or managing demand on secondary or elective care.
(3) Services to which this section applies include, but are not limited to—
(a) community audiology services;
(b) community glaucoma management and monitoring services; and
(c) minor eye conditions services.
(4) Regulations made by virtue of this section must ensure that—
(a) patients are offered a choice of any clinically appropriate provider commissioned under a qualifying NHS contract for the relevant service;
(b) no limitation on the number of providers from which a patient may choose is imposed solely on grounds of cost or demand management; and
(c) patients are provided with information enabling them to make an informed choice, including information about waiting times and quality.
(5) An integrated care board must not commission a community service of a kind falling within subsection (2) in a manner which has the effect of restricting patient choice below the standard that would apply to an equivalent consultant-led elective service.”
Amendment 36, in clause 20, page 15, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) Performance assessments must include details of how each integrated care board is meeting its duty to provide palliative care services or facilities to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) the following guidance are considered reasonable requirements—
(a) NICE guideline [NG31] “Care of dying adults in the last days of life 2015”,
(b) NICE guideline [NG142] “End of life care for adults: service delivery 2019”,
(c) NICE quality standard [QS13] “End of life care for adults 2021”,
(d) NHS England “Palliative and End of Life Care” Statutory Guidance for Integrated Care Boards (September 2022).”
This amendment would require annual performance assessments to incorporate an assessment of whether each integrated care board is providing a reasonable standard of palliative and end of life care.
Amendment 104, in clause 20, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
“(4) In conducting a performance assessment under this section, the Secretary of State must assess the discharge by an integrated care board of any functions relating to specialised services.
(5) An assessment under subsection (4) must consider—
(a) patient outcomes;
(b) access to services;
(c) compliance with national service specifications;
(d) workforce capacity;
(e) service sustainability; and
(f) geographical variation in access to, and outcomes from, services.
(6) The report published under subsection (3) must include a summary of the assessments undertaken under subsections (4) and (5).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a national assessment of the performance of integrated care boards in relation to specialised services.
Amendment 45, page 15, line 29, leave out clause 21.
Amendment 91, in clause 21, page 15, leave out line 32 and insert—
“(a) for sub-paragraph (4), substitute—”
Government amendment 60.
Amendment 29, page 15, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) The constitution must provide for the ordinary members appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to include at least one member nominated jointly by the local authorities whose areas coincide with, or include the whole or any part of, the integrated care board's area.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to have a member jointly nominated by local authorities from within the board's area.
Government amendment 61.
Amendment 30, page 16, line 3, leave out from “mayor” to “must” and insert
“or local authority nominating an ordinary member as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (2A)”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29 and would require a local authority involved in nominating a member of an integrated care board to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 83, page 16, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) The constitution of an integrated care board must provide for the appointment of one or more members of the board with explicit responsibility for—
(a) people with learning disabilities;
(b) autistic people;
(c) people with Down syndrome; and
(d) children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
(6) The integrated care board must publish details of the member or members appointed under sub-paragraph (5).”
This amendment would require each Integrated Care Board to appoint one or more board members with responsibility for people with learning disabilities, autistic people, people with Down syndrome, and children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), placing existing NHS England board-level leadership guidance on a statutory footing following the abolition of NHS England.
Amendment 92, page 16, line 6, omit subsection (b).
Amendment 96, page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
“(b) for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5) The constitution must provide for the ordinary members of the integrated care board to include—
(a) at least one qualified, professionally registered, consultant in public health who provides wholly independent, transparent, leadership and advice to the board on preventing and reducing disease and improving the health of the population it serves,
(b) at least two clinicians with current experience of providing primary care services, at least one of whom is a general practitioner, and
(c) at least one medical practitioner with current experience of providing secondary care services.
(5A) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (5) must not be appointed to represent the interests of a provider organisation whose services are commissioned by the integrated care board.””
This amendment would require every Integrated Care Board to include an independent qualified and registered consultant in public health, at least two clinicians from primary care, and a clinical representative from secondary care.
Amendment 93, page 16, leave out line 8 and insert—
“after sub-paragraph (7) insert—”
Government amendment 62.
Amendment 31, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
““local authority” has the meaning given by section 2B;”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 29 and 30 and defines the term “local authority”.
Amendment 94, page 17, line 12, leave out clause 23.
Amendment 77, in clause 24, page 17, line 35, at end insert.
“A neighbourhood health plan must include consideration of how health services will meet the needs of persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions”
This amendment would require neighbourhood health plans to include consideration of how health services will meet the needs of persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.
Government amendment 63.
Amendment 84, in clause 29, page 21, leave out line 7.
This amendment would retain the requirement for NHS Foundation Trusts to have a Council of Governors.
Government amendment 64.
Amendment 55, in clause 42, page 30, line 29, at end insert—
“(5) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a pharmacy provider has materially failed to comply with contractual, patient-safety or workforce obligations, the Secretary of State may by direction require the relevant integrated care board—
(a) to suspend or terminate arrangements with that provider, where appropriate,
(b) to make arrangements with another provider for the provision of pharmaceutical services,
(c) to secure continuity of the supply of medicines and other pharmaceutical services, and
(d) to take such other emergency measures as may be specified in the direction.
(8) A direction under subsection (7) may be given where the Secretary of State considers that there is a significant risk to patient safety, continuity of medicines supply or the provision of pharmaceutical services.
(9) The Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements made under subsection (7) are implemented as soon as reasonably practicable.
(10) A direction under subsection (7) must specify the period for which it has effect and must be published.””
This amendment would enable intervention where a pharmacy provider seriously fails to meet contractual, safety or workforce obligations, ensuring continuity of services and medicines supply.
Amendment 58, page 30, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Where a situation or event has resulted, or is likely to result, in the closure, failure or disruption of a provider of pharmaceutical services, the Secretary of State and the relevant integrated care board must provide such assistance and support as is necessary to enable a new provider to establish or continue the provision of pharmaceutical services.
(8) Assistance or support under subsection (7) may include facilitating and establishing a relationship between a new provider and the manufacturers or suppliers of medicines and other pharmaceutical products.
(9) The assistance and support under subsection (7) must be available, in particular, where a new provider is—
(a) taking over premises previously operated by a provider of pharmaceutical services that has failed or closed,
(b) taking over premises where there has been evidence of serious misconduct, including malpractice or failure to pay staff, or
(c) an independent provider or a provider which is not part of a large company operating multiple pharmacy premises.
(10) The purpose of assistance and support under this section is to enable the new provider to secure supplies of medicines and other pharmaceutical products as quickly as reasonably practicable and to minimise any interruption in the provision of pharmaceutical services.”
This amendment would require the Government and integrated care boards to support new and independent pharmacy owners taking over failing, closed or disrupted pharmacies, including by helping them establish relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers so that they can secure medicines and other supplies quickly and maintain continuity of service.
Amendment 59, in clause 47, page 32, line 15, after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) In determining the amount to be allotted to an integrated care board under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the additional costs of providing health services in rural and coastal communities.
(4B) The matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard under subsection (4A) include—
(a) rurality,
(b) population age,
(c) transport and travel costs,
(d) seasonal changes in demand,
(e) recruitment and retention difficulties,
(f) the loss of economies of scale arising from sparsely populated communities, and
(g) unmet need for primary medical, dental and pharmaceutical services.
(4C) The Secretary of State must ensure that the methodology used in determining allotments does not rely predominantly on measures of deprivation where those measures fail adequately to reflect the costs or unmet need as set out in subsection (4B).
(4D) The Secretary of State must publish the methodology used in determining allotments under this section and must review that methodology at intervals of not more than five years.”
This amendment would require ICB funding allocations to reflect the additional costs and unmet health needs of rural and coastal communities.
Amendment 10, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”
This amendment would place the original mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
Amendment 17, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on Primary Care services.
(2B) The increase in spending set out in subsection (2B) must be in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”
This amendment would introduce the primary care Investment standard, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
Amendment 11, page 32, line 34, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on mental health services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
Amendment 18, in clause 47, page 32, line 34, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A) and (2B)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 17 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on primary care services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
Amendment 26, in clause 51, page 35, line 38, after “available” insert
“for the purpose of delivering or improving patient health or social care”.
Amendment 42, page 36, line 1, leave out “health” and insert “direct patient”.
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers in respect of the single patient record are limited to the provision of direct patient care and social care.
Amendment 105, page 36, line 8, at end insert—
“(ba) enabling a patient, following diagnosis of a health condition, to consent to the sharing of such information as is necessary for the purpose of enabling the organisation to offer or provide condition-specific support to the patient with an approved voluntary, community or charitable organisation providing condition-specific support services;
(bb) facilitating referral, where consent has been provided, to such an organisation under subsection (ba);”
This amendment would ensure that regulations establishing the Single Patient Record may include provision enabling patients, following diagnosis, to consent to referral and information sharing with approved voluntary, community and charitable organisations providing condition-specific support services.
Amendment 43, page 36, line 11, leave out “including” and insert “solely for the purposes of”
This amendment would ensure that regulations requiring or authorising the making available of patient information through the single patient record system can only make provision in respect of the circumstances set out in the Bill.
Amendment 15, page 36, line 13, after “behalf” insert “, including nominated carers”
This amendment makes it explicit that nominated carers can access the single patient record on behalf of those they care for.
Amendment 27, page 36, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Amendment 35, page 36, line 21, at end insert—
“The regulations must make provision for patient information to be readily available to providers of palliative and end-of-life care including voluntary sector providers.”
This amendment would ensure the single patient record is available to all palliative and end of life care providers.
Amendment 23, page 36, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must make provision for medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
(3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of introducing a statutory requirement for mandatory medical markers for firearms licence holders to be used by those relevant in providing patient care.”
This amendment would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
Amendment 24, page 36, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must make provision for prior membership in the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
(3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of making prior membership in the armed forces visible on the single patient record.
(3C) A report under subsection (3B) must consider—
(a) the ability of veterans to access the necessary NHS support, and
(b) the ability of medical staff to provide former members of the armed forces with appropriate care.”
This amendment would require prior membership in the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record and require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior membership in the armed forces visible on the single patient record.
Amendment 88, page 36, line 26, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations may not be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has first published and laid before both Houses of Parliament a Single Patient Record Outline Plan.
(4B) The Outline Plan under subsection (4A) must set out, as a minimum—
(a) the intended high-level design and scope of the single patient record, including the core data categories expected to be included and the principal care settings to be connected in the first phase;
(b) the proposed technical and architectural approach, including how existing source systems will be linked rather than replaced;
(c) the proposed timetable and phased rollout plan, including priority pathways;
(d) the intended access model for patients, clinicians and other relevant care professionals, including arrangements for proxy access and digital inclusion;
(e) the key safeguards for privacy, security, audit and prevention of inappropriate access; and
(f) the proposed approach to public engagement and awareness before the system becomes operational.
(4C) The Outline Plan must be published at least three months before any regulations under this section are laid.”
Amendment 22, page 36, line 32, at end insert—
“(6A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.
(6B) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must consult all stakeholders the Secretary of State considers relevant, including patient representation groups.
(6C) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard for—
(a) those without access to a suitable electronic device,
(b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity,
(c) those with physical and/or mental disabilities,
(d) those belonging to groups considered socially excluded, and
(e) those considered lacking digital skills.
(6D) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the risk assessment under subsection (6A) before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of single patient record.
Amendment 87, page 36, line 32, after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Regulations under this section must make provision to ensure that the system—
(a) complies with the Accessible Information Standard, DAPB1605, or any standard which replaces it;
(b) uses and is interoperable with the Reasonable Adjustment Digital Flag, DAPB4019, or any system or standard which replaces it;
(c) enables patients’ communication, information and reasonable adjustment needs to be identified, recorded, flagged, shared, met and reviewed without avoidable repetition by the patient; and
(d) enables patients to receive and access information relating to their care in formats appropriate to their communication and accessibility needs.
(6B) In preparing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must secure the participation of disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, and organisations representing them, in the design, development, testing and review of the system.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Single Patient Record supports the communication, information and reasonable adjustment needs of blind and partially sighted people and other disabled patients by embedding existing NHS accessibility standards within the system. It also requires disabled people and their representative organisations to be involved in the design, development, testing and ongoing review of the Single Patient Record to ensure accessibility is embedded from the outset.
Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 57, line 15, at end insert—
“83B Primary care estate investment programme
(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a programme for providing capital funding for the improvement and modernisation of premises used for the provision of primary medical services.
(2) The programme must prioritise practices where premises—
(a) are no longer fit for purpose,
(b) require substantial repair, adaptation or modernisation, or
(c) otherwise materially restrict the provision of safe, accessible or effective primary medical services.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the process for applying for and accessing capital funding under this section is proportionate and does not impose unnecessary administrative burdens.
(4) The arrangements must be designed to ensure that a viable provider of primary medical services is not prevented from carrying out essential improvements because of insufficient access to capital funding.
(5) In this section “premises” includes premises owned, leased or otherwise occupied for the provision of primary medical services.”
This amendment would establish a capital funding programme to improve and modernise primary care and General Practice premises.
Amendment 50, page 57, line 26, at end insert—
“5A after section 87 insert—
“87A Sustainable funding for general practice
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements for payments under general medical services contracts provide for sustained investment in general practice.
(2) In exercising functions under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the role of general practice in—
(a) preventing illness,
(b) managing long-term conditions,
(c) providing care in the community, and
(d) reducing avoidable hospital admissions.
(3) Arrangements for funding general practice must have regard to the volume, complexity and value of care delivered through general practice.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish, for each financial year, a statement setting out how the arrangements for payments under general medical services contracts are intended to support the matters in subsections (1) to (3).””
This amendment would require sustained investment in general practice reflecting the volume, complexity and value of care provided.
Amendment 51, page 57, line 26, at end insert—
“5A After section 87 insert—
“87A Rural and coastal general practice funding
(1) Arrangements for payments under general medical services contracts must take account of the additional costs of delivering primary medical services in rural and coastal communities.
(2) The factors to which arrangements under subsection (1) must have regard include—
(a) rurality,
(b) the age profile of the population,
(c) transport and travel costs,
(d) seasonal changes in demand,
(e) difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff, and
(f) the loss of economies of scale arising from sparsely populated communities.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the funding arrangements under this section are reviewed periodically and amended where necessary to reflect changes in the costs of providing services in rural and coastal areas.””
This amendment would require GP funding to reflect the additional costs of providing services in rural and coastal areas.
Amendment 47, page 60, line 6, at end insert—
“99C Dental training hubs
(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the establishment and support of dental training hubs in areas where there is an unmet need for NHS dental services.
(2) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include provision for dental training hubs in Dorset, including provision in west Dorset.
(3) In exercising the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must work with—
(a) universities and other providers of approved dental education and training,
(b) local authorities, and
(c) integrated care boards and other NHS bodies.
(4) The purpose of dental training hubs is to—
(a) increase the capacity for dental education and training,
(b) increase the availability of NHS dental services in areas of unmet need,
(c) strengthen the recruitment and retention of the dental workforce, and
(d) support the development of the long-term dental workforce.
(5) Arrangements under this section must provide for students in the final year of an approved course of dental education to provide NHS dental treatment under appropriate supervision.
(6) Treatment provided by a student under subsection (5) must—
(a) be NHS treatment carried out on an NHS patient,
(b) be provided under the supervision of a suitably qualified dental professional, and
(c) be free at the point of use to the patient where the supervising provider is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the relevant NHS tariff or other NHS payment in respect of that treatment.
(7) A dental training hub must provide, or participate in, structured pathways into dental apprenticeships and other appropriate employment-based dental training.
(8) Arrangements under this section must include measures to support retention of dental professionals trained through the hubs to meet future workforce commitments.
(9) In this section “dental training hub” means a facility or network of facilities at which dental education, supervised clinical training and NHS dental service provision are integrated.”
This amendment would establish dental training hubs in areas of unmet need, including Dorset and west Dorset, to expand training, improve NHS dental access and strengthen the workforce.
Amendment 48, page 60, line 6, at end insert—
“99C Allocation of NHS dental funding according to unmet need
(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that NHS dental funding is allocated according to local unmet need.
(2) Where funding allocated for primary dental services in a financial year is not used for the purpose for which it was allocated, the Secretary of State must ensure that, so far as reasonably practicable, that funding is redirected to measures designed to increase access to NHS dental services.
(3) Measures under subsection (2) may include—
(a) additional NHS dental capacity,
(b) additional NHS dental appointments,
(c) measures to reduce waiting times,
(d) outreach dentistry,
(e) domiciliary dental services, and
(f) dental services provided in or in connection with schools.
(4) The arrangements must include mechanisms to ensure that funding allocated for the purpose of increasing access results, so far as is reasonably practicable, in additional NHS dental capacity, appointments or reduced waiting times.
(5) In making arrangements under this section, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to people who face barriers to travelling to dental services, including older people, people with disabilities, vulnerable people and schoolchildren.”
This amendment would require dental funding to reflect local unmet need and redirect unused funding towards improving access.
Amendment 49, page 60, line 22, after paragraph 18 insert—
“18A After section 103 insert—
“103A Rural and local-need factors in NHS dental funding
(1) Directions made under section 103 must provide for NHS dental funding arrangements to take account of local need.
(2) In making provision under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have proper regard, in particular, to—
(a) the rurality of the area,
(b) the age profile of the population,
(c) the population who have disabilities,
(d) local transport and travel costs,
(e) seasonal changes in demand for services,
(f) difficulties in recruiting and retaining dental professionals, and
(g) the loss of economies of scale arising from sparsely populated communities.
(3) Provision made under section 103 must proportionately weight other measures alongside deprivation when determining the level of NHS dental funding required in an area.
(4) The Secretary of State must every three years review and by regulations amend the factors mentioned in subsection (2).””
This amendment would require dental funding to properly take account of rurality, local need, travel costs, workforce challenges and other factors alongside deprivation.
Amendment 56, page 64, line 34, at end insert—
“45A After section 133 insert—
“133A Emergency intervention in pharmaceutical services
(1) Where an integrated care board considers that a person providing pharmaceutical services is failing, or is likely to fail, materially to comply with—
(a) a contractual obligation,
(b) a patient-safety requirement, or
(c) a workforce obligation,
the board must consider whether emergency intervention is required to protect patients or continuity of pharmaceutical services.
(2) Where the board considers that emergency intervention is required, it may—
(a) require the provider to take specified remedial action,
(b) suspend specified arrangements,
(c) terminate arrangements with the provider,
(d) make arrangements with another provider for the provision of pharmaceutical services, or
(e) take any combination of the steps in paragraphs (a) to (d).
(3) The powers in subsection (2) must be exercised with regard to the need to maintain continuity of medicines supply and protect patients from avoidable disruption.
(4) An integrated care board must not continue arrangements with a provider where it is satisfied that the provider is demonstrably unfit to provide pharmaceutical services safely and effectively.
(5) Before exercising a power under subsection (2), the board must, except in an emergency, give the provider a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
(6) Nothing in this section prevents an integrated care board from taking immediate action where delay would materially risk patient safety or continuity of medicines supply.””
This amendment would give integrated care boards powers to intervene where a pharmacy provider is failing to provide their required services to protect patients and medicines supply.
Amendment 57, page 72, line 40, at end insert—
“(3D) Regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that the remuneration arrangements for pharmaceutical services take account of the costs of providing those services in rural and sparsely populated areas.
(3E) In making provision under subsection (3D), the determining authority must have regard to—
(a) rurality,
(b) the age profile of the population,
(c) transport and distribution costs,
(d) seasonal changes in demand,
(e) difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff, and
(f) the loss of economies of scale arising from sparsely populated communities.
(3F) The remuneration arrangements must be designed to support the financial sustainability of pharmacies providing essential NHS services in rural and sparsely populated areas.
(3G) The Secretary of State must review the operation of the remuneration arrangements periodically and make such changes as are necessary to ensure that the matters in subsections (3D) to (3F) continue to be reflected.”
This amendment would require pharmacy funding to reflect the additional costs of providing services in rural and sparsely populated areas.
Government amendments 70 and 71.
Amendment 85, in schedule 3, page 86, line 14, leave out paragraphs 5 to 8.
This amendment would retain the requirement for NHS Foundation Trusts to have a Council of Governors.
Amendment 86, page 86, line 30, leave out paragraph 14.
This amendment would retain the requirement for NHS Foundation Trusts to have a Council of Governors.
Amendment 16, page 88, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) The function under sub-paragraph (1) must be exercised by a person employed in the civil service of the State, and a Minister of the Crown or a special adviser must not be involved in any decision relating to such an appointment, suspension or removal.”
This amendment would ensure that civil servants are responsible for the decision making and appointment processes for trust and ICB leaders, rather than Ministers or Special Advisers.
Amendment 54, in schedule 8, page 106, line 33, at end insert—
“5A After section 254 insert—
“254A Interoperability of health and social care information systems
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring providers of NHS health services to use interoperable digital information systems.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must apply, so far as appropriate, to—
(a) providers of primary medical services,
(b) providers of primary dental services,
(c) providers of pharmaceutical services,
(d) NHS trusts,
(e) NHS foundation trusts, and
(f) providers of community health services.
(3) The regulations must provide for the secure exchange of relevant patient information between providers using interoperable systems.
(4) The regulations must include provision for electronic prescribing across NHS care settings where prescribing is clinically appropriate.
(5) The Secretary of State must ensure that the arrangements under this section are designed to—
(a) reduce duplication,
(b) reduce unnecessary administrative work,
(c) improve continuity of care,
(d) reduce avoidable delays in diagnosis, treatment and referral, and
(e) enable clinicians to access relevant information securely when providing care.
(6) Regulations under this section must include appropriate requirements relating to information governance, cyber security, patient confidentiality and the lawful processing of personal data.
(7) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including representatives of general practice, hospitals, community services and patients.””
This amendment would require interoperable NHS digital systems to improve information sharing, reduce duplication and support continuity of care.
Amendment 13, page 106, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
“For section 255 (power to request NHS England to establish information systems), substitute—
“255 Powers to request the Secretary of State to establish information systems
(1) Any person (including a devolved authority) may request the Secretary of State to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information of a description specified in the request.
(2) A request may be made under subsection (1) by a person only if the person considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the person to have in relation to the person's exercise of functions, or carrying out of activities, in connection with the provision of health care or adult social care.
(3) The Secretary of State must comply with a mandatory request unless the Secretary of State considers that the request relates to information of a description prescribed in regulations.
(4) For the purposes of this Chapter a request under subsection (1) is a mandatory request if—
(a) it is made by a principal body, and
(b) the body considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the body to have in relation to its discharge of a duty in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.
(5) Subsection (6) applies where the Secretary of State has discretion under this section as to whether to comply with—
(a) a mandatory request, or
(b) other request under subsection (1).
(6) In deciding whether to comply with the request, the Secretary of State—
(a) must, in particular, consider whether doing so would interfere to an unreasonable extent with the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of its functions, and
(b) may take into account the extent to which the principal body or other person making the request has had regard to—
(i) the code of practice prepared and published by the Secretary of State under section 263, and
(ii) advice or guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 265.
(7) In this section “principal body” means—
(a) the Care Quality Commission,
(b) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and
(c) such other persons as may be prescribed in regulations.
(8) In this Chapter “health care” includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.””
This amendment would enable the Care Quality Commission and NICE to continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system, following the transfer of NHS England’s functions.
Amendment 14, page 110, line 37, leave out paragraph 14.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 41, page 112, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“23 For section 274A (Secretary of State’s guidance about NHS England data functions) substitute—
“274A Secretary of State’s guidance in respect of their data functions
(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the exercise of—
(a) their relevant data functions, and
(b) their other functions in connection with their relevant data functions.
(2) Before publishing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate in relation to the guidance.
(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to the guidance published under this section.””
This amendment would transfer the existing statutory requirement for published guidance about data functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 46, in schedule 12, page 151, leave out paragraph 98.
Karin Smyth
I wish at the start to take a moment to thank the Members on both sides of the House who served on the Public Bill Committee during what was a very hot end of June and July—if we can remember back that far. As part of that process, the Committee scrutinised every clause of the Bill and debated over 195 amendments, and we on the Government Benches are grateful for their diligence. The implementation of the Bill is better for all that hard work. I also welcome the spirit of collaboration that has greeted the main provisions of the Bill from both sides of the House, most notably on Second Reading but also in Committee, and I hope that we can continue in that spirit at this stage. For our part, we remain committed to working with MPs and peers across the House and other stakeholders to ensure that the end result is a Bill that strengthens the NHS.
I know that we have a large number of amendments on a variety of topics, so I will keep my remarks short. New clauses 96 and 97 relate to visiting rights. They strengthen the role of integrated care boards and local authorities in promoting visiting, supporting people to have someone with them and ensuring the involvement of family, friends and carers in decisions. They complement the existing legal requirements and the work already under way to drive a change in culture and practice by embedding visiting at the heart of the responsibilities of commissioners.
New clause 96 explicitly places duties on integrated care boards to promote opportunities for visiting and accompaniment, while new clause 97 builds on local authorities’ existing wellbeing duties by emphasising the importance of involving other people in decision making, receiving visitors and maintaining opportunities to take trips outside the care home. Maintaining meaningful contact and connection with family, friends and carers is critical to the health and wellbeing of so many people in our health and care settings. They provide invaluable practical help, emotional support and advocacy for their loved ones in accessing care and treatment, and commissioners should do what they can to support these relationships.
I turn to Government amendments 60 to 62. The question of who is required to sit on ICBs has raised comments from all across this House. I am grateful to all Members who have raised the importance of local government having a voice in ICBs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) and the other members of the Health and Social Care Committee, who have continually advocated on this issue. We agree. It was never the intention to weaken the voice of local government in the NHS. We recognise that local authority board members are an important voice for commissioning on the ICB, and often provide helpful challenge and a very different perspective on commissioning decisions.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for accepting our amendment on this issue. We pressed her and her colleagues over and over again—to the extent that we got a letter back that we honestly thought had been generated by AI, because the logic in it had no follow-through at all. I am delighted that she has listened. On what else does she intend to listen to us? In particular, there are amendments on the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, Healthwatch and health inequalities, which we will consider tomorrow, and, most importantly, the special needs amendment, which we are considering today. What else will she listen to us on?
Karin Smyth
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee —I can assure her that I am Karin, not Claude. She tempts me to go further on the rest of the Bill, but I genuinely thank her and the Committee; I hope she would agree that I spent a lot of time over the past months, before Report stage and Committee stage, meeting her, members of the Committee and many hon. Members from across the House. We have some provisions—we might call them simple provisions—in the Bill to democratise the NHS’s accountability, to reinforce the single patient record, and to improve the patient experience and patient safety landscape. We recognise that there is a lot of complexity within those simple propositions, and we will continue to listen to hon. Members. We want to ensure that the NHS is strengthened.
In relation to the ICBs and local authority voice, it was particularly significant over the summer to have heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about his commitment to rewiring the state and our ongoing reform to social care. With that in mind, I am pleased that amendments 60 to 62 will re-establish a requirement for ICBs to have at least one board member jointly nominated by local authorities in their area. That will sit alongside the existing duty to have a member nominated by the mayor of each mayoral strategic authority, as well as duties on ICBs and local government to work together, including on health and wellbeing boards. In Committee, we had a useful discussion about health and wellbeing boards, neighbourhoods and local accountability. I should also note that ICBs can appoint other people to their boards if they would benefit from their expertise. That is a decision to be taken locally.
Finally, let me briefly pre-empt the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) by making a few comments about new clause 1. I thank her for the way she worked with me in Committee on the issue of a maternity commissioner—an issue that I think unites the House. As the hon. Member knows, we have accepted the recommendation from Baroness Amos’s national investigation into maternity and neonatal care. I can announce that, to deliver on this commitment, we will table an amendment to the Bill in the other place to establish a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner. We are determined to get this right. For too long, too many women, babies and families have not received the care and support they deserve. The establishment of a commissioner represents a significant opportunity to strengthen accountability and champion their interests across the system. I hope that will give the hon. Member the reassurance she needs not to press her amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I must tell hon. Members that this debate is heavily oversubscribed; Back Benchers will immediately be on a speaking limit and not everybody will get in. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for all the hard work he has done over the past year in holding the Government to account on health and social care, the whole Conservative health team for their support, and every member of the Committee that, as the Minister said, scrutinised the Bill in detail in such a hot and sticky room before the summer. I also thank my parliamentary team for their support. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on her reappointment and thank her for the time that she has taken to engage with the Opposition on the Bill. I must also declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
This is not a small Bill. It runs to more than 200 pages, and there are almost as many pages of amendments, with around 180 different MPs signing or supporting different amendments. I do not agree with every one, but I welcome thoughts and ideas from right across the House—well, from most of the way across the House; we did not see much from Reform. The Bill has scale, but does it have direction and clarity of purpose? Leadership sets direction—a destination—and from that follows a path, as smooth as possible, from A to B, with appropriate milestones. However, the Bill, like so many of this Labour Government’s, came as an announcement without enough thought.
Let us go back. The Government started with the Darzi report. I will not restate the arguments about why it was done or the weakness of the claims that it is independent, but suffice to say it is their report, published by a Labour peer and former Labour Minister for a Labour Government. It says a few things about reorganisation. Lord Darzi wrote that
“a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and Integrated Care Boards is neither necessary nor desirable”,
yet the Government decided to abolish NHS England, restructure the ICBs and halve the ICBs’ budgets all at once, without properly planning for what would come next. That is clause 1—abolishing NHS England.
One of the main arguments provided related to the unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of staff. As a Conservative, I accept that there is a strong case for efficiency: the Government must use taxpayers’ money wisely. In a letter that the permanent secretary sent to the Public Accounts Committee, officials estimated savings of £1 billion a year by abolishing NHS England and redundancy cost payments of approximately £1 billion to £1.3 billion, but we have not seen the calculations behind that. It was announced in March 2025 that the restructure would be completed in two years, yet we are now 18 months in and Ministers do not seem to be on track. From March 2025 to July 2026—a year, and three quarters of the time they have given themselves—total headcount across NHS England and the Minister’s Department decreased by 12.9%, which is nowhere near what the Government need to deliver their promised savings. We have therefore tabled amendment 102, which would require the Government to publish a full workforce transition plan, and new clause 153, which would require the Government to publish precisely how many people they make redundant.
I would like to raise a contradiction: the Government talk a lot about devolution and local decision making, but the Bill does the opposite. It will remove councils of governors from foundation trusts, give Ministers the power to hire and fire health leaders, and put an end to local Healthwatch. It will give the Secretary of State the power to set and adjust annual funding allocations for ICBs, and direct them to ringfence funding for service integration. It takes away local decision making.
The Bill is also inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said the other day. In response to a question about the Bill, he said:
“I do not like the idea of a postcode lottery in the national health service.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 61-62.]
But if decisions are taken locally, they will be different in different areas, which will lead to a postcode lottery. Will Ministers shed some light on what they actually believe? Do this Government want decisions made locally and accept that those will be different, or do they want decisions made centrally?
Lord Darzi said something else in his report:
“Constant reorganisations are costly and distracting. They stop the NHS structures from focusing on their primary responsibility to raise the quality and efficiency of care in providers.”
Indeed. In fact, that is not too dissimilar from what the Minister for Secondary Care herself previously concluded, when in opposition. She said:
“The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 809.]
How is the NHS performing? Let us take a look. The total number waiting for appointment has gone down a bit, as the Government have said, but in trauma and orthopaedics, ophthalmology, cardiothoracic surgery, elderly medicine and gynaecology, it has gone up, and in some cases is higher than it was before the election. For those waiting for an admission who need a procedure or an operation, it is not only going up month on month and year on year; it is higher than it was at the time of the general election. What about accident and emergency? The number of people waiting for more than 12 hours after a decision to admit was 29% higher in July 2026 than in July 2024, and that is despite the fact that there were fewer such admissions in July 2026 than in July 2024.
How have the Government performed in other health areas? Childhood vaccination rates are in decline. The workforce plan has not been published, despite the Minister saying it was “imminent” months ago. Fracture liaison clinics have not been delivered, despite allegedly being one of this Government’s planned “first acts”. I could go on, but we do not have much time, and I think I have demonstrated the point: NHS reorganisation is distracting from delivery.
One of the things I want to talk about that the Government are not delivering is the response to the Hughes report. I thank Dr Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, for her hard work on the report. When the trauma and suffering that some people, particularly women, have experienced from mesh repairs, and the harm that children have suffered because of exposure to valproate in the womb, became apparent, we were all horrified. The previous Government changed the way that valproate was prescribed and commissioned regional surgical centres of excellence to provide care for women who suffer from the effects of a mesh repair. The Conservative Government also commissioned the Hughes report, published in February 2024, that investigated compensation schemes for those affected, but the general election was called just three months later, so delivering compensation and on the report became the Labour Government’s job.
Sadly, Ministers have dithered and delayed for more than two years now. We have had written question after written question, several debates and a lot of warm words, but still no response to the report. It is simply not good enough. Those suffering should not have to wait any longer, and that is why we have tabled new clause 145, which would provide a legal backstop, ensuring that the Government publish their response to the Hughes report within 30 days of the Bill becoming law at the latest. That is still not soon enough for those affected, but it is the only way of putting in an effective backstop so the Government can stop fobbing off victims and start delivering justice.
Let me turn to other amendments. The Government announced out of the blue that ICB running costs will be halved. Why 50%? I have no idea, but ICBs scrambled to respond. We know from those inside the health service that it has been a major distraction, with a massive opportunity cost for patient care. When the Bill came, Ministers chose to change the composition of ICBs, too, removing the voice of hospitals and primary care from boards as well as the voice of local authorities, severing that link with social care.
Integrated care partnerships will also be abolished. There will instead be a focus on mayoral representation, even for mayors where there is little role, if any, in delivering social care. In Lincolnshire, for example, instead of a local authority and an ICB on the same geographical footprint working together over the same area to cover health and social care, we now have the Government conspiring to give us an ICB covering three counties, with no voice for the local authorities, which are unsure after today’s announcement whether they will be split up. We discussed at some length in Committee the importance of health and social care working together, so I welcome the Government’s U-turn on day one of this term to reinstate local authority representation, but I urge the Minister to consider, as the Opposition parties have proposed, reinstating primary care and secondary care representatives, too.
Given the time, I will speak briefly to the three amendments on workforce. First, new clause 154 would require the Secretary of State to increase the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32. Why? Put simply, because they promised they would and they have not. Secondly, new clause 152 is on merit-based applications. Doctors used to be allocated their first jobs through a system based on performance—that was the case when I was a junior doctor. Now it is done by computer algorithm prioritising choice. This is unfair, demoralising and destroys the incentive to study hard. We believe in meritocracy, and I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
Thirdly, I urge the Government to support new clause 144, which would address the plight of a small but significant group of people: a group of medical students subject to a great injustice. These are British citizens studying at a British university, predominantly Queen Mary University in London, who were told four and a half years into their degree that they would not be able to have places on the foundation programme but would be at the back of the queue. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 has meant that non-prioritised doctors got only 1.8% of the jobs—the last 1.8% left. That was the point of the Bill, but the Government should put this particular group of British citizens into the priority group.
We will no doubt talk about our other amendments in the Lords. New clause 155 on self-care would give people more autonomy over their own care. New clause 101 is on the national commissioning of low-volume, high-complexity services, and would ensure that the Government cannot just move them into ICBs without a proper consultation and plan. Amendment 95 on the patient choice duty would ensure that patients have choice over the care they receive in neighbourhood services as well as hospital services.
Amendment 88 is on the single patient record. The single has the potential to be truly transformative, bringing the NHS in line with other modern healthcare systems. It can prevent people from having to repeat themselves. But there are lots of questions for the Government that have not been answered. This is another example of making an announcement without thinking it through. How will existing health records be linked? How will patients, carers and clinicians have access? Who will control the data? How will it be kept safe? Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to publish a full plan before making changes.
There are some parts of the Bill that the Opposition can support, but in the Government’s hurry to make announcements, they often do not seem to think things through properly. That is the story of local government reform that we heard in the House earlier today; it is the story of the much-delayed workforce plan; and it risks becoming the story of this NHS reorganisation. In health, there are life and death situations, so we cannot afford for the Government to get it wrong. The Opposition have made a series of sensible amendments and will be grateful for the Minister’s support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench speeches are on a five-minute speaking limit.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 97 in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust said that clause 10
“seems to make it more possible for the Secretary of State to explicitly set out to increase private or public provision.”
Why does the Secretary of State need this power?
Introducing an extra level of nuance now, as clause 10 will do, has the potential to raise fears within the NHS that it could be abused in future. The clause has the potential to create unintended consequences. The explanatory notes for the Bill say that this new flexibility is necessary
“where there may otherwise be a breakdown in provision of a health service.”
Can we imagine a situation where the Secretary of State has concerns about a health service and that an approach to assist a local provider would be rebuffed? It is hardly likely to happen. The explanatory notes suggest that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State needs the power to direct local decisions, rather than to work with local health service providers to resolve any difficulties. How does the power to influence the proportion of public and private provision help in resolving a breakdown in service?
Labour’s 2024 plan to make work pay set out a welcome desire to bring more essential services back into public control—something that is welcomed by health workers across the country, because so far the
“biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”,
as was promised, has felt more like a trickle when it comes to the NHS.
The new Prime Minister and new Secretary of State have inherited the Health Bill from their predecessors, so hopefully they will be able to stamp their own mark on it before it becomes law. Removing clause 10 would be one way of making that mark. The concern for those who work for the NHS and those who support it is that the clause has the potential to be exploited in future by those who would seek to move away from the public provision of healthcare. There are ample powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and resolve breakdowns in the provision of a health service. On clause 10, we must balance what it adds in those situations against its potential misuse by an ideologically driven Government that are determined to privatise our NHS. To remove any ambiguity and to protect the NHS from the possibility of the clause being abused by a future Secretary of State, I urge that it is dropped from the Bill.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I have tabled several amendments to the Bill, but I will hopefully keep my remarks focused so there is a good opportunity for other Members to make their speeches.
The Bill should be about fixing the front and back doors of the NHS. It offers the opportunity to bring in tangible changes for patients to address pressing problems and introduce desperately needed improvements to patient safety and experience. The primary care and social care crisis, in particular, are millstones around the neck of the NHS. But instead of addressing them, the Bill has focused on a top-down reorganisation, which risks diverting time and money away from those pressing issues, and it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, which is not in itself without risk.
The Liberal Democrats would instead have put social care and general practice at the heart of the Bill—a move that would represent real reform of the health service. In particular, new clauses 54 and 56 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) would together transform the rights of family carers through guaranteed respite care and reform of the carer’s allowance. They would put free personal care, and an end to catastrophic care costs, at the heart of social care reform.
New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that everyone can see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if urgent, and amendment 17 would introduce a primary care investment standard. Although general practice is the core of a patient’s relationship with the NHS, it has seen its funding decline as a share of NHS spending. Less than 10% of the NHS budget is spent on primary care, although that is estimated to constitute 90% of a patient’s direct experience with the NHS. A primary care investment standard would help to reverse that trend. Dentistry is another area of primary care that has been neglected, leading to dental deserts and dangerous DIY dentistry. New clause 18 would introduce a scheme to end dental deserts, and guarantee appointments for children and those most in need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
New clause 82 refers to the family mental health pathway, but from diagnosis right through to treatment and, tragically for some, bereavement, mental health support for families cannot be an afterthought and must be a statutory proactive duty. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government and the Minister should take that on board?
Helen Morgan
I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to come to mental health. It is right to modernise the NHS and end some of the duplication that we see between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, but the way it has been handled has been chaotic. It has been combined with 50% cuts to ICB budgets, unfunded redundancy payments, and chaos through the system. I was alarmed to read the report in The Times at the weekend about advice to the Secretary of State that the changes envisaged under the Bill are impossible to implement, given that the staff of NHS England are on different pay scales to those in the Department. Given those significant hurdles, I hope that in her closing remarks the Minister can provide some reassurance that abolishing NHS England in the way the Bill envisages is achievable.
We are particularly concerned that the functions of the Secretary of State under these reforms open the door to political capture, which is a huge risk given the unstable political climate we live in. Amendment 16 would create a firewall between the Secretary of State and operational decisions. These new powers are particularly worrying in the context of patient safety issues created by the Bill, which we will discuss in more detail tomorrow.
Beyond the Department, the Bill is complacent on taking seriously the vulnerability of our NHS to foreign interference and its implications for national security. That is why we tabled new clauses 2 to 5, which recognise and address the role of the NHS as part of our sovereignty, and the sensitivity of patient data. New clause 17 would require scrutiny in the House of the arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing. That deal, forced on us by Donald Trump with no say from the British people, will hike medicine prices in the coming years by billions of pounds, and deserves parliamentary scrutiny. All those shortcomings of the Bill attest to the fact that the NHS already spends far too much time and money responding to failure, rather than improving the safety and quality of services in the first place.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On safety, does my hon. Friend agree about the gravity of the national maternity review, which found that Musgrove Park hospital was the “most challenging” estate in the country? If it is the most challenging estate in the country, does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be addressed sooner than 2033, so that mums get better treatment sooner than the 2040s? That is unacceptable if it is the most challenging estate in the country.
Helen Morgan
Crumbling estates are a big part of the problem across the whole NHS and in maternity, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the state of his own local hospital and advocate for its quick remediation. Amendment 10, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) will outline in more detail, would reintroduce the mental health investment standard. That is a crucial investment to avoid failures further down the line if interventions are not made for patients early on.
Nowhere is the cost of failure more obvious than in maternity—a devastating scandal which, despite many recent reviews, still deserves far more attention. Our amendments to make our maternity services finally safe for mothers and babies will therefore be the main focus of my remarks today. I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement with me on new clause 1, and the commitment that she made at the Dispatch Box today to table relevant amendments when the Bill reaches the other place, and to put that maternity commissioner in place. I am grateful to her for the discussions we have had, and the constructive approach she has taken both with me and with the many campaigners on the issue beyond this place. In the light of that, I will not be pushing new clause 1 to a vote.
I have seen up close the human costs of failures in our maternity system. Four years ago the Ockenden review found that over 200 babies and nine mothers in my community had died needlessly in Shrewsbury and Telford due to failures in maternity care. That has been devastating for my community, and we have heard since then that the situation was not isolated. There have been terrible stories from families around the country, most recently following the review into services in Nottingham. New clause 6 would introduce a scheme to ensure that every maternity unit in the country is rated “good” or “outstanding” by the Care Quality Commission. That new clause is essential if we are to meaningfully address the crisis in our maternity services and show families that lessons have been learned not just locally but nationally.
The Liberal Democrat maternity rescue package would require an estimated £600 million a year to bring safety in maternity units up to standard, investing in safe staffing and listening to mothers. The Government already spend £1.3 billion a year—more than double the cost of the package—on maternity negligence payments, so introducing that reset is a no-brainer. Rather than spending a fortune compensating for failure and heartbreak, the NHS should be getting it right in the first place. Recently we have seen the consequences of safety failures, with lack of staffing causing North Devon’s maternity unit to close, forcing women to take a 50 mile trip if they go into labour. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), whose constituency has been hit hard by that news, has tabled new clause 66 to guarantee safe staffing levels and access to a maternity unit within 45 minutes.
While on women’s health, I also want to highlight new clauses 11 and 12. Earlier this year I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to highlight the stark inequality in research and investment in women’s health, with a huge gap in investment, governance and reporting mechanisms between women’s and men’s health strategies. The new clauses would set up an inquiry into women’s health outcomes, and ensure that average waiting times for women’s health conditions do not exceed the average waiting times for wider elective treatments.
The crisis in our maternity care is a national shame and reveals a systemic neglect of the safety of women and their babies over many years. However, that is indicative of even wider concerns for patient safety, which I urge the Secretary of State to address in the Bill, and which we will discuss in more detail tomorrow. If the Government are serious about using the Bill to improve our NHS, they must invest time and money in the front and back doors of the NHS rather than structural reorganisations. The safety of staff and patients must be at the centre of those changes, and I urge the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, which would improve the Bill to achieve just that.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 32 and new clause 39 tabled in my name, which seek to address the problems facing community equipment and wheelchair services across the country. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I know just how important getting such services right is for disabled people and their families, and the consequences and long-term impacts when it goes wrong.
Evidence gathered for an inquiry by the APPG for access to disability equipment last year found that one in three equipment users who responded to our inquiry are waiting a significant time for equipment, with one in five waiting over two months, and 55% stating that they do not have the equipment they need for their long-term needs. At a time when we are rightly focused on reducing waiting lists and improving patient flow, it makes little sense for somebody to remain in a hospital bed simply because the equipment they need to return home has not arrived. Some 74% of professionals and equipment providers report that patients experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was not available at home, increasing pressure on hospital beds and placing further strain on services. The current system is fragmented, inconsistent and lacks sufficient accountability and national oversight.
My amendments would introduce two things that the system lacks: a clear expectation of how long people would wait, with clear, set timelines and accountability when things go wrong, and they would ensure that patients have a clear pathway for hospital discharge. Amendment 32 would require ICBs to provide community equipment and wheelchair services within 18 weeks of the date that a person is assessed. I know from experience of my daughter’s case when she was eight that the 18-week deadline was missed on two occasions, and she was without an adequate wheelchair for 21 months. These issues simply shunt costs to elsewhere in the NHS. The APPG for wheelchair users heard evidence from consultants within the NHS about the quality of assessment, interventions and aftercare. We heard that delays led to children receiving a wheelchair that was no longer fit for purpose by the time they received it. The following are quotes that we heard:
“There is the additional care to consider as well. Poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores, increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector.”
“In terms of inequity of care, when asked for information it is always the same eight or 10 ICBs who respond. The ones who don’t, are probably the ones we should worry about.”
“There is a level of bureaucracy in the NHS that stops things happening. Disability is not considered as important as other things in health parameters.”
The data available shows that the wheelchair deadline is being missed by many ICBs, and 29% of ICBs are not meeting the target of providing over 25% of wheelchairs in 18 weeks.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group; he is a real champion of this cause. AJM Healthcare, the contractor in my constituency, has a similar level of failure. People are left for months—sometimes six months—without a wheelchair, bed-bound and unable to get out of the house. Does he agree that ICBs seem completely at sea on this issue, and are totally unaccountable? Does he agree that we need much tougher measures, such as those he suggests, to hold them to account?
Daniel Francis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, there is an inconsistent set of data across the country. This inconsistency is not just between ICBs but, in the case of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), between neighbouring London boroughs, which may have the same ICB but different frameworks.
I also welcome the support for the amendment from the Children’s Commissioner, who has said:
“Across the country, children wait far too long for the right equipment that is essential for daily life. In recent research on children experiencing delayed discharge from hospital, the office was told that delays in getting equipment, and having equipment serviced, had led to children being stuck in hospital, away from family, friends and school.”
This postcode lottery is not just cross-country—I know of a number of ICBs in which there are significant issues—but within ICBs. In my part of south-east London, one patient can be discharged, while another, in the same hospital with the same condition, living on the opposite side of the road, cannot be discharged. That difference arises because a borough boundary runs down the road. There are different contractual arrangements between different London boroughs in the same ICB. I know at first hand that pupils in the same school class, and in the same ICB, can have completely different service standards for their wheelchairs because one lives in one London borough while another lives in the neighbouring borough.
I will speak briefly to new clause 85, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). Like me, she is the parent of a disabled child. We have fought these issues for many years, both as parents and on behalf of our constituents. In my case, I know that when Ofsted found that there were systemic failings in our SEND provision, we could hold our local authority to account, but we could not properly hold our ICB to account. The judgment was issued against the council, not the ICB.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech, and for bringing his personal experience to the Chamber. I am sure that he will agree with me that the ‘H’ in EHCP stands for health; we need to see the health service doing its part. Does he agree?
Daniel Francis
I absolutely agree, and I was a Labour councillor and leader of the council’s Labour opposition back then. I was also married to a special educational needs co-ordinator who was employed by the local authority. I was employing my own professionals to get through this process and ensure that the health aspects of the EHCP were upheld. The situation is absolutely abhorrent. Many parents who do not have the opportunity and insight that my wife and I had cannot ensure that accountability for their child. When my borough received that judgment of systemic failings, that issue really came to the fore.
I would be grateful if the Minister or Secretary of State could outline how the Government intend to address the issues addressed by my amendment and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. My amendment intends to ensure that we deliver basic objectives, set clear expectations for how long disabled people should wait, set consistent standards, and ensure meaningful accountability for ICBs when services fall short.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support.
I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill.
A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know.
Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Labour Members who had that commitment in their manifesto may want to reflect on how much more commitment we have to constituents because they are our constituents than we would if we shared constituents from day to day. We often go out of our way—I hope—to look after our constituents because of that sense of ownership and obligation. It is only because we are allocated those people and they are our responsibility that we go that extra mile. Why would doctors not be the same, and can colleagues not see the sense of what my right hon. Friend is saying?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS.
There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice.
People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done.
The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to.
At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
There is lots in this Bill that is very positive, but I want to raise a couple of local issues, including one relating to my local Stepping Hill hospital. I thank the Minister for meeting me and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), to discuss the hospital, because it is at the heart of healthcare provision in my town of Stockport. It serves around half a million patients per year and is one of the four specialist hub centres for emergency and higher-risk general surgery in Greater Manchester.
I appreciate that 14 years of austerity, imposed by the coalition Government of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, and by subsequent Conservative Governments, have taken their toll on the NHS. The Labour Government have been trying to fix things over the last two years, but Stepping Hill hospital is a huge issue locally. I have mentioned the condition of the hospital a number of times in this Chamber, and a number of constituents frequently get in touch with me about the state of the hospital. At one point, Stepping Hill hospital was reported to be delivering only 51% of its usual outpatient services, which is simply not good enough. The staff do an amazing job, and an amazing set of volunteers support the hospital, but so much more needs to be done.
The backlog of repairs at the hospital is estimated to cost around £138 million. The Government have allocated £2.5 million for targeted essential repairs, fire safety and other works, and the foundation trust has been allocated £75 million by this Government over the next four years. That is a positive step, but I urge the Minister to go a bit further for Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport, Greater Manchester.
The second issue I want to raise is NHS-funded IVF treatment, which I have also mentioned previously. We live in a country where we have a postcode lottery in NHS funding for IVF treatment, and that should not be the case. I have signed new clause 104, tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which is about ensuring that the provision of NHS-funded IVF is in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.
Once again, a number of parents in my constituency have been in touch with me about this issue. Sadly, NHS Greater Manchester ICB has taken the step of reducing provision. It conducted a consultation a few months ago, and 74% of respondents either disagreed or completely disagreed with the proposed one-plus cycle offer. I have submitted a freedom of information request to NHS Greater Manchester ICB regarding the cost and resources that went into the consultation, because it did the consultation and then proceeded to reduce the provision. The change disproportionately impacts low-income women and people from poorer backgrounds, and that is simply not good enough. Greater Manchester has a population of almost 3 million people, and this is a regressive step.
The Government need to do a lot better on mandating legal access to NHS-funded IVF. Current data from a fertility unit in the north-east—one of the only two areas where an ICB funds three full rounds of IVF treatment—shows that the chance of a woman under 40 having a baby after three cycles of treatment is 70%, but the figure for people who get access to one cycle is just 46%. In England, we need standardisation of IVF treatment.
I also support new clause 108, tabled by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I will not say much on this point, because I have spoken on three separate occasions in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber about data hygiene and safety. I have had a very large volume of correspondence from constituents on this issue. Many people in Stockport are worried about foreign tech firms having access to their sensitive personal medical records. People need to have confidence that the personal details and data that they provide to the NHS will not be misused.
As I said earlier, this Government have achieved a lot in the last two years, but we need to recognise that there is so much more to be done. Labour Governments always fix things in the long run, but I ask the Minister specifically to go a bit further on Stepping Hill hospital and IVF.
Layla Moran
Let me start by taking up the theme of maternity, which has already been mentioned by a number of Members. I welcome the Government’s commitment to instating a maternity commissioner. I sit on the expert reference group—that is what we are called—that feeds into the maternity and neonatal taskforce, so I see how the Government are trying to pull all these different issues together. The Health and Social Care Committee has heard repeatedly, and across a number of inquiries, how important this issue is, and we need someone who is independent of Government and able to knit it all together.
Our Committee’s “Black Maternal Health” report heard how workforce shortages are undermining efforts to improve maternity care, data is lacking, and there is a culture in which women, particularly black women, are not listened to. Investment and training are needed to tackle that.
The “First 1000 Days” report found that the UK has some of the worst early years health outcomes in Europe, including in infant mortality, and we have called for proper targets for early years professionals in the long-lost workforce plan. As an aside, where is the workforce plan? I would love to see it. Locally, Oxford University hospitals provide maternity care for my residents, and indeed for my own family—baby took their first steps this weekend, finally! It was a momentous occasion.
I also reflect genuinely that there are people in my National Childbirth Trust class who did not have as good an experience as we did. They have been proactively contacted by the hospital to have an apology and an explanation given for their awful, traumatic birth, and they did not even complain. In part, that is a result of the CQC inspections and, more importantly, the inclusion by Baroness Amos of OUH and John Radcliffe hospital in her report.
I toured the hospital again this summer and heard specifically from trust leaders and midwives. They are doing everything they can to respond to all the criticisms being levelled at them by families, but they told me that there is only so much that they can do without a new building. Baroness Amos’s report said:
“The maternity and neonatal units sit across multiple floors… We saw delivery suites that didn’t have windows, that were cold, small and cramped and had pillars in the middle of them affecting where equipment could be placed”.
A large number of the suites did not have en suites. Can you imagine what it must be like to give birth in those rooms? As the Government knit together their action plan, I beg them not to forget investment, particularly capital investment, when they empower the commissioner to do their good work.
Let me move on to a few other amendments. I support the work to tackle health inequalities in new clauses 90 and 91. Our Committee hears over and over again that if we want to unlock productivity in the NHS, that is where we need to focus. I also support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and his cross-party new clause 34, which echoes the findings of my Committee. The Government really need to think again when it comes to Palantir and instead supercharge the capability of UK-based companies.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
On that very point, does my hon. Friend agree that the recent NHS cost-benefit analysis showing that the Palantir project will cost £1.1 billion and deliver benefits of £800 million—a net loss of £300 million for the NHS—underlines the fact that we need to get rid of it now?
Layla Moran
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, as have other members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman). We also know that much of the data is based on the data being taken from Chelsea and Westminster hospital, and not much else across the country. We have a lot of questions about that contract, hence why we came to the same conclusion.
However, I primarily urge the Government please to consider new clause 85, in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), which would impose duties on ICBs for delivering education, health and care plans. In my constituency we held a roundtable to provide evidence for our own hearing on this issue—by the way, this was based on a recommendation that came out of the Education Select Committee’s work on EHCPs, so we decided to take up the “H” bit. In that roundtable, I heard movingly from families who kept saying things like, “Everything is a battle.” One child, Stefan, suffers from multiple epiphyseal dysplasia, which affects his hips, and needs support to get around. He is very bright and desperately wants to learn. His mother was at that roundtable, and told me that, exceptionally and against school policy, he is allowed to keep a phone on him. There is no one whom the school can employ to make sure he can be wheeled from class to class, so instead what happens—and mother and school have done everything they possibly can—is that Stefan rings his mum so that she can come from home and deliver him to his next class. Ridiculously, this is the kind of thing that goes to tribunal, and then those tribunals cannot hold the ICBs to the same level of accountability as local authorities. The whole thing is nonsensical.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I agree with the point that the hon. Member is making. To add the voice of a member of the Education Select Committee, the Committee’s report equally found that we have to have a system where ICBs can be held to account for delivering on EHCPs.
Layla Moran
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, and for the work of that Committee. We are doing work together right now on children’s mental health, so I am sure we will continue to pursue this theme.
The point is that the impact was not just on that child; it was also on the mother, who could not work, and there was also the distress of having to battle the system. The mental health of both parents was affected. It does not need to be this way, and I genuinely believe that accountability is part of the answer. As such, my plea to the Government is simply to say that it is past time that the “H” part of EHCPs is put on a statutory footing, and I urge the House to support new clause 85.
Danny Beales
There is much to support in the Bill, and I support its ambition to enable many of the provisions of the welcome 10-year plan for the NHS. The plan is the right one; the three shifts are correct, and we have to fundamentally reform the health system if we are to meet the modern health and care challenges that we all see in our constituencies. To some extent those challenges are not new, and neither are these ambitions—we have seen similar initiatives before—but the systems, the structures, the bureaucracy and the siloed budgets push against change in the health sector. They have been a hinderance, reinforcing silos and making the same investment choices. They have prevented digitalisation, kept care in acute settings and stopped joined-up working. This Bill could and should be a key lever in overcoming those challenges, which we need to do if we are to achieve those ambitions.
I very much support the digital single patient record, which is a key ambition in the shift from analogue to digital health. We have all heard from patients who have to tell their story over and over again at every single health appointment—between care and health, between community and secondary care—so a genuine single patient record has the potential to be transformational. We have, however, heard from pharmacies and community mental health services that if this is to work, they have to have a seat at the table. While this Bill enables the architecture, I hope that the delivery will ensure that the whole of the health and care system is part of the decision-making process when the single patient record is designed. That is crucial.
Turning to the abolition of NHS England, the idea of streamlining bureaucracy at the centre is a good one, and delivering power—including decision-making power—budgets and resources locally is also admirable. Success, however, will mean the right decisions being taken at the right scale.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
One of my concerns about the abolition of NHS England is that highly specialised services for treating the rarest and most complex conditions—of which there are only 79 in the country—currently sit directly with NHS England. It is not clear whether those services will continue to be commissioned centrally. Does my hon. Friend think it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that?
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Having worked in neonatal care services and areas of specialised services in the NHS for 10 years, I understand that one of the benefits of NHS England was that it brought together highly specialised services, ensured consistent service specifications and uplifted the quality and availability of care across the country. I hope that when we make decisions about which specialised services will be devolved to ICBs, consideration will be given to that point. Equally, we have heard from national population health programmes such as the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which has been a huge success. As we make the final decisions about the level at which decisions are made, we cannot lose the benefits of public health initiatives at scale, such as vaccinations and prevention programmes. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts and reflections on that.
Integrated working is also important—as I say, we have to blend budgets and bring together decision makers across current silo divides. In that spirit, I very much welcome the change made by Government amendment 60 to give local authorities a seat back at the table. We need a bigger voice for public health and social care in health decision making, not less, so I thank the Minister and the Government for listening to the Health and Social Care Committee and moving on that. In the view of the NHS Alliance, this is not enough; it would like to see a reciprocal duty to collaborate, which is an interesting suggestion. However, the Government’s amendment is an important start.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and others on the Select Committee who did the work on strengthening local authority representation on integrated care boards. Does he agree with the sentiments of my new clause 106, which says that we need a stronger duty to co-operate, both within the NHS and between the NHS and local authorities?
Danny Beales
My hon. Friend might have read my speech, because I was about to turn to her amendment’s proposal of a report on integrating health and social care. It is an interesting idea that has a great deal of merit, and I hope that the Minister, in her response, will outline the Government’s approach to enabling more progress on integrating health and social care, particularly with the ongoing Casey review.
Inequalities have already been mentioned in the debate. Obviously, one of the Government’s key ambitions is growth in every postcode; another is good health in every postcode. Time and again we see disproportionality and inequalities that are seemingly hardwired into our health system. To change that, we are going to have to do something differently, and I welcome new clauses 90 and 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). Unfortunately, those amendments have not been selected for debate, but they definitely reinforce the Government’s 10-year plan commitment to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest regions and the poorest, and to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. Unfortunately, we have moved away from those goals over the past 10 years, and we will have to do something differently if we are to bridge that gap. In my own constituency, from north to south, there is a huge divide in the quality of health and outcomes based on postcode. That must change.
Although the Government are not minded to accept those amendments, I know that the Minister is passionate about inequalities and that the Bill requires neighbourhood health plans to be developed. That will be an important new measure when responding to neighbourhood health needs, and in preparing those plans,
“the responsible local authority and…partner integrated care boards must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
I hope that the Minister will explore using this guidance to ensure that as they are developed, neighbourhood health plans specifically address inequalities between neighbourhoods.
Finally, I turn to the SEND system, which is another major challenge with which the Government are rightly grappling. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for new clause 85, which would address the chasm between the education system and the health system. While this is fundamentally a health Bill, it is right to ask what more the health system could and should be doing. As the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has rightly said already, the “H” is far from present in EHCPs. Decision makers are not required to come round the table, and the specialists are not provided. I have been to specialist schools in my constituency where there is no nursing provision, so people miss school days, and where there is no specialist transport, so people cannot even get to school, because bus drivers do not have the proper health knowledge. We need to have an education and health response. I therefore hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks how, if this Bill is not the right mechanism, future SEND reforms may pick this issue up and how the Department of Health and Social Care will contribute.
There is a great deal to support in this Bill. It is a major step forward, particularly for digital healthcare, giving people control of their records and joined-up care. I hope that the Government will continue to drive forward reform of our health system.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
We all often have a common memory that is so incredibly important and special: holding our child for the very first time. Sadly, so many people up and down this country cannot have that memory because of their difficulty in having children.
In 2004, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended a way forward on IVF, which was to give all a minimum three cycles of IVF treatment. That was set out 22 years ago, so we would hope that over time all ICBs would have moved towards delivering that. Sadly, it is something that people have moved away from, and that is not because the issue has got easier or better or is impacting fewer people. The reality is that the issue has got more difficult and is impacting more people, meaning that more people will not have that amazing joy of holding their own child.
I ask the Minister to look at new clause 104, which has been tabled in my name, with the support of 16 other Members from all parts of the House. The issue of people not being able to have children is growing. Male fertility has been collapsing over the past few decades. As people are dealing with greater pressures to buy their own home, they are having children later in life, rather than earlier.
We have a postcode lottery. Only two ICBs across the country offer the NICE recommendation of three cycles. In fact, as we have already heard, the offer in Manchester has been decreased. That is also the case in Cheshire and Merseyside. In Staffordshire, which I represent, people are not even entitled to one full cycle of IVF, meaning that unless someone is incredibly rich, they are condemned to probably never being able to have children. That is just not right, and I urge the Minister to be proactive in looking at how it can be addressed.
We face a demographic issue in this country. We have a falling birth rate, with fewer than 600,000 babies born in this country last year. That will only get worse. It is sad that the NHS is not prioritising this issue. I understand the pressures that ICBs operate under, and it may always be seen as an easy, no-cost option to deprive people of the ability to have a child, but for those people who desperately spend their whole life doing everything they can—remortgaging their homes, begging for money from family and friends—to have a cycle of IVF, it is destroying them. There is no humanity in this system. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 104 and give families the opportunity—the greatest blessing that they can have—to hold their own child. I urge her to take action, as opposed to ignoring something that is so important to so many.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this landmark Bill, which will protect and strengthen our health service for decades to come, but for children with special educational needs and disabilities who are disproportionately impacted by not getting the healthcare that they need, I believe that it should go further. That is why I tabled new clause 85, which seeks to address the fundamental imbalance in the provision of health services for disabled children and young people. Currently, the statutory duty to deliver education, health and care plans—the legal mechanism by which children with special educational needs and disabilities can receive support—sits entirely with local authorities.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady for all her endeavours in this regard. Does she share my concern that when a child is diagnosed with cancer, the parents are instantly overwhelmed by medical jargon, by appointments and by sheer panic? Does she agree that the Minister, and the Government, should accept the common-sense duty to ensure that no family faces those critical first two weeks completely alone?
Jen Craft
I do agree. The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point about the impact of childhood illness, not only on the child but on the family. I also agree that support for families is crucial. They are part of the care team for children when they are unwell, and that acknowledgment needs to be strengthened and acted on.
As I was saying, the statutory duty to deliver EHCPs sits solely with local authorities. In practice, that means that councils are the only bodies that can be held legally responsible for providing the service that a disabled child needs to access education, including health services such as occupational or speech and language therapy. Health bodies are not subject to the same requirement, and I know from my work as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and a constituency MP, and as a parent of a disabled child, that that too often means that they are not at the table when it comes to delivering services for children with special educational needs and disabilities. There is a fundamental lack of accountability in the system. That, in practice, can force local authorities or families to procure privately, which can drive shortages in the NHS workforce or can mean that provision is substandard or non-existent.
My constituent’s son Haider, for example, has an EHCP which outlines his need for speech and language therapy to gain full access to education. Despite his mother Qaila’s relentless efforts, that support was not delivered for months. Qaila tells me that she has been forced to watch while Haider has become withdrawn, anxious and isolated. My constituent Elizabeth has a similar story. She has been fighting to get occupational and physical therapy for her son William, but significant delays in securing assessments from healthcare professionals have resulted in inaccurate, unhelpful support arrangements.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech, and for all the work that she does in this regard. These long waiting times are particularly difficult when children are involved, because a child's life is so attenuated. If a parent is waiting for 18 months, that amounts to one and a half or two school years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to prevention is to ensure that these matters are dealt with as quickly as possible?
Jen Craft
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Owing to the lack of early intervention for my constituent Elizabeth and her son William, he has missed countless hours and days and weeks of schooling at a critical point in his development.
At a drop-in that I hosted last week, I met a woman called Annika. Her daughter Winnie has cerebral palsy, and her EHCP clearly states that she requires a physiotherapist, but the family have been forced to arrange that for themselves. Countless other families are in the same position. I think that every single Member in this House will have encountered similar constituency cases, and it is just not good enough.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is making a most powerful speech. We will all have experienced the frustration of parents with a child whose EHCP lacks the health element. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, furthermore, the abolition of Healthwatch might remove one of the few elements that externally and independently marks the homework of the NHS, and that we are moving to a situation in which the NHS itself, and Ministers, will collect the data and mark their own homework, and we will lose yet another of the few tools that a frustrated parent has to hold the system to account?
Jen Craft
I agree that there needs to be better accountability in the health service. It currently does not work, and the mechanisms by which we can hold healthcare bodies to account are few and far between. I believe that it is most acutely felt in paediatric care and in the special educational needs and disabilities system, where a mechanism for holding public bodies to account already exists: EHCPs. The idea that the responsibility should fall entirely on local authorities is misguided, because roughly 50% of what a child with an EHCP needs in order to access education is healthcare, which should be provided by a healthcare service. There must be better accountability and transparency for parents, and for their children, when that does not happen. I know that parents often have to go out of their way and spend, on average, £8,500 a year on their child’s healthcare so that they can access education.
Jen Craft
I will not, because I am going to run out of time.
Roughly 40% of people have paid privately for therapies, and many are forced to fundraise for the vital medical equipment to which their child is legally entitled. It is worth noting that beyond the direct costs, many parents are forced to miss work because the right support is not available for their child to attend school. Around 40% report cutting back their hours, and 35% have left the job market completely. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I stopped work to become a full-time carer for my daughter. I do not regret that choice for a second, but it was a difficult and sometimes lonely period. Like many parents, I had not anticipated just how hard it would be to secure basic support for my child. Even to this day, I struggle to secure the basic healthcare support that she needs to support her education and her place at school. I am wearing a dragon for her today, and she will know why that is. I will not share it with the House, but if she watches this debate, she will see the dragon and it will make her smile.
New clause 85 is intended to fix the inequality. It would place a statutory duty on ICBs to deliver the health part of EHCPs, matching the existing duty on local authorities. The fundamental concept that there must be a meaningful legal requirement on health services to deliver the support set out in EHCPs is critical. If we do not act and do not rightly demand that health services pull their weight, the status quo of young people missing out on education will continue, and I am afraid the planned SEND reforms will be doomed to failure. Disabled children are no less worthy of a decent education than their peers and are no less capable of thriving in school, but we are denying them access to the tools they need to succeed.
I am grateful to the Health and Social Care Committee and the Education Committee for their support for new clause 85, and to the nearly 100 Members from across the House who put their name to it. I want to express my thanks to the charities involved for their continued campaigning efforts, and to the many parents who have contacted me. I sincerely hope that the Government will give the new clause the attention it deserves. If they cannot accept it in whole, I hope that they will give a commitment to deliver proper accountability.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit, but I will not reduce it further than that.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I would like to start by welcoming the commitment from the Minister at the Dispatch Box to bring forward a maternity commissioner, and by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her tireless campaigning on this issue. When I worked for her many years ago, I was all too aware of the scandal at the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, after sitting in on surgeries with her. Indeed, in my own constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, I have ended up with tireless campaigners coming to me when they face maternity issues at Leeds hospital.
I turn to the amendments tabled in my name. The first is new clause 36, which would require the Government to bring forward a formal transition strategy and to report back to Parliament on what happens when NHS England is abolished. I have tabled the new clause out of concern for families who have lost loved ones at the hands of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. They have said time and again that they are concerned about the delayed appointment of a chair to the inquiry. They are really worried about that as we see the largest changes to the health service in a generation, and they do not want the inquiry to be lost. I press the Minister on whether she might be able to push that forward or get her colleagues to do so.
New clause 43 would reduce inequalities in access to clinical research funding and trials. I have been working closely with Yorkshire Cancer Research, based in Hornbeam Park in my constituency. We know that funding for clinical research and trials across Yorkshire is about a quarter of what is received in London. If areas outside London and the south-east are getting less research funding, the logic follows that we will struggle to close inequalities in those areas.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I think the hon. Member’s point about health inequalities is really important. The number of cancer cases is expected to rise by about 30% by 2040, and England already has fewer radiotherapy machines per head than comparable European countries. Weston-super-Mare does not even have one, despite being the size of the city of Bath. Does he agree that that needs to come in conjunction with the rest of the investment he is talking about?
Tom Gordon
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is not here, is campaigning tirelessly on radiotherapy and radiography. The point I was making about those health inequalities is that regions such as Yorkshire have a high incidence of cancer and of poorer outcomes, so we need to close that funding gap to close those inequalities.
New clauses 61 and 93, both in my name, pertain to NHS dentistry, and I have also added my name to and support many other new clauses. New clause 61 would have made sure that there is adequate provision of dental appointments in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Over the last two years in my constituency and across North Yorkshire as a whole, the number of people with access to an NHS dentist appointment is down from 50% to just 37%. When this arises in casework and at surgeries, the issue is often precipitated by those who work in A&E telling me traumatic stories of people reaching A&E as a result of emergency dental care or the lack of it. In particular, we have heard some harrowing stories from local children about their inability to focus in school. New clause 93 would require the Secretary of State to publish before Parliament a regular report on the state of NHS dentistry, including that unmet need, and also to pay particular attention to workforce capacity and distribution.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
In Dorset, we have lost 44 dentists in the last five years, and there has not been a single new contract for 10 years. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that his new plan would reverse that by enabling us to see exactly where the gaps are in the system?
Tom Gordon
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to see that, and I tabled new clause 93 to get the answers to some of those questions that not just constituents in my patch but those in hers are asking us as Members of Parliament. It is particularly frustrating that we are in the third year of this Labour Government, and although talk of dental contract reform kept cropping up at the outset, we have seen little progress since, so I would press the Minister on what more can be done to make sure those gaps are filled.
On new clause 121, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and we have some fantastic care and world-leading practice for diabetes, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). This new clause would maintain existing national diabetes prevention, treatment and audit programmes, and would mean we see an explanation from the Government with regular reports in Parliament about how those are being continued.
Overall, Members across the House have tabled a fantastic number of amendments. I hope the Minister will pay attention to them and can provide us with some responses.
Anna Dixon
I worked as a civil servant for the coalition Government, and I saw at first hand some of the duplication and confusion caused when NHS England was set up, so I welcome this Bill and the decision to abolish NHS England. However, reversing the fragmentation caused by the Tories’ failed reforms of the NHS will not on its own create a more integrated and joined-up service for patients and carers. That is why I have tabled new clause 106, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months of the Act passing on how well NHS bodies and local authorities are working together to integrate health and social care in England.
Having worked in the health and care sector, I know how vital it is to have integrated services, and I know as an MP, as I am sure do others, and from personal experience how devastating unco-ordinated care can be for patients, their families and our NHS. One of my constituents, Ellerie Carroll, was diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, an inoperable brain tumour, in September 2024. Very sadly, she died in May this year, aged just nine. Ellerie and her parents, Freya and Christian, suffered in ways that are unimaginable, but it was a lack of co-operation between services that added to their suffering. To give just one example, after going for a MRI scan at Great Ormond Street hospital, Ellerie had to endure a repeated scan at Leeds General Infirmary in Leeds due to an inability to share results between hospitals. I hope that the single patient record, which the Bill also creates, will help to join up systems and reduce such problems.
We see disjointed care within the NHS between hospital and community services, but also between health and social care. Another constituent, Roger, in his 90s, had a fall and serious head injury last year. After the acute hospital treatment in Leeds, there was a failure in the NHS to join up his care with Bradford social services, resulting in delays to his discharge. He developed infections and delirium. After nine months of being moved from one hospital to another, and despite his wife fighting to get him home with support, he died in hospital. These are the consequences when our health and care systems are not integrated. It is also expensive. Around one in 10 hospital beds in England are occupied by someone who does not need to be there, often because community care or social care are not available.
Any reform of the NHS will ultimately fail unless we simultaneously reform adult social care. That is why I welcome the priority given to this issue by the Prime Minister and the commitment he made to bring forward the conclusion of the Casey commission. But even if we build a national care service, which we must, there is a risk if it does not work in sync with our national health service. It is essential that we place very clear obligations on all parts of the NHS to co-operate and integrate with social care.
I ask the Minister to set out in her closing remarks how she and the Secretary of State will monitor the Bill’s impact on integration, and how they will ensure co-operation remains a critical priority for the NHS—not just on paper, not just in law, but in the way that we all experience health and care in a joined-up way.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation.
What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost.
Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB.
That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement.
The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is giving a typically punchy speech. Does he agree that every signal suggests that this measure has not been thought through? While the Government have conceded by saying, “Oh we’re going to have local government coming back onboard,” how could they have conceived of health and social care without local government being engaged? On every front, it looks as if they have not thought it through, abolishing everything from the safety inspectorate to Healthwatch England. We have a Government that are out of control, spending tens if not hundreds of millions on redundancies with no clear end destination in view, wasting a huge opportunity.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government are spending millions of pounds and there is no plan. The measure was announced without working that out, it came as a surprise to many within the system, and it has had a chilling effect on many decisions.
That is not isolated. Just today, we had the complete shambles of local government reorganisation. On the last day before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State rushed to the House to push through an announcement, which the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reversing, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is contradicting her by saying that the Government want to have a higher legal appetite for risk and fewer consultations. There is confusion across Departments, and the issues with clause 1, which a number of Members have spoken to, illustrate that.
Given the time limit, I will turn to clause 6. I do not doubt for a minute that the Health Minister and the Secretary of State—anyone in the Department—want to promote innovation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) spoke a lot about capital to revenue switches in his book, and the pressure that takes away from innovation. As Health Secretary, I used to have a wry smile at the battles I had with him, when I was pushed by the Treasury to do exactly the same thing. The issue is not the lack of will; the issue is the alignment between procurement, regulation and clinical leadership, particularly in the colleges, as well as the ability to scale innovation—it is not about having more ministerial pilots.
Finally, because I am almost out of time, I will pick up on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s good points around data. When I was in the Department, my frustration was that I often had to go on open-source dashboards to get information that should have been available to me as a Minister, and I suspect that that is still the case. We should make data dashboards a common theme—the CSV files that the Department publishes are extremely difficult to access. Make data more transparent; it will help the debate in Parliament and, I dare say, it will help Ministers get more support.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the Bill. I put it on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia. I rise to speak to new clause 162. It is well known that the NHS commissions specialised services unevenly across England. I am confident that this Government’s ambition is to end the postcode lottery of specialised services, and I would like to hear more about that. New clause 162 is designed to do something simple: to ensure that Parliament can identify where inequalities exist, measure where they are improving and hold the Secretary of State to account when they are not.
I will make the case for the provision through the experience of people who live with sickle cell. Sickle cell disorder is the fastest growing serious genetic condition in England. It causes episodes of serious chronic pain, spasms and a crisis that will continue if left untreated. It can damage organs and frequently requires hospital care. When the crisis strikes, patients have to attend A&E and wait for hours, often only to be seen by medical staff who may have little or no familiarity with their condition. Due to past experiences, many sufferers do not trust the NHS to meet their needs, and stories of sufferers who have died in hospital due to complications, such as Evan Nathan Smith, are well known.
In 2021, the “No One’s Listening” report demonstrated that people with sickle cell need to be listened to. That report prompted NHS England to act. It initiated the sick cell and thalassaemia quality improvement programme, from which came seven pilot emergency department bypass units. These dedicated facilities allow sickle cell patients to avoid A&E and receive immediate care to bring a crisis under control. The service works, but there is a problem, which brings me to the new clause. When the APPG met last week, we heard from stakeholders that this progress is fragile. There are only seven bypass units across the country, and with the transfer of commissioning responsibilities under the Bill, there is a real and legitimate fear that what has just begun to be built will not be protected to continue.
Ben Coleman
I am also a member of the APPG, and I was also at that meeting. On the Health Committee, we raised the point about these short-term pilots, and we managed to get an extra year’s funding. I have to say—I will say this as the person I am—that I feel that if this was a problem that predominantly affected white people instead of black people, it would be taken a lot more seriously. I think that the Government need to reflect on that when they are deciding whether to accept this amendment and whether they wish to give sickle cell sufferers the full support that they need, which they are not getting.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend. He could not have said that more clearly. This is absolutely about inequalities in the health service. He has explained and expressed that extremely well. I know that he, like me, will continue to advocate for people from ethnic minority and diverse backgrounds.
New clause 162 would require the Secretary of State to do two things: first, to lay an annual report before Parliament on the performance of specialised services against national standards; secondly, to ensure the regular publication of data on quality and outcomes of the kind currently captured in the specialised services quality dashboards, which NHS England has maintained on a non-statutory basis. Without legislation, those dashboards could quietly disappear when NHS England does, and that must not happen. The new clause would make their continuation, or the continuation of something equivalent, a legal requirement.
I want to be clear about the modesty of this ask. We are not asking the Government to build new services, ringfence budgets or second-guess local commissioning decisions. We are asking them to measure, publish and report, in order to ensure basic accountability for patients with rare conditions, and for geographically dispersed people, predominantly from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, so that they have services that work.
The patients who rely on specialised services are often marginalised twice over: once by their condition, and again by a system that does not always see them clearly. New clause 162 would require the Secretary of State to identify them, and to report back to this House on what they find. I urge the Government to take this new clause seriously and to respond appropriately.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Amendment 19 closes a dangerous gap in the Bill and commands the support of Members from across the House. It is right that clause 4 calls for the Health Secretary to reduce inequality of access to health services, but the Bill must explicitly cover rural and coastal health inequalities, or else less densely populated communities will always lose.
At face value, it makes sense to measure success by the greatest number helped; however, in the long run, that is a false economy, as delayed diagnosis and treatment ultimately cost the NHS more. It is a little bit like access to high-speed broadband—we rolled out the first phase to the places where the most people could be connected, which rewarded the Government and providers with some impressive-sounding numbers while disguising failure in the margins. Rural and coastal communities are literally and politically at the end of the line, and are therefore reached last.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As my hon. Friend will know, the chief medical officer’s rural health report is due later this year. Rural health cannot be seen as an afterthought. That is why I tabled new clause 120, which would create a farmer-friendly general practice scheme, similar to the veteran-friendly accreditation scheme; it would recognise GPs who proactively reach out to isolated farming communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must treat the rural health report’s recommendations as a genuine test of action, and not just warm words?
Steff Aquarone
I absolutely agree. In order to achieve genuine equality of access, the Government must go outside-in; in other words, they must design provision around the hardest places to serve—my hon. Friend gives a great example—and then work inwards from there.
“If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the remote outback, we can meet the needs of people living in rural and coastal England.”
Those are the words of the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) when he was Health Secretary. Not only do I agree with him, but I challenge the current Health Secretary to turn her Government’s own words into law. We got it wrong with broadband; we cannot afford to get it wrong with people’s health.
In North Norfolk, I see the struggle for health access and outcomes at first hand. People living on the coast start with half the access that those in inland areas have. Conventional service models assume that people can access healthcare from any direction, but for our coastal communities, half of the area is the sea. The sea may be beautiful, but it does not run a bus service, staff a clinic, or provide a patient catchment. Coastal communities, which may have sparse populations and poor transport, need more local points of care, not fewer. On top of that, the services we do have are burdened by exceptionally long waits. We are not unique in this; some of the poorest healthcare access and outcomes can be found in communities like mine.
We know the challenges for health and wellbeing in these areas from the excellent work of Professor Sir Chris Whitty. He spelled out that we suffer from shorter life expectancy and higher rates of major chronic illness, higher rates of alcohol and drug-related harm, and more cardiovascular and chronic lung conditions. These are very serious problems, and they cannot remain an afterthought in national health policy. National systems must not mistake population density for severity of need.
Besides, when problems are caught earlier and treated faster, it leads to better outcomes. That is one of the reasons why I was so frustrated to be told by the Government before recess that they have “no plans” to provide an urgent treatment centre at Cromer hospital in my constituency, although it would transform access to urgent care across North Norfolk. I am putting the Department on notice today: my constituents and I will continue pressing the case until Ministers reconsider.
Let me tell the House what these inequalities mean in human terms. They mean that constituents like Kelly, who has been waiting more than 70 weeks for a hip replacement, are living every day in pain. Another constituent, Samantha, told me that she waited 30 weeks to see a gynaecologist. The NHS standard is 18 weeks. Appallingly, our wait times made a young woman so unwell that she was forced to sacrifice her education; during the wait, her symptoms worsened to the point that she had to step back from the degree that she was studying for.
I heard from Ian, who has metastatic prostate cancer and requires treatment at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. It is a half-day trip for him by car to get the essential treatment that he needs. He told me that he considered using a local bus service, but that it would be an hour just to get there. He lives with a damaged bladder, due to his condition, and he told me that it makes life “very unpleasant”. I would go further and say that it is undignified and dehumanising.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on behalf of rural and coastal areas. One word that he has not used yet is “age”. Age is the clearest proxy for health need that there is. It is not deprivation or anything else—it is age. The distribution of health funding in this country has, under successive Administrations, failed to recognise that and allocate funding accordingly. That is why cancer patients in his constituency and mine find themselves with chronically less spent on them than cancer patients in areas where there are many fewer of them.
Steff Aquarone
I could not agree more. That is one of many respects in which rural and coastal communities around the country have much more in common with each other than with their inland neighbours just a few miles away. Theoretically available treatment becomes practically inaccessible if it requires a journey to be made without reliable toilet access, as in Ian’s case, and in cases where access to private transport is more limited, as in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Kelly, Samantha, Ian and so many more are entitled to the same access to good treatment and the same chance of good health as people living in urban and inland communities. It is absolutely right for the Government to pursue this Bill, and I support their aim wholeheartedly, but I challenge them to assess the Bill based on who is left behind, not just who can be helped. Accept this amendment, or explain why rural and coastal communities do not merit explicit protection.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
My remarks will focus mainly on new clause 69, which is in my name. Getting rid of NHS England is one of the best things that this Government have done. As working clinicians, we can at least now get away from so much admin and management.
My amendment is a simple one about self-care and health literacy. Demand for healthcare has increased enormously. Since 2019, for example, GP consultations in Stroud have gone up 30%. When I started work as a GP, patients saw me on average three times a year; it is now about eight times a year. Indeed, A&E attendance has gone up 20% over the last decade, yet the health of the nation remains the same. This is the demand side of the NHS that we very rarely discuss, and this is what I am asking the Secretary of State to address.
Let me turn to the causes of this increase in demand. There is a concept in medicine called the symptom iceberg. Most of us get symptoms every day, but we do not go to the doctor. We only go to the doctor when we have certain symptoms, and it is a very small number of symptoms, but that has increased over the last 20 years. Then there is the role of something that we call lay referrals; people used to have mums who lived next door, but now they are often much further away. We are socially isolated in an atomised society. We also have a much higher expectation for our health. We cannot fault that, but it means that, for example, people go to the doctor with very minor things. There are also factors such as AI. In my surgery, we use AI, but I believe that creates its own demands. There is also good old Dr Google, who in this country is consulted over 50 million times every year—and those who go to Dr Google usually end up thinking that they have cancer or need an ambulance, so that is clearly driving demand.
There are also doctor factors. If we carry on treating sore throats with antibiotics, people will carry on coming back. Earaches generally get better, and people do not usually need to see a doctor for headaches. We are over-diagnosing and over-medicalising everything. NHS factors includes the algorithms for 111 and litigation. I would also like to talk about health literacy. That means knowing about our health, and understanding that we are not always in totally good health, but we do not have to consult the health service just because we are feeling a little bit low or a little bit tired.
One of my colleagues in Stroud, Dr Hugh van’t Hoff, started Facts4Life, a school-based education service that goes into schools. In the last 10 years, he has worked with over 200 primary schools. He has shown that if we teach young children about health and how it is normal sometimes to feel tired or have a sore throat—stuff like that—we can reduce consultations in the NHS. We can also teach children how to understand information on the internet, so that when they look at statistics, they know what they mean, instead of thinking, “Ooh, my risk of cancer has been doubled by doing this.” That is really important.
We are also over-medicalising patients. In this country, 9 million patients in England alone—one in five adults—are on antidepressants. That is a scandal.
Martin Wrigley
On interpreting statistics, does the hon. Gentleman agree that when it comes to data, GP confidentiality—in respect of the Palantir federated data platform, for example—is critical, certainly when we come to the single patient record, and that the Bill should not reduce confidentiality or data privacy to achieve the single patient record?
Dr Opher
I thank the hon. Member for that comment. He is right. NHS and GP data is a massive resource for our scientists in this country, and I agree with him that it should be owned by the UK. It should be a sovereign wealth issue. I would like to ensure that we realise that over time.
I will return to over-medicalisation. I would like to try to divert patients with mild to moderate mental health symptoms to social prescribing, such as access to nature, arts and culture and exercise—and indeed comedy. Let us try to reduce that figure of 9 million on antidepressants, so that people do not have to come back for review. There would be fewer harms, such as suicide, in the first couple of weeks. Let us also look again at neurodivergence, and try to look for a way of not medicalising so many children with the condition.
If we are serious about reducing waiting lists and making the NHS sustainable for the future, we cannot focus only on supply; we must address rising demand, too. Giving people the knowledge and confidence to look after their own health will empower them, free up clinicians to care for those who need them most, and ultimately build a healthier population. That is what new clause 69 seeks to achieve. I urge the Government to accept it.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Only half the children in my constituency have seen a dentist in two years. There has been a 20% decrease in NHS dental practices, and some constituents have written to me recently to say that they have been quoted in excess of £7,000 for the most basic of treatments. Amendment 47 would require the Government to establish training hubs in Dorset. It would ensure that dental hubs trained dentists for the future, and would mandate final-year trainees to provide supervised treatment to NHS patients straightaway. Trainees are already providing treatment for free, paid for by the taxpayer, as part of their training. Those appointments should be for the NHS, and not for private patients.
Amendment 48 would ensure that the dental funding underspend is redirected towards additional NHS appointments, shorter waiting times, outreach, and home and school-based services. Amendment 49 would require the dental funding formula to account for rurality, an ageing population, disability, transport costs and recruitment difficulties.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my new clause 108, because the public rightly expect any company entrusted to operate within our national health service to meet basic standards of ethical conduct, both inside and outside the NHS. In my experience as parliamentary lead on the Hillsborough law, I regularly met members of the public who were shocked that a duty of candour that would compel public officials to tell the truth to the people they served did not already exist. I believe that many of my constituents will be equally shocked that the basic principles of ethical accountability are not already enshrined in Government procurement policy, but they are not.
New clause 108 is not radical. It is a straightforward safeguard requiring the Secretary of State to review the NHS procurement framework and ensure that companies with proven involvement in violations of international law or breaches of internationally accepted standards of business conduct cannot be offered public contracts. Those standards include the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises. What exactly is there to disagree with? They ask the bare minimum of businesses: that do not contribute to harm, that they carry out proper human rights due diligence and that are transparent about how they handle the data of the people they serve. Yet we currently have a company operating at the heart of our NHS infrastructure, through the federated data platform, that fails to meet that basic standard. I am talking about the US tech firm Palantir.
Palantir has consistently refused to publish a formal human rights impact assessment for its software used in Israel’s assault on Gaza, in violent ICE detentions in America, and in its use of NHS staff and patient data. Such a lack of transparency is not a technicality but a serious failure to meet the standards in the UN and OECD guidelines. I first raised concerns about Palantir’s NHS contract in a letter to the then health Secretary in August 2023, and these concerns have been echoed by many, many others. I am pleased that Parliament has started to push back, with calls from numerous Committees for Palantir to be dropped.
I also fully support new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). Patients trust the NHS with the most sensitive information they possess.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Member agree that it is a fundamental principle of anything like the SPR that it must have privacy by design at the centre of it, and that therefore a firm such as Palantir—which has a US, slightly cavalier and somewhat casual attitude to how data privacy should be controlled—should not be allowed anywhere near it?
Ian Byrne
I fully agree; I have signed the hon. Gentleman’s amendments and we have been in many Committees speaking on this issue.
New clause 108 provides a proportionate and evidence-based mechanism to address this issue. The new clause does not name or target any individual company. It would establish a clear and principled test, rooted in international law and internationally accepted standards, that every contractor must meet. If a company such as Palantir cannot meet that test, it should never hold contracts in our NHS or with Government Departments. I have repeatedly urged the Government to trigger the 2027 break clause in Palantir’s contract to operate the federated data platform. I make that call again tonight.
It is only through a measure such as new clause 108 that we can ensure that companies such as Palantir cannot operate in our public services again. It should be accepted, but the principle behind it should not end with the NHS. It should apply across every Government Department, led by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office’s report on social value and procurement, published last month, was welcome, but it contained a glaring omission: a clear ethical foundation. My clause would provide that crucial and much-needed safeguard, ensuring a legislative framework that prevents companies with records like Palantir’s from securing public contracts in the future.
Last week, I visited the Vatican and spoke with officials about how the United Kingdom could lead the world in the ethical use of artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Tonight, my Government have a real opportunity to put a marker down and demonstrate that Britain intends to be at the forefront of that global movement. I look forward to helping them achieve that if they adopt my new clause. Let us make it clear that scrutiny, transparency and respect for human rights are not optional extras in public procurement, but conditions of entry for any company seeking to serve NHS workers and patients. That is what new clause 108 calls for, and that is the change that will be welcomed in Liverpool West Derby, across our country and, indeed, in the halls of the Vatican. I look forward to the Government’s response.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I rise to speak in favour of new clauses 133 and 134, which stand in my name. The new clauses would require the Secretary of State to work with Welsh Ministers to update the England and Wales cross-border healthcare statement of values and principles, and to bring forward proposals to place those principles on a formal legal footing.
For many people living along the border, cross-border healthcare is simply a fact of life. In Powys, at least 40% of people depend on hospitals across the border in England. Yet the framework governing how our two healthcare systems work together is based on a voluntary statement of values and principles dating back to 2018. We do not need to look far to see why the current arrangements need reform. Since last July, Powys teaching health board has been asking English hospitals treating Powys residents to treat them more slowly than patients from England as part of cost-cutting measures, despite the fact that they had always previously been treated as equals. The impact of that decision has been devastating. Many patients have had their waiting times increased to up to two years—forced to wait longer in pain, all while their conditions deteriorate.
It is not just me and the Liberal Democrats who have been sounding the alarm; providers on the English side of the border have resisted the arrangements because of concerns about the impact on patients. However, there seems to be little will to resolve the issue from either the Welsh Government or the health boards responsible. Meanwhile, patients are falling through the cracks. My constituents should not have to navigate the administrative boundaries between the NHS in England and NHS Wales simply to get the arrangements and treatment they need. Eight years after the statement of values and principles was introduced, the limitations of relying on a voluntary statement with no formal legal footing are clear.
New clause 134 would require the Secretary of State to work with Welsh Ministers to update that statement, reflecting the problems that cross-border patients face today. Crucially, it would also require the Government to bring forward proposals within two years to place those principles on a statutory footing. The border should never be a barrier to receiving healthcare. It is time to update and strengthen these principles and give cross-border patients the statutory protections they deserve, because I fear that cross-border healthcare will continue to deteriorate over the next couple of years.
Over the summer recess, I held a series of public meetings in response to plans by Powys teaching health board to cut the number of community beds, which will just mean that more people end up stuck in community beds on the English side of the border.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
This Government aim to shift the focus from treatment to prevention, and it is in that spirit that I have tabled new clauses 90 and 91, which would strengthen the frameworks around health inequalities and address the wider determinants of health.
New data from Health Equals reveals a shocking reality: there is a gap of up to 18 years in life expectancy between different parts of the UK, and indeed between nearby neighbourhoods. Health Equal shows that in my constituency just a golf course separates two areas with an average life expectancy gap of eight years and 11 months. Reaching old age is somewhat of an aspiration in my more deprived areas. Indeed, in the most deprived communities people spend an average of just 52 years in good health. The stark inequalities are driven not only by healthcare, but by the wider determinants of health, including poverty, housing, education, employment and the environment.
Within Stoke-on-Trent, healthy life expectancy at birth has fallen by 6.6% for men in the last decade. For women, the picture is even worse, with a 9.6% fall in healthy life expectancy to just 53.5 years over the past 10 years. This Bill represents a real opportunity to enshrine in law a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to go beyond reducing inequalities in NHS access and outcomes, and to reflect wider cross-Government goals for health improvement.
Our health is shaped by the world around us—the food we eat, the money in our pockets, the air we breathe and the home we live in. In other words, every part of Government has an opportunity to influence people’s health. The purpose of new clause 90 is to ensure that the Government take greater responsibility for improving the nation’s health. That includes mitigating any increase in health inequalities, such as those seen in my constituency. The new clause would make improving health a duty, placing prevention on the same footing as treatment.
But a stronger duty alone is not enough. That is why new clause 91 would require the Government to publish a new health improvement and inequality strategy within six months. The strategy would include long-term targets for adults and children, public reporting on progress, a duty on Ministers across Government to have regard to the strategy, and independent accountability arrangements. The Minister, who has worked very hard on the Bill—I commend her for her engagement—has alluded to the fact that pre-existing guidance and processes are in place, and these are designed to tackle health inequalities, and she is right. However, I argue that they are clearly not working, because health inequality has increased. I ask again what the harm would be of embedding this duty in the Bill to tackle the most fundamental issue in health across England: health inequalities.
These amendments have cross-party support, and I note that they are also supported by the Health and Social Care Committee. I thank Health Equals for its work on these amendments. Again, I thank the Minister for her engagement and urge the Government to consider accepting these new clauses.
I will briefly mention new clause 109, which also stands in my name. It was written by myself and Haris Shuaib, with whom I worked on the standard BS 30440 and a validation framework for the use of AI within healthcare. I previously worked with the AI and digital regulations service for NHS England, working with NICE, the MHRA, the CQC and the Health Research Authority. In the interests of time, I will say that in that duty I identified a number of accountability and regulatory gaps that certainly need further addressing. I ask that the Minister responsible for health tech meets me so that we can discuss these further. They partner quite well with new clause 108, which I had not spotted, so I apologise for not signing the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
In my constituency, only 40% of adults have seen a dentist in the past two years, and only 54% of children have seen one in the last year. The impact of that is that 12.5% of children in East Cambridgeshire have tooth decay by the age of five. We are in a dental desert, and it is incredibly difficult to get an NHS dentist appointment. When I talk to the dentists, the most frustrating thing is that it is the contract that prevents them from treating people, not their intentions.
The contract is based on units of treatment. For example, dentists tell me that if they do one filling, they just about cover their cost for the unit they get paid for. That unit covers up to three fillings, however, and at three fillings they are making a loss. Even more frustrating is that they get allocated units at the beginning of the year. Once they have used them all, they can get no more; yet they are aware that other local dentists have not used all their units by the end of the year, and they hand them back. Why is there no mechanism whereby those units can be given to dentists who have the capacity to do more work, so that more people can be treated? It is really frustrating to know that my constituents are struggling without a dentist, and that there are dentists in my constituency who are willing to treat them but cannot get funding to do that from the NHS. It is utterly shocking. That is why I support new clause 18 and other amendments that seek to make dentistry more available to people.
Martin Wrigley
Does my hon. Friend agree that that element of trust is even more important when we get the single patient record, and critical to enabling GPs and medical professionals everywhere to use it, and patients to trust it?
Charlotte Cane
I absolutely agree. The single patient record is so important to make the NHS work efficiently and effectively, and to help it treat patients better. To achieve that, patients have to trust that the data is being well protected, and I am afraid that a lot of the people I talk to, including GPs—who are obviously critical in convincing patients that Palantir is safe—do not trust it. We have to pull out of the contract with Palantir. Will the Minister please consider that, please consider the issues faced by rural areas, and please, please, please get us some NHS dentists in Ely and East Cambridgeshire?
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley).
Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me about Palantir Technologies, telling me their concerns about the company’s involvement with Israel’s military and Trump’s ICE. Over 35 Members from across the House have signed my early-day motion calling on the Government to activate the break clause in the NHS federated data platform contract. The objection is not just about Palantir’s ethics, but about its operations under that contract. I share the concerns of many, including the National Data Guardian, about whether data identifiable to individual patients may be accessible by Palantir.
The potential success of the proposals on the single patient record and whether it manages to gain the confidence of the British public depends on the Government listening to these concerns, and making sure that issues around data access and limits, patient opt-outs and the data controller are resolved. I note that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has tabled a number of other amendments related to data safety, which I support.
I also wish to speak in support of amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on ICB financing. I am deeply concerned by the introduction of a duty under clause 48 for each of the constituent bodies of the ICB to achieve financial balance. In east London, we are currently fighting against massive, eight-figure cuts to the East London NHS foundation trust, where workers have been on strike amid cuts to jobs in much-needed mental health services, all of which are being justified by reference to new requirements for financial balance across the trust. Under the provisions of clause 48, matters will be made much worse and the ability to shift and adapt capacity across the system will be rendered impossible. One of the reasons that this is so regrettable, particularly in an area like east London, where the need for mental health services is acute and rising, is that cuts to these services will simply lead to greater costs arising elsewhere. For that reason, I also support amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, to place ICB spending on mental health services on a statutory footing.
I also support amendment 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because I am concerned, as others are, about provisions in the Bill for the reorganisation of ICBs. The changes are among many aspects of this Bill that regrettably point towards a revival of marketisation policies from prior decades—policies that have now been largely discredited. To tackle the biggest health challenges that we face, we require partnership working, joined-up decision making between the NHS, local authorities and expert voices—a dialogue between providers and commissioners. Removing the potential for this type of dialogue appears to be a significant misstep, particularly for integrated care.
Turning ICBs into purchasers alone appears to be being done for the benefit of reinforcing a purchaser-provider split—a split that experts have said time and again does not work, and does not deliver improved performance and outcomes, or even value for money. While I am relieved that the Government are tabling their own amendment 60 to reverse the scrapping of local authority ICB membership, I remain in full support of amendment 45 in order to ensure that NHS trusts, and foundation trusts too, retain their voice in commissioning and public health decisions.
To conclude, the fundamental problem in the Bill lies in its adherence to a logic of marketisation. It is deeply regrettable that the Government are returning to the harmful public-private partnership model for capital investment and a rehashing of the private finance initiative disaster, the negative effects of which are still being felt across my east London constituency.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practicing optometrist and an officer for the APPG for eye health and visual impairment.
Sight is precious and none of us would like to lose it—but, sadly, 2 million people in this country are living with some form of sight loss today. On the Department’s own projection, that figure will rise to 2.7 million by 2030. Every day, 250 people in the UK start to lose their sight—one person every six minutes. Left unaddressed, that number is set to more than double to over 4 million by 2050. We are witnessing a growing problem, which, sadly, the Bill does not treat with the urgency it deserves.
Tonight, I urge the Government to strengthen this legislation in some specific ways. On governance, clause 21 rightly ensures that ICBs reflect local political accountability, but it says absolutely nothing about clinical accountability. Optometrists have no guaranteed voice in the rooms where commissioning decisions affecting their patients are made. It would be unthinkable to build localised healthcare without GPs at the table. It would be equally unthinkable to do so without pharmacists. I say to the Government plainly: optometrists have the expertise, the infrastructure and the systems already in place to relieve pressure on our hospitals, yet this Bill says nothing about it.
I want to see eyecare—glaucoma monitoring in particular, along with the management of minor eye conditions—commissioned consistently by every ICB in England and not left to a postcode lottery. Optometry already has what I call the TAC effect: it is trusted, accessible and capable. Commissioning it properly would reduce unnecessary demand on emergency departments, freeing them to focus on genuinely specialist cases while improving patients’ access to specialist eyecare where they need it.
A recent report by the Association of Optometrists has found that right now, 780,000 people—the equivalent of the entire population of Greater Nottingham—attend A&E with eye problems annually, at an average cost of £145 to the NHS per A&E presentation. That is £113 million a year. At least seven out of 10 of those people with eye problems could be successfully managed in a community optometry setting with the right service commissioning. Those stats reflect a lived reality for many across our country. If the new Government want to make smarter decisions with public money, they must consider that.
Finally, I turn to the single patient record. Proposed new subsection (7) to clause 51 should be amended so that it explicitly includes optometry in the single patient record framework, ensuring that optometrists have appropriate access to relevant patient information.
This Bill takes real and welcome steps in many areas, but more than 2 million people have already lost their sight—a number that none of us wants to see double to more than 4 million by 2050. Fundamentally, seeing should be a right, not a privilege, so I ask the Government to look again.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I rise as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury to speak to amendments 103 and 104, new clause 160 and amendment 105 in my name. I thank the Minister for meeting me during the passage of the Bill and for her subsequent letter. I also thank the Spinal Injuries Association for its support for the APPG and, crucially, for people living with spinal cord injury. These amendments are not about preventing reform; they are about ensuring that when responsibility for highly specialised services changes, patients continue to receive safe, equitable and nationally consistent care.
Spinal cord injury is a relatively low volume but complex lifelong condition requiring specialist expertise, rehabilitation and long-term follow-up. National commissioning exists to prevent fragmented services and postcode variation. If commissioning moves to integrated care boards, we need confidence that specialist workforce capacity, national standards and the sustainability of specialist centres will be protected. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how those safeguards will work in practice, particularly around workforce, rehabilitation and geographical variation. I also seek clarity on whether spinal cord injury services will transfer to ICBs and what criteria will determine that decision.
Amendment 104 and new clause 160 would provide national assurance and parliamentary accountability for outcomes, access, workforce and geographical variation. Amendment 105 addresses the single patient record. Specialist charities provide vital practical and peer support after life-changing injury, even where they are not part of the clinical care. That is why this appeal is so resonant. If we can engage with those providers at that early stage, the outcomes will undoubtedly be improved. The amendment would allow referral, with patient consent, to approved condition-specific organisations sharing only necessary information.
I will not press these amendments to a vote today. I hope that the Minister will consider further safeguards and clarification during the Lords stages of the Bill. The care and access to support for patients dependent on specialist services should not depend on where those patients live.
Karin Smyth
I thank Members across the House for their contributions. As we would expect for a Bill of this size, it has been a wide-ranging debate, and I will not be able to address every single amendment, but I will try to cover them all in the time I have. If necessary, I will get back to people afterwards. As a Government, we know that what we have set out to do through this Bill is ambitious. We do not resile from that; we want to be ambitious. We are determined to make a real and positive change for people up and down the country who use the NHS, and throughout the Bill, we have remained focused on the key objectives. Those are to strengthen democratic accountability, strip back bureaucracy and empower patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karin Smyth
I am going to move on, because there is a lot to get through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) made a powerful speech, based on his own experience and the terrible experiences of his constituents. I will write to him about what we want to do with ICBs to make that situation better.
I now turn to new clause 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her ongoing work on, and interest in, carers throughout the passage of this Bill. I can assure the House that the Government fully recognise the importance of supporting carers’ health and wellbeing, including ensuring that they can take breaks from their caring responsibilities where needed. The Care Act 2014 already includes duties to assess and address carers’ current and future needs, and of course, we want to ensure that carers get the full benefit of the single patient record. To achieve this, we intend to use our regulation powers, which are already in the Bill.
The topic of inequalities has been highlighted a lot today. We are committed to ensuring that local areas are empowered to make decisions, tackle the specific health challenges they face and make real progress on health inequalities. I want to reassure the House that reducing health inequalities remains a priority for this Government. I know that the Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, and the Committee as a whole, takes a great interest in this issue, and we are committed to working with them. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for their championing of this important issue and for our meeting last week.
I am not, however, convinced about new clause 91. Our focus is, and must remain, on delivering improvements in health outcomes, supporting prevention and tackling the causes of ill health, rather than creating additional statutory red tape. We already have a wide range of duties from the 2006 Act, and we have a new duty on combined authorities. There was a duty on ICBs in the Health and Care Act 2022, and there is a duty on foundation trusts. We have the public sector equality duty, as well as our commitment in the 10-year health plan. Again, the issue is making it work and empowering local leaders to do just that.
I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on the APPG on sickle cell and thalassaemia, and I will write to her specifically on the issues she raised. She talked about specialised commissioning, a topic that was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). We know that this is an ongoing concern across many areas, and I commit to keeping in touch with them and with other Members.
Turning to women’s health—including mental health—and maternity services, again, I can assure the House that this is a priority for the Secretary of State. That is why we published the action-focused renewed women’s health strategy. It is why we are undertaking a single national action plan on maternal health, overseen by the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, to drive improvements where it matters to families, clinicians and other experts. I know that many Members of this House are committed to improving mental health, but I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for all her work in this area as the national maternity adviser.
Opposition Members mentioned the Hughes report, and I assure the House that the Government recognise the importance of providing a response. I do not have time to go into all the ongoing work at the moment, but I commit to doing so at the earliest opportunity. [Interruption.] The Conservatives had a long time. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) says that they were about to do it before the election, but that is not what we found when we came into power. The Conservatives left us a lot of work to do in this and many other areas, but we are committed to doing it.
Fertility services and reducing inequalities in maternity services has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who has been a tireless advocate in this area, as have many others. I have recently written to him. NICE guidelines inform how ICBs should commission in this area, but I know that things are not uniformly implemented. We will continue to work with ICBs to evaluate the next steps.
There was a lot of discussion on primary care, and dental access across the country in particular. We are committed to rebuilding dentistry in England, but actions speak louder than words. We are making great strides in improving access, ensuring an urgent care safety net across the country, reforming the dental contract and developing a 10-year workforce plan. More broadly, we think it is right that under this Bill, primary medical services become the responsibility of ICBs. They have the right knowledge of their areas to make commissioning decisions, and that includes on eye care. They have responsibility for all primary medical services, but rightly they will be accountable to the Secretary of State for their performance.
The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) is right that we will say that he could have dealt with the issues he raises while he was in power, but we do not always say that, and he is absolutely right about continuity of care. I have also visited the practice he talks about in Horfield in Bristol, and not just because I was on the primary care trust board when the 2004 changes happened. Broadly, Bristol does have different standards on some of these issues, and that highlights our point. We do not need to put some of these provisions in legislation. Exactly this sort of good practice can be shared in local systems through neighbourhood care plans, neighbourhood work and the work in primary care networks.
The single patient record is fundamental to the Government’s mission to create a modern, joined-up NHS that puts patients at the centre of their care. On amendments 26, 42 and 43, I assure Members that the overarching purpose of making regulations to create and operate the single patient record is limited to the direct care of patients, and clause 51 is already explicit about that. Crucially, the clause does not create any new data sharing gateways for secondary purposes such as planning and commissioning, so these amendments are not necessary. On data safeguards, the security and privacy of people’s health and social care data are paramount. As Members would expect, we will build the strongest safeguards into the record. On new clause 32, I can assure Members that the SPR will be designed to protect personal data by default, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance ensuring that only the right people can access the right information at the right time and only for the right reasons.
Finally, I have heard how important it is that the single patient record is accessible and inclusive. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for amendment 87 and the important work she is doing to publicise this hugely important area. I assure her and Members that we are confident that the Bill is drafted to enable information related to support needs and reasonable accommodations to be included in the SPR. The Department will have regard to the accessible information standard as the SPR is developed.
We are also committed to tackling digital exclusion. We have considered that as part of the single patient record equality impact assessment, and work is already under way to help address barriers around connectivity, skills and confidence. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East said about the need to engage him and others about the single patient record as we go forward.
On the federated data platform, decisions about public contracts must be made through fair, open and non-discriminatory processes. That is governed by UK procurement law, which recognises certain international treaty obligations. NHS England is reviewing the federated data platform contract to determine whether it should continue with standard contract management processes. It will look at evidence of delivery and the impact of the platform, and that should be the basis on which a contract continuation is decided.
Karin Smyth
I will not. We have heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make some clear points to the House this evening.
We have heard a great deal of discussion about commercial processes, and Members—including the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley)—have raised important points about data security, governance and ethical standards of contracts, and support for domestic suppliers and for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. Contracts involving NHS data and digital services must be subject to proper scrutiny. The Government’s approach is to assess risks on the basis of the nature of the data, service and supplier access. Crucially, we already have the tools that we need to carry out appropriate due diligence through legal powers and robust contractual provisions.
I agree with the spirit of new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the NHS does not inadvertently support exploitation or rights abuses. UK legislation already incorporates some international laws: for example, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European convention on human rights into UK law. Similarly, we can use existing legislation and guidance to exclude suppliers from NHS procurements. Both the Procurement Act 2023 and the provider selection regime allow us to exclude providers when there has been serious misconduct or illegality. For instance, we could exclude a supplier under the Procurement Act for breaches of modern slavery and/or human trafficking laws. We have very high standards and expect all suppliers —including whichever companies go on to provide the single patient record—to meet them.
On a related note, the Chancellor has already written to the Secretary of State to ask that the NHS procurement better support British industry. In the light of that, the Secretary of State has commissioned, within the health family, a review of strategic procurement pipelines to find opportunities for the new social value model to support more British jobs, skills and innovation. The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is leading work on procurement across Government, would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby as part of this important work as it progresses, and I can assure him that the actions that we take will be fully in line with the principle of international law.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher)—with his example of the sore throat—for his help in driving down demand for healthcare. Indeed, I thank Members in all parts of the House for their contributions to what has been an interesting and helpful discussion. Their expertise and their scrutiny will continue to strengthen the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I have listened carefully to the debate. May I refer to my new clause 57? The challenge of the NHS is that so much significant, unaccountable power is being held that we, as Members of Parliament, cannot even deliver for our constituents. Will my hon. Friend look at her my new clause, and work with me to ensure that we get the Bill in the right place with regard to accountability before it goes to the Lords?
Karin Smyth
As my hon. Friend knows, I spoke from the Opposition Benches for many years about the lack of accountability of our local systems to local members of Parliament. I think that that was a great loss in the Lansley Bill. It was one of the things that drove me to become a member of Parliament, and in my role as the Minister of State I have endeavoured to make sure that local Members of Parliament have—
Karin Smyth
I will not. The right hon. Member was Secretary of State for Health twice, so he had his chance to put all the right things into legislation. [Interruption.] I am not helping my own sore throat.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Bill is about returning that democratic accountability directly to the Secretary of State. We have had a lot of pushback in different places, but that is what this Bill does. It returns accountability to the Secretary of State, it devolves that responsibility for delivering on the ground to NHS organisations, and, crucially, it empowers patients. Our new clause strengthens the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 96 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 97
Care and support: involvement of others and visitors
“In section 1 of the Care Act 2014 (promoting individual well-being), in subsection (3)—
(a) after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) the importance of the individual being able to involve other people in such decisions and of those people receiving the information and support necessary to facilitate that involvement;”;
(b) after paragraph (f) insert—
“(fa) the importance of the individual having appropriate opportunities to receive visitors;
(fb) in the case of a person who is provided with accommodation in a care home, the importance of them having appropriate opportunities to take trips outside of the care home;”.”—(Karin Smyth.)
Section 1(3) of the Care Act 2014 lists matters to which local authorities must have regard when exercising functions under Part 1 of that Act. The amendments refer to the importance of an individual being able to involve other people in decisions and to receive visitors etc.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Business of the House
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
Procedure
Local Government Reorganisation in Devon
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Government recently backed a proposal to replace Devon’s councils with four unitary authorities, which would expand the councils of Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay while leaving an unworkable rural Devon council spanning a 100-mile drive from Lynton to Salcombe. An online petition about this issue has been signed by 1,783 people. I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are deeply concerned about the risk posed to vital local services.
Devolution should be built from the ground up, not imposed by Whitehall. The plan made a mockery of that. It is not what rural Devon wants. I appreciate that a review is now under way; I welcome it.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and to reconsider alternative options.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Government's decision to accept the proposal to expand Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay's councils and to create a rural Devon Council spanning over 80 miles from Lynton to Salcombe is unworkable and puts rural Devon at great disadvantage; further declares that the proposed reorganisation risks breaking up children's services which could put vulnerable children at greater risk, could lead to increased council tax, and would undermine local accountability; and further declares that devolution should be built from the ground up, shaped by local knowledge and consent.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and to reconsider alternative options.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003231]
VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the Government’s decision at the start of the summer to pause the application of VAT on medicines donated for free to patients through compassionate access, early access and related schemes. The health charities, patients and industry bodies that I have worked with are grateful to Ministers for recognising that this issue needs to be addressed, and in particular for the ministerial statement setting out the Government’s intention to introduce a new approach to VAT on free-of-charge donations of medicines.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and previously my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, have both worked a great deal on this issue. I thank them for their commitment to find a resolution. Without a permanent solution, however, pharmaceutical companies do not have the legal certainty to fully re-engage with early access programmes. Although, to date, only Bayer has withdrawn from these schemes outright, I have heard from a number of other companies that tell me that the uncertainty is causing them to reconsider, drug by drug, whether they can afford to continue offering free access, for fear of creating open-ended VAT liabilities.
Tragically, the people who are paying the price for the delay are patients. I know that the Government recognise the consequences for patient outcomes, which is why they have committed to bringing forward a new approach, either through changes to VAT rules or through a reimbursement scheme. I welcome the fact that the new approach, once introduced, will apply to donations made on or after 23 June 2026. However, a pause is simply not good enough to resolve this issue fully. I called for this debate to ask the Government to reconfirm their commitment to find a permanent solution and to ask them to move forward as quickly as possible in determining that comprehensive solution.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituent Joseph was diagnosed with a brain tumour at just 28 years old. He was fortunate to receive early access to vorasidenib through compassionate access schemes. However, vorasidenib is only the second new NHS-approved brain cancer drug in 20 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the painfully slow progress we have seen in developing treatment for brain tumours, we should be removing every possible avoidable barrier to patients receiving these promising new medicines?
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for that. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices, I have heard those stories far too often. I completely agree that we should be removing every single barrier.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. He has hit the nail on the head on an issue that is a matter of life and death for families right across the United Kingdom. For His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to sweep in and penalise that relief is a disgrace. Does he not agree that, although a temporary pause from the Treasury is welcome, it is simply not a solution when the clock is ticking for cancer patients and those with rare diseases, and that the Government should commit to working with the Treasury and devolved health executives—including those for my constituency of Strangford—to secure a permanent VAT exemption and ensure that tax bureaucracy never stands in the way of human empathy?
Danny Beales
I agree that we do need to find a permanent and comprehensive solution. Hopefully we can air those issues fully today.
Fundamentally, the principle underlying this issue is very straightforward: if a pharmaceutical company is willing to provide a lifesaving medicine to a patient free of charge because that patient has a serious or life-threatening condition and has exhausted the available standard treatment options, the tax system should not make access to those lifesaving drugs more difficult. That reflects the points raised by the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge).
Pharmaceutical companies already operate these schemes at a loss. For example, over the last four years, AstraZeneca alone has given more than 2,500 patients access to innovative, lifesaving medicines free of charge, costing millions of pounds. This is clearly not a commercial transaction. It is a moral, compassionately motivated decision and programme, and in my view that means it should be supported, championed and facilitated by Government, not blocked, disincentivised, or made administratively more burdensome—but unfortunately that is exactly what has been happening since HMRC started charging VAT on those donations.
This is not just a line on a tax return, impacting on the bottom line; the impact is also having real-world consequences on patient groups. The consequences of this delay are gut-wrenching and deeply frustrating for clinicians, patients and their families. Every day, every week and every month that we wait for a permanent solution to move forward, more severely ill patients are denied access to drugs that could save or extend their lives, at no cost to the NHS.
It is also important to note that patients with rarer cancers are disproportionately affected by this issue, as they generally have fewer treatment options. In August, I was contacted by Emma and her husband Ian. Ian and Emma are currently watching this debate online from Ian’s hospital room at University College hospital, as they could not be here in person. Ian has an advanced, rare and aggressive bile duct cancer. Following his latest chemotherapy, his consultant Professor Bridgewater recommended regorafenib as Ian’s next treatment. Regorafenib was previously supplied free of charge by Bayer through a compassionate use programme. However, since Bayer became liable for VAT on the medicines it was donating, it withdrew from the programme, meaning that Ian lost free access to this potentially life-extending treatment. Ian and Emma are now urgently trying to find the money to pay privately for Ian’s treatment, and the cost is thousands of pounds per month. It goes without saying that many families cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds, each and every month, for treatment.
Working with Sarcoma UK, I have also heard from Dr Robin Young, a consultant medical oncologist at Weston Park cancer centre. He reported that a 62-year-old patient with metastatic leiomyosarcoma, whose disease had progressed through all the standard chemotherapy options, was also denied this drug in January 2026 because of Bayer’s withdrawal. That patient subsequently self-funded an alternative treatment at a cost of £3,500 for one month, before deciding that he could not afford to continue with that treatment. These are heartbreaking decisions for patients and their families. I have also heard from Dr Alex Lee, a consultant medical oncologist at the Christie NHS foundation trust, who has reported that two patients with advanced osteosarcoma were refused access to the drug earlier this year, with Bayer citing the VAT position. Tragically, one of those patients has since died. She was just 20 years old.
I hope these stories make clear the urgency of resolving this issue as soon as possible. This would not only enable Bayer to re-engage, but ensure that existing participants could continue to access their drugs through the programme and enable potential new drugs to enter early access and compassionate access schemes in the future. On paper, this might be a niche and complex part of tax policy, but in real life it is a desperately ill patient, it is a family and it is a clinician having to explain why a medicine that had previously been made available can no longer be provided.
I shall turn now to the position of the pharmaceutical industry. Patients, clinicians and the Minister will be pleased to hear that the pharma companies are keen and willing to re-engage with compassionate, early access and other similar schemes once a suitable solution has been finalised with Government. However, I have heard concerns from the industry about the pace and scope of negotiations since the Government announced the pause.
The first issue is about the breadth of the definition of the products that will be exempted from VAT liabilities. The definition used to determine any VAT exemption should include the full range of schemes that pharma companies engage in to provide these medicines free of charge. These include: compassionate use, where a clinician requests a specific medicine as a last resort once other options are exhausted, usually off-licence; early use, for new patients immediately after a trial; post-trial provision, for patients who responded well during a trial and need to continue; and bridging prescriptions, for patients where a drug has been approved but is not yet funded on the NHS.
However, I have been told that the definition initially suggested by HMRC during negotiations has been too narrow to cover all those uses. I encourage the Minister to look again at this, given that compassionate use of off-licence drugs accounts for a substantial proportion of the patients who benefit from donations to the programme. I understand that the Government may be now moving to a better position on this point, and I would welcome confirmation of that from the Minister.
The second issue I have heard is that HMRC is considering attaching two conditions to any VAT exemption: first, that the patient must be treated on the NHS rather than by a private clinician; and secondly, that medicines must be supplied directly by the company to the NHS. I am sceptical of the merits of both those points. First, patients should not potentially lose access to a lifesaving free treatment, which is at the cost of industry, just because the clinician recommending the treatment is a private doctor. On the second point, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how such an arrangement would work on a practical level. We know that the NHS can refer to private clinics and that clinicians can, particularly for specialist issues, work regularly between NHS practices and private clinics. The fundamental question must surely be whether the medicine is clinically needed and whether it is free at the point of use for the patient.
The third issue raised by pharma pertains to the question of historical liabilities. My understanding is that many pharma companies have already paid VAT for historical liabilities, and it is important to say that we do not expect that they will be able to recover that in full. However, given the upcoming changes, it would be helpful if the Government provided some clarity on the legal position on historical liabilities before the pause. I urge that settlements should be negotiated constructively and with understanding based on the nature of these liabilities.
Closely related to the issue of historical liabilities is that of co-ordination between Departments on this issue. AstraZeneca has told me that, despite ongoing negotiations with HMRC and the pause announced in July, it is currently being pursued by His Majesty’s Treasury for accounts by the end of September, which it has been indicated should include VAT liability on compassionate access—a position AstraZeneca is not confident is consistent with what it is hearing from HMRC. Business needs certainty to prepare accounts. I encourage the Minister to ensure that HMRC and the Treasury are working from the same hymn sheet.
On the method and pace of resolution, my understanding is that the Government are looking at creating an exemption for the compassionate donation of medicines through a legislative change to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. However, have the Government considered issuing a business brief from HMRC to clarify the new position, given that this could be a faster and more effective route? I would be grateful for the Minister’s perspective on that.
As well as the patient benefits, there is also a key strategic opportunity for us as a country to be a global industry leader in life sciences research. Many other countries have complex schemes in place, and sometimes charge VAT or the equivalent on such things. However, I understand that although liabilities technically exist in the Netherlands, they are not enforced in practice. If the UK were to fully resolve this issue and put it beyond doubt, this would be a genuine point of competitive advantage in attracting life sciences investment, research and clinical trials to this country, at a time when our overall competitiveness in the sector is under pressure from other directions and policies. It would also encourage the participation of innovative new drugs and potential wider patient applications of them, driving forward potential research opportunities and improving healthcare practice.
To sum up, my questions to the Minister are as follows. First, can he confirm that a permanent solution will define eligible products as widely as possible, to include the full range of schemes that are currently used? Will he reconsider the proposal to restrict eligibility to NHS-treated patients only?
Secondly, the Government have said that they will act as soon as possible, but for a patient with a life-threatening disease, that phrase can feel like a very long time. Will the Minister set out a clearer timetable about actions and next steps, and when the consultation with industry is likely to conclude? Will the Government decide to bring forward a reimbursement mechanism? Can the Minister explain why a business brief route has not been preferred, or whether one can be explored? When is detailed guidance likely to be published and operational?
Finally, what is being done to repair the relationships with industry, which have been damaged as a result of this policy? Where a company such as Bayer has withdrawn, I hope that it will be strongly encouraged to re-engage as soon as possible, so that the patients we have heard about today can gain access quickly. Will the Treasury work with the Department of Health and Social Care to engage industry and be in direct communication with clinicians to help to identify which patient groups have been most affected, so they can be notified as soon as possible that the treatments may become available again?
This is, on paper, a narrow, technical issue of tax policy—not always the thing that makes the front pages of newspapers or the most engaging social media videos—but in practice, a clear and quick resolution to this issue is a life-and-death issue for many thousands of people. It is the difference between a patient like Ian fighting to save thousands of pounds a month—just to be able to focus on his health and his loved ones— or not. It is the difference between a clinician having to explain why a medicine that was available last year is not available now, and being able to provide that innovative and lifesaving drug to them and many more patients besides. It is the difference between a pharmaceutical company that wants to do the right thing, providing drugs to patients for free or at a low cost, and it withdrawing its drugs completely because the costs become significant.
Once again, I strongly welcome the ministerial statement and the pause from June. I thank the Minister and his predecessor considerably for their work to date, which has made a difference. I know that he is committed to engagement on this issue and to finding a way forward.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing it, and for all his engagement and campaigning on this important issue. I know from my conversations with my hon. Friend that he cares deeply, as do I, about ensuring that patients can access innovative medicines, particularly when there is unmet clinical need.
Free-of-charge arrangements play an important role in giving patients early access to medicines, as my hon. Friend so powerfully illustrated when he spoke about the patients and families who have shared their stories with him. I was moved to hear the experiences of those patients, and am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing them this evening. My thoughts, as I am sure every Member’s thoughts will be, are with those patients and families, including the family of the young woman who my hon. Friend told us had tragically passed away. I am sure that everyone in this House agrees that we must find a solution that means that those patients, and others like them, can continue to access lifesaving medicines.
Before responding to the points made, I will first set out some of the context for the existing VAT treatment of donated medicines. This evening’s debate concerns the application of long-standing VAT rules to some medicines supplied free of charge. Under UK VAT law, some transactions where no money changes hands are treated as though a supply has been made, and these are known as deemed supplies. These rules help to keep the VAT system fair where a business has reclaimed VAT on its costs. These are not new rules introduced by this Government; they are long-standing features of the VAT system dating back to the early days of VAT, before the VAT Act 1994.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs wrote to the sector in 2023 as part of the process of ensuring that businesses pay the correct tax. However, the Government recognise concerns raised by pharmaceutical companies and patient groups about the potential impact of this treatment on free-of-charge access and, ultimately, on patients. That is why, as my hon. Friend mentioned, on 23 June, my predecessor announced that the Government would bring forward a new approach as soon as possible. As set out in the written ministerial statement on 2 July, the Government are considering either changes to the VAT rules or a reimbursement scheme. The new approach will be effective for donations made on or after 23 June 2026.
Officials in the Treasury, HMRC and the Department of Health and Social Care have been working closely together and engaging constructively with the pharmaceutical sector to develop the detail of both options. That work must ensure that any approach supports patients while being legally robust, operationally workable and sustainable. We recognise that free-of-charge medicines are supplied through a variety of arrangements. Those include early and expanded access, post-trial access and arrangements that operate after Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency authorisation.
My hon. Friend raised the question of which medicines would be in scope of the new approach, and the Government are considering this question carefully in collaboration with the sector. The solution must capture genuine patient access arrangements without creating unintended consequences elsewhere in the VAT or supply systems. It is important that we complete that work quickly, so that patients across the UK can benefit from innovative medicines as quickly and safely as possible. It is equally important that we get this right to avoid inadvertently omitting important avenues by which medicines are donated, or opening the door to abuse. That is why we are working closely with industry to craft the scope appropriately.
My hon. Friend asked which forms of donation would be in scope, and whether the solution would apply only to donations to the NHS. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to announce any final decisions today, while work remains ongoing with the firms. However, I can reassure him that I have no desire to artificially circumscribe the scope of the new approach and unduly leave out genuine donation practices.
My hon. Friend asked about timelines. I regret that as we are talking about a potential tax change, I cannot give further detail, beyond reassuring him that I have reiterated the urgency that we both feel, and the need to reach a swift resolution, and I have imparted that urgency to my officials. On historical liabilities, the new approach will apply to donations made on or after 23 June 2026, but I am happy to hear input from firms on that point as we go through the process. On co-ordination in the case of AstraZeneca, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer, but I would certainly encourage firms in the round to share the detail of any specific concerns they have with my officials. On whether HMRC could publish a business brief to fix this issue, as a matter of existing law, firms must account for VAT on donated medicines. An HMRC brief can communicate a change in policy only when the law itself has changed, or following a judicial decision requiring a change in law. A Revenue and Customs brief cannot itself make the change in law.
Finally, I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see Bayer return to the early access scheme, so that patients can regain access to innovative medicines. We have committed to applying the new approach retrospectively to donations made on or after 23 June 2026, and I hope that Bayer takes confidence from that and rejoins the early access scheme as soon as possible.
Danny Beales
The Minister is being very generous in giving way, as ever, and I appreciate his response about the limitations of the business brief process. If amending the VAT Act 1994 is the right route, does the Minister know roughly how long that would take to find a resolution? I fully his support his point about Bayer re-engaging. The Government have moved in good faith, and I hope Bayer will, too.
James Murray
As the changes we are discussing concern a potential tax change, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend further detail about any timeline, but I reiterate that I have imparted to my officials in the Treasury and HMRC the urgency that I feel about this, and that my hon. Friend and others will share. I am glad he joins me in calling on Bayer to take confidence from what we have announced and to rejoin the early access scheme as soon as possible.
I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and for the constructive way in which he has raised this issue, both this evening and in the past. In concluding, I would like to pause to reflect on the impact of continued access to medicines for patients. Individual Members have raised with me the importance that early access to medicines can have, especially for those in the most tragic of circumstances, who sadly have few other options. I have been moved in hearing those cases, and it is vital that we keep those medicines accessible. I am grateful to Members from across the House for bringing this issue the attention it deserves. I am also grateful for the constructive engagement that my officials have had with the pharmaceutical sector, and I know we have a common goal of resolving the issue swiftly. I look forward to setting out further detail once that work has concluded and when final decisions have been taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Barker. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 30 June, makes an important change to the alcohol licensing framework in England and Wales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises with a certificate to accept digital proof of age for the sale and supply of alcohol where that proof is provided through a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory DVS register, and where the relevant licensing conditions are met.
The measure offers those fortunate enough still to be asked for ID—whether they regard that as flattering or frustrating—an additional way to prove their age. Where a licensed premises or club premises with a certificate chooses to accept it, a person will be able to use properly verified digital proof of age, rather than relying on a passport, driving licence or other physical documents.
The mandatory licensing conditions currently require physical proof-of-age documents that bear a photograph, a date of birth and either a holographic mark or an ultraviolet feature. This remains a valid and important route for age verification. The draft order does not remove physical ID, does not require anyone to use digital proof of age and does not require a licensed premises or club premises to accept digital proof of age. It simply gives consumers and premises another option.
There are clear, practical benefits. Many people do not want to routinely carry valuable documents, such as a passport or driving licence, on a night out, or they might forget to bring them. It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. There is also an important privacy and personal safety benefit: a driving licence may reveal a person’s full address when the only question that needs to be answered is whether they are old enough to obtain alcohol. Digital proof of age can confirm that threshold without unnecessary personal information being shared, which is particularly relevant for individuals who may feel uncomfortable disclosing their address in busy night-time settings.
The Government consulted on this issue between January and March 2024, and 72% of respondents supported the use of digital verification in the sale and supply of alcohol. The approach taken in the draft order reflects that support, while ensuring that providers meet Government-approved standards and that safeguards remain in place.
The Licensing Act 2003 is built around four licensing objectives, including the protection of children from harm. That objective remains central to this reform. Digital proof of age will be permitted only where it is provided by a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory register. This is not about simply showing a picture on a phone.
I also want to be clear about what the draft order does not do. It is not a national digital identity scheme. It does not create an identity card, make digital ID compulsory, give the Government visibility of alcohol purchases or permit the use of facial age-estimation technology for the sale and supply of alcohol. This is a targeted and proportionate reform that sits alongside wider work across Government on future age-assurance methods for other age-restricted products, while preserving physical ID, supporting licensed premises and club premises and giving consumers greater choice.
The current rules were drafted before secure digital verification was available. The draft order updates the framework to reflect modern consumer behaviour and technological change, while preserving the safeguards at the heart of the 2003 Act. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate.
I do not think that anybody on the Committee objects in principle to making it easier for someone to prove that they are over 18 without having to carry a passport or similar around with them. There are obvious conveniences for consumers, and potentially for businesses, but I would like the Minister to provide some reassurance about where the measure sits within the Government’s wider approach to digital verification.
The order before us appears relatively narrow. It allows licensed premises to rely on a registered digital verification service when checking somebody’s age. We are told that its use will be voluntary, that businesses will not have to accept digital identification and, importantly, that customers will still be able to use physical identification. I welcome that assurance, but I would like the Minister to put it beyond any doubt that there is no intention for digital identification to become, in practice or in law, the only reasonable means by which somebody can prove their age when purchasing alcohol.
As technology changes, it is right that the means by which the Government regulate should expand to incorporate and utilise that technology. This should not be about digitally excluding people, but about increasing people’s options and choices and allowing people to do business more easily. As has been acknowledged, the work on this matter is based heavily on efforts begun under the Conservative Government, which were consulted on in 2024. Critically, that work was about ensuring that people have additional methods of proving their age, rather than requiring them to adopt a digital identity.
As I see it, allowing shops, for example, to utilise existing verification schemes and then validate them with something like a QR code appears to be a sensible step for the Government to take. More and more people leave the house with only a phone in their pocket, making it all the more likely that their physical ID has been left at home. Giving them another means of proving their age is therefore a practical and sensible development.
Although I have noted the likely benefits stemming from the measure, I would like to see clarity on a point made in the other place last week about whether cards bearing the PASS—proof of age standards scheme—hologram will continue to be recognised as the preferred form of physical proof of age. Can the Minister confirm that, in making these changes, there will be no change to the recognition of PASS hologram cards before the office for digital identities and attributes has provided its supporting analysis, and PASS and others have had a proper opportunity to respond?
In addition, I understand that retailers in the wine and spirit trade have raised a technical concern about the meaning of the words “deliver identification”. Put simply, when somebody proves their age digitally, what information does the retailer actually need to receive? Is it sufficient for the digital verification provider to confirm that the customer meets the relevant age requirement, or must further identifying information be provided? I hope the Minister can confirm that that will be made absolutely clear to retailers in the updated guidance. Those may be small and more technical elements, but given retailers’ responsibility to ensure that they serve people of the appropriate age, it is critical that we get the regulations right to support businesses and make compliance easier, not more difficult.
I would like to return briefly to the question of choice. The Government’s modelling assumes that the uptake of digital verification for this purpose will reach 100% after seven years. If that remains the assumption, can the Minister confirm that those who choose to use physical forms of identification will nevertheless continue to be able to do so? There will be people who do not have a smartphone, people who cannot readily use digital verification services and people who simply do not want to use digital identification. We would not want any of those individuals to be excluded. The benefit of the measure should be that it adds another option, not that the new option gradually becomes the only practical option.
Overall, I recognise why the measure has been brought forward and the practical benefits that stem from it. In doing so, I hope that the Government ensure that the conditions they impose allow the system to operate effectively, give businesses the certainty they need and preserve genuine choice for the public. Digital technology can make proving our age more convenient. It should not make having a digital identity a prerequisite for participating in everyday life.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the order. Individuals should be able to have the option to verify their age digitally, but we want to make it clear that doing so must not replace the use of physical ID. The option must always be retained, thereby giving young people the freedom to choose.
It is important that the protections are robust and contain adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure that digital identities are genuine. Will the Minister therefore set out whether she is satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that the system will be enforced in the prescribed manner? Furthermore, what discussions has she had with the sector about the implementation of the system? How will the change be communicated to the public? What future measures will the Government consider to ensure that age is verified effectively under the 2003 Act when alcohol sales take place remotely? What steps are they taking to monitor compliance and accountability, and where necessary to take enforcement action against companies certified under the DVS trust framework?
I thank the Minister for clarifying that the order is not about going down the route of compulsory digital IDs. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats are clear that a mandatory digital ID system would cross a red line. It would risk eroding long-held civil liberties. Digital tools should be about giving individuals more control over their personal data, not giving the Government more control over our lives. Our concern remains that a mandatory digital ID system could deepen digital exclusion and disproportionately affect society’s most marginalised: older people, people living in poverty, and disabled people, who often have limited access to digital devices or low digital literacy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Jo White
I am grateful for both Members’ contributions.
This legislation supports the objectives of strengthening age-verification safeguards and preventing under-age alcohol sales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises to use secure digital methods to verify age, thereby giving consumers greater choice and reducing the need for people to carry and present important physical documents, or to disclose unnecessary personal information, unless they choose to do so.
It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. It is also important to note that not everyone holds a passport or driving licence. Digital proof of age can be created using a wider range of evidence while still meeting the required standards, which may make trusted proof of age accessible to a broader range of people.
The changes in the order are completely separate from the proposals for a national digital ID system, which are no longer being taken forward. Last year, the Government passed and commenced the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, establishing a legislative structure for the provision of trusted digital verification services and providing the statutory gateway for their use. Millions of people in Britain already use services that fall within that legal framework. The regulatory changes before us build on the existing regime.
The purpose of this legislation is to remove an existing legal barrier that prevents secure digital proof of age from being used when people purchase alcohol. Physical proof-of-age documents will continue to be accepted. The legislation will not make digital proof of age mandatory. The Government are taking an enabling approach; the legislation provides an additional option rather than replacing existing forms of proof of age. Retailers remain free to decide which age-verification methods they accept, and consumers remain free to use physical proof-of-age documents.
A digital PASS card could be used to buy alcohol if the amended mandatory licensing conditions—including that the digital proof of age based on information in the PASS card has been delivered by a certified and registered digital verification service provider—are met. The Government endorse all digital PASS cards to be used for age checks for the sale and supply of alcohol where the criteria set out in this legislation, and any relevant local licensing conditions, are met.
The legislation includes safeguards for digital proofs of age—including technological verification that the proof of age is genuine and confirmation that it relates to the person presenting it—that do not apply to physical documents. Digital proof of age cannot be accepted based on visual inspection alone. Digital proofs of age for alcohol purchases must be provided by digital verification services that have been certified against the UK digital verification services trust framework and appear on the gov.uk register of certified services. This ensures that the services can be trusted to prove correctly and securely that the person is 18, or over such older age as is set out in the age-verification policy.
I again thank the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Stratford-on-Avon for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and I hope my remarks have reassured Members that the Government have considered the issues carefully. This legislation will modernise the licensing regime, providing greater choice and convenience for consumers and support to businesses, while maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect children and promote public safety. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and to move on from this issue is crucial work.
The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the costs of remediation, and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over 10 years or more. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works. The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. These draft amending regulations will clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October.
The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and about its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate the costs into their projects. The levy has been designed to ensure that the tax base remains wide enough to fund essential remediation, while protecting housing supply. The impact on the viability of new development has been kept as low as possible with rates that vary by local authority, indexed to local average house prices. There is also a 50% discount for brownfield sites. Social and affordable housing is exempt, as are small sites with fewer than 10 units. The levy will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026. We have been working closely with local authorities, private sector-registered building control approvers, and IT providers to support implementation ahead of commencement.
I turn now to explaining the changes that the draft regulations will make. The Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025 allow for development on previously developed land—often referred to as brownfield land—to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. That recognises the higher cost of building on that type of land and protects the viability of development on brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear that car parks and other areas of hardstanding that would appear as previously developed could qualify for the discount.
Our intention has always been to support the development of sites with those features, so the draft regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hardstanding can qualify. That will better reflect the original policy intention and will, I hope, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes.
The draft regulations and updated guidance provide more information about how the changes will work, and the instrument also makes a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections. The regulations do not change the fundamental design of the levy but provide clarification on previously developed land and make a small number of technical amendments to support implementation. We will keep the rates and processes under review, and will report on them at least every three years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I am pleased to be able to call her that—whom I congratulate on her appointment to the role. I warmly welcome her to her place and appreciate her remarks on the regulations.
The Opposition stand alongside the Government—and, I am sure, with Members from across the House—in saying that building safety and remediation are critical tasks. We cannot be a world-leading economy or global power and still have citizens who live in—or, worse still, are trapped in—homes that have been rendered unsafe. People’s homes are the very places that they should feel safest. I therefore agree with the Minister on the need to make buildings safe, and I recognise that the building safety levy is intended to play a part in doing that.
When assessing the regulations, we must consider the juncture at which we find ourselves. I was pleased to support plans for the Grenfell Tower Memorial earlier this year, and I welcomed the constructive tone adopted by Members from across the House and the value of the wider discussions about remediation and building safety during that debate. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), highlighted in that debate, Government figures show that work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the type used for Grenfell Tower—has been completed for 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings with such cladding, and remediation work at most of the remaining sites is progressing.
That is good news, as is the fact that Committee members are here to discuss and debate how to complete that task. As I said, I recognise the role that the building safety levy is intended to play in that mission, which needs to be completed, despite the extensive progress made under the previous Conservative Government and under Labour Administrations since 2024. None the less, the Opposition have concerns about the levy and, more germanely, about the specifics of the regulations.
Perhaps the most pertinent is the deep concern that I and many colleagues share about the potential impact of the levy on the building of more homes. As we have debated back and forth many times before, this country is currently in the midst of a significant housing shortage. The Government’s own impact assessment raised concerns about the viability of sites, as this additional cost is added to pre-existing development costs. The Minister is right to say that developers have known about the change for some time, but that will not mitigate the impact of the cost when it arrives. That is especially the case in areas where residential land value is lower, as the impact assessment highlights. The Government have previously stated that that is why:
“Levy rates have been set such that rates are lower in areas where house prices are lower and viability is more stretched.”
I do not believe that the levy in isolation will cause house building to grind to a halt, but I am deeply concerned that, when costs in many parts of the country are already too high, yet another cost to development takes us another step closer to a critical—perhaps even fatal—moment for house building. We must remember that the housing industry is already paying, among other things, a 4% surcharge on corporation tax, worth £2 billion; a voluntary self-remediation pledge, worth more than £4.1 billion; and reimbursements to Government funds, worth more than £700 million. Those totals, alongside other measures, are worth almost £7 billion—more than double the value of the funds expected to be raised by the levy.
The Home Builders Federation examined the proposals and found that developers are staring at a potential average additional cost of £2,320 per unit when building new homes. In London, the increase amounts to more than £3,00. As the HBF stresses, that is on top of the myriad other average additional costs, including £10,220 per unit for the future homes standard, £2,000 per unit for the proposed changes to landfill tax rates, £5,700 per unit for biodiversity net gain, £7,700 per unit for building regulation costs, £2,055 per unit in taxes and £37,000 per unit for materials and labour. Inflation on relevant building materials has exceeded 40% since 2020, and labour costs rocketed after the employer national insurance hike was introduced.
We in this place have a duty to ensure that everyone can live in a safe and decent home, and remediation is a critical aspect of that. If these costs continue to layer and swell, however, we will eventually bury the affordability of new homes beneath the unaffordability of the costs that come with building them. That is not just a fear for the future, but one that I worry has already joined us in the present in some parts of the country—not least here in London, where new housing starts over the past two years are at negligible levels, despite record levels of housing demand. The Minister, who is like me, a Greater London MP, knows that to be the case. I acknowledge that safety, affordability and viability are a difficult triumvirate to harmonise, but the Government are on track to miss their target by up to 400,000 homes across the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is clear that something must be done differently.
Finally, I turn briefly to an issue that I believe cuts to the heart of future viable housebuilding in the UK: brownfield development, which the Minister touched on. I welcome the fact that the draft regulations recognise the importance of getting more homes built on previously developed land, especially as that has not always been recognised by Labour Members. The Opposition acknowledge that a 50% reduction in the levy for brownfield sites is a positive step on paper. However, the definition of brownfield land under the national planning policy framework means that 75% of it must be previously developed, while these draft regulations now clarify the treatment of fixed-surface type infrastructure and unlawful operations, and exclude from the definition wholly underground buildings and underground parts of buildings, That leaves me concerned that we will see fewer buildings falling under the scope of brownfield land, and therefore fewer buildings benefiting from the rate reduction. I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications on that point and on my concerns about the potential impact on house building.
As I have said throughout these discussions, it is vital that all sides of the House work together towards a constructive, viable and affordable system of house building and remediation. That is essential for a safer future and safer homes, for the ownership and security of personal welfare, and for a fairer system in a modern society in which we never leave a single one of our constituents living in a home they know is not safe and secure.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to her place.
I rise to restate the Liberal Democrat commitment that no leaseholder who has found themselves subject to cladding remediation costs for which they were not responsible should shoulder those costs without access to remediation. We support these amendments to improve the 2025 regulations, but there is a bigger question about other buildings.
High-risk buildings need to be addressed first, as the shadow Minister said, but there are none the less residents in buildings under 11 metres tall and in buildings whose standard does not meet PAS 9980:2022, which means that they continue to live in buildings with flammable cladding. Although that cladding would last an hour, so it is safer for them to escape, it is not a standard recognised by insurers, who expect buildings to be built to building regulations. Thousands of leaseholders are potentially in that position, and many of them cannot get insurance—except at very high cost—and cannot sell their properties.
I invite the Minister to comment on how the funding towards the building safety regime can be widened beyond the levy, and to confirm that the Government will bring forward proposals in their remediation Bill to tackle the cladding manufacturers, which have been largely responsible for the crisis since it began.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Opposition for their positive contributions to this debate. In that spirit, we need to continue to work across parties to address this important issue.
The shadow Minister asked about viability, a key issue that continues to come up. As he mentioned, we both serve as London MPs and see the impact across London and right across the country. It is important to recognise that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply while also balancing the revenue required to make homes safe. The measures include variable rates to local authority levies and a 50% discount on developments on previously developed land, reflecting the additional costs of building on those sites.
As I highlighted in my opening remarks, affordable housing is exempt from the levy, which should help to bring forward new housing supply. On average, the levy charge represents 1.1% of house prices on non-previously developed land, and 0.55% on previously developed land. It is therefore expected to have only a very small negative impact on supply. As I also mentioned, the levy was announced in 2021, so the sector has known about it for some time. We appreciate that many issues outside the sector and outside the Government’s control, whether locally, nationally or internationally, are having a big impact on developers, but it is important that they continue to price this work into the deals that they are doing.
Gareth Bacon
I think the Minister misspoke. She said that the regulations had been designed to minimise housing supply. I am not sure that that is what she meant.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. I should have said that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impact.
The shadow Minister asked whether the levy could have an impact on our ambitious target—rightly so—of reaching 1.5 million new homes. We continue to work closely with the housing market to look at supply. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that homes continue to be built at pace. This issue comes up in my inbox, as it does for many hon. Members—it is not isolated to London. It is important that we build good-quality homes.
The shadow Minister also highlighted the impact that the measures could have on innocent homeowners, who should not be burdened with the cost. I thank him for agreeing that the cost should not be placed on them. It is right that developers and house builders be responsible for it, in order to protect innocent homeowners.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, highlighted an issue on which many of us have campaigned for many years: ensuring that innocent leaseholders and homeowners are not responsible for paying the levy. Many of them struggle with housing costs and the cost of living crisis on a day-to-day basis. It is important that developers have a way to fund the levy with no additional cost to the taxpayer.
The Lib Dem spokesperson asked about properties that fall out of scope. We will continue to identify those properties and work with the sector to highlight other ways of supporting them, in order to ensure, again, that costs are fairly shared across the market.
Gideon Amos
On a point of further clarification, I hope that the Minister agrees that one reason for broadening the scope of funding for the safety regime so that it includes cladding manufacturers is that in constituencies such as mine in Somerset, there are no high-rise buildings at all—indeed, most of Somerset has no high-rise buildings—but all the developers in Somerset will none the less pay for remediation in the big cities. None of us begrudges the importance of paying for that remediation, but I hope that that example illustrates the importance of widening the funding of the regime so that cladding manufacturers are required to contribute.
Florence Eshalomi
As I mentioned, we will keep under review the process and, importantly, the rates, and we will report back to the House every three years on those key areas.
The building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The draft amending regulations before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently, in accordance with our initial intention to support redevelopment of brownfield sites. They are intended to correct drafting and improve clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than alter the underlying policy design of the levy.
The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes in this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. That mission must work in parallel with our commitment to remedy the building safety failures of the past. We expect the development industry to contribute to our work making buildings safe for those who live in them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 6 July, make three targeted amendments. They improve information-sharing powers in the Digital Economy Act 2017 to support people living in fuel poverty.
First, the amendments enable specified public authorities to share information with energy suppliers for the purpose of identifying and supporting people living in fuel poverty who are experiencing energy debt. Secondly, the amendments, laid by the then Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 6 July, specify that Department under the existing fuel poverty objective, enabling the Government Department responsible for data policy to support work assisting people living in fuel poverty, including the national data library kickstarter project. Following the machinery of government changes announced in July, that responsibility is transferring to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Any technical changes needed to reflect the transfer will be made separately and will not affect how these measures operate. A third technical measure clarifies that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero can rely on the fuel poverty objective, in accordance with the transfer of relevant functions to it in 2023.
Taken together, these practical and proportionate amendments will help to ensure that support reaches the right households at the right time. The information needed to identify households in difficulty is often held by different organisations. Properly governed data sharing can bring that information together, allowing public authorities and energy suppliers to identify need more accurately and target assistance more effectively.
The first amendment fills a specific gap in the existing framework. The current fuel poverty power supports households that cannot afford to keep their homes adequately warm, but it does not expressly cover households with outstanding energy debt. The change will help to ensure that households facing both fuel poverty and energy debt can be identified and supported, rather than falling through the gaps in existing arrangements. Although the two groups frequently overlap, fuel poverty and energy debt are not identical. The amendment therefore enables information sharing for the specific purpose of identifying and supporting households that are fuel-poor and that experience energy arrears.
The statutory instrument will provide the necessary legislation to enable the Government to support a future energy debt relief scheme. The precise design of any scheme remains under development by the Government and Ofgem, and the draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme. They provide the legal data-sharing basis that would allow an appropriately designed scheme to operate effectively. If such a scheme proceeds, it is estimated to reduce the administrative burdens involved in identifying eligible households and providing further support to families in need. The proposal that the regulations would deliver received strong support in the consultation, with 98% of respondents supporting the proposed information-sharing arrangements.
The second amendment specifies the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as a public authority that may share information with certain other public authorities for the existing fuel poverty objective, which will enable it to support fuel poverty initiatives such as the national data library kickstarter project. It will test ways to identify households in need by securely linking information such as earnings, benefits and energy use. That responsibility will transfer to DCMS when the machinery of government changes take place through the usual process. It will mean that, in effect, DCMS will have that function, which is more efficient than withdrawing the process and starting it again.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?
Stephanie Peacock
I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a little bit late in arriving, but I did say that the scheme is the responsibility of the relevant Department. These regulations provide the legal framework for the data sharing.
I now turn to the third amendment, which concerns the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Its predecessor Department—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—was able to share information with certain other public bodies under the fuel poverty objective, and the relevant functions were transferred to DESNZ in 2023, but the relevant secondary legislation was not consequentially amended at that time. This amendment corrects that omission in the interests of certainty.
Those measures sit alongside the Government’s broader action to tackle affordability. We have cut VAT on electricity bills, expanded the warm home discount to around 6 million households, and are delivering the warm homes plan and fuel poverty strategy to reduce bills, improve energy efficiency and help to lift up to 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030. These regulations help to ensure that support is targeted more effectively and reaches those who need it most.
I recognise that Members will rightly expect assurances about privacy, proportionality and the potential for scope creep. These regulations do not create a general data-sharing power. Information may be shared only by specified bodies, for specified purposes and within the existing statutory framework. All sharing remains subject to the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, restrictions on reuse and onward disclosure. Bodies sharing data should have regard to the statutory code of practice, including recording information-sharing agreements on a public register. Those safeguards are integral to the operation of these powers. Responsible data use and public trust must go together.
The regulations will help public authorities to identify households experiencing fuel poverty or energy debt and ensure that support can reach them more efficiently. They make limited, targeted changes to existing powers, while retaining strong privacy and transparency safeguards. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. This statutory instrument extends an existing power in the Digital Economy Act 2017 that enables data sharing between public authorities and energy suppliers. The changes will enable the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt to their energy supplier in certain circumstances.
The regulations will specifically permit the sharing of information to support the delivery of a debt relief scheme, amend the list of fuel poverty measures to enable specified persons to disclose information to energy suppliers for the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt, and amend the 2018 regulations to add the Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—that last one might need updating—to the list of specified persons that may share information. I hope that Ministers will make sure that this Committee is not a waste of time, and that we will not find ourselves here again soon, making another regulation to add other Departments to that list.
Members will know that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have long criticised the Government’s broader energy policy. We are clear that consumer debt is rising because impossible net zero targets, such as achieving full clean power by 2030, have driven up energy bills across the country. We reiterate our calls for the Government to take a serious approach that tackles the root cause of high energy prices, rather than raising taxes to pay for temporary solutions.
The Government should therefore adopt our cheap power plan to scrap the carbon tax on electricity generation from gas, as well as removing VAT on domestic energy bills, maximising extraction of our oil and gas resources in the North sea, and committing to reliable, secure power generation from gas and nuclear. Although the regulations have noble intentions, they do nothing to address the underlying problems and costs for consumers. They simply paper over the cracks of a Labour Government already failing to deliver on the promises they made to the public.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument. The principle here is inherently good. The Government already hold the information needed to identify households in difficulty, and letting that information reach the people who can act on it, with proper safeguards, is exactly what the Digital Economy Act was meant to enable. We have seen in open banking what happens when consumers’ interests are put at the heart of responsible data sharing. There is real potential to apply the same thinking more widely, such as with property data. I hope the Minister sees the regulations as a template rather than a one-off.
Households across the country, including in Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring, are still carrying debt, much of which was built up during the energy crisis through no fault of their own. That debt is a drag on everything else in their lives. That is only set to worsen as the energy price cap rises. If the debt relief scheme—although not part of these regulations—can support those in need, it should happen as quickly as possible. We must also tackle the root causes of energy prices. We should look at Lib Dem policies on, for example, the link between electricity and gas prices to make sure that cost is tackled.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to hear about privacy and protection of the data being at the heart of this, but I would love to hear more about holding suppliers to account to ensure that they are using the data for the purposes, and being protected accordingly. She addressed the question about the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but I would also like to ask what mechanisms there are to share what is learnt and about what is working with other Departments running fuel poverty and vulnerability schemes. We should be looking at the possibility of using smart data to deliver to our communities.
Steve Barclay
I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result.
A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee.
Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost.
One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to conclude this debate. I am grateful to Members for their contributions and for the broad consensus that households facing fuel poverty and energy debt should receive support quickly, fairly and effectively.
At its heart, this draft statutory instrument makes three targeted changes. First, it enables information sharing to support households experiencing energy debt. Secondly, it enables the Department responsible for data policy to participate in information sharing under the fuel poverty objective, including through work associated with the national data library. Thirdly, it provides certainty for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, following the machinery of government changes in 2023. Taken together, the three measures will help to ensure that support reaches the households that need it most.
I will pick up briefly on a few different points. On the name of the Department, we will not be coming back here. That is the whole reason why we have not withdrawn this and done it all again: this is the most efficient way of doing it—[Interruption.] I will give way if the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire wishes to intervene.
Steve Barclay
When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and understands how changes to the machinery of government work. We could withdraw it and bring everyone back in a few months’ time, but the most efficient way to do it is to proceed with the Department as it is; the powers will come to DCMS later. I am sure he is aware of that from his time in government. That is also the answer to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for her point. It is absolutely right that we should take learnings from this. Indeed, towards the end of my speech, I spoke about some of the protections and some of the detail.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked me some questions about who is in scope and who will benefit from the scheme. Again, had he been listening to my contribution, he would have heard—I will repeat my comments—that the precise design of any scheme remains in development by the Government and Ofgem. The draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme; they provide the legal data-sharing basis to allow an appropriate design scheme to operate effectively.
As much as all the points are incredibly important—data poverty, fuel poverty and debt poverty, which I see in my own constituency—we are not in Committee to debate them; we are here to debate data sharing. That is what we have done, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood
(1 day, 7 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
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 763161 relating to surrogacy law and legal parenthood.
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and I am sure today will be no different. The petition calls for a change in the law so that the intended parents of babies born through surrogacy can be considered to be the legal parents from the moment of their child’s birth. Under current law, that is not possible. Intended parents must go through a months-long process in the courts and be visited by a social worker before they are considered to be the parents of the children in the eyes of the law.
Ahead of this debate, I met the petition’s creator, Adam, his fiancé, Jamie, and their daughter, Leven, who was born via surrogacy in Connecticut. I am pleased to say that Adam and Jamie have joined us in the Public Gallery today. Although baby Leven has not joined them, she made a cameo appearance on our call ahead of the debate. Adam and Jamie are listed as Leven’s parents on her birth certificate in the United States, but more than six months after her birth, they still are not recognised as her legal parents at home in the UK. That is what prompted Adam to create this petition. When we met, he said,
“We’re changing Leven’s nappies, we’re putting her to bed—we are her parents, we’re bringing her up”
and yet he says that babies like her are in “legal limbo” under current legislation.
My role today is to introduce the petition by setting out the petitioners’ views and framing the debate to follow. It is good to see so much interest from Members across the House. In preparation, as well as meeting Adam, I have drawn on the expertise of a range of organisations and individuals, with the expert support of the petitions team. They are often not thanked enough, so I place on record my thanks to the entire team for their support in preparing for the debate.
We met groups such as Surrogacy Concern, Stop Surrogacy Now UK and Brilliant Beginnings, and Dr Herjeet Marway of the University of Birmingham, who is the founding chairperson of SurrogacyUK’s ethics committee. We also met Professor Nick Hopkins of University College London, a former law commissioner for England and Wales, and Professor Gillian Black of the Scottish Law Commission and the University of Edinburgh. Together, they authored the joint Law Commission report on surrogacy reform, which was published in 2023. I will start with the current state of the law and the reforms proposed by that Law Commission report.
When a child is born to parents via surrogacy, whether in this country or abroad, as baby Leven was, the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother at birth under UK law. If she is married or in a civil partnership, her partner will automatically be the second parent on the birth certificate, irrespective of the child’s genetics. There are children out there today whose parents, as considered under UK law, have no genetic relationship to the child at all. That is because in UK law, the person who gives birth to a baby, and no one else, is considered the mother. That has led to a complicated reality in today’s world, where a growing share of babies are not born via natural conception.
If you give birth using a donor egg, you are considered to be the child’s mother in the eyes of the law. But if you cannot carry a baby, and if you and your partner have an embryo that is biologically yours carried by a surrogate, you are not considered to be the legal parents when your child is born. Intended parents and their surrogates can draft a surrogacy agreement setting out how they want parental rights to be arranged for the child, but those documents have no legal standing in the UK.
To become legal parents, intended parents must apply for a parental order through the courts. They have to make that application between six weeks and six months after the baby’s birth. Organisations that specialise in assisting intended parents say that the process normally takes between six and 12 months to complete. In that time, the baby will almost invariably be living with the intended parents, but legally, they are strangers to that child.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is putting the case very well. There are also very practical hurdles, such as registering the child with a GP, the child’s medical circumstances and applying for a passport. The whole thing is illogical. The practicalities add to the timescale, and it is time that the Government address the issue.
Dave Robertson
It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place in this Chamber. I will touch on health later, so I ask him to hold fire.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time, which I very much appreciate. He and I share the desire for strict rules to prevent abuse of any kind, as I am sure everyone in the House does.
I want to make a point relevant specifically to Scotland. In England, the suitability of intended parents is assessed by the courts and through a publicly funded system, but it is funded privately in Scotland, which means that intended parents potentially have to pay £2,000 or £3,000 extra of their own money to go through the process. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Scottish Government to find a reform to fix that system?
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of finance, which I will touch on briefly, so I ask him to bear with me as I get to that part of my speech.
Opponents say that the parental order process is really complex. The document that intended parents have to submit is 200 pages long, meaning that many will seek legal advice. Adam and Jamie say that they expect legal fees for their parental order to be in excess of £10,000. We have just heard from my hon. Friend that it can be even more costly in other parts of the United Kingdom. That money is very real, and intended parents face very real financial difficulties. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the process can cause real practical problems. In fact, I have heard of cases in which surrogates have had to dial in to medical appointments for their child in the US for months after birth, because the hospital at home is unable to recognise the intended parents as responsible for their child’s health decisions.
Experts say that, in their experience, the most distressing part of the process for most intended parents is the court-mandated social worker visit. Supporters of the current arrangement compare it to a visit from a health visitor, but opponents say that there is no comparison. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is the agency that advises the courts on children’s welfare, and in the vast majority of cases it is involved where a child is believed to be at risk. However, CAFCASS is also involved in surrogacy cases. Its assessments for a parental order involve criminal checks, child protection reports, home visits with parents and a full, detailed report. Although it is incredibly rare to see CAFCASS reports on intended parents that are anything but wholly positive, parents find it extremely distressing to be questioned and scrutinised in a way that parents conceiving without the need for a surrogate simply do not experience.
In 2018, as a result of those difficulties, a previous Government asked the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to jointly consider reforms to UK surrogacy law. It was a significant piece of work, and the report was published in 2023. It recommended
“a new pathway to legal parenthood”
in surrogacy cases, with the screening of intended parents taking place before birth, so that they could be recognised as legal parents from birth. The proposed pre-birth arrangements included an agreement between the surrogate and the intended parents, with independent legal advice provided to all parties, a preconception assessment of the child’s welfare, and the agreement of a regulated surrogacy organisation to recognise the surrogacy agreement. If the surrogate then withdrew consent, the existing parental order process would apply. If the surrogate changed their mind before the birth, they would be the legal parent at birth. If they changed their mind in the six weeks following birth, they would be able to apply for a parental order.
The authors of the report strongly felt that that struck a balance between protecting all parties—the surrogate, the parents and the children—and, crucially, keeping the child’s welfare as the central concern. Having said that, it is really important to bring in the voices of Professor Hopkins and Professor Black, who made it very clear ahead of this debate that they never intended that part of their proposal to be carved out and delivered in isolation. They proposed a wider package of reforms, and they say that it was only part of a comprehensive solution. Although some who advocate changes to surrogacy law argue that the issue of parental orders can be dealt with as a quick win, the professors believe that it should be addressed as part of a wider package. That package includes, for example, creating a mandatory surrogacy register so that children could find out more about their birth mother and, with their consent, her family, if they wish.
It is also important to note that the Law Commission’s proposal for a new pathway to legal parenthood for intended parents would only apply to surrogacy arrangements here in the UK. It is proposed that the existing parental order system would continue to apply when babies are born abroad via surrogacy. The Law Commission report concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that laws abroad are in line with what we would consider UK norms. That concern is flagged by some of the groups opposed to surrogacy arrangements, as the second most popular destination for UK surrogacy is Nigeria—a country currently subject to special restrictions when it comes to adopting a child due to child welfare concerns.
In preparing for this debate, I heard worrying reports of surrogate mothers, often living in real poverty abroad, being pressed to sign legal agreements under extreme time pressure and without independent legal advice. That is far from being the case everywhere. However, it can never be acceptable, and we should make sure there are proper legal safeguards in place. The Law Commission’s hope is that, by maintaining the UK’s altruistic approach to surrogacy—that is, keeping it not for profit—and updating the law, more intended parents will be able to pursue surrogacy here in the UK and make use of a new parental pathway to be recognised as legal parents from birth.
The petition focuses on a specific part of surrogacy law, but it feeds into a much wider debate. There are some quite stark divisions on the issue, which is understandably very emotive for a large number of people. However, what seems clear is that the current law on surrogacy is no longer working and that a wider conversation about how we should change the legislation in this area would be welcome. I know the Government have said that they will look at this issue when time and capacity allow, but I am very interested to hear more from the Minister about what that might look like and when we might be able to expect it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome this debate.
As we know, the petition asks for parental orders to be permitted at birth. I believe that Members should approach the proposal with extreme caution. The number of people who have signed the petition—over 113,000, including 226 of my own constituents—is clearly testament to the strength of feeling on the issues. However, the petitioners frame the parental order process as an obstacle to parental rights, but that is fundamentally misleading. The legal process provides important protections for surrogate women and the children they carry. Currently, intended parents can apply for parental orders only after six weeks from the birth, and they must usually do so within six months. That cooling-off period provides a vital safeguard for the surrogate mother, and we should not dispense with it lightly.
I believe we need to take a step back and remember why this House has historically approached surrogacy with so much caution. It is now undeniable that we have moved well beyond the purposes originally used to justify IVF and assisted reproductive technologies. IVF was initially intended to help a childless couple have a child, not to create a contractual market out of pregnancy. That sense of mission creep is also evident when we look at the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Warnock committee, whose report led to the Act, did not regard surrogacy as simply another form of fertility treatment. Now, over 40 years later, surrogacy has become just another service routinely offered at clinics across the country. Technology allows us to separate genetic parenthood, gestational motherhood and social parenthood. However, it does not mean those relationships are interchangeable. Technology may give us choices, but it does not absolve us from making ethical judgments about those choices.
It is worth noting that the UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy at all. Surrogacy is much more strictly limited, or even completely prohibited, in countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. We know that some of those countries are particularly liberal in other areas, so the fact that they are strong on this gives us reason to question why they take that position. That reflects the serious ethical questions that arise when a child is intentionally separated from the woman who carried them in the womb. Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU, where it is classed as a form of child trafficking. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has recommended the global abolition of surrogacy. Last year she described surrogacy as characterised by the exploitation of women and children, including girls.
In any future reforms of surrogacy legislation, the welfare and safety of women and children should remain our paramount concern. I acknowledge that the desire of many people who turn to surrogacy is for a child, and that that is a profound need within them. I think that is something on which we are all able to agree. Some women face infertility or repeated pregnancy loss, and some face medical conditions that make it impossible or even unsafe for them to carry a pregnancy themselves. For some people, surrogacy may seem to be the only path to having a child with a genetic connection to them. I do not question the deep desire for that, nor do I underestimate the pain that can come from wanting a child and being unable to have one. That said, compassion for those experiences cannot require us to overlook the women and children affected by surrogacy. By its very nature, surrogacy involves a woman’s body becoming a means to an end. She is carrying a child for the benefit of another family. My concern is that our efforts to help people to become parents risk constructing a system in which women’s reproductive capacity becomes merely a resource for others to use.
One of my main concerns with the petition is that it implies that surrogacy is closer to natural conception than to adoption; I believe that is again misguided. With adoption we do not pretend that the birth mother is irrelevant simply because she will not raise the child herself. That woman has already nurtured the child in her womb for nine months and the law rightly recognises that her role matters: the original birth record remains in existence and the adopted child can access it later in life, as an adult, if they wish. Similarly, a surrogate may not intend to raise the child she carries, but that does not mean that her role should be legally obliterated at birth.
We should also consider the needs of the child. A baby bonds with their mother in utero regardless of whether the surrogate uses her own egg in the pregnancy. The child’s birth mother is an important person in the child’s story and the law should therefore recognise the birth mother’s indispensable contribution in bringing new life into the world.
I also have concerns about financial incentives. In this country a surrogate mother cannot simply be paid a fee for producing a baby. She may receive reasonable expenses, including for things such as maternity clothing, travel and loss of earnings, but typical reimbursements now reach as much as £25,000. I think we would all agree that that is quite a substantial sum, which should give us pause for thought. There is an important distinction between reimbursement and income. It is one thing if a woman is compensated for genuine expenses, but if pregnancy becomes a source of substantial financial benefit, we need to ask whether we are still talking about altruism or whether we are creating a market in all but name. Pregnancy is not risk-free; it can involve serious medical complications. However, uncertainty about whether a payment is reimbursement of an expense or a fee clouds the situation.
We cannot discuss this issue without considering the wider international picture. Most parental orders for UK parents now involve commercial surrogacy abroad; we have heard a lot about that already. It should concern us all that international surrogacy takes place in jurisdictions where the economic circumstances of surrogate mothers are very different from those in Britain. If wealthy countries normalise the commissioning of pregnancies, there will inevitably be markets that meet that demand. In most cases, the women with the least economic power become the people expected to take the greatest physical risks.
I will finish by reiterating that I have enormous sympathy for people who want children and cannot have them naturally. Their longing is real, but true compassion must extend to everyone involved, including to the women whose bodies bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and to the children they bear. Do the Government remain committed to the parental order process and the safeguards that it provides? Those safeguards are not outdated as the petition suggests; indeed, they are needed now more than ever, especially as international surrogacy arrangements are becoming the norm for intended parents in the UK. The parental order process exists to ensure that a child’s welfare comes first and that a surrogate mother’s consent is freely given. Any reform should strengthen those protections for women and children, not diminish them.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. In the years since the passage of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, the number of babies born as a result of surrogacy has increased and the nature of surrogacy arrangements has evolved. As I look through Hansard it appears that, in spite of that change, surrogacy has seldom been debated in this place. I therefore welcome this debate; although I do not agree with its framing, I believe it is long overdue.
This debate is critical as there are fundamental human rights at stake. The first are the rights of women: the rights of women as parents to be protected, to have the very best care and to have no outside pressure on decisions relating to their healthcare and their bodies; and the right of women living in poverty, in war zones or in vulnerable situations, here in the UK and across the globe, not to be forced, coerced or trafficked to service the growing demand for surrogates. The second are the rights of children, as set out in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to know where they came from, to have a nationality, and to be cared for by their parents, not separated from them, where possible.
Today I will focus on the rights of women. The Law Commission’s previously published proposals recommend tipping the balance of power away from the rights of the birth mother. That is clearly stated in the introduction of its core report:
“Our reforms respect the autonomy of the surrogate—if she withdraws her consent, the courts will make the final decision on parental status.”
If we were to put those proposals on the statute book, a woman who used her own egg as part of a surrogacy agreement, gave birth to a child and then changed her mind would end up in a court battle in which the judge would decide who the parent or parents of the child are. At present, if the surrogate withholds her consent, a parental order cannot be made; she remains the legal parent. However, under the commission’s preferred model, the birth mother’s name would be removed from the birth certificate altogether, and a judge would be forced to consider the living arrangements of the child until the court proceedings concluded.
The commission’s proposals would shift the balance of rights to the intended parents, but it is important that we, as legislators, consider the bigger picture. There is likely to be an economic imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended—commissioning—parents: by definition, they are commissioning a child. At present, the expenses paid to surrogates far exceed what was anticipated when the 1985 Act was passed. Although the Law Commission’s proposals claim to provide clarity on expenses, they could still result in commissioning parents paying tens of thousands of pounds to a surrogate, including payments for holidays and gifts. That economic power imbalance prompts the question: is it ever a free choice for a surrogate to enter into a surrogacy agreement?
Before concluding, I want to talk about the international impact of surrogacy. Analysis by Stop Surrogacy Now UK suggests that, in most years since 2013, more than 60% of parental order applications in England and Wales related to surrogacy arrangements where the child was born abroad. It is false hope to think that these proposals will stop the demand from the UK for international surrogacy.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Two of my constituents recently travelled to Mexico, where their children were born by surrogacy. Those births were facilitated by a company called My Surrogacy Journey, which is listed on gov.uk. While in Mexico, they had repeated traumatic experiences with the company relating to issues including insurance for their children, accusations of bullying towards staff and repeated efforts to silence any constructive criticism. I understand that other Members of this House have received similar complaints. Given the severity of these matters, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take My Surrogacy Journey down from gov.uk pending a review by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?
Tracy Gilbert
I agree, and I will come to some of those matters shortly.
It is estimated that the international surrogacy industry will be worth more than $200 billion by 2032. The decisions that we take about surrogacy in the UK can help protect vulnerable women and girls in war-torn countries such as Ukraine, as has been mentioned, and low-income countries such as Nigeria from being forced, coerced and trafficked to service the growing demand.
I appreciate the time and consideration that the Law Commission gave to this issue. It heard directly from women who had acted as surrogates, were left displaced and received inadequate medical care. It found that women who had been used as surrogates had not even been told about the genetic parentage make-up of the embryos that had been transferred into their bodies and, as a result, had no information about any inherited conditions that could affect the pregnancy and put them or the baby at risk.
I also welcome the spotlight document published in the last few days by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who makes it clear that women in the UK are not only at risk of forced surrogacy but already being identified as such. I have called for a wider debate on surrogacy that would have at its heart women at risk of forced surrogacy and their children.
The Government must fully reject the Law Commission’s proposals. The Scottish Government have already drafted guidance in preparation for the proposals being put on the statute book. Until they are rejected by the UK Government, such preparation will continue.
I hope I have evidenced why we must have a much wider debate on surrogacy. Fifty per cent of responses to the Law Commission’s consultation called for a total ban on surrogacy in the UK. I fully support such a ban, but it should be based on a wider debate that draws on evidence and focuses on reducing harm. In the interim, the Government must immediately recognise the harm and risk that is being inflicted on women and children through international surrogacy and take steps to cut off the UK’s growing demand for it, as that is the only way to play our part in ending the coercion and trafficking of women and children. I understand people’s desire to become parents, but that desire should not take priority over the rights of a child. Surrogacy asks all of us to answer very difficult questions, but answer them we must.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
The topic of this debate is a matter of great sensitivity, but I oppose the proposal in the petition. Automatically recognising intended parents as legal parents from birth could remove important safeguards at precisely the moment when a child is most vulnerable.
We should begin with the most important person in this debate: the child. A child cannot consent to a surrogacy arrangement, and they cannot understand the promises adults have made. They cannot know what might happen if circumstances change—and circumstances can change. We have seen cases where arrangements that began with everyone in agreement broke down during the pregnancy. In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with the child four times a year. That child was conceived using the surrogate’s own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents.
When we are told that everything is agreed before birth, we have to ask what happens when it is not. The current law recognises that possibility. A parental order cannot be applied for until six weeks after birth, and the surrogate has to confirm that she is willingly giving up her parental rights. That six-week period is not a pointless delay; it is a breathing space and a safeguard. It recognises that giving birth to a child is not simply the completion of a contract, but a profound physical and emotional event, and that the law should allow time for circumstances and feelings to be properly considered. The current system also provides scrutiny through the family court and CAFCASS social workers. If we remove that oversight, we are not simply removing paperwork; we are removing an independent layer of protection around a child.
We need to understand how much that matters, because surrogacy is growing rapidly. Parental order applications increased from just 117 in 2011 to 537 in 2025, and the majority of applications now involve international surrogacy. That should make us more cautious, not less. When a child is born through an international arrangement, there can be questions about consent, identity, immigration, the circumstances of the surrogate and whether proper safeguards were followed. As recently as 2025, the High Court dealt with a case where the intended parents had never met the surrogate carrying the child, and did not even have information about her identity. The case took more than 15 months and involved four court hearings. That shows us why proper scrutiny is necessary.
Compassion must never mean abandoning scrutiny, because when adults disagree, a child has to live with the consequences. That is why I cannot support automatic legal parenthood from birth. The child must come first.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard.
I will begin by recognising the very understandable motivation behind this petition. People who pursue surrogacy do so because they desperately want a family, and nobody should doubt the love that intended parents have for the children they raise. However, I cannot support the change proposed by the petition. The question before us is not whether intended parents are real parents, nor whether they should ultimately receive legal recognition; the question is whether the woman who has carried and given birth to a child should lose her legal status as that child’s mother from the moment of birth. I do not believe that she should.
In our society, some things should never be reduced to questions of contract, individual choice or intention, and motherhood is certainly one of them. Pregnancy cannot simply be a service provided by one person for another, a woman’s body cannot merely be the means by which someone else’s parental intentions are fulfilled and the relationship created through nine months of pregnancy and childbirth cannot be written off because an agreement was reached beforehand.
At present, our law recognises that reality: the woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the legal mother. Intended parents can subsequently acquire legal parenthood through a parental order, but crucially, that process cannot normally begin until six weeks after the birth and requires the mother’s consent. Some describe that as outdated and difficult bureaucracy, but I describe it as a safeguard. Before conception, we cannot know with certainty how a woman will feel after pregnancy, childbirth and holding the baby whom she carried for the first time. Consent matters enormously, but genuine consent must include one having the ability to change one’s mind when the reality is fundamentally different from what could have been understood beforehand. Consent given before pregnancy cannot simply become irrevocable after childbirth.
Another important question is that of independent oversight. Parental orders allow the courts to consider the circumstances of the arrangement, require the mother’s consent and provide for CAFCASS involvement. That protection becomes particularly important in the international dimension of surrogacy, which other Members have mentioned. In the first 11 months of 2025, 139 parental order applications were made for babies born through surrogacy in the UK, compared with 357 for babies born through surrogacy abroad. Therefore, we should think carefully before weakening the safeguards in our law. If parental orders take too long, let us consider making them quicker, and if intended parents face practical difficulties, let us try to address them. We can make the system work better without changing the principle at its heart.
Family, motherhood and childhood cannot be understood through the language of intention and contract, and it is particularly important that the law continues to recognise the reality of motherhood at the moment of birth. A woman who has carried and given birth to a child should not find that her legal relationship with that child has already been extinguished. I cannot support automatically recognising intended parents as the legal parents from birth. The six-week period after birth, the mother’s consent and independent judicial oversight are not antiquated obstacles to modern families, but protections for women and children—important safeguards that I believe are worth keeping.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As the DUP’s health spokesperson, I am particularly interested in advocating for the protection of the women and children at the heart of this process. Although health and social care are devolved, surrogacy policy is a reserved matter and is decided by Westminster. The thrust of my concern and contribution to this debate is more about urging caution to ensure that, while we need to legislate for the new scenarios that we face in modern life, protection is in place and the legislation is thoroughly considered. I think that reflects the opinion of most of us who are putting forward points in the debate.
I recognise that surrogacy can be a lifeline for those struggling with infertility or who are unable to have children themselves. Surrogacy can no doubt represent an extraordinary act of kindness where a woman chooses to help a friend or family member to fulfil their dream of becoming a parent. However, I must stress that I have significant concerns about the increasing commercialisation of surrogacy. I have spoken on this issue in a separate debate in Westminster Hall and I want to reiterate the concerns that I expressed then. An important distinction must be made between the women who voluntarily agree to carry a child for someone they know, perhaps with reasonable expenses being covered, and the wholly exploitative system whereby a woman’s womb becomes a service that can be bought. That concerns me greatly.
The background information that we got from the House of Commons Library—we always thank the Library for its contributions—refers to the international and regional human rights relevant to surrogacy: the right to respect for family life, the rights of the child, women’s rights, the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to dignity, and protection from human trafficking. A number of issues were outlined in the background information that we got from the Library. We must tread very carefully to not contribute to a market that preys on the financially vulnerable and pressures them to use their bodies for the benefit of others. Compensation for genuine expenses incurred in carrying a baby is one thing; paying a woman for carrying a baby is quite another. The distinction becomes increasingly blurred—the hon. Members for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) both made contributions on this, and I would echo them—when payments for carrying a child are disguised as expenses. There must be no room for ambiguity in this process. I should have welcomed the Minister to her place. We wish her well in the role that she now plays, and we look forward to her responses to our concerns.
In my intervention on the hon. Member for Lichfield, I referred to the practical hurdles, such as registering the child with a GP, making critical medical decisions for a child who may have complex medical needs, and applying for a passport. Prolonged uncertainty is not in the best interests of the child, nor is it fair to the families who have planned for, prayed for and loved that baby from the beginning. Does the Minister not agree that access to these scientific advances means that we must regulate well for them? That is the thrust of what I am putting forward.
I must also raise my wider concerns about the rapidly growing fertility market, as young women are being encouraged to donate their eggs in return for compensation. In fact, it is the clinics themselves that profit most substantially from the donation, and clinics take advantage —I say this with respect—of those who may be in financial difficulties or who need the money. I would argue that sufficient information is not being provided to these women about the potential long-term health consequences of egg retrieval. I am deeply grieved by any idea that promotes fertility as something that can be bought and sold. That is wrong, and I put that on the record.
The concerns that I have outlined become even more significant when we look internationally. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK but permitted in some countries abroad, leading many UK couples to circumvent the law by using a surrogate abroad. That leaves room for exploitation, as the UK Government cannot control the protections available to those surrogate mothers. I ask the Minister what is being done to close those loopholes. We should legislate, if necessary, to ensure that protection is in place. Will any Government action extend to Northern Ireland? I understand that it will, because the matter is not devolved from Westminster. Therefore, if the Government take a decision here, it will apply to us, but I am keen to have that confirmed.
That brings me to the petition, which calls for the intended parents to become the legal parents of the child from birth, rather than having to go through a parental order process. In the Strangford constituency, 131 people have signed the petition. They did so for a simple reason—because they have concerns. I want to reflect their opinion on this process. I can understand why some families may want to simplify the process, and there is perhaps a balance to be achieved. However, does the Minister agree that any reforms cannot be allowed to come at the expense of safeguards for surrogate mothers and the children themselves? The Minister is a compassionate lady—I say that in all honesty and know it to be the case. In my dealings with her over the years, I have always found her to be of that opinion, but we need some reassurance.
Surrogacy should remain an incredible act of generosity. It cannot be anything else—not a commercial transaction that risks exploiting vulnerable women and commodifying their children. That can never happen. With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for opening this debate so thoroughly and thoughtfully. When I read Adam’s petition, I was taken back to the moment that I became a dad. My husband and I fostered and then adopted our children. I remember holding my daughter and son for the first time like it was yesterday. In those moments, there was no question in my mind that I wanted to be their dad, and that is what I am. That is why I was struck by Adam’s description of the moment he and his partner first saw their baby. They became dads in that moment too. However, as my hon. Friend set out, the law does not recognise that reality.
I understand why the current system came about. The rights and autonomy of surrogates and the need to safeguard children should never be brushed aside. Judicial oversight is also important, and reform should not mean removing protections for the surrogate or the child. However, I think we should ask whether the current system gets that balance right.
We now have a situation where almost 1,000 children were born through surrogacy in 2025—roughly double the number a decade earlier. For families who choose surrogacy, the journey to having a child has often already been extraordinarily long. So once that child is born and is being cared for by their intended parents, it is reasonable to ask whether the law should leave their legal parenthood unresolved for months. That has practical implications, which I remember from my time fostering, such as not being able to give consent for something as simple as a vaccination or blood test.
There is a practical point here about our courts. We rightly ask our family courts to deal with cases where there is a genuine dispute, where a child’s welfare needs judicial consideration or where someone’s rights need to be protected. But if a surrogacy arrangement has been properly assessed before the birth, the intended parents have undergone the appropriate checks, the surrogate has had any independent advice and counselling she may need and the necessary safeguards are in place, do we really need to go through a court process to establish legal parenthood?
Steve Yemm
My hon. Friend neglected to mention the consent of the mother in his list. Does he agree that that is also of paramount importance?
Josh Newbury
Yes, absolutely. I am making the case that where everybody involved—of course, the mother is paramount in that—is happy with the arrangement and wants to go ahead with it, it could happen ahead of time. My personal belief is that there should be a cooling-off period, even if there is a reform, to ensure space for mothers to change their minds. I am making the point that the system could be far more efficient. I am not suggesting that we remove the courts from the process altogether—they should be there when needed—but a properly regulated system could allow straightforward cases to be dealt with before birth while retaining a route to the courts where there is disagreement, a safeguarding concern, consent changes or judicial oversight is required. That would not weaken safeguards; it would allow the courts to focus their time and attention on the cases where their intervention matters most.
Rebecca Smith
The hon. Member and I have a great shared interest in fostering and adoption and have spoken about those issues a lot in the past. To clarify, is he saying that there should still be a six-week gap between the birth and the parental order being signed, or that there should not, but that if there was a problem, the courts could still get involved afterwards? That strikes me as clouding the water even more. I appreciate where he is coming from, but I was not 100% clear on what he was saying.
Josh Newbury
I am not a legal expert and do not intend to insert myself into that particular legal debate, but my perspective is that if arrangements are made beforehand and a birth mother changes her mind, there should be a route back to the court and that should be built into the system. We have the six-week window that allows time for reflection, but I believe there is a way in the vast majority of cases where everybody will be happy for the arrangements to go forward and for the intended family to move on with their lives, without having to go to court, unless there is a change of heart.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is worth putting on record that the Law Commission report in 2023 suggested that, if everything was decided before the birth, the legal parents could have the rights from day one, but the biological, or surrogate, mother would have a chance to go against that in the first six weeks of the baby’s life. Does the hon. Member agree with the Law Commission report, which still has that fundamental safeguard, but which also recognises that the intended parents are the parents from day one?
Josh Newbury
The hon. Lady and I are very much on the same wavelength; I was about to move on to that. On the carefully formulated proposals the Law Commission came forward with, it has been through that debate and has struck a fair balance. It recommended a new regulated pathway under which intended parents could become legal parents from birth, but with screening and safeguards, while retaining parental orders for cases where court involvement is still necessary, as we have heard.
I would like to acknowledge and thank the 268 of my Cannock Chase constituents who signed the petition—the highest number of signatures in the west midlands. I do not know the individual circumstances of those signatories: some might have experienced infertility, some might be part of the LGBT community and some might simply believe that our laws should better reflect the reality of modern families. However, the signatures of our constituents right across the country show us that this issue touches many more lives than we realise.
I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that the current pathway and delay to legal parenthood can cause some uncertainty. My ask is simply that we move the conversation and the debate forward. Will the Minister tell us whether discussions are taking place about how we might modernise the system and make sure our courts deal with the cases that genuinely require their time, while retaining the safeguards that matter to surrogates and children? Call me naive, Mr Pritchard, but I believe we can do both, and I hope this rich debate can be a step towards getting the balance right.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
No west midlands Member of Parliament is naive, so don’t worry about that.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I give credit to all Members, who have participated in this difficult and sensitive debate in a thoughtful and constructive manner, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for leading it. I thank Adam and Jamie for starting the petition and the more than 113,000 people who signed it. Many of my constituents asked me to attend the debate today, and I am proud to do so to stand up for families created through surrogacy.
When Adam and Jamie’s daughter was born, they became her dads the moment they held her. They had chosen to become parents and had prepared for their daughter’s arrival. They had so much love to give her, but the law did not recognise them as her parents. Often parents have to go to court to prove that they are the parents of the child they are already loving and caring for. That is just not right for the parents, for the surrogates and, more importantly, for the children, and it does not reflect the reality of the families involved. It creates unnecessary stress and anguish at an already difficult time when people are raising a newborn child.
To suggest that the concept of consent can be questioned after consent has been given is dangerous. No surrogate mother enters into this relationship lightly. It is something that women consider very carefully. I have spoken to friends who would happily be surrogate mums for other families to enable them to have children, because they enjoyed the experience of pregnancy. They would be happy to help in that way, but they would consent to that in the knowledge that they would not be that child’s mum. They would expect that child to have another mother, or mothers, or other fathers. That is the basis on which they give their consent.
To take the concept of consent in legal arguments, when people make wills—they might be vulnerable people or, much of the time, elderly people—there are always questions about whether they were put under undue influence, but there are legal mechanisms to check that that was not the case. Similarly, there are mechanisms to check whether a woman has given consent for sexual intercourse. We need to strengthen checks for consent in surrogacy relationships, but we cannot have a situation where somebody can give consent, which has been adequately checked and monitored, and then withdraw it afterwards. We have to be careful about challenging that, because it goes to the very root of consent, and it is dangerous to do so.
Rachel Taylor
I would like to make some progress, and the hon. Lady has made a number of points in her own speech and in other interventions.
Same-sex couples, disabled mums or mums who simply cannot have children have gone through an incredibly demanding process to start a family, and their family is treated differently from the moment their child is born. They can be left in limbo for months while social workers carry out assessments and family courts, with already massively long delays, consider their application for a parental order. That leaves them in limbo if their child is ill, taken into hospital, starts nursery school, or any number of things. Meanwhile, they are changing nappies, comforting their baby through all the sleepless nights and making every decision about their care.
Families should not be penalised because of the gender or sexuality of the people who love and raise that child. Our surrogacy laws are more than 40 years old. Families have changed and society has changed; the law must now change too. That is why the Law Commission’s proposals are so important. They set out a new pathway through which intended parents could be recognised as legal parents from birth, rather than waiting for months to obtain a parental order.
The work has been done, the evidence has been gathered and a draft Bill has already been produced. Will the Minister listen to the families who have shared their experiences, publish the Government’s full response to the Law Commission’s report and set out a clear timetable for reform? Adam and Jamie became dads the moment they held their daughter. It is time the law recognised that reality.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. However good the intentions of those bringing forward this petition for affected parents are, and I do not question them, any loosening of the surrogacy laws would be a serious mistake. The text of the petition says that the current law is “outdated” because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother
“even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child.”
Just think about how cold and clinical those words are: “no biological connection”, when that woman carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. That is the commodification of women’s bodies. To carry a child for nine months, share your body, feel new life kicking inside you and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth—those are experiences that create a profound, undeniable biological connection.
What of intention? The principle behind the petition is that the matter of parenthood would be settled in favour of the commissioning parents according to an intention formed before the child was born. But we all know that an emotional bond, and indeed a physical one, grows as the pregnancy develops. New mothers say that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before. They often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born.
The petition asks the law to privilege an arrangement made before pregnancy and birth over the women who actually give birth, many of whom go on to deeply regret their role as a surrogate mother.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member says “many” go on to deeply regret the decision to be a surrogate. What does the data show? How many end up regretting their decision, in terms of a percentage of the surrogates in the UK?
Jonathan Hinder
I cannot answer that specific question, but I will reference a case later on, and I have personally met such mothers here in Parliament.
Pregnant women are not factories, and babies are not goods to be ordered. I believe this is crossing an ethical line, where human life is treated as a business transaction. The child must have the right to know where it has come from and how it came to be in this world. When a newborn is handed over not because of a tragedy, but because that separation was arranged before the child was even conceived, that child has become a commodity, which it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers, and it is simply wrong to treat children in this way.
Implementing the demands of the petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy, and we need only look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads: wealthy couples exploiting desperate women; international human trafficking rings; and exportation and erasure. That is the end destination when we start from the principles implied in the petition.
Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marie Anne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. Recalling the chilling moment after she gave birth, she said:
“They had the baby. They were happy. They didn’t need me anymore so they told me to go home.”
She describes doing a handover in a hospital car park. She also describes the impact on her life, saying:
“I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD…I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies…The damage done to me will never be repaired.”
France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all banned surrogacy outright. As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is
“not compatible with the dignity of women”.
I therefore conclude by urging colleagues to reject both the commodification of babies and mothers implied by the petition and the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate and for so thoughtfully laying out both sides, which have been well exercised today.
Being able to start a family is one of life’s greatest privileges. However, for those in many families, whether they are struggling with infertility, are in same-sex relationships or have health issues that would prevent them from having a safe pregnancy, surrogacy has become an option that would allow them to start a family.
The landscape of surrogacy has changed in the years since the first known surrogate baby was born in 1984. Surrogacy is now being widely recognised as a pathway to parenthood, with 67 parental order applications received by the family courts in 2008, rising to 514 in 2025, although I recognise that many different numbers have been suggested today.
Tracy Gilbert
I want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about healthcare and situations in which women cannot carry a pregnancy. Is she aware of the health risks posed by women carrying embryos that are not their own, and the additional risks to surrogate mothers from being a surrogate?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I do not think any woman enters into any pregnancy lightly, whether it is their own pregnancy or a surrogate pregnancy. I would assume that any surrogate mother is well informed of the risks they are taking in growing a life over nine months, which is no mean feat.
Since 2018, there have been 350 parental order applications from couples in a same-sex relationship, according to Brilliant Beginnings. Adam and Jamie, who brought this petition to the House today, chose to go abroad to the US because they would be recognised as Leven’s parents from day one. I am sure it would have come as a shock to them to discover, before Leven was born, that their home—the UK—does not recognise them as Leven’s legal parents under UK law until the parental order is completed, which can take anywhere between six and 12 months.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Ian and Stuart, who are constituents of mine in Horsham, welcomed their daughter through surrogacy last October. Although Ian is the biological father, at birth it was the surrogate mother and, remarkably, her partner who were named as the child’s parents, not Ian. As my hon. Friend said, it typically takes up to 12 months to correct the record in such cases. Ian understands why surrogates need legal protection, but there must be a better way to do this. The Law Commission’s 2023 report set out a simple, proportionate fix: a new pathway to recognising that at least one parent, where genetically related to the child, is a legal parent from birth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should now respond to that report?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend pre-empts what I will go on to say, but he also makes an important point. If I chose to be a surrogate for a friend or a family member, I think my husband would be pretty shocked at being named as the father on a birth certificate, when it was my decision to be a surrogate. Regardless of where we sit in this argument, I think we can all agree that that does not make any sense.
I commend Adam and Jamie for their bravery in sharing their journey to parenthood and the additional challenges that they have faced in securing their rights, which they are already recognised as having in the US, as their daughter’s parents. The journey they took is more common today. Around 500 babies are born through surrogacy to UK parents every year, and nearly three quarters are now born through international surrogacy. The most popular destination is the USA, with the other quarter spread over countries including Canada, Colombia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and Ukraine.
It is legitimate to raise concerns about surrogacy practices in other countries, especially ones where it is not regulated and there is a risk of trafficking and exploitation. That is why the subject needs to be handled with such sensitivity. We must ensure that the rights of the surrogate, the baby and the intended parents are at the heart of everything we do, and that legislation reflects that.
The recommendations of the Law Commission’s report into surrogacy law, published in 2023, attempted to address many of those issues. The report, requested by the UK Government of the day, sought to create a new pathway to parenthood for UK surrogacy, with intended parents recorded on their child’s birth certificate provided the surrogate does not change her mind. It also called for regulation of non-profit UK surrogacy organisations to oversee the new pathway, including requirements for a written surrogacy agreement, screening, legal advice and counselling, as well as tighter categorisation of permitted payments to UK surrogates. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that there should be no doubt between payments and legitimate expenses, and I agree with him.
The Law Commission’s report found a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We need a law that can be clearly and fairly applied, to ensure that families and surrogates alike understand their rights and responsibilities. However, the report has not had a formal response from Government, even though it was published three years ago, nor has any time been given for the House to debate the wider conversation around surrogacy so that we can reflect the changing environment—a call made by hon. Members from across the House. That is why this needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency.
I ask the Minister today to explain what work is being done to improve clarity on the issue and whether we can expect legislation to address it. As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) said, there is a Bill ready to go. The Liberal Democrats recognise that the current system can create long delays as intended parents apply for a parental order after birth, and we recognise the distress that delays can cause to those involved. It is clear that delays can also cause practical issues for parents who have caring responsibilities but lack legal security, which creates problems around registering.
Rebecca Smith
There have been a couple of mentions of the time it takes to get an order, but parents in the UK adoption system have equally long—often much longer—waits to take on parental rights over a child. We are in danger of creating two separate systems, so that putting in an order for a child through a surrogate is a quick option to become a parent, but we are making it harder for people who have gone through the care system to foster or adopt, or who have gone through a long adoption process. I wonder whether we are inadvertently suggesting that there should be a two-tier system. I wonder what the hon. Lady’s thoughts are on that, because I know that she, like me, is a big advocate of fostering and adoption.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am in no way suggesting that we create a two-tier system. Talking about how long the adoption process can take, especially for those who have had fostering responsibilities and are transitioning into adopting those children, and talking about how arduous that process can be, including when making sure that children have up-to-date health records and so on, would be a separate debate. We are clearly talking about health services as well. If a child is born with a health concern, the intended parents who are providing their day-to-day care should have the facility to act on behalf of that child to make sure they are well looked after.
It is also worth pointing out at this stage that, if a heterosexual couple presented in a hospital with a child who is poorly, it is very unlikely that a health professional would ask, “Can you please prove that you are the legal parents?”, but for same-sex couples it is more likely that someone would ask that question. We are creating a two-tier system between heterosexual couples who choose surrogacy and homosexual or same-sex couples who choose surrogacy, and I am not in favour of a two-tier system at all.
The Liberal Democrats also believe that, as with all the issues raised in this debate, any decisions regarding the legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the rights and wellbeing of all those involved are balanced and respected. I ask the Minister when the Government intend to respond to the report in full and whether they intend to bring forward any legislation on this issue for Parliament to consider—because, although this is Adam and Jamie’s debate, they represent a much wider group of people.
I will finish by saying that so few people have touchpoints with our Parliament and our political system, and passing the threshold to have an issue debated in Parliament is no mean feat; but it should not be the end of the story. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what the next steps are, to ensure that the conversation about this issue continues.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I start by declaring an interest in this debate as a former member of the appeals panel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for the tone in which he opened the debate, and I recognise the more than 113,000 people who have signed this petition. Behind many of their signatures will be personal experience of infertility and loss, and a long-held wish to start a family. For intended parents, surrogacy is not simply a legal process; it is about getting a family they never thought they could have, and in many cases, it comes at the end of a long and difficult journey.
Nobody doubts the love that such parents have for their children. Families formed through surrogacy deserve dignity, certainty and respect. However, our job in this House is to consider more than the wishes of the adults involved. We must speak for the child who cannot speak for themselves. We must also protect the woman who carries and gives birth to that child.
The issue for us to consider is whether legal parenthood should pass automatically at birth, before the state has considered the child’s welfare, the surrogate mother’s consent and the circumstances in which the arrangement was made. As a starting-point, any reform to the legislation must do three things: first, and most importantly, it must protect the child; secondly, it must preserve the free and continuing consent of the woman who gives birth; and thirdly, it must address the safeguarding concerns arising from the increase in international commercial surrogacy.
First, on protecting the child, the petition describes the upset and strain of months of court proceedings and visits from social services workers before the intended parents are legally recognised. I understand why that process might feel intrusive and unsettling. Intended parents have planned for the child and cared for them from birth, and already see themselves as a family. However, a parental order is not merely words on a piece of paper; it is the legal means by which parenthood is transferred from one person to another. That is a serious act, with lifelong consequences for the child.
The process, as it currently stands, allows a court to consider the child’s welfare, establish that the surrogate mother has freely consented, examine any payments that have been made either through expenses or cash, and consider the circumstances in which the child will be raised. CAFCASS provides an independent assessment, so that the decision is not based only on what the adults expected or agreed before the child was born.
It is argued by some people that those checks are unnecessary because the overwhelming majority of applications are approved. I simply do not accept that. The fact that a system usually finds that everything is in order does not mean that the checks serve no purpose at all. Their existence helps to ensure that proper standards are followed. If the process is too cumbersome, it should be made more intuitive; if families receive inconsistent advice, that advice should be made clearer; and if the courts or CAFCASS lack the resources to deal with applications promptly, the Government should address that. Delays should be reduced, but that does not warrant the underlying protections’ being diminished. I ask the Minister whether the Government remain committed to the parental order process, and what they will do to reduce unnecessary delays while retaining independent welfare assessments.
My second point concerns the woman who gives birth. Under the present law, the woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the child’s legal mother. Legal parenthood is transferred only after she has given valid consent following the birth. It would be ill-judged to dismiss that as an outdated legal technicality, as it recognises the physical, medical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and childbirth. The law normally prevents consent from being given until six weeks after the child is born. That period of time is necessary: a decision made before childbirth cannot fully account for the experience of giving birth, the mother’s health afterwards or how she may feel when the child is born.
If intended parents became legal parents automatically, that protection would be reversed. The woman who carried and delivered the child would instead have to take legal action if she wished to withdraw her consent or assert her own rights. That should concern us all, particularly where there is a financial or social imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended parents. A system that depends on someone’s having the knowledge, confidence and money to begin legal proceedings may offer very little protection in practice.
Compassion for intended parents cannot require Parliament to treat the woman who gives birth as a temporary party to somebody else’s story, nor should this be presented as a contest between traditional and modern families. Recognising different kinds of family does not require us to reduce the rights of the woman who carries the child. If the Government are considering recognising intended parents from birth, I ask the Minister to set out what protection would remain for a surrogate mother who changed her mind after giving birth.
The third issue is of growing concern: the increase in international commercial surrogacy. The majority of parental order applications now concern children born overseas. Applications relating to children born internationally reportedly rose from 215 in 2021 to 509 in 2025; in that same year, there were 150 applications relating to children born in the United Kingdom. That marks a significant change in surrogacy in this country. International arrangements may involve large differences in wealth and power, commercial contracts that would not be enforceable here, complicated payment arrangements made through intermediaries and serious doubts about whether consent was properly informed and freely given.
Jim Shannon
I should have said this in my earlier contribution, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 31 of the Library’s “Surrogacy in the UK” briefing, where it refers to some physical circumstances and risks that came up in a Canadian population-based surrogacy study that I think are incredibly important. It says:
“Some research suggests that using an egg from a relative may reduce these risks”.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to consider the Canadian perspective and the surrogacy study that they did?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member always comes to these debates well prepared and well briefed. I think the point he is making, which we can all agree on, is that this is an incredibly complex area that we cannot rush to legislate on, nor should we seek to water down the clear protections that currently exist.
Steve Yemm
We now prohibit commercial arrangements in the UK, yet we allow intended parents to travel overseas to exploit that type of arrangement. I am interested to know whether the shadow Minister thinks that that is a morally coherent position, and whether we should be looking at the rights of UK citizens to exploit commercial surrogacy overseas.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It is almost as if the hon. Gentleman can read my mind, because I was going to say that there is a clear inconsistency in prohibiting the practice here, while allowing such arrangements to be made abroad.
Of course, intended parents may also encounter immigration and nationality problems that they are aware of before entering the arrangement, if those arrangements take place overseas. In some cases, a British court may have difficulty locating the surrogate mother when deciding whether valid consent has been provided. In that case, a parental order process and a CAFCASS assessment would be the only independent scrutiny carried out in this country. The Government’s overseas surrogacy guidance was last updated by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2022. Given the rise in international cases, it needs to be updated. It should deal clearly with safeguarding, consent, payments, independent legal advice, immigration and nationality. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to reviewing the international surrogacy arrangements and to publishing updated guidance?
Some will say that the law is outdated. I understand the frustrations behind that argument. There is a case for a quicker process, clearer guidance and greater consistency, but making a process easier for one party does not necessarily make the law better. Reforming the law must also protect those with less power and ensure that the child’s interests are the main consideration.
Of course, families formed through surrogacy deserve our support. However, the child whose future is being decided also deserves independent protection. The woman who gives birth should not lose her rights before she knows how the experience of childbirth has affected her. We can shorten needless delays and give families greater certainty without discarding the principles on which the current system rests. Legal parenthood should be transferred only after the child’s welfare has been properly considered, the surrogate mother’s consent has been confirmed and the arrangement has received the necessary independent scrutiny. In surrogacy as in every other part of family law, the wishes of the adults are important but the welfare of children must always come first.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for his opening speech on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am pleased to respond to this debate on the proposal, made by a petition signed by over 113,000 members of the public, to change surrogacy law to recognise intended parents from birth. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to his place and congratulate him on his appointment to that role.
This is a well-attended debate, and there have been many valuable contributions. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) both spoke with great passion about the welfare of women and children, including in the international dimension of surrogacy. I wanted to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who is no longer in his place, that I was concerned to hear his intervention about his constituents who had a very poor experience going to Mexico with a certain company. The Department is looking into the allegations about My Surrogacy Journey. As part of that assessment, the Department will consider whether it is appropriate for that company to remain on the gov.uk list of agencies.
The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) talked about the rights of the child coming first. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked about the strength of motherhood and discussed the important issue of consent. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about the commercialisation of surrogacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about his personal experience of becoming a dad. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) spoke about the personal experience of Adam and Jamie. She made a strong speech for reform and also spoke about consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) talked about the ethics of surrogacy and referred to the approach taken by other European countries. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, made a typically thoughtful speech that set out the Law Commission’s report in some detail.
It is worth saying from the outset that the Government recognise that surrogacy is a complex and sensitive policy issue where detail matters to all those involved in a surrogacy arrangement. The Government always recommend that anyone considering surrogacy should have a clear understanding of what is required for parenthood to legally transfer to the intended parents and should seek specialist legal advice before beginning the process.
I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect on this area of law. The UK was, of course, one of the first countries to introduce a legislative framework for domestic surrogacy. The Government support surrogacy as part of a range of assisted conception options and recognise the important part it can play in supporting people seeking to start a family. In the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, Parliament decided that altruistic surrogacy arrangements would be legally allowed and that surrogates would be entitled to reasonable expenses. The Act was introduced to prevent surrogacy arrangements from taking place on a commercial basis.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for his informed contribution. He and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth set out the issues raised by the petitioners, Adam and Jamie, and shared their experience of starting a family through surrogacy and of the pathway to legal parenthood in the United Kingdom. The Government recognise the difficulties that intended parents may encounter when applying for a parental order. We are very grateful to those with lived experience of this matter who feel able to share their stories.
I will set out the current legal position on parental orders. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the person who gives birth to the child—in this case, the surrogate—is the legal mother when the child is born and has parental responsibility until the courts put in place a parental order. A parental order makes the intended parents the legal parents and permanently removes the surrogate’s legal motherhood. We recognise that the application process for a parental order can be a difficult period for intended parents. Although the safeguarding assessments take time, they are necessary to support the court’s considerations of parental order applications. Each application is carefully considered by the family court on the facts of the individual case, although I note the issues raised about delays in the system.
The debate has highlighted broader questions about whether the current legal framework in the UK continues to reflect modern family formation and contemporary surrogacy practice. The Government acknowledge those concerns and recognise the arguments on both sides—that the law should provide greater clarity, better support and a more streamlined pathway to legal parenthood while maintaining robust safeguards for children, surrogates and intended parents.
There are many reasons why people pursue international surrogacy arrangements. It is a very complex area. The process to bring the child or children to the UK after birth can be long and complicated. Foreign Office guidance makes it clear that if people are considering surrogacy in a foreign country, they are strongly advised to seek specialist independent legal advice in the UK and the relevant country before making any arrangements.
I hear loud and clear the calls for legislative change this afternoon but, given the limited parliamentary time available, the Government are not in a position to bring forward legislation on surrogacy reform immediately. We will, however, continue to consider options for future reform, and we remain engaged with the issues raised by stakeholders, parliamentarians and families with lived experience of surrogacy.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for making a very thoughtful summing-up speech, as ever. Has she had any conversations with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about providing clarity on whether the expenses that surrogate mothers receive should count towards their benefits? Under legacy benefits, they did, but under the new version of universal credit, they do not count as unearned income. That thorny issue needs to be looked at, particularly given that £25,000 can be paid to women who may be on benefits, but it does not count as income. Has the Minister had that conversation, and can she look into that?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very happy to take that point away and write to the hon. Lady.
Any future reforms need to protect the welfare of children and safeguard those involved in surrogacy arrangements, as well as to maintain public trust. As noted throughout the debate, the Department supported the joint project of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to review the current surrogacy regime. The Law Commissions consulted widely on this topic, generating a wide diversity of views. The previous Government welcomed the Law Commissions’ 2023 report on surrogacy reform, and this Government will respond in due course as time allows.
I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to both sides of the debate. The contributions made today have highlighted again both the strengths of the current surrogacy framework and the challenges that may be faced when navigating it. The Government are clear that the welfare of children born through surrogacy must remain paramount. We recognise the importance of ensuring that children are protected, intended parents are supported in having families, surrogate mothers are protected and surrogacy arrangements operate within a framework that commands public confidence. I am sure that the Minister in the Lords, who has responsibility for this area, would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for introducing this important debate and acknowledging the families impacted.
Dave Robertson
It is always a pleasure to sum up these debates and thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) brought to the table points on the balance of rights between the different parties involved, how disagreements between intended parents and surrogates can be worked through and the importance of surrogates’ rights, and a focus on the rights of the child.
We also heard about the legal complexities around devolution from a number of Members, particularly in Holyrood and Stormont, but I am sure that is also the case for Cardiff. My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor)—I always say it should be pronounced “Beduth”—highlighted the difficulties faced by intended parents and families navigating a very complex process, the importance of consent as we navigate it, the value of surrogacy to families and how families find a way to start using the process.
It was also great to hear contributions from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the party spokespersons—the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for the Conservatives —and the Minister.
It was clear today that this is an incredibly complex and detailed debate, and one that needs to be considered fully. While I am sure the petitioners would have preferred to hear a further update from the Minister, she was very clear when she outlined the current legal position and advice from the Government on surrogacy and that the Government are staying exactly where they are and will get to this when time allows—that was a very paraphrased version of her conclusion. I thank everybody for their time today, and especially you, Mr Pritchard, for chairing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 763161 relating to surrogacy law and legal parenthood.
Hate Crime Law: Misogyny
(1 day, 7 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
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 746640 relating to crimes motivated by misogyny and hate crime law.
It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
In February, Amara Relf wrote an excellent blog post called “Students need misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime”. This is how the post starts:
“When we began our roles as sabbatical officers, one priority was clear: improving student safety. Very quickly, it became apparent that while serious sexual offences can carry severe sentences, the everyday behaviours that shape women’s lives, catcalling, groping, sexually suggestive comments, and harassment, are too often minimised, overlooked, or left entirely unpunished.
Sexual harassment, as its own category, is rarely criminalised in practice. As a result, many students are left asking a difficult question: why report something when it feels unlikely that anything will be done?”
This lack of consequence not only enables harmful behaviour but also actively discourages reporting. This is why we—Lily, Amara, and Holly—have launched a petition calling for misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime.”
I thank Amara, Lily and Holly for the petition, which has attracted 114,927 signatures, including 123 from my own constituency. Amara and her colleagues also commissioned a survey among Russell Group universities that found that 67% of students would be more likely to report their experiences if misogyny were treated as a hate crime. Amara argues that
“Legal change alone won’t shift deeply ingrained attitudes—but without it, cultural change becomes even harder to achieve.”
The ingrained attitudes that the petitioner is talking about are reflected in the fact that, according to the Office for National Statistics, 23% of women aged 16 to 24, and 16% of those aged 25 to 34, have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the previous year. That is compared with around 5% of women aged 35 and older. It is clear that younger women are bearing the brunt of this sexual harassment epidemic.
The petitioner is right that the law needs to change. Take the criminal offence of harassment, which is, broadly, unwanted conduct that causes a person harassment, alarm or distress. If the perpetrator of that harassment is motivated by hostility to the victim’s religion, it is a statutory aggravating factor, which in practice means the offender’s sentence is more severe. But if the perpetrator is motivated instead by hostility to the victim’s sex or gender, that is not currently an aggravating factor. That is, in my view, wrong.
Misogyny is not currently a centrally monitored hate crime characteristic in England and Wales, so data is not currently collected about offending with a misogynistic element specifically. I am pleased to say that we are seeing positive change with this Labour Government. Following an amendment tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill—now the Crime and Policing Act 2026—by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), the Minister agreed to bring forward a Government amendment in the Lords. The resulting clause on aggravated offences is now section 145 of the Act. That will extend the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which includes offences like assault, harassment and criminal damage, to also cover hostility based on sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. That means that the higher maximum penalties already available for race and religion are now available in those cases too.
I strongly support that change because tackling misogyny needs to be embedded in the Government’s approach to hate crime more generally. I also support it so that hostility based on misogyny is centrally recorded, and we can finally have a true national picture of the scale of this problem.
The petitioner has also called for tougher laws against online abuse and to tackle anti-feminist hate groups that target and radicalise young people online. As she said in her article,
“For students, the online dimension is inescapable—group chats where women are rated and degraded, anonymous platforms where harassment flourishes, social media pile-ons. The algorithmically-driven spread of ‘manosphere’ content means that young men are being radicalised into misogynistic worldviews at scale, and women students are experiencing the consequences in their seminars, their societies, and their relationships.”
Last October, Ofcom issued guidance to tech firms requesting that online platforms introduce measures, such as abusability testing, time-outs for repeat offenders, easier mass-blocking tools and the demonetisation of misogynistic content. I support those measures and they all sound good in theory, but the fact that the guidance is voluntary means that it is unclear how platforms will be forced to act. As the End Violence Against Women Coalition told the Women and Equalities Committee last year, nothing less than a binding violence against women and girls code of practice is required for us to stand a chance of turning the tide against the wave of online misogyny that we are seeing.
There is also the question of the capacity of the criminal justice system to respond sensitively and effectively to victims who are brave enough to raise a complaint. The Equality and Human Rights Commission tracker notes that there is currently no compulsory training for existing police officers on responding to rape and sexual offences; only new recruits are covered. The UN Committee against Torture specifically recommended that the UK provide mandatory training on the prosecution of gender-based violence to all justice officials and law enforcement personnel, not just new recruits. Extending mandatory refresher and specialist training to serving officers would close that gap.
Women’s Aid has also called for specialist domestic abuse training to be provided to all judges, not just those in jurisdictions that frequently see VAWG cases. My constituency caseload indicates that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women presents system-level challenges. I pay tribute to brilliant local organisations, such as Rising Sun domestic violence and abuse service, Home-Start Shepway and Beech House, as well as the local police force for everything it does to support victims in our community.
There is always further that we can go, and the need for better specialist training is underlined by evidence given to the Women and Equalities Committee last year suggesting that police and safeguarding professionals often do not recognise manosphere-linked misogyny or incel ideology as a warning sign in the same way that they would with other radicalisation indicators. Training gaps often mean that genuinely concerning behaviours do not meet thresholds for intervention, such as through the Prevent programme, because they are misogynistic rather than linked to a proscribed organisation.
The petitioner is right to hope that stronger criminal laws, stronger awareness among criminal justice and safeguarding professionals, stronger support for victims and stronger online protections may help and are needed to help turn the tide of misogyny, but that is a whole-of-society effort that requires everyone, particularly men, to demonstrate what healthy attitudes to women look like.
The petitioner has made a compelling case: misogyny constrains women’s daily freedom, safety and willingness to participate fully in education, work and public life. I welcome the important progress made through section 145 of the Crime and Policing Act, but legislation must be matched by properly trained police, prosecutors, safeguarding professionals and judges; by meaningful support for those who come forward; and by enforceable action by online platforms against the abuse and radicalisation they too often enable.
We cannot wait until hatred escalates into the most serious offences before we act. We must recognise misogyny where it is present, challenge it wherever it appears and make it clear to every woman and girl that the law is on her side. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will build on that important legislative framework so that women and girls, including students in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, can live, study and participate in a public life—free from harassment, intimidation and misogynistic abuse.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making an excellent speech, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Before he finishes, does he agree that it is also important for us to reflect on the intersectional nature of hate crime? Women will experience hate crime for lots of different reasons, including being a woman who is gay or a woman who is black, Asian or minority ethnic. Would he say a little about that and its importance?
Tony Vaughan
I defer to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area over many years. It is important that she has raised that issue, because it is something that the petitioners wrote about in the article that led to the petition and this debate.
The way that discrimination and prejudice operate is not compartmentalised by protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. Quite often, a number of those characteristics are present at the same time. It is important that we have a system that understands that first and foremost, so that we can ensure that the way that victims are dealt with actually takes account of those different needs. We will not necessarily treat everyone the same, but we will treat them in the way that they need to be treated, having regard to their protected characteristics. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
In her summing up speech, will the Minister address some particular questions? First, when will section 145 of the 2026 Act be commenced? I understand it is not yet in force. Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the merits of introducing sex as an aggravating factor in respect of all offending, not just offences under the Crime and Disorder Act, which is the ask of the petitioners? Finally, do the Government have any plans to require existing police officers to undergo training on gender-based violence, given that it is currently only for those being brought into the system? I look forward to hearing from her.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing the debate so thoughtfully.
For months, I have been campaigning for legislation to combat the alarming trend of nightlife filming. Women are being filmed in public without their knowledge or consent, with the footage then shared online for millions to view. Collectively, such content has been viewed more than 3 billion times in just three years. Algorithms are not neutral; they elevate what captures attention, which is often what is extreme, polarising or degrading. Nightlife videos are accompanied by misogynistic comments and abuse, driving engagement and generating profits for the video creator. That means that misogynistic content is not just present; it is incentivised and rewarded.
For victims, the impact is devastating. They are ridiculed and humiliated, they face reputational damage, and they are left fearing for their safety in public. Yet, once again, the law is scrambling to catch up with emerging forms of misogynistic abuse. I saw this during my campaign to make the disgusting act of upskirting a criminal offence, which led to the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019. At the time, there was a clear gap in the law and an urgent need to act, but even then it was obvious that we were responding to one manifestation of a much wider problem.
Today, we are seeing increasingly sophisticated forms of online abuse, from artificial intelligence-generated deepfake imagery to co-ordinated harassment campaigns.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about co-ordinated campaigns and harassment. Over the weekend, I, like many people, saw the manhandling of a female protestor at the Reform conference and the horrendous comments made about that individual on social media. Does she agree that that was completely unacceptable, that we should condemn it and that it is shameful that Members from some other political parties are not here to talk about violence against women and girls and misogyny is all its forms?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that disgusting footage and the events that led up to the video being made. All of that reinforces the message that people act with impunity because they think that is the way they can behave towards women. Making misogyny a hate crime would ultimately, at its root, stop that. It will not change everything, but it will at least challenge the attitudes that some members of the public still display towards women or minority groups. On sex-based harassment and violence, my hon. Friend is right, and I thank him for raising the matter.
This is happening at a pace and scale that we have not seen before. Technology has made it easier to commit these acts, and social media platforms have made it easier for them to spread. However, the underlying issue has not changed: violence against women and girls is an epidemic in the UK and, to be honest, not just in the UK—it spans other countries and continents. One in four women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime and one in four have been raped or sexually assaulted since the age of 16. Those are not isolated crimes; they are part of a wider pattern. We always use these numbers, but each instance is a tragedy—it is something that ruins a life.
In December, the Government published their new violence against women and girls strategy. Its focus on prevention, education and early intervention is welcome and long overdue. The strategy must remain a priority for the new Government. The Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Act to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in some crimes is a welcome step in the right direction, but they must go further. That means amending the Sentencing Act 2020 so that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. Not long ago, following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard, there was strong political momentum behind doing exactly that. The Labour party itself committed to making misogyny a hate crime, yet now it is in government, it has gone quiet. Instead, we are left legislating against each new form of technology-facilitated abuse as it emerges, without addressing the hostility towards women that underpins them all.
Misogyny must be recognised in hate crime legislation. This matters for three reasons. First, it would help us properly understand the scale of the problem. Without consistent recording, misogyny remains largely invisible in official data, despite being a common factor in many forms of abuse. Secondly, it would improve accountability. Where crimes are motivated by hostility towards women, that should be reflected in how they are investigated and prosecuted, just as it is for other forms of hate crime. Thirdly, it would recognise what many women already know: that these experiences are not random; they are rooted in attitudes towards women that continue to shape behaviour both offline and online.
Recognising misogyny as a hate crime would not on its own end violence against women and girls, but it would be an important step towards treating this as a connected problem rather than a series of unrelated offences. If we are serious about prevention, we cannot ignore the role that misogyny plays. If we continue to avoid naming it, we will remain stuck in a cycle of reacting to harm rather than preventing it.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing the debate. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important issue before the House, and to the more than 114,000 people who signed the petition, including over 100 from my constituency. Might I say, as a former sabbatical officer myself, that this is yet more evidence that the phrase “student politics” should be seen as a compliment in this place, rather than a criticism?
Misogyny and violence against women and girls are not inevitable, and they should not be dismissed as something that women and girls simply have to put up with, whether on the street, in the workplace, in school or, increasingly, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, online. I have spoken in this place before about the scourge of deepfakes and AI-enabled abuse. In the spirit of cross-party collaboration, I also commend the work of Baroness Owen in this regard.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and halve it within a decade. Prevention, early intervention, relentless pursuit of the perpetrators and proper support for victims are the foundations that we absolutely need. We need to deal with the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence and abuse to develop in the first place.
That is particularly important when we consider the growth of misogynistic material online. Young people can now be exposed very quickly to content that presents contempt for women as normal, glorifies control and abuse, and can draw boys and young men into increasingly extreme communities. That is why the Government are right to put prevention at the heart of their strategy, including through schools, colleges and universities, and to recognise the particular challenge posed by online misogyny. However, there is much more to do, and the petitioners are right to ask us to recognise misogyny as a hate crime.
The fact is that our hate crime framework has developed unevenly, although we have seen some progress. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the Crime and Policing Act added sex to the characteristics covered by aggravated offences, which is a significant step forward. But the petition raises the wider question of consistency, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at whether hostility on the basis of sex or gender should be reflected consistently across the wider sentencing framework. There is also the question of stirring up hatred. The Law Commission has previously recommended extending such offences to cover sex or gender, in part because of the growth of extremist misogynistic ideologies and their potential to contribute to serious offending.
I heard today from organisations working on the frontline in my constituency, and what they told me should be part of this debate as well. My Sister’s Place supports women experiencing domestic abuse across Teesside. We have had some progress recently in the form of domestic abuse specialists now embedded in the 999 control centre at Cleveland police—something that the Government promised in their manifesto and are now starting to deliver. That is a positive step forward, but one issue that My Sister’s Place raised with me is that there are simply not enough refuge spaces or suitable move-on housing locally in Middlesbrough, so a woman who makes the extraordinarily difficult decision to leave an abusive relationship faces the question, “Where is it safe to go?” I would welcome the Minister’s saying a little about how the Government intend to improve the availability of safe accommodation and, crucially, the route from emergency refuge provision to decent and permanent housing.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning women fleeing domestic abuse. Their recovery should be subject to a longer-term strategy; it is not just about finding crisis accommodation. Often, women face their abusers for many years and do not get any support. Does he agree that we need to look at the longer-term effects, too?
Luke Myer
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Member for making that point.
That takes me to the next point I wanted to raise, from the second specialist organisation that I spoke to today. ARCH Teesside does vital work supporting victims and survivors of sexual violence and preventing harm before situations escalate; it puts wraparound support around an individual. It raised with me today a practical concern about what will happen to prevention funding, particularly when police and crime commissioners are abolished from 2028. They are often a main source of funding for local specialist violence against women and girls organisations. ARCH Teesside is concerned that the need for services will not change when the structures change, and it does not have certainty about the funding currently held by PCCs.
Organisations such as ARCH need to be able to plan ahead, retain specialist staff and know what funding framework they will be working with. I will be grateful if the Minister can give some reassurance that specialist local services will not lose dedicated prevention funding as responsibilities move away from PCCs, and tell us a little about the clarity that organisations will receive about the future framework into which they will need to bid.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about certainty of funding. Some of the organisations that I have spoken to in my Chelmsford constituency that deal with victims of domestic abuse point out to me that often the funding is project-based. It is not about what they have tried before, have proven to work and want to continue with; they find that people say, “Oh, yes, but we’re starting this new project now, so we’re only accepting bids for new projects and things that haven’t been done before,” and all the great work that has been done before is forgotten. Does he agree that we are always going to be chasing our tails in that way, and nobody will be well served by it, and that we need certainty of funding for things that are proven to work as well as for trialling new stuff?
Luke Myer
I agree. This is slightly tangential to this debate—I apologise—but when I was in local government, we set up a specialist team to work with families and young people at risk of exploitation, and we gave them that sort of long-term focus and freedom to approach things in a range of different ways, rather than giving them time-limited funding, say for three months. Chopping and changing can be very disruptive for families, and it is exactly the same here.
The petitioners are right to ask Parliament to take misogyny more seriously. The Government have taken some important steps, which I welcome, but I hope they will now build on that work, look carefully at the remaining gaps in the law and, above all, make sure that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls is matched by what women experience in communities such as mine.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I want to thank everybody who signed the petition, as a number of Members have thanked those in their constituencies who signed it; it is incredibly important that we hear from them in this manner. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate and setting out so clearly the breadth of this issue and why it is so important.
The Government’s landmark violence against women and girls strategy was published last December. It stressed a whole-of-society approach to prevention, in which all of us have a responsibility to call out harmful behaviours and to role-model positive behaviours. That responsibility cuts right across the public sphere: our shared spaces, our workplaces, our institutions and, of course, online.
Online influencers hold a unique position in the public sphere, and their reach often goes further than that of our newspapers and broadcasters, yet their content is far less regulated. That is concerning given how social media platforms work: influencers profit financially from engagement, incentivising content that amplifies shocking images, awful videos and abuse, and that shapes the attitudes of impressionable young people. The platforms profit, too; they make huge sums of money from this.
According to Government figures, in 2025, 95% of young people had heard of Andrew Tate. Ninety-five per cent—that is unbelievable. It gets worse, though, because 40% of the young men in that figure had a positive impression of this individual. This is somebody with allegations against him of sex trafficking and all manner of horrendous crimes. It is deeply concerning that the online sphere has given those young people the impression that this is a good thing and that this person is somebody to emulate or look up to.
Exposure to content driven by that toxic masculinity starts very early, with 83% of teachers reporting concerns about their students holding extreme views on gender and a quarter reporting instances of misogynistic abuse in their own classrooms. I have heard from my teachers in Tamworth about how worried they are, how difficult this is to deal with, and how much the phones that many young people carry with them and have in the classroom are impacting their ability to see the world as many of us wish it really was, rather than as they are seeing it through this lens. This content is harming women and girls by normalising harmful rhetoric and behaviours, and it is harming boys by distorting their view of the world and their perception of what constitutes a healthy relationship with women and girls. As a female MP, I can attest to the sheer avalanche of abuse that I and many colleagues receive on a daily basis.
Children are not born with misogynistic views; these views are learned through socialisation. Sadly, sometimes they come from parents, and sometimes from peers, but increasingly—and as we all fear—they come through exposure to the manosphere, which happens to a great extent online.
Wera Hobhouse
It is pretty clear that young people fall into all sorts of traps, and we do not want our prisons to be full of young offenders who have displayed misogynistic behaviours and attitudes, but sometimes the law can act as a regulator of this type of behaviour. Does the hon. Member agree, therefore, that changing the law is a powerful tool in our toolkit for changing behaviour altogether?
Sarah Edwards
I absolutely agree, and I will go on to extol the virtues of what many people are calling for. It is imperative that there is real clarity on this, so that people take it more seriously than I think they do, and so that we are extremely clear about what is and is not accepted. There is this creep right across society whereby, as soon as you hear something online, it becomes okay, and therefore the more it is repeated. We really do have to make sure that the law reinforces that it is not okay and that we have to stop it happening.
Many parents hope to instil in their children the values of a good society, but they cannot do that if they are constantly being undermined by all these posts and by individuals such as Andrew Tate. The law must recognise that disproportionate influence; if an individual or organisation profits from the engagement of a larger audience, they must fulfil a duty to that audience by making sure that their content is fully reflective of the law. I hope that when we change the law, content will have to change as a result.
Classifying misogyny as a hate crime, as many Members might agree, would raise the degree of legal and social scrutiny of these influencers. To support that new framework, scrutiny must be proportionate to the size of somebody’s following, with influencers who have tens of thousands of followers given an enshrined duty of care for their audience. I advocate that even those with 500 or more followers are influential, and they need to recognise that. We need this to be supported by legislation that tackles online individuals and the way they communicate with their audiences.
What I am suggesting would bring regulation of the new media more in line with that of traditional sources. Social media outlets must be held responsible for the algorithms they push and the weighting they give to the information they are ultimately distributing. More than 20 years ago, Ofcom was created in recognition of the power that our broadcasters had over the culture and norms of our country. In the 2020s, Parliament must bring forward a new framework fit for this new media landscape. I hope that the Minister has some good news about how we will be able to tackle these new outlets and platforms, where a huge number of people now get their so-called news.
I also agree with the calls to make binding codes of practice rather than simple guidance. That is really important, and I hope that the Minister can outline some of the thinking behind and trajectory for that, as well as how we will scale up our efforts to protect women and girls from violence and hatred. I support calls for the Government to amend the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes; to introduce tougher laws for online abuse—as I have already stated, that should apply to the individual and to the platform much more forcefully; and, as has been mentioned, to fund the training of police officers and prosecutors so that they are better able to handle this and understand their response. The future of our country depends on a much tougher stance being taken, particularly on this subject. I really fear for the future if we do not do this.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank those across the country who signed this petition to ensure that we had this really important debate. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. As others have said before me, it is really important that we underline that: it is an emergency. This is affecting a whole generation, and I am terrified of what that means for society if we do not deal with it.
Liberal Democrats have long called for misogyny to be made a hate crime so, while we very much welcome the Government’s amendment to extend the list of aggravated offences under hate crime legislation to cover sex or presumed sex, and while I was proud to sponsor the amendment that extended that to LGBT people and disabled people in the last parliamentary Session, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I agree with the petitioners that Ministers should go further and amend the Sentencing Act to ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. I also want to highlight that the extension of aggravated offences to cover sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity has not yet been brought into force, so I hope to hear a timeline from the Minister on when that will be brought forward by the required secondary legislation. Hatred is just as unacceptable no matter its type; that means that there must be zero tolerance for misogyny.
As the petitioners noted, misogyny can fuel crimes including sexual violence. The need to make misogyny a hate crime and the importance of tackling it early on is borne out by the data: studies have confirmed what women, from our own experiences and those of our friends, know to be true: that the majority of us have, at some point, encountered some form of abuse in outdoor spaces, and that this is so commonplace that very few ever bother to report such incidents to the police. That is why, in a similarly themed Westminster Hall debate at the start of this year, I pressed the Government to accept and begin implementing all 13 recommendations of part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry, set up after Sarah Everard’s murder. That has not happened, I am sad to say.
One recommendation yet to be taken up was to “immediately” improve national data collection and sharing on sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The inquiry found that data is fragmented and inconsistently documented across police forces. Given that making misogyny an aggravated offence under hate crime legislation should allow for greater information gathering, I ask the Minister here today how she anticipates making use of that if data on more serious sexual violence is not being effectively collected right now.
The petitioners also called on the Government to act on anti-feminist hate groups and the harassment and online abuse that they perpetrate. I am sure that many of us are aware of the abbreviation IRL, meaning “in real life”, which differentiates between the online space and in-person, so-called real spaces. However, there is increasingly less distinction with what is happening IRL and, instead, a blurring of boundaries between our digital and in-person experiences. Both cross over into the other’s realms with relative ease. That is why it is as important as ever to take decisive action to tackle misogyny wherever it originates, including online, as other Members have said.
From cyber-flashing to sharing intimate images without consent, or the more recent development of AI-generated sexual images, it is crucial that the Government do all they can to keep pace with the rapid technological changes that pose particular harm to women and girls. We need legislation that tackles that in advance of it happening. It is important that we are a bit more prescient as to what might come next, rather than constantly playing catch-up, because when we are playing catch-up, the harm has already been done.
For example, 98% of deepfake intimate images reported to the revenge porn helpline are of women. As organisations such as Internet Matters have underlined, given that not every case that I have mentioned reaches the hate crime threshold, taking strong measures against them is crucial to ensure that misogynistic attitudes are dealt with early and the tools that misogynists may use against women and girls are disrupted. Research by Internet Matters found that a shocking 14% of children aged between 13 and 16 had experienced some form of intimate image abuse and harassment, such as cyber-flashing or having a non-consensual image of them shared. The organisation states that
“these behaviours are becoming normalised”.
For those of us who grew up a few decades ago—let us not go into it too much—that was not the norm back then. Things are changing rapidly, and we must recognise that.
On that note, when the violence against women and girls strategy was announced to Parliament last December, I pressed the then Minister to tackle harmful, misogynistic online content, highlighting the fact that Ofcom’s official guidance was only voluntary and that waiting until 2027 to strengthen it would be far too late. Tomorrow marks the deadline that the previous Minister set for tech companies to implement on-device safety measures to protect children from taking, receiving or viewing nude images—exactly the kind of harm that Internet Matters found children are increasingly being exposed to. I would therefore be grateful if this Minister confirmed whether the Government will uphold the previous Prime Minister’s deadline to big tech—and if not, whether and by which date they will take action on this matter. Liberal Democrats are clear that the Government’s first duty must be to tackle online harms and misogyny, not to prioritise the profits of big tech.
More broadly, I and Members from across the House would very much welcome a recommitment from the Minister to the violence against women and girls strategy published at the end of last year and, in particular, the goal of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. I very much welcome that, and Members from across the House have been welcoming it, too. With data showing that more than four in 10 people arrested during the 2024 riots had previously been reported for domestic abuse, taking on violence against women and girls is not a stand-alone aim; it is inherently linked to facing down the normalisation of extremist, far-right rhetoric and policies. We cannot allow this VAWG strategy to fail where others have failed before. It must be a top priority for this Government. We must not accept a world that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse.
I thank again all those who brought forward and signed this petition. I expect the Government to consider their calls very carefully and, most of all, to recognise and indeed take confidence in the strength of feeling and breadth of public support that exists for tackling violence against women and girls.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Edward. I thank all hon. Members for their very good contributions and the petitioners for securing this important debate with so many signatures.
The practice of misogyny—a hatred of or prejudicial attitude towards women—is one of the most disgusting behaviours in our society. As a member of a party that wants to treat people on the basis of their actions and decisions, I consider crimes committed against someone because of their sex to be clearly reprehensible; the people involved deserve to face the full weight of the law.
Female hon. Members across the House will be acutely aware of the abuse and terrible attitudes directed towards women. Almost too many statistics could be used to illustrate how so many people experience abuse and crimes directed at them merely because they are women. Without pre-empting the Minister’s response, I am aware that the Government may point to the changes implemented through the amendment of the Crime and Policing Act that made changes to the Crime and Disorder Act. I noted that the Government’s response to the petition made it clear that they believe that that change responds to many of the concerns addressed, alongside other measures they are taking in their violence against women and girls strategy. In addition, I understand that the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation will feed into considerations of whether further steps are to be taken.
Although there are interesting and worthwhile conversations to be had about the legislative elements of this challenge, it is important to discuss an even more fundamental element: what is the best approach to stop these crimes from occurring in the first place? Such an approach must be rooted in achieving the most effective results for women and girls, in using the laws that we have more effectively, and in increasing enforcement.
The targets set out by Government on violence against women and girls are clearly essential. In the spirit of the Prime Minister’s call to work cross-party and to illustrate the importance of tackling crimes motivated by misogyny, I refer back to the first oral question asked by the former shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), after the 2024 election. He asked about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and what needed to be done to increase arrest rates. In response there was some political points-scoring by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper)—I am sure the Minister will refrain from that—but the overall question still stands: what can be done to increase enforcement?
One element, inextricably tied to enforcement, that I believe to be paramount is ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of officers. The Minister will know that there has been a fall in officer numbers of just under 2,000 over the period of this Government. Will the Minister provide assurances that that decrease has not adversely impacted the ability of the police to respond to the crimes discussed in this debate, which are clearly motivated by a hatred of women?
We must consider the decisions associated with Government policy, especially those made in relation to the early release scheme. Although I will not relitigate debates already held in this House, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge how damaging that decision will be for women who have been victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape. That view has been reiterated by numerous organisations that work to stop such crimes. In a statement, Women’s Aid said, about funding to aid victims:
“it cannot eradicate the impacts, including the increased danger that they will face, and the responsibility for managing this rests with statutory services.”
To pre-empt any statement that we have had early release schemes before, I point to comments made by the CEO of Rape Crisis England and Wales, who stated:
“We are in unchartered territory with the new early release scheme, and so remain extremely concerned about its impact on survivors and specialist sexual violence services like Rape Crisis Centres.”
We know that that issue is tied to this debate because such crimes so often fall upon women. The release of those individuals only puts women further at risk. Will the Minister explain what conversations the Government have had with police forces about taking steps to mitigate the impact of the early release scheme, and to support the victims of crimes whose perpetrators will be back on the streets?
The contributions to this debate have rightly recognised the underlying importance of the internet as a tool for misogyny, and the necessity of ensuring that the next generation of young men do not grow up with distorted views. Our party’s efforts to push for social media bans for younger people are precisely about ensuring that when someone grows up, it is their family, their education and our society more broadly that can shape their future, not some of the repugnant content online, which seeks to monetise young people and to present them with ideas that, if embraced, make misogynistic traits more likely.
On that issue, early this year the shadow Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), asked the Government whether the police were using to the fullest extent their powers under sections 42 to 49 of part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which set out the existing offence of encouraging or assisting crime, including the criteria for an offence and how they can be utilised to stop those who encourage the raping of women and girls.
Although my hon. Friend’s question was focused on the Tate brothers, who the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) referred to in her very good speech today and who are clearly engulfed in a range of other legal matters, I think the question still applies, considering that there has been reporting about websites and forums that encourage sexual assault. Does the Minister see the police using these existing laws to stop crimes that are clearly prompted by a complete disregard for the autonomy of women, because if we are going to tackle these crimes, we must utilise the tools that we already have available to us?
Also, although I appreciate that it is not solely the purview of the Minister, I want to ask about the evidence gap and what we can do to reduce it. Some of the more troubling data about young people and misogyny in the last year was released by the Youth Justice Board. However, the specific section on misogynistic attitudes in its report stated that there were evidence gaps in the UK on matters that included: proving a causal pathway from misogynistic attitudes in childhood to sexual violence and abuse, as well as non-sexual violence; on misogynistic attitudes among children under 18 in England and Wales, as most evidence is from young adults and studies conducted in the USA; and evidence on how algorithmic exposure to misogynistic and sexual content translates into offline abuse.
Today, Members have rightly talked about the online sphere, which is specifically addressed by the petition. However, that suggests that there is a knowledge gap. How can we deal with the online sphere if we lack some pretty essential evidence about it? What can we do better to understand the links between misogynistic attitudes and criminal behaviour?
We must all work to support female survivors of crime, whether that means giving them the answers they deserve through inquiries such as that into grooming gangs or working harder to enforce the law, in order to stop people becoming victims to begin with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
I pay tribute to the organisers of the petition, including several student unions, whose commitment and hard work have helped to ensure that this important issue receives the attention it deserves. Sadly, their report, which highlights the scale of the problem, is only reinforced by other surveys and research. We know that people aged between 16 and 24 are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, and that those aged 16 to 19 experience higher levels of harassment than any other age group. As has been mentioned, we also know that non-contact abuse strongly leads to contact abuse. In addition, we know that behind every statistic is a daughter, a niece, a friend, a colleague or another loved one.
To the petition organisers, to those who have signed the petition, and to the women and girls whose experiences lie behind it, I want to be clear that misogyny, harassment and violence against women and girls have no place in our homes, on our streets, where we study, where we work or anywhere in our society, and that tackling this is and will remain a Government priority. My hon. and learned Friend has my personal commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy, and everything that it seeks to deliver. For me, it has a particular focus on prevention.
The petition calls for misogyny to be considered within the hate crime legislative framework, alongside wider action against harassment, assault and online abuse of women and girls. I recognise that for many people who signed this petition, this debate is about so much more than legislative frameworks; for them, it is about whether women and girls feel safe, whether their experiences are taken seriously, and whether the law adequately recognises the harm caused by misogynistic behaviour and abuse. Like too many women, I have personally experienced it, and I am determined to do all I can to ensure that my daughter does not grow up in a world where feeling unsafe or being harassed purely because you are a woman is the norm.
As Members know, the Government have already legislated to recognise sex-based hostility within the aggravated offences framework, and we are taking action to tackle violence against women and girls. I will take each of those points in turn before addressing the petition’s calls directly, and I will respond to questions asked throughout the debate.
As Members know, when talking about hate crime legislation in England and Wales, we are referring not to a single Act, but to a framework. Therefore, calls to recognise misogyny as a hate crime may refer to different parts of the framework, each of which covers different protected characteristics and serves a distinct legal purpose. Broadly speaking, the framework operates through three main mechanisms: aggravated offences, enhanced sentencing provision and offences that criminalise the stirring of hatred against particular groups.
As mentioned throughout the debate, through the Crime and Policing Act, the Government legislated to extend the aggravated offences framework part to cover sex and presumed sex, alongside disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Under the Act, offences motivated by hostility towards those characteristics will be treated on the same basis as those involving race or religion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) said, it is all interconnected. That means that for the first time, the courts will be able to recognise hostility based on sex and reflect the additional harm caused when someone is targeted because of their sex.
The new legislation also targets nudification tools, which several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), raised. Such tools use artificial intelligence to generate intimate images of individuals without their consent. The legislation criminalises making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply such tools, and helps to tackle a growing form of online abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls, as mentioned throughout the debate. Those measures build on wider action to combat image-based abuse and ensure that those who create or facilitate such harmful content can be held to account. In addition, the Government have commenced the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which has already seen perpetrators brought to justice.
In response to the question about the commencement of the Crime and Policing Act, I assure Members that the Government are going as quickly as possible. We are working across Government, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, and hopefully we can get that through as quickly as possible.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister is listing a series of measures, which we all welcome, but I do not hear her actually committing to making misogyny a hate crime. It does not sound like the Government are really considering that. Could she explain why?
Satvir Kaur
As I said earlier, it is useful for Members to understand the context—what is already happening and how we built to that—before I directly address the call from the petition.
To further support our collective efforts, our cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy was published in December 2025. Actions include making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful online content and misogynistic influences. We are doing that through our online safety regime and by banning under-16s from major social media platforms, backed by one of the toughest enforcement regimes in the world. We will always seek to go further where we can, with a focus on preventing rather than just reacting.
The Ministry of Justice will launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic image-based abuse. In addition, the Department for Education has updated relationships, sex and health education curriculums, which now include teaching on online safety and awareness, healthy relationships and positive role models. Hon. Members talked about a whole societal shift. It is important that we focus on prevention, so I welcome that. Guidance and resources will be provided to support hard-working teachers to recognise the signs of ideologies so that we can intervene swiftly and effectively.
The higher education regulator has introduced strict new requirements that will ensure that every university works to prevent, address and investigate any incidents of sexual harassment and abuse affecting its students. To help address the issue that many people who engage in harmful behaviour do not always recognise their actions as abusive, we have developed a cross-Government behaviour change campaign called Enough. A few Members mentioned people not recognising what is not okay, and also the evidence gap and lack of reporting. It is really important that this campaign explicitly helps people in all walks of life—both victims and perpetrators—to recognise what is and is not acceptable.
I will directly address the petition’s call for misogyny to be recognised more broadly in the hate crime framework beyond the changes already made through the Crime and Policing Act. Although I cannot commit the Government to such changes today, we must always ensure that the hate crime framework is fit for purpose. It is right to mention alternative views, such as those from the Law Commission’s 2021 review, which concluded that adding sex or gender to the existing hate crime framework would not necessarily provide the most effective response in tackling violence against women and girls, and cautioned that reform in this area could have unintended consequences.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Home Secretary commissioned Lord Macdonald in October 2025 to undertake an independent review to consider whether public order and hate crime legislation remains effective. The review engaged extensively with stakeholders from across civil society, academia and community organisations to ensure that a wide range of perspectives informed its conclusions. Lord Macdonald has submitted his final report, which the Government is currently considering, and a response will follow in due course. It is right and fitting that the review’s conclusions help to underpin decision making on any further changes to the hate crime framework and how best to protect women and girls.
On the broader calls from petitioners about tackling violence against women and girls, we know that legislation is an important part, but only one part, of the solution, and cannot tackle violence against women and girls on its own. We must also prevent offending, challenge harmful attitudes, support victims and improve criminal justice responses. We want women and girls to have the confidence to come forward and report crimes while knowing that they will be taken seriously, treated with respect and supported to secure justice. This Government are meeting the petition’s request to fund support for victims and the training to support it. A few Members mentioned training and funding, and I reassure them that training is being expanded and that specialist VAWG teams are being rolled out to all local police forces. The deadline for that was brought forward by the Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago.
This year, the Home Office is investing more than £13.9 million in the national centre for VAWG and public protection to help ensure that all victims receive the right response. That is part of the Government’s wider investment of over £1 billion to support victims of VAWG, including nearly £500 million for local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation to victims of domestic abuse in Middlesbrough and across the country—I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for raising that issue. More than £550 million will be invested across justice to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. Up to £50 million will also be invested in therapeutic support for child victims of sexual abuse, alongside a further £5 million to support victims of VAWG.
Blake Stephenson
I want to be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made an interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their police and crime commissioner. Can the Minister confirm that, once police and crime commissioners disappear from our framework, the same funding—or more, perhaps —will be available to those organisations? If so, how will they receive that money?
Satvir Kaur
As the Home Secretary said during her statement to the House last week, it will form part of the ongoing policing reform. That will naturally have an impact on how regional and local areas are funded, and that is right and proper.
Luke Myer
PCCs will be abolished in 2028, but the reforms will take much longer than that. In many parts of the country the PCC role will easily transfer over to a mayoral role, but that will not be the case in Cleveland, where the boundary of the police is not coterminous with that of the combined authority. The Minister mentioned that one of my councils is very advanced in this work. Can she take away the proposals for some of the funding and powers to go straight to the local authority level in cases where there are such tensions between different government boundaries and bodies?
Satvir Kaur
I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant policing Minister to ensure that that is explored fully.
Before I conclude, I want to cover the other issues that have been raised. On data gaps and reporting, I want to highlight that the Enough campaign is bearing fruit, but it is obviously a big piece of work. Specialist VAWG teams are also going into local areas, and a part of their role is ensuring that local police forces work with local communities so that there is an uptick in reporting, which must be taken more seriously to help address data gaps, because we know that is an ongoing concern.
I was asked about conversations with police forces, and those are ongoing. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has left the Chamber, but he mentioned what happened to the female protester at the Reform conference. That was disgusting and unacceptable, and I know that the police are encouraging the victim to come forward; I feel we should all do the same to ensure that justice is done.
Tony Vaughan
I thank the Minister for her response, but I want to highlight the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) about cracking down on platforms that facilitate misogynistic abuse. Forgive me if the Minister has covered this, but Ofcom has come out with voluntary guidance that suggests various mechanisms for providers to follow. Ultimately, however, if they are not mandatory requirements in the same way as Ofcom’s amended codes of practice, how will that ever force these platforms to stop the monetisation of misogyny and the sorts of practices that are leading to the mass indoctrination of young people? Can she say something about how we might be tightening that up?
Satvir Kaur
On online abuse and harm, it is right and fitting that we work with tech companies because, fundamentally, we all have a responsibility. Where they are failing to come forward, legislation must always be the backstop. Of course, legislation is not the solution and the answer to everything, and working proactively should always be the first step, but we must ensure that we use all possible levers. The VAWG strategy makes it absolutely clear that we will continue to do that.
To conclude, I thank all Members who have participated today. The Government share the determination behind this petition. As I have set out, we have already taken significant action in this area through the Crime and Policing Act, and any further changes to hate crime legislation will be informed by the findings of Lord Macdonald’s independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. More broadly, our work to tackle violence against women and girls continues at pace. The VAWG strategy sets out a blueprint, and this Government are determined to deliver on our mission.
Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and it is one of the biggest challenges of our time. The Government recognise that it is far too serious and important an issue for us not to act firmly on it, and we will continue to do so until women and girls—whoever they are and wherever they live—feel safe and can live free from fear.
Tony Vaughan
I thank Amara, Lily and Holly for creating the petition that resulted in this debate, and for the opportunity to ask the Minister a lot of important questions about this vital issue. I also thank the Members who spoke in the debate, all of whom supported tightening up the current laws through the amendment to the 2026 Act. The online dimension to this problem came across particularly strongly in Members’ contributions. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the horrendous practice of nightlife videos; on the other, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) rightly underlined the critical importance of cracking down on platforms that facilitate and promote online misogyny. As the Minister said, non-contact abuse does lead to contact abuse, which is why it is particularly insidious. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) also rightly raised the important question of ensuring that support is available for victims as the systems change.
I thank the Minister for all her remarks. The petitioners will have heard them: Lord Macdonald is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and he knows the system; I do not know what he has recommended, and neither does anyone else apart from the Minister, perhaps, but it will contain the answer to the petition regarding misogyny as an aggravating feature in all cases. As the Minister has said, it is important that changes to the law have the intended effect and that is something that has to be looked at carefully. It was also encouraging to hear from her that there is expanded specialist training for police officers and that the Prime Minister has recently sped that up.
I again thank the petitioners for their petition. I also thank all those Members who have attended this debate and I thank the Minister and the Government for the significant and strong range of measures that we are taking to tackle VAWG. There is always more that we have to do. We have to go faster and we have to go further to address this issue; as the Minister says, it is one of the most important issues of our time, and we owe it to the young people here and listening across the country to succeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 746640 relating to crimes motivated by misogyny and hate crime law.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi
These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 263.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi):
Florence Eshalomi
These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets on or after 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions.
The following is an extract from the debate on the Representation of the People Bill on 2 September 2026.
Florence Eshalomi
The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 264.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith:
Florence Eshalomi
The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made on or after 25 March 2026 will be returned.
The following is an extract from the debate on the Representation of the People Bill on 2 September 2026.
Florence Eshalomi
As drafted, a number of the Bill’s provisions apply specifically to registered political parties. These include the restrictions relating to donations and regulated transactions involving cryptoassets, the cap on donations made by, and transactions involving, overseas electors, and restrictions on donations made by transactions including companies and LLPs.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 267.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith:
Florence Eshalomi
As drafted, a number of the Bill’s provisions apply specifically to registered political parties. These include the restrictions relating to donations and regulated transactions involving cryptoassets, the cap on donations made by, and transactions involving, overseas electors, and restrictions on donations made by and transactions involving companies and LLPs.
The following is an extract from the debate on the Representation of the People Bill on 2 September 2026.
Florence Eshalomi
The new clause also allows the Secretary of State to impose similar restrictions on the use of gifts made by overseas contributors and companies to incorporated associations making political donations.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 267.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith:
Florence Eshalomi
The new clause also allows the Secretary of State to impose similar restrictions on the use of gifts made by overseas electors and companies to incorporated associations making political donations.
Written Statements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Corporate Reporting Modernisation: Consultation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I am pleased to announce that today the Government have launched a public consultation on modernising corporate reporting. As announced in the House in October 2025 by Minister McDougall, this is a significant step in our programme to simplify, streamline and modernise the UK’s corporate reporting framework.
The consultation sets out the Government’s proposals on how to reset the purpose of company annual reports and accounts, ensuring they provide decision-useful, financially material information for investors, creditors and others It also invites views on creating a more proportionate, flexible and modern reporting framework, including:
simplifying strategic, governance and remuneration reporting;
moving towards a more proportionate financial reporting regime;
focusing non-financial disclosures on what is genuinely material; and
embedding digital-first corporate communications where appropriate.
These reforms, among others, are intended to remove duplication and unnecessary requirements, improve clarity for preparers and users and future-proof the UK’s reporting system, consistent with international developments. By simplifying and refocusing corporate reporting on decision-useful information, the proposed reforms in the consultation aim to improve and attract capital allocation, reduce unnecessary burdens on business and help unlock investment that drives growth across the UK economy.
The programme builds on the Government’s previous work on non-financial reporting and expands it into a wider review of the entire corporate reporting landscape. Many of the reforms test the value of non-financial and governance disclosures, particularly for private companies, and explore more coherent thresholds governing when reporting applies.
Next steps
The consultation opens today and will remain open for 12 weeks. Following the consultation period, the Government will move quickly to analyse responses, refine policy proposals, and set out additional next steps including any proposed legislative or regulatory changes.
I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses and it will be published on www.gov.uk
[HCWS313]
Artificial Intelligence
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
I am today updating the House on the rapidly advancing capabilities of frontier artificial intelligence, a series of recent incidents, and the action the Government are taking in response.
Artificial intelligence is one of the defining technologies of our age. It could drive a new era of economic growth, accelerate breakthroughs in science and medicine, transform public services, and help to strengthen the security of our country. This Government are determined that Britain should seize that opportunity and that we should be a country which develops, deploys, and benefits from the most advanced AI, not one that watches the next technological revolution happen elsewhere.
Seizing that opportunity requires confidence in and understanding of the technology itself. The capabilities of frontier AI models continue to advance rapidly. Frontier AI models are increasingly able to act autonomously, use digital tools, and complete long and complex tasks with little or no human intervention beyond the setting of the task. Testing by the AI Security Institute published in May found that the length of cyber-tasks that frontier models could reliably complete had doubled every five months since late 2024, with most recent models substantially exceeding that trend.
As the capabilities of these models rapidly advance, our ability to understand, secure, and control these systems must advance with them.
Over the summer, there have been several high-profile cases in which AI agents, while carrying out tasks set by humans, undertook consequential actions beyond what their operators intended. These include incidents reported by OpenAI, Anthropic, and the AI Security Institute itself.
In each case, an AI agent was given a task by its operators, usually along with details about its environment or rules on how to complete it. The agent was then left to complete that task, over hours or days, with little or no further human involvement or instruction. How it went about the task was decided by the agent alone. Across the reported incidents, AI agents acted in ways their human operators had not anticipated, including: circumventing technical controls, including in one case exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability to break out of an isolated test environment; gaining access to real-world systems they were not intended to reach; establishing unintended channels of communication to co-ordinate with other agents—in one case, at a scale of hundreds of agents over several days—and, in some instances, attempting to get real humans to take action in the real world, in ways their operators had not intended, for example uploading malicious code on to the internet.
These incidents should be understood in context. All arose in testing or development environments designed to probe or improve the capability limits of frontier models, in some cases with safeguards deliberately reduced for that purpose and, in AISI’s case, with internet access enabled by design. In some cases, the environments were misconfigured, the tasks set were impossible to complete as instructed, or models were told they were in a simulation and continued to believe this after reaching the real internet. Existing best practice security measures and technical controls for keeping agentic AI operating within intended limits, as advised by the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, as well as comprehensive monitoring would have almost certainly prevented these incidents.
Nevertheless, these incidents demonstrate how advances in AI capability can create new security challenges if safeguards do not keep pace. They occurred because highly capable AI models were operating without sufficiently robust controls to contain them. As the capabilities of frontier models continue to advance, the standard of security and oversight techniques required to contain them will advance too. Should AI capabilities advance faster than the techniques to secure, control, or reliably direct them, this could pose a significant risk to public safety and national security.
That is why the Government are already acting.
As part of the defence investment plan, we have committed £115 million to two new programmes: one on AI biosecurity, and one to build a UK Government agentic AI incident response capability. The National Cyber Security Centre published practical advice in August on deploying agentic AI systems securely and is continuing to develop and pioneer formal guidance and standards in this area so businesses and the public can manage the risks and opportunities of AI with confidence. The NCSC is also leading development of Cyber Shield: a longer-term, national-scale and collaborative approach to AI-enabled cyber-defence, working with industry to identify and mitigate cyber-risk. This sits alongside our wider work to strengthen the country’s cyber-resilience. Our Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will strengthen the cyber-defences of the UK’s most critical services, including health, energy and transport, by requiring organisations to identify, manage and mitigate evolving cyber-threats, including those enabled by AI. It is complemented by the Government Cyber Action Plan, backed by £210 million to rapidly improve the cyber-security and resilience of public services, and by a further £90 million committed over three years to build resilience across the wider economy.
I am working closely with the Security Minister (Dan Jarvis) to ensure that the lessons from these incidents inform the continued development of the UK’s cyber-security framework. We will consider whether protections for increasingly autonomous AI systems should be clarified or strengthened through the cyber assessment framework, the forthcoming statutory code of practice or NCSC technical guidance. AISI will provide evidence and technical expertise to support that work.
Alongside this, the work of the AI Security Institute continues.
AISI grew out of the commitments made at Bletchley Park in 2023 and was the first body of its kind anywhere in the world. AISI was established to build a rigorous, scientific understanding of the capabilities of the most advanced AI systems and the risks they may pose, to work with developers to strengthen security and alignment before models are released, and to ground Government action and policy in independent evidence, working alongside national experts including the NCSC. Following the detection of its own incident, AISI stopped all relevant activity and carried out an investigation, the results of which it has published. AISI is now strengthening the security of its own evaluation environments, including tighter constraints on internet access, real-time monitoring of evaluations, and stronger model and agent sandboxing, drawing on NCSC advice.
This risk is not confined to those with weak or no defences. In each incident the organisations affected had met cyber-security standards in their jurisdictions. That is why we will continue to monitor risks from AI and will step up our efforts where required, working in lockstep with our partners.
As the United Kingdom invests in the capacity to use increasingly powerful AI, we will invest in parallel in the capacity to understand it, to control it, and to recover when something goes wrong. These risks are inherently transnational: the systems involved are developed and deployed across borders, and no country can address them alone, as has been the case in wider technology for the last three decades. The UK will continue to work closely with international partners, including through the AI Security Institute’s relationships with counterpart bodies overseas and the National Cyber Security Centre’s peer agencies. We will approach this challenge with both confidence and urgency, ensuring that the UK can harness the benefits of frontier AI while managing the risks responsibly.
[HCWS314]
Economic Growth
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
The Government are committed to delivering good growth in every postcode of the United Kingdom.
Today I am setting out more detail on how we will deliver on this promise—in order that people and places see the benefits of this growth as soon as possible.
The UK has significant strengths and economic potential: life sciences, defence, technology, creative industries and financial services.
However, global instability continues to present challenges. Conflicts and trade tensions have driven up inflation and interest rates, while borrowing and debt costs have increased.
We have shown resilience in the face of these challenges: borrowing is falling; growth, although still fragile, was the fastest in the G7 in the first half of this year; and productivity is increasing.
In the context of continued global uncertainty, we must not become complacent. Fiscal credibility is indivisible from growth, and is my first priority.
The Prime Minister set out last week a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong: political power was centralised, economic enablers have been privatised or outsourced, and the country deindustrialised.
The Government will change this through a fundamental shift that starts with restoring power and resources to local leaders to build infrastructure, boost private investment and develop local industrial strategies. This will unlock the potential of their region to do the things they do best in a way that Whitehall simply cannot. Greater public control through a more effective and strategic state at all levels will enhance oversight of the essentials. This will create the conditions for a new civic partnership between Government, business and academia. Alongside this, national policy on investment, innovation and jobs will create the right conditions for the private sector.
The UK has had the lowest investment rate among G7 countries for most of the last 20 years, and the regional disparities between current levels of public investment per head are too great. We have made progress recently but need to do more. This includes sharpening the focus of our public financial institutions to align with this Government’s priorities, reducing unnecessary consultation, litigation and administration, and changing the Green Book to support projects with more long-term potential in places across the country.
The UK has a strong record on innovation: world leaders in frontier technologies, including quantum, nuclear fusion and space technology; as well as AI—a general-purpose technology that requires oversight but also brings great opportunity. The Government will earmark dedicated funds to back British innovation through public investment, procurement and closer co-operation between local leaders, universities, investors and businesses. It will strengthen support for high-growth businesses and emerging technologies, with the ambition of doubling the number of unicorn firms in this country.
We need to take advantage of our human potential and recognise that skills and labour markets vary across the country. The Prime Minister has set out his plan on technical education. We are moving funding and power for the skills system to local areas to improve work experience and employment opportunities for young people, tailored to the needs and strengths of places. This autumn, Alan Milburn will set out his full recommendations to the Government on how to address the blight of youth unemployment.
These measures will increase investment, accelerate innovation and support more people into work, ultimately raising productivity and growth.
[HCWS312]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would remove the power for the Secretary of State to amend this Act by regulations so as to change the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny requirements applying to a code of practice. It responds to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 7th Report.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think that we are in the final furlong. In moving my Amendment 92C, I will also speak to the closely aligned Amendment 95C under my name. These amendments raise a profound and non-negotiable constitutional principle. They respond directly to the almost always authoritative recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its seventh report of this Session and are strongly supported by the principles laid down by the Select Committee on the Constitution in its third report. Together, these amendments seek to delete two deeply objectionable provisions that represent a classic example of secondary legislation creep—provisions where the Executive are seeking a blank cheque to unilaterally rewrite the rules.
Amendment 92C targets Clause 37 and seeks to leave out subsection (7). Under the Bill as drafted, Clause 37(7) grants the Secretary of State the unilateral power to make regulations to amend the Act to change and potentially dilute the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny requirements that apply to a code of practice. This is a Henry VIII power of quite an extensive kind. In the Government’s original delegated powers memorandum of November 2025, the department, as it then was, argued that this power was necessary to allow flexibility in case a 40-day parliamentary scrutiny period became, in its words, “unfeasible” or
“a detriment to the quality of … a code”.
But as the Delegated Powers Committee correctly noted in its seventh report, the rules governing how Parliament scrutinises the Executive must be set by Parliament in primary legislation; they should not be subject to the administrative convenience of a Minister. Allowing a Minister to use secondary legislation to alter or weaken the very procedural safeguards that this House has debated is not constitutionally correct. The committee’s recommendation is clear and unambiguous: subsection (7) must be removed.
That brings me to Amendment 95C, which seeks to leave out Clause 40(5). Clause 40 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on the operation of this cyber security legislation. However, subsection (5) grants the Secretary of State the power to amend this primary legislation via regulations to change the matters to be covered in those same reports. Again, in their original November 2025 memorandum, the Government defended this by claiming that they needed flexibility to ensure that reports could be expanded over time as technology matures.
With the greatest respect, that argument is entirely spurious. If the Government merely wish to report on more things, they are already fully entitled to include voluntary supplementary chapters in their reports. But by granting themselves a statutory power to amend the legal requirements of Clause 40, they are taking the power to delete or dilute the core mandatory reporting obligations that Parliament has put in the Bill. They would, in effect, be legally empowered to write their own report cards, deciding behind closed doors what they must disclose to Parliament and what they can quietly omit, including critical scrutiny over how they have used the vast delegated powers under Clause 29(1).
The Delegated Powers Committee was again clear. This power is inappropriate, lacks coherent justification and should be deleted from the Bill. The Select Committee on the Constitution too, in its third report, expressed serious anxieties about the overall design of the legislation. It warned that this is a framework Bill that relies far too heavily on secondary regulations to establish the actual perimeters of national cyber resilience.
When a Bill already delegates such sweeping unprecedented powers to the Executive, amplified by the amendments to introduce a parallel high-risk vendor framework, laid on 24 August and discussed on the first day of this Committee, it is doubly important that the statutory channels of parliamentary oversight remain supreme. We cannot allow the Government to use secondary regulations to dismantle the guardrails that keep them accountable. I urge the Minister to accept these common-sense, committee-backed corrections and agree to delete Clause 37(7) and Clause 40(5) before Report. I beg to move.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for opening the final day of Committee. For a Bill of such importance, I am surprised at the speed of our progress. However, if quantity has been low, quality has more than compensated.
I agree with the noble Lord that this Committee deserves rather more justification from the Government as to the need for the powers they are granting themselves. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the Clause 37(7) power as “unusual” and “novel”, capable of watering down requirements for consultation as it is not constrained by set criteria. The Government’s justification thus far for this power is that it allows them to
“prioritise the content of the code of practice, rather than arbitrary requirements”.
It sounds to me rather as if the Government’s position is that they see any set requirements for consultations and codes of practice as arbitrary. If that is the case—I would appreciate clarification from the Minister—I have to agree with the committee’s description that the position is “quite extraordinary”.
By the way, I noted this morning that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has demanded an end to the culture of consultation. I fear that that will be quite a wrench for the former DSIT and its functions, it having launched four new consultations on a single day in July without having responded to the more than 11,000 responses to the AI and copyright consultation. We are already unclear about the machinery of government for that former department. Can the Minister tell us whether its existing and planned consultations will continue or whether today’s announcement represents a fundamental change of approach?
It is not clear why the power conferred by Clause 40(5) has to be sufficiently broad to allow the Government to water down the contents of reports on network and information systems. Could it not be amended, as the committee has recommended, so that the power cannot be used to reduce the requirements to report? It is not unreasonable to question whether the Government really need these extensive powers. Your Lordships’ Committee deserves at least more justification than the Government describing set criteria as arbitrary. I appreciate the need for flexible and adaptive approaches to legislating for fast-moving technologies, but that must come with accountability and I am not sure that we have the balance right at this point. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Amendments 92C and 95C, and note that these amendments were recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report of 17 July. Some noble Lords may be aware that, until very recently, I was the chair of that committee. I am wondering how best to describe myself: am I gamekeeper turned poacher or poacher turned gamekeeper? I had better let noble Lords decide at the end of my responses.
These delegated powers were included to prevent a scenario where procedure takes priority over the best possible products, whether that be a code of practice or a report on the legislation. The delegated powers will not allow Ministers to bypass Parliament. They are about ensuring that government can respond quickly and effectively to new threats and new technologies that could undermine our national security. The law has always been slower than innovation, and it is unlikely to catch up unless we change our approach. Ministers must provide clear justification and carry out assessments before regulations are laid before Parliament.
On the code of practice, we anticipate that any code will be updated from time to time to remain effective, in line with the latest recommended good practice, evolving threat information and emerging technologies. Any revisions and reissues of a code of practice must first be consulted on with relevant stakeholders before they are effective.
On consultations, it might be above my pay grade to comment so soon after the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has commented, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have a further response to that at some point, possibly in writing.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations and the views of noble Lords today, and will reflect accordingly ahead of Report. My noble friend the Minister will respond formally to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the usual manner ahead of Report.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, which was the reverse of the usual ministerial response—the sting was not in the tail but at the beginning. The end was much more conciliatory, given that she said the Government will consider taking on board the DPRRC’s recommendations before Report. I very much hope they do. At this stage in Committee, of course, nothing gets decided, but I assure the Minister that, if this continues, and the Government do not respond in some shape or form to both those pretty solid recommendations from the committee, we will bring this back on Report.
When I say that the sting was in the beginning of the response, I mean that it was a bit surprising, given that the Minister has been the chair of the committee and knows the seriousness with which we all take its recommendations. A huge amount of work goes into the detail, and she knows how much store we place on the recommendations. I hope that she will use all her influence to make sure that the Government introduce before Report something along the lines of what I have produced. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 92C.
Baroness Northover
“Cyber security competence: functions of the UK Cyber Security Council(1) The UK Cyber Security Council is to exercise the functions described in subsection (2) and is accountable to the Secretary of State for the exercise of those functions.(2) The functions are—(a) to validate and accredit professional qualifications, standards and titles for cyber security professionals employed by regulated persons,(b) to monitor the supply of, and demand for, qualified cyber security professionals across the sectors regulated under this Act and the NIS Regulations, and(c) to audit whether, and to what extent, regulated persons employ or have access to appropriately certified cyber security professionals.(3) For the purposes of this section, “regulated person” has the same meaning as in Chapter 3 (see section 30).(4) A regulatory authority (as defined in section 24) must have regard to the information and standards provided by the Council under this section when exercising its functions.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the exercise of the Council’s functions under this section, including provision about its accountability for the exercise of the functions described in subsection (2).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the UK Cyber Security Council statutory functions to validate qualifications, to monitor the supply of and demand for cyber security professionals in the areas covered by the Bill, and to audit whether regulated organisations employ certified professionals—a “competence mandate” for the regime.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, all the amendments that I have put down to the Bill are derived from evidence we received on the National Resilience Select Committee. I am sorry that I was not here last week to address those that came up then, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for presenting them for me.
Several members of the Select Committee, including me, were in Finland last week looking at its preparedness for attack. Finland has faced the threat from its long border with Russia throughout the history of its country, and its preparedness on a whole-of-society basis is extremely impressive. Although we do not have a long border with Russia to focus our minds, we know that cyber attacks can immediately undermine our whole society and economy. One of the things we heard on our Select Committee is that not only are many companies unprepared for cyber attacks but that there is a shortage of skills in this area.
This amendment is seeking to move things forward. The proposed new clause would
“give the UK Cyber Security Council statutory functions to validate qualifications, to monitor the supply of and demand for cyber security professionals in the areas covered by the Bill, and to audit whether regulated organisations employ certified professionals—a ‘competence mandate’ for the regime”.
I have received some useful information from the sector, which welcomes my attempt to try to ensure that we have sufficient cyber professionals and that there is a mechanism by which they are certified. There are analogies with the certification of medical professionals, for example. Their certification is conducted independently, and I recognise the importance of that. What I am arguing for here is the principle and not necessarily the route suggested by my amendment. How this is best done can be further discussed between Committee and Report.
The National Cyber Security Centre reported that nationally significant cyber incidents have more than doubled in a year. According to its survey, only 7% of UK businesses have formally reviewed the potential cyber security risk presented by their wider supply chain. Evidence to our Select Committee suggests that skills shortages are a key challenge here, especially for SMEs and those in the public sector. It is clear that cyber education, training and apprenticeships, and so on, must accompany these reforms.
The Bill places greater responsibility on organisations to identify and manage cyber risk. However, beyond those technological solutions, these obligations will require skilled professionals to carry them out. The Bill refers to the appointment of a “skilled person” in the context of a national security directive but does not delve into what constitutes a skilled person. I realise that this will change over time, but there should be ways of addressing this.
Neither does the Bill acknowledge the role of skilled persons in delivering its wider objectives. Those in the field have called on the Government to amend the Bill to require organisations to access a cyber security workforce that is qualified to recognise professional standards. We know that this skills shortage exists, weakening our national resilience. One report showed that 87% of organisations experienced at least one consequence due to skills need, so it is becoming strategically important to address this. The Government should use the Bill as an opportunity to professionalise the sector by committing to a cyber security workforce and skills strategy, and mandating that regulators and regulated entities use suitably skilled people for the purposes of compliance with the regulation.
Recognised professional qualifications and certifications anchored in international standards should be required so that we and the regulators are reassured that the work is being carried out to a certain standard. The UK Cyber Security Council was granted royal chartered status to establish a self-regulating, politically independent professional body, structured on proven models of other professional bodies such as the GMC. The UK needs to transition from a fragmented patchwork of varying certifications to a unified national standard of professional competence and ethical conduct.
Therefore, the Bill should recognise the council as the authority for setting and maintaining these standards. Given that the Bill aims to enhance the security and resilience of the UK and the critical sectors that underpin our economy, that needs to be assisted by a suitably skilled workforce to implement it. Of course we need to take further action to make sure that we train people, but this amendment is designed to help move this forward by ensuring that those in this area are sufficiently skilled. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I was hoping that there would be other contributors—there will be a double-banking on this amendment.
I support Amendment 99, tabled by my noble friend. Throughout our deliberations on this Bill, the Government have placed enormous emphasis on imposing tough, outcomes-based statutory duties on operators and suppliers across our critical infrastructure, but we must confront an uncomfortable truth: we can pass the most sophisticated cyber security regulations in the world but, if our economy lacks the trained, qualified human beings required to design, implement and maintain those defences, those regulations remain completely meaningless. Without a professional workforce capability, this Bill merely codifies what ISC2 has rightly termed “compliance theatre”—an expensive box-ticking exercise that produces mountains of paperwork without making our national networks one bit safer.
Look at the scale of the crisis facing our domestic cyber workforce. In its landmark 2025-26 cyber security workforce study, ISC2 revealed that 52% of UK cyber security professionals identify severe skills shortages as their single greatest barrier to complying with cyber regulations. Further, 58% of organisations reported a critical or significant skills deficit, with an astonishing 87% suffering direct operational consequences from missed system patches and delayed vulnerability remediation to active security oversights. Across the civilian economy, the UK currently faces an 88% shortage of certified cyber practitioners. In an environment of such extreme scarcity, how on earth do the Government expect regulated water utilities, transport operators and medium-sized managed service providers to fulfil the heavy duties created by this Bill?
Amendment 99, from my noble friend, would provide a structural solution to this workforce crisis by placing the UK Cyber Security Council on a formal statutory footing. Crucially, as she explained, this connects directly to the definition of a skilled person under Clause 43. If the Government are serious about raising our national resilience floor, they must recognise that human competence is just as vital as technological hardware. By embedding the UK Cyber Security Council’s competence mandate in primary legislation, Amendment 99 would ensure that our cyber laws are backed by the skilled workforce needed to defend us.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment. By professionalising our cyber workforce, we would elevate this Bill from more than a compliance exercise to a genuine national capability.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I intervene in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I do not want the Liberal Democrats to be on their own, so I hear the call from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It brings me back to the coalition days, when I and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, were once Ministers in the same department—so my support is heartfelt.
I support the substance of the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, says, it may not necessarily be the right amendment but the spirit behind it is absolutely one that the Government should recognise. I was a bit concerned when the noble Baroness was outlining the intention behind the amendment whether it could perhaps be seen as a burden on business, particularly when we talk about small businesses and the need to audit their cyber preparedness. However, to recall my contribution at Second Reading, I said at the time that, although we tend to debate cyber in the Chamber and other places as a great threat that we need to address, it is also a fantastic economic opportunity. I should declare that I am an adviser to a company called Digital Futures, which trains software developers. We do not train them in cyber but obviously the need to build up a skilled workforce in cyber is absolutely essential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the patchwork of qualifications that exist in this area. It seems to me that the Government have a clear opportunity and a clear role to guide us through the maze and to put the National Cyber Security Centre on a statutory footing to give it the ultimate role in deciding the appropriate qualifications in cyber and to begin a sustained campaign to show young people, people returning to the workforce or people who are considering a new career that there is a route through to recognised, well set out cyber qualifications that will contribute to the national economy and our cyber resilience. I therefore wholeheartedly back this amendment.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It strikes me as a practical and important contribution to the Bill.
In addition to the points that have already been made by noble colleagues, there is one more thought to be added: one of the weaknesses of the present marketplace in which these skills are operating is the cost and affordability of advice and help for SMEs on security issues. It is costly—security does not come cheap. Many of these small businesses that nevertheless provide sophisticated services are up against it when it comes to making an adequate profit to stay in business. Therefore, a source of guidance and help, of the kind that is being suggested by this structure, would make a real contribution to not only the viability of these small firms but the general security of cyber security services.
We should never forget that these SMEs feed into the bigger ones. Often, it is an outlying service being provided to a bigger provider that is the cause of a fault or of an essential service proving insecure. Helping SMEs in this way would not only make them more secure but make the market generally more secure. This is a very important and helpful amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for bringing forward Amendment 99. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have returned several times to the distinction between cyber compliance and cyber capability, and this amendment goes directly to that issue. We can impose ever more duties on businesses, require ever more reports and give regulators even more powers but, ultimately, our cyber resilience depends on having enough people with the skills to prevent attacks, protect people from them and respond when they occur. That is why, like many other noble Lords, I support the principle behind the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, in particular her focus on the importance of the skills and competence of the UK cyber security professionals on whom we all rely and our economy will continue to rely. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, an important aspect here is the spirit behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, with its focus on the skill set and professionalisation of these individuals, which we wholeheartedly agree is incredibly important.
I will focus on the council itself for a moment. It is an independent, royal chartered body that unites government, industry and other sectors to boost the professionalism of the entire cyber sector. The council does important work that already encompasses the majority of functions named in the amendment. It sets professional standards and maintains a register of the UK’s accredited cyber professionals. It establishes pathways for cyber professionals—experienced and new entrants—to have an easier route into quality cyber roles.
We disagree that there is a necessity to put this on a statutory footing. The Government consider the council to be akin to other professional bodies in the UK. Although there are some professional bodies with a statutory role and oversight by either government or Parliament, it is standard practice in technical fields for an organisation to be recognised through a royal charter and afforded operational independence from government. This includes the Engineering Council and the Science Council. Going down the route that the amendment proposes would undermine the council’s independence, and that could affect its relationship with the sector.
That is a separate point from the importance of the need to professionalise the cyber sector and the Government’s strong support for that. Indeed, the Government have committed to funding the UK Cyber Security Council over the spending review period until it becomes self-sustainable, working closely with stakeholders across the profession and wider workforce. We believe that professional standards, accreditation and professional titles in cyber security will improve our cyber resilience.
Moreover, to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Markam, and others, the adequacy of skilled persons remains important. The Government’s TechFirst programme is helping to build the pipeline of talent for all frontier technologies and is available to all secondary schools across the UK. This month, approximately 1,300 undergraduate and master’s students are starting in the TechFirst scholarship programme, including over 300 students on a cyber security pathway.
On the question about how the Government monitor the adequacy of this, the Government publish annual data on the state of the UK cyber security workforce which shows that the supply of cyber skills is increasing. There is currently a net annual shortfall of approximately 3,800 people in the UK’s cyber security market. For the second year running, the workforce gap has remained markedly lower than our previous estimates, now 3,800, compared to 11,100 in 2023 and 14,100 in 2022. Focusing on the skills pipeline is incredibly important and something that the Government are backing.
Equally, the Government agree with the noble Baroness that regulatory authorities must have regard to the information and standards provided by the council. Indeed, we stated the need to align with council standards in the Government Cyber Action Plan. The Government have already worked with regulators to embed cyber security accreditation and professional standards into their guidance. We want to go further, which is why we intend to use the Bill’s powers to introduce security and resilience requirements in secondary legislation. These are designed to be consistent with the NCSC’s cyber assessment framework, and we propose that these requirements will address relevant training, skills and professional standards. We will consult on these proposals later in the year to ensure that the industries, large and small, covered by the regulated sectors will be able to feed back on this, as will the regulators which will be responsible in this area.
To the questions on SMEs raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, whether inside or outside, whether they are or are not regulated entities, SMEs have access to NCSC and cyber resilience centres. I am sure that we will go on shortly, in the context of the noble Baroness’s subsequent amendment, to discuss further support that we can provide to those SMEs.
We are very committed to the role and function of the UK Cyber Security Council as a wide-reaching and effective independent body, and we continue to support skills development in the UK. As such, we are not convinced that there is a need to put the council on a statutory footing at this stage.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister for her thoughtful reply and I thank other noble Lords for their support here. Clearly, we are all seeking to move in the same direction. There is a challenge and risks here that are incredibly important. Whether this is the right way forward, we will have to see.
I am very grateful to those organisations that fed into our Select Committee, which led me to table this amendment. This is an area that we will need to return to before Report, to look carefully at whether the drivers that the Minister has mentioned are sufficient. But at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“National cyber security support service for small and medium-sized enterprises (1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for the establishment and operation of a national cyber security support and incident response service for relevant small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), for the purpose of improving the security and resilience of their network and information systems.(2) The service established under this section must—(a) be free at the point of use, and(b) provide, in particular following a cyber incident affecting a relevant SME—(i) advice and technical assistance,(ii) incident response support, and(iii) guidance on recovery and remediation.(3) For the purposes of this section, a relevant SME is a small or medium-sized enterprise which is—(a) an operator of an essential service,(b) a relevant digital service provider,(c) a relevant managed service provider, or(d) a critical supplier,within the meaning of the NIS Regulations.(4) In establishing and operating the service the Secretary of State must have regard to comparable national cyber security support services operated in other jurisdictions.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a national, free-at-the-point-of-use cyber security support and incident response service for relevant SMEs, modelled on comparable overseas services such as the small-business support provided by the Australian Cyber Security Centre.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this amendment again comes out of the evidence submitted to our National Resilience Select Committee.
It has been reported that many SMEs think that they are too small to be a target. However, as was reported at Second Reading, government research shows that 50% of UK SMEs faced some kind of cyber breach or attack in 2025. It is also reported that, for many small businesses, a cyber incident can be existential and that roughly 60% of SMEs that fall victim to a cyber attack go out of business within six months.
In this amendment, I therefore seek to address the position of SMEs. Coming from the insurance sector, the Association of British Insurers feels that the Bill is narrow in scope and that
“large parts of the economy, including organisations that are economically significant due to their scale, interconnectedness or role in supply chains, will remain outside this regulatory perimeter. The Government’s approach to … these unregulated sectors relies primarily on voluntary governance mechanisms”,
including their new Cyber Governance Code of Practice. It feels that, without stronger incentives, measurement and accountability, there is a risk that it will not deliver consistent improvements. That is obviously concerning a number of people.
There are warnings—we know this—that cyber risk is inherently systemic. Disruption is rarely confined to a single organisation or sector but is increasingly transmitted through supply chains. As I mentioned in the previous group, according to the cyber security breaches survey, only 7% of UK businesses have formally reviewed the potential cyber security risks presented by the wider supply chain, so how do we bring in greater protection in a way that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, have just mentioned, does not overwhelm SMEs?
This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a national, free-at-point-of-use cyber security support incident response service for relevant SMEs, modelled on comparable overseas services, such as the small business support provided by the Australian Cyber Security Centre.
The ABI notes that the Bill rightly focuses on building resilience in our critical national infrastructure and that more must therefore be done to address the cyber resilience of SMEs. Not surprisingly, it is concerned about cyber insurance. It points out that the take-up of cyber insurance among UK SMEs is very low—somewhere between 10% and 40%—and argues that cyber insurance can help prevent and alleviate the impact of cyber attacks for SMEs. But, obviously, there is a cost to that. As cyber risks continue to grow, SMEs are typically more vulnerable and less well placed than larger businesses to respond to cyber threats due to overstretched resources, including IT and potential security and skills gaps.
We have to be careful to make sure that reporting is not too onerous for SMEs. It is suggested, for example, that maybe their reporting timelines should be not as short as those for bigger companies, and that there should be better clarification of what is an actual or suspected cyber incident, so that things which are not as significant do not, as it were, clog up the system. However, I think everybody agrees that we need to make sure that SMEs are better supported.
I welcome the fact that the Government have set up some support in this area. There is a cyber action toolkit, which was launched in March 2026 and includes a helpline, and a cyber adviser scheme, which offers a free 30-minute session. There is also a small business guide for response and recovery. But when you look at what they are suggesting, they are pushing companies towards the commercial market, so there is going to be a cost to that, and, down the line, towards fraud analysis and law enforcement. We know how challenging that is in so many areas, so it does not necessarily seem the most helpful or robust system.
The reason I mention the Australian cyber resilience service and have looked at what it does is that it goes further than we are now going, and I hope the Government will give thought to extending this in the way that the Australian system does. There is free, tailored, person-to-person support with two functions: helping small businesses assess and build resilience and helping them to recover after an incident, such as account compromise, phishing or ransomware, with case management and device remediation. It is much more supportive than what we currently have in the United Kingdom.
Clearly, much more needs to be done to ensure that SMEs are aware of the risks and do not simply wait until they have been hit, but also that they are actively assisted. That is important for them, but also for the wider economy, given how interlinked we all are. This is clearly an evolving area and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we can move this forward, given how significant it is. I beg to move.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I rise early to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, partly to spare the stress of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and also because there is a Liberal Democrat amendment imminent in the Chamber, although we of course will be abstaining—our solidarity with the Liberal Democrats does not extend too far.
However, it does extend to this amendment, which ties in well with the noble Baroness’s earlier amendment concerning qualifications. I was fascinated to hear her referring to the Australian cyber service, which I had not heard about before. I would be fascinated to know more and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other lessons there may be for us to learn from similar jurisdictions around the globe. I suspect the Canadians, for example, some of our European partners and some of the south-east Asian nations, such as Singapore or South Korea, will probably have very advanced and sophisticated bureaucracies, if I can put it that way, or institutions looking at the cyber threat.
Again, I shall address, rather than the technical detail of the noble Baroness’s amendment, the spirit in which it is brought and why it fits so well with her earlier amendment. It is about injecting a sense of urgency into how we raise our game in cyber in terms of our economy. When she mentioned the cyber action toolkit, it took me back to the days when I was one of the Cyber Ministers in the coalition Government. My responsibility was towards small businesses, and we launched endless small business toolkits, mainly because we wanted to say that we had launched a small business toolkit. We certainly never put in place any mechanisms for auditing its impact or success, and I think the constant references to about 7% of SMEs now having cyber policies in place may point to my abject failure in that role, and perhaps that of some of my successors.
The more I have listened to this debate, the more it takes me back to my childhood, when we would get leaflets about a possible nuclear conflagration. I know that Ministers and the Government are now telling people to stockpile water and baked beans because of the impact of El Niño, but we know that a cyber attack on the UK would cripple our economy and essential public services, so it is akin, given the geopolitical situation, to a national emergency.
The noble Baroness mentioned the views of the Association of British Insurers. Again, that was part of the toolkit. The feeling was that professional services would drive small businesses towards becoming more skilled in assessing their cyber risks, that you could not get insurance, or indeed cyber insurance, unless you had clear policies to deal with cyber attacks. With professional services firms, you could not necessarily get legal liability insurance for a data breach, which is not necessarily going to cripple your business but will affect your customers and therefore leave you open to liability, unless you could demonstrate that you had proper processes in place to protect your data. There is a whole ecosystem, it seems to me, that needs to be brought to bear to support the uptake of cyber skills and cyber audits by small businesses: we cannot be complacent and assume that 7% is an acceptable figure and that it should be allowed to evolve.
To a certain extent, the noble Baroness’s amendment is about the after-effects: if you suffer a cyber attack then you should be able to call on skilled people, whom we hope will have achieved the kind of recognised qualifications that the noble Baroness talked about earlier. She compared them to doctors but, when I thought about the amendment, I thought more about plumbers and electricians and the technical qualifications that you need to have to do a technical and difficult job.
We also need to look at what happens before. How do we increase the number of small businesses that put in place policies that will protect them from cyber attacks? That involves using the private sector, insurance companies and professional services firms to push forward clear protocols to which small business should be expected to adhere in order to receive the cover that they need to carry on doing business.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 100, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I spoke in support of this type of amendment at Second Reading and I still support its intentions, but I will give it an added twist. The question in my mind is where this resource for SMEs should sit and whether it should have any statutory powers or simply be an information and advisory centre.
There is no doubt that cyber security is needed—and here is another scary statistic—because 96% of all successful cyber attacks in the UK are perpetrated on SMEs, which represent soft targets for hackers. I suggest—here I take noble Lords back to day 1 of Committee— that this resource should sit within the office for cyber resilience proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Birt. Indeed, this is yet another example of the need to establish a body like an OCR, given the disturbingly fragmented approach to cyber security in this Bill.
Where can we sensibly draw the line between SMEs across all sectors and the rest of the business world? For instance, advice given to a medium-sized company with, say, 200 staff will overlap hugely with that given to a company with 2,000 staff. In the minds of the hackers and the ransomware merchants there is very little distinction. I argue that our economy needs a coherent, joined-up approach, run by a single competent authority with statutory teeth, for the benefit of SMEs and other companies and sectors.
I am afraid that, as it stands, this Bill is a recipe for chaos. Cooks and broth would be a kind analogy—there is barely any room in the kitchen for the number of departments, teams, councils, centres and agencies involved. The last count I heard was 30 or so, but I believe a few more have cropped up since.
Lord Birt (CB)
I think we all share the sympathy that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has identified SMEs need. There are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK and many of them—indeed, most of them—will purchase what are relatively complex platforms. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, is extremely experienced in the SME sector; I have less experience than him, but I do have some. Hardly any of them will be able to employ anybody who is able to understand either the complexity of the platform that they have purchased or the highly dynamic threats to that platform that exist. There are many ways in which we need to raise our game and to help.
I personally think that, at least in the short term, the most important thing, which we have not discussed enough so far, is to require providers to supply safe products and, moreover, when they become vulnerable—which happens all the time, often unexpectedly—to patch those products for their customers immediately. The providers have a level of sophistication that the customers do not, and we have insufficiently focused on that in our discussion so far.
The second thing to mention—this is not really part of the Bill—is that the Government’s Cyber Essentials programme is very sound. The Minister quoted a figure the other day, which I forget, but only a trivial number of businesses have signed up and taken the pledge. This needs much more publicity and much more dynamism from within government to raise the understanding of the level of threat that SMEs face.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 100, in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover, and will add my support to the very useful speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Birt and Lord Londesborough. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about the need to inject a sense of urgency into this. The noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Londesborough, asked some very fair questions, which went back to some of the debate we had on a single regulator and product liability, all of which are relevant to the kinds of duties that SMEs are under.
I welcome what the Minister had to say about the Government’s consciousness of the needs of SMEs, but this amendment would provide a blueprint for a much better form of support for SMEs. They account for 99% of all private sector businesses but, as the NCC Group and industry experts have repeatedly warned, they represent what might be described as the soft underbelly of our national supply chains. They are the prime targets for cyber criminals seeking a backdoor into critical infrastructure.
It is completely unrealistic to expect a 60-person small supplier to bear the same heavy compliance overheads as a multinational utility. A single ransomware attack can permanently destroy a small firm. Hostile state actors and ransomware syndicates are no longer focusing exclusively on attacking the fortified perimeters of FTSE 100 utilities or government departments; instead, they deliberately target smaller, resource-poor suppliers and niche contractors embedded in tier 2 or tier 3 of critical supply chains, using them as an easy, undefended backdoor into our critical national infrastructure.
Under the expanded critical supplier provisions in Clause 12 and the managed services duties in Clause 9, thousands of medium-sized businesses and specialised tech vendors will now be pulled directly into the statutory NIS regime, facing severe regulatory requirements under threat of multi-million pound penalties. However, as the Government’s own impact assessments acknowledge, there is a staggering what might be called resource asymmetry across UK businesses. A 50-person specialised component manufacturer or regional logistics provider does not have a dedicated chief information security officer or possess a 24/7 security operations centre and cannot afford to hire elite forensic incident response teams on £500-an-hour retainers. When a sophisticated ransomware attack hits a small business, it is frequently an existential event that forces insolvency.
During Committee stage in the Commons, when my honourable friend Freddie van Mierlo MP brought forward this proposal, the Minister in the Commons rejected it on the grounds that the Government already provide voluntary advice online. A downloadable PDF checklist on GOV.UK is not an incident response service. When a small critical supplier is locked out of its servers by a Russian ransomware gang at 2 o’clock on a Sunday morning, a generic website checklist is completely useless. It does not need advice to check its passwords; it needs an active, human, technical first responder to help it contain the malware, isolate compromised systems and safely recover its data.
Amendment 100 would bridge this capability gap by mandating a dedicated national support service modelled directly, as my noble friend explained, on the proven and globally respected Australian Cyber Security Centre’s framework. In Australia, the federal Government provide small and medium-sized businesses with free direct phone-in emergency technical support, active breach triage and hands-on recovery assistance. It has achieved extraordinary success in hardening Australia—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
To continue, if the state is going to impose heavy, legally binding supply chain security duties on small businesses, backed by turnover-based fines, the state has a moral and strategic obligation to provide the operational tools needed to meet those standards. By establishing a free, Australian-style digital safety net under Amendment 100, we would turn the Bill from a purely punitive compliance exercise into a genuine co-operative national partnership for cyber resilience, and I urge the Minister to accept this vital common-sense amendment.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her amendment and, needless to say, I support the intention behind it. It is clearly right that, having placed several new duties on businesses and their vendors, the Government consider how to ensure that they are able to carry them out. This is particularly the case for SMEs, which are often far less resilient, less well-resourced and more vulnerable to cyber attacks than their larger counterparts. But, when thinking through this idea, I was trying to come up with some sort of framework to estimate the costs of such a provision, and I just could not arrive at a satisfactory estimate, except that they would be very considerable, particularly given the urgency, complexity and difficulty of incident response.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others mentioned, providing advice on a government website is cheap and useful, but providing urgent incident response is far from cheap. That begs the question: would it be funded by the companies benefiting from this directly or the taxpayer? I am not sure that either is wholly satisfactory. The actual costs of running such a programme will depend largely on how it would operate and the terms of service it would offer. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for pointing to the Australian example; I confess that I was unaware of it before and would be interested to know what service it provides and to what level. It is incredibly hard to estimate how it will operate and what terms of service it will offer. The rate of cyber attacks is non-linear, the scale, nature and complexity of each attack will vary significantly and the number of staff needed or resources available for a response at any one time would necessarily be volatile and unpredictable.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for linking the issue of cyber security with wider questions on national resilience; she is absolutely right to situate it in that space. I also thank her for introducing the topic of the right amount of cyber security support for the SMEs regulated under the Bill; indeed, the discussion has led to SMEs that are not regulated under the Bill.
We know that SMEs require dedicated cyber security support. That is why there are a wide range of free tools, guidance and training to help SMEs implement cyber security measures. These resources are available to any business, not just those regulated under the regime. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, mentioned, this includes the Cyber Action Toolkit, designed to scale nationally to empower millions of small organisations through tailored cyber security advice with NCSC-certified cyber advisers. A number of noble Lords referenced the importance of Cyber Essentials, as well as insurance and incident response. If an SME with a turnover of less than £20 million has Cyber Essentials, it also has cyber insurance cover of up to £25,000. That incentive is intended to link the process of getting Cyber Essentials with the benefits of insurance. Likewise, SMEs get cyber incident support 24/7 with Cyber Essentials.
The noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Londesborough and Lord Birt, talked about the “push”. We are indeed encouraging, perhaps not pushing, the private sector to engage its supply chain through the cyber pledge, which is for entities outside the regulated scope. That is one of the key elements of the cyber pledge. Likewise, under the GCAP, the Government’s cyber action plan, Cyber Essentials, or equivalent, are needed for government procurements using official data. These are the mechanisms by which we are encouraging large organisations to look at their supply chains—on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made about the interconnectedness of all our organisations today—and encouraging the uptake of Cyber Essentials with these very tangible benefits.
I was asked a very fair question about the best way to provide cyber support to organisations. I heard at least one noble Lord say that SMEs do not like different provision. I think that many SMEs prefer—or, if asked, would request—local trusted advisers, which is exactly what the regional cyber resilience centres offer. They offer free support to SMEs across England and Wales, covering a wide range of services, such as incident response, a business continuity service and support with Cyber Essentials and security training.
The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, made a point about a central, monolithic model compared with these local or regional models. There is a lot of merit in a regional model that has some common standards but is located much nearer to the SMEs that it serves. I reiterate that small and micro-organisations are exempt from being regulated as relevant digital service providers or relevant managed service providers. They can be regulated only if they are operators of essential services or designated as a critical supplier, for which there is a high bar. On the picture raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we do not think that a huge number of small enterprises will be in scope of this legislation. All small businesses will benefit from the current provision, but they would not necessarily benefit from the model proposed by the amendment.
The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to international regimes. We are indeed aware of such schemes, such as the Australian Small Business Cyber Resilience Service. Many of the offerings that that service provides, such as tailored support and practical incident recovery support, already exist in the UK, as I have set out. We learn from international best practice, but we also tailor it to our local economy and the threats we see, to best support and meet the needs of UK businesses and interact with UK regulations.
I hope that I have set out that guidance for small and medium-sized organisations is already available through existing UK support. We are doing more to look at supply chains through discussions with large firms, through the GCAP and through this Bill. We think that a new dedicated service could divert resources from these existing services and potentially impact on their efficacy. On the central point that the noble Baroness started with, we absolutely agree with the importance of providing support to small and medium-sized enterprises under the Bill, ensuring that they have everything they need to be resilient and respond to incidents.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister, and I thank noble Lords for their support. This is clearly an area where we agree that there is a problem; we are very vulnerable in the United Kingdom. What we have in place is clearly not working sufficiently well if 60% of SMEs that are hit by cyber attacks go under. That is the context in which we ought to look at proposals that might seek to address that. We clearly need to take SMEs forward in a way that does not overburden them.
I hear the point about extending insurance cover. We can indeed take more than one track, but there is a cost to not supporting SMEs. If they are going to go under, that will be an economic cost to the country and, if we do not support them, they are likely to be hit by cyber attacks, taking them and others under anyway, with that effect upon our economy. Clearly, the Government agree—hence putting in place the measures that the Minister has outlined.
I am suggesting, from the evidence we have received, that this needs to go further and faster. We can discuss exactly how, but it is clear that this is an escalating problem and that we need to do more to tackle it. That is on the basis, in particular, of the concerns expressed to the National Resilience Committee on which I serve and which, as I say, gave me the idea of putting this amendment forward. I think that we will need to return to this, because it is a major problem, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Appeals against decisions under section 50(1) A person may appeal to the Upper Tribunal against—(a) a confirmation decision given to the person under section 50;(b) a decision under section 50 to require the person to pay a penalty;(c) the amount of a penalty which the person is required to pay under section 50.(2) An appeal under this section must be brought before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision appealed against was given to the person, or within such longer period as the Upper Tribunal may allow.(3) The Upper Tribunal must determine an appeal under this section on the merits and by reference to the matters before it, and not by applying the principles that would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.(4) On an appeal under this section the Upper Tribunal may—(a) confirm, vary or cancel the decision appealed against,(b) substitute for that decision any decision that the Secretary of State could have made, or(c) remit the matter to the Secretary of State with such directions as the Upper Tribunal considers appropriate.(5) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (1)(b) or (c), the requirement to pay the penalty is suspended until the appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.(6) Tribunal Procedure Rules must make provision, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, about—(a) securing that information is not disclosed where disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security,(b) the holding of proceedings, or of parts of proceedings, in the absence of a party or a party’s legal representative, and(c) the appointment of a person to represent the interests of a party in proceedings, or parts of proceedings, from which that party and that party’s legal representative are excluded.(7) Nothing in this section affects any right to apply for judicial review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would provide a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, on the merits, against a confirmation decision or a financial penalty imposed under section 50, with provision for the protection of national security material. It implements the recommendation of the Constitution Committee in its 3rd Report.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 148A stands in my name on the Marshalled List. This amendment would address a profound, structural and deeply disturbing gap in the judicial oversight and democratic accountability of the Bill. It represents a direct implementation of the authoritative recommendation of the Select Committee on the Constitution, in its third report of this Session.
Under Clause 50, the Secretary of State, acting as the direct enforcement authority for national security directions, is empowered to issue a unilateral confirmation decision that potentially imposes hugely significant financial penalties on non-compliant organisations. Under Clause 49, these penalties can reach a peak of up to £17 million or 10% of global turnover for commercial undertakings. Even for non-undertakings—such as our cash-strapped NHS trusts, local government authorities, or educational bodies—the penalty can be a crushing £17 million, with daily ongoing fines of up to £100,000 per day. Yet, under the Bill as currently drafted, the Government expect us to accept that the only avenue of legal recourse for an affected organisation to challenge these business-destroying fines is judicial review in the High Court.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, in addressing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I may increase his stress levels, unfortunately, as I oppose it. This means, I guess, that I am supporting the Government—that is, unless the Government are going to perform a volte-face in the face of the noble Lord’s strong arguments for a merits-based review of any decision reached by the First-tier Tribunal.
I do so because it brings back memories of when I was the telecommunications Minister and was, therefore, responsible for Ofcom. At the time, all Ofcom decisions were subject to a merits-based review in front of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which meant that, in effect, every decision it took regarding broadcasters or telecoms companies was reheard at appeal. As noble Lords can imagine, technical decisions on the charges being levied by wholesale carriers—or, in the case of Sky, the charges being levied on other broadcasters to carry, for example, the Premier League—were extremely complex, and Ofcom faced an army of lawyers deployed by those companies.
Without wishing to give away too many confidences—this was 10 years ago, so I do not think it is a matter of national security—Ofcom found itself extremely frustrated by all this. It was costing millions and millions of pounds. It was being used by commercial providers as a delaying tactic, a firepower tactic, almost, in order, understandably, to put off decisions that were not in their commercial favour. I initially resisted Ofcom’s blandishments to say that we should move away from merits-based appeals, partly because I thought that we would just start a whole new process of the courts feeling their way under the new system and would end up with a whole new set of delays as the courts had to make novel decisions under a novel regime.
However—one of the great telecom chief executives, my noble friend Lady Harding, has just walked into the Committee right on cue; I do not think, though, that she ever used her firepower in the cynical way that others did against Ofcom—the changes did go through. As far as I am concerned, although I have not done my homework properly, things have settled down into a straightforward process whereby a regulator makes a decision based on the facts and, if that decision can somehow be seen as unlawful by the company in question, it can be judicially reviewed.
It must be stressed that removing merits-based appeals would not remove the right of appeal. It seems fairly obvious to me that, as in civil and criminal cases, decisions would be arrived at based on the facts. However, if that decision were somehow so outside the normal judicial process of making a decision and so irrational, as it were—which is what judicial review exists to review—then it could be reviewed. That system should be consistent across regulatory appeals. I cannot necessarily comment on the effective points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the clandestine nature of some of the findings, but it may well be that, given the issues to do with cyber security, attacks on critical national infrastructure and so on, some elements of cases must be kept confidential. That is a matter for further debate, perhaps, but I would be extremely concerned if we were to go back to merits-based reviews for regulatory appeals.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this important group and all noble Lords for their contributions. Beginning with Amendment 148A, it is reasonable to suggest that there should be a further right to appeal, given that we are talking about potentially large penalties of £17 million or 10% of annual turnover. But, like my noble friend Lord Vaizey, I have concerns about whether the Upper Tribunal system can handle such a process. Right now, it has an open case load of over 800,000, which is a 19% year-on-year increase, and disposals have decreased by 4%. As such, I am hesitant to offer my support without being assured that further pressure will not be placed on tribunals and that this is a workable mechanism.
Amendments 174A and 174B, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the Secretary of State to establish a register of foreign powers posing a cyber security risk to this country, and to review and report on the extent of the risk posed by powers on that list. Part 4 gives the Secretary of State significant new powers to intervene where the use of vendors’ goods and services or facilities pose a risk to national security. We support that objective. A power of that kind is only as good as the intelligence that informs it. At present, the Bill is silent on how the Secretary of State is to identify, in a systematic and transparent way, which foreign powers actually present that risk.
Amendment 174A aims to fill that information gap, outlining a thorough set of criteria for inclusion: a state confirmed by GCHQ to have perpetrated or attempted a cyber attack against the UK in the preceding seven years—one directed at an operator of an essential service or a critical supplier and carried out through a state department, agency or affiliate—or a state that GCHQ has separately warned poses a risk to such systems.
The importance of ensuring that we are fully informed of foreign threats can hardly be overstated. Just this year, the NCSC’s chief executive reported that three-quarters of all attacks on our critical national infrastructure over the preceding 12 months were carried out by hostile states, with Russia, China and Iran named specifically. The NCSC’s annual review recorded 204 nationally significant incidents in the year to August 2025—more than double the previous year, with 18 rated highly significant.
For illustration, the cyber attack that last month shut down a British power plant is reported to have been committed by Iran-backed hackers. Over the course of the last Parliament and this one, China has targeted Parliament and compromised the Electoral Commission; Russia’s FSB has targeted British parliamentarians and successfully stolen and leaked politically sensitive documents; and Iranian state actors have targeted British politicians, Governments and defence with sustained cyber espionage campaigns.
We are seeing a surge in cyber attacks driven largely by foreign threats. If the Government are serious about security and resilience, tackling foreign interference must be a priority. As a start, a published criteria-based register would bring much-needed transparency and rigour to the process. Amendment 174B seeks to achieve such transparency. It would require the Secretary of State, for each foreign power added to the register, to conduct a review of the extent and nature of the risk that that power poses. It also includes a built-in safeguard for the Government: where the Secretary of State considers that laying their report would be contrary to national security interests, they may instead make a Statement to Parliament confirming that the review has taken place and explaining that it cannot be published. It attempts to strike a balance between accountability and the sensitivities that intelligence assessment of this kind will naturally carry.
I anticipate that the Minister may say that such a register already exists in substance within government and that formalising and publishing it risks informing those very powers of the extent of our knowledge. I gently observe that the amendment does not require publication of intelligence sources, substance or methods—only the fact of designation against published criteria and a review to assess the risk. Given the scale of the threat that the NCSC describes and, given the very significant powers that this part confers on the Secretary of State, I believe that Parliament is entitled to ask that those powers rest on a clear, evidenced and reviewable basis. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments, starting with Amendment 148A, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which indeed is in line with the recommendation from the Constitution Committee, which I thank for its report and its detailed scrutiny of this legislation.
As the noble Lord points out, Part 4 enables the Secretary of State to issue penalties for regulated entities that do not comply with directions. The High Court will have jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of a particular penalty issued under Part 4. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, referred to precedent and consistency. Our assessment is that the High Court is the appropriate route for hearing sensitive national security cases, consistent with the approach that previous Governments have taken to national security legislation. The Telecommunications (Security) Act, the National Security and Investment Act, and the Procurement Act, key pieces of national security legislation, all follow this approach. That is the reason we have adopted it here.
To the point around parliamentary scrutiny of directions, the Government’s default position is that copies of directions will be laid in Parliament, to enable all parliamentarians to scrutinise the Government’s use of these powers. I am of course preparing a formal response to the Constitution Committee, which will be sent in due course.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I resume with Amendments 174A and 174B, which were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. They would require the Secretary of State to create a register of “foreign powers” that pose a threat to UK cyber security, to review this register and to lay the report in Parliament. This is intended to inform the use of the powers granted under Part 4 of the Bill. The noble Lord is right that hostile foreign actors pose a clear risk to our essential services. National security is the first responsibility of any Government, which is why we are addressing these risks actively, including through the Bill.
The Bill will grant the Secretary of State important new powers to issue national security directions to regulated entities or regulators, where their compromise poses a national security risk. We will seek to strengthen the Government’s national security toolkit further, to protect our supply chains from hostile actors. That is why we put forward a package of amendments to introduce new powers that would enable the UK to address vendor-related cyber risks by hostile actors in our critical infrastructure supply chains. I look forward to engaging noble Lords further on this essential package ahead of Report.
Any decision to use the powers in the Bill will be informed by expert national security advice, including from GCHQ. The direction powers provide a strategic case-by-case basis to safeguarding our national security, irrespective of the specific actor. As a result, a country-specific approach lacks the nuance required to assess and respond comprehensively to all relevant risks. We also need to proceed responsibly in how we categorise and present these risks in the public sphere.
That is not to say that we shirk transparency about these kinds of risk. The Government are already able to communicate with Parliament and the public about such cyber risks where it is appropriate to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, set out, the NCSC annual report highlights risks posed by foreign actors; we work with the NCSC to mitigate these risks.
I note that noble Lords have confronted this question before, notably during the passage of the Telecommunications (Security) Act, where there was cross-party support for vendors to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, rather than by designating nations themselves as hostile actors. I hope that, in that vein, noble Lords are reassured that the Government have the tools to act strategically, acting on the right intelligence where hostile states seek to do us harm.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response and the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Markham, for their contributions. I cannot help feeling that the approach to this by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is coloured by his history as a Minister. I can understand that because I saw the frustration within Ofcom over the type of judicial review. It was a particular type of judicial review: it was not a full merits-based appeal, but it allowed merits to be considered as part of the judicial review process. Subsequently, that was changed, which has probably calmed the way in which appeals are carried on.
However, in this particular case, although he said that he was not sighted as to the secrecy aspects of this, it was quite interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Markham, had to say. He started by saying that he supported the amendment, then—rather coloured, I think, by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—he did a bit of a U-turn halfway through what was a speech originally written in support. I am sure that he knows in his heart that this is the right one.
Really, the argument in this case is expediency versus justice. I think that choosing expediency, especially in the light of what the Constitution Committee had to say, would be extremely inadvisable. I was encouraged by the fact that the Minister is producing a memorandum in response to the Constitution Committee; we all wait with bated breath for when that arrives. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I cannot call Amendment 153 as it is an amendment to Amendment 152.
Clause 55: Laying before Parliament
Lord Clement-Jones
“Computer Misuse Act 1990: statutory defence for cyber security activities(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, carry out and publish a review of whether the introduction of a statutory defence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (unauthorised access to computer material) for persons carrying on legitimate cyber security activities is necessary or desirable to improve the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider, in particular—(a) the position of cyber security researchers, vulnerability testers and threat-intelligence practitioners acting in good faith,(b) the conditions and safeguards (including as to authorisation, proportionality and reporting) that any such defence should contain, and(c) the approaches taken in other jurisdictions.(3) On concluding the review, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report which sets out—(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and(b) whether the Secretary of State intends to bring forward proposals for such a statutory defence, and, if so, the intended timetable for doing so.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to review, within 12 months, whether a statutory defence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 for good-faith cyber security researchers and vulnerability testing is needed to improve the UK’s cyber resilience, and to report to Parliament.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 164 is in my name and, I am delighted to say, that of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom. Sadly, he is tied up next door with matters of national security—I hope that I am not giving away any secrets—and is unable to speak to this amendment, but I value the support that he has given as a long-standing campaigner for changes to the Computer Misuse Act.
This amendment addresses a long-standing, globally recognised and increasingly dangerous absurdity in our criminal law: the fact that our primary cyber crime statute, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, criminalises the very cyber security professionals who are actively working to defend our country. The Computer Misuse Act is now 36 years old. It was drafted in 1990—an era before the world wide web had entered public consciousness, when less than 0.5% of the British public had ever sent an email and when the entire concept of proactive, ethical vulnerability research was completely unimagined. Because the Act was drafted at such a primitive stage of the digital revolution, it contains a blanket, indiscriminate prohibition on all unauthorised access to computer material. In its current form, it draws no legal distinction whatever between a malicious hacker, backed by a hostile foreign state and seeking to sabotage our critical national infrastructure, and an ethical, good-faith cyber security researcher—a “white hat” hacker, if you like—seeking to discover and responsibly disclose vulnerabilities before criminals can exploit them.
The real-world consequence of this statutory blind spot is that British cyber defenders are forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Consider the day-to-day operational reality: if an ethical researcher in the UK scans an internet-facing network, identifies a critical zero-day vulnerability that leaves an NHS hospital dataset or a municipal water control system exposed, and takes the basic technical steps necessary to verify the flaw, they have technically committed a criminal offence under Section 1 of the 1990 Act. They face prosecution and imprisonment, even if their actions were undertaken entirely in good faith, strictly in the public interest and followed by immediate responsible disclosure to the National Cyber Security Centre or the affected operator.
I and others have received overwhelmingly passionate representations from the CyberUp campaign, representing what might be described as the elite of our domestic cyber security industry. Alongside the Criminal Law Reform Now Network and the NCC group, its evidence is stark. It says that the chilling effect of the Computer Misuse Act is actively undermining our national cyber resilience. Leading UK cyber security companies are routinely forced to prohibit their researchers conducting proactive threat intelligence gathering and vulnerability research on UK-based infrastructure because the legal risks are unacceptable. When British researchers identify an active cyber threat originating abroad, they are legally constrained from investigating the command and control servers if doing so involves touching a remote system without explicit owner authorisation.
Meanwhile, our international competitors have moved ahead. The United States updated its Department of Justice charging policies explicitly to protect good-faith security research. Countries such as Portugal, France and Australia have established clear and legal safe harbours for ethical cyber defenders. As a direct result, British cyber talent and commercial investment are migrating overseas to jurisdictions where proactive defence is recognised as a public good, rather than a criminal act.
During the Bill’s passage in the other place and during our Second Reading debate, the Government’s response was to agree with the principle of reform while arguing that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. Ministers pointed to an ongoing Home Office review and suggested that reform must wait for a hypothetical future security Bill. We have been waiting for the outcome of that Home Office review for more than five years; it was kicked into the long grass of Whitehall interdepartmental delays while our critical network remained under siege.
There is potentially a contradiction at the heart of the Government’s strategy on this issue. On one hand, Ministers are using this Bill to impose sweeping new legal duties and heavy, turnover-based penalties on operators to secure their networks; on the other hand, the Government continue to criminalise the very security professionals and ethical researchers whom these operators must hire to test and harden their systems.
Amendment 164 would resolve this contradiction cleanly, decisively and safely. It seeks to insert a direct substantive statutory defence into Sections 1 and 3 of the CMA. An individual charged under the Act would have a complete legal defence if they can prove that their conduct was reasonable for the detection or prevention of crime, or that they were carrying on legitimate cyber security activities, specifically defined in the Bill as vulnerability research, penetration testing, threat intelligence-gathering or a responsible disclosure necessary to safeguard system security.
Crucially, this amendment would not create a free-for-all or a loophole for malicious actors. It would empower the Secretary of State to approve a statutory code of practice, setting out the precise standards, rules of engagement and reporting protocols that constitute legitimate, good-faith cyber security activity. Anyone who acts outside those clear standards remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. Let us also consider the significant economic dividend of this reform. Independent economic modelling from the CyberUp Campaign demonstrates that introducing a statutory defence for legitimate cyber security activities would add 9,500 high-skilled, high-wage jobs and generate £2.5 billion in additional revenue for the UK economy.
We cannot build a resilient nation by preserving laws written for the floppy disk era. In an age of automated AI exploits and state-sponsored ransomware, we must unchain our cyber defenders. We have been here before, and the Government’s arguments for delay have run completely out of road. During our debates and correspondence on the then Crime and Policing Bill and, previously, the then Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government repeatedly acknowledged the strength of our case. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, stood at the Dispatch Box and conceded that the Computer Misuse Act is dangerously outdated and that the Home Office were actively preparing a statutory defence under Section 1 to protect ethical cyber security researchers. Indeed, in correspondence following those debates, Ministers confirmed that engagement with industry and system owners was well advanced, but their stock excuse for resisting our amendments was always the same: “This is the wrong legislative vehicle. Wait for the upcoming cyber security legislation”. Well, here we are—this is the cyber security and resilience Bill. If primary cyber legislation cannot fix the statute that actively criminalises our front-line cyber defenders, what on earth can?
When the Government updated law enforcement powers under the Crime and Policing Act to seize domains and IP addresses, Ministers were quick to assure us that police powers are tightly bound by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and statutory exemptions under Section 10 of the CMA. Yet independent security researchers, who discover over half of all critical system vulnerabilities before hostile state actors can weaponise them, enjoy zero statutory protections. They are left entirely at the whim of prosecutorial discretion and the threat of catastrophic legal action. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, recommended this defence three years ago. The CyberUp Campaign and techUK have drafted the ethical safeguards. In correspondence, Ministers have told us that they agree in principle. It is time to honour those commitments and put a direct statutory defence in this Bill. I urge the Minister to support this vital amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whether technically or in spirit. He is right to point out how outdated the Computer Misuse Act is and that its blanket prohibition on undertaking cyber security activities without any public interest defence is ridiculous.
The noble Lord’s amendment goes to the heart of the frustrations that have been expressed in debates on this Bill, particularly at Second Reading; sadly, I was not able to attend Committee last week, but I imagine they were reiterated again. This is an incremental and technical Bill that clears up some important anomalies. Time and time again, noble Lords have raised the point that it is missing the bigger picture. Now that we live in a digital age when absolutely everything depends on digital infrastructure, it seems to be absolutely extraordinary that we are not taking a much bigger view on updating our legislation, institutions, resources and skill base, to make this core infrastructure fit for purpose. It seems extraordinary to me that the Computer Misuse Act has not been touched for 36 years. It is well out of date. It may well be that there are other elements of it that have to be looked at.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, the campaign to reform the Computer Misuse Act is at least 10 years old, not just five. We—including me—have been working to try to get the provision that is contained in the amendment before us from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I endorse every single word that he said; he put the case precisely as it needed to be set out. It is absolutely anomalous that we still have this legislation on the statute book, and we need an update to it.
We need to put our researchers, and those who help to protect us and keep us safe, in a safe position themselves, which they are not at the moment. They are subject to potential criminal prosecution, which is stupid and a great disincentive to doing what needs to be done. I very much hope that the Minister will be persuaded to take this opportunity—not to reject it—to put a clause, even if it needs modification to a form that the Government approve of, in this legislation.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which he so comprehensively set out. I did not mention this at Second Reading because I thought it was so self-evidently sensible that this needed to be fixed. I should know better, having been in this place for a decade, than to assume that something will happen just because it is self-evidently sensible.
The last three days in Committee have been rather depressing—my noble friend Lord Vaizey is lucky he was not here last week, although he managed to give an excellent speech that suggested he had at least been following us in Hansard or on TV—because it has been so clear that the most important issues are not being addressed in the Bill. This seems like something simple to fix. There are much bigger issues, such as the complete gaping hole of the absence of AI and the huge complexity of all the different regimes that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, set out. I am of the view that you cannot wait for the perfect, and there is a real risk that we are letting perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a straightforward and sensible proposal that I think the Government previously agreed with, but it was just not the right time. Surely, now is the time for us to do things rather than keep kicking the can down the road.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, one of the advantages of being in this Committee Room for these debates in Committee is that I can use Claude—I hope that is allowed—to answer the question of what the cyber security community thinks about the Computer Misuse Act. The answer comes back in bold. I will read just the paragraph in bold: “The UK cyber security community’s view is that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is dangerously out of date and reform efforts so far do not go far enough”. I rest my case.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, whom I see in his place. I am sorry he was unable to attend the beginning of this debate, but we are told it was for very good reasons. I will not try to reproduce the many overwhelmingly powerful arguments that we have heard in favour of this amendment, which, on these Benches, we are also keen to support—as we support any measure on the basis that it would help organisations to protect themselves and their systems.
Penetration testing and the wonderfully named bug bounties are excellent ways to identify and address the more technically difficult vulnerabilities before they are exploited. Take one of the most widely used apps anywhere: Google Chrome, which has found that external researchers were responsible for almost a third of its patched and communicated vulnerabilities. The Government’s own consultation included respondents arguing that the Computer Misuse Act prevents cyber professionals, consumer groups and researchers undertaking this kind of legitimate public interest activity.
The amendment is wholly sensible in its design, in that it does not commit the Government to action but begins the conversation on this small but hugely important and valuable change, supported avidly, as we have heard, by everybody—more or less—within the cyber industry. It would explicitly condone good faith researchers and sanction ethical hackers to carry out their work. I cannot imagine why it would not at least be worth reviewing such a change on this basis.
I have some unsatisfied curiosity, as there are no published statistics showing how many Computer Misuse Act investigations, prosecutions or convictions involve good faith cyber security researchers, so it is hard to know how much of a dampening effect on ethical hacking the CMA is currently having. If any of the signatories to the amendment, or of course the Minister herself, could shed any statistical light on that, I would be most grateful. As I said, this amendment would allow all such considerations to be taken into account without committing the Government and, as such, I strongly support it.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this topic through his amendment, and I recognise the strength of feeling on reforming the Computer Misuse Act. I agree that the UK should have the right legislative framework to allow us to tackle the threats posed by cyber criminals.
The Home Office has already carefully reviewed the Computer Misuse Act and proposes to introduce a defence to Section 1 for accredited cyber security researchers when carrying out certain cyber security activity that would currently be unlawful under Section 1 of the CMA. The Home Office has worked closely with the NCSC, law enforcement and the cyber security industry to refine these proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was briefed by Home Office officials on these proposals in February, and I hope this is able to demonstrate meaningful progress that the Government are making on this issue. The Home Office recognises that legislating in this area is a priority and will do so as parliamentary time allows. As noble Lords here are all aware, the King’s Speech in May included a commitment to a national security Bill, with measures to update the Computer Misuse Act, and work is ongoing to bring forward this legislation.
The review proposed by this particular amendment would be undesirable because it would be limited to the scope of the NIS regulations. This would be too narrow for the scope of the Computer Misuse Act; it is also unlikely to provide the Government with new information on how the Act should be reformed. I am sure that the noble Lord and others in this Room will be active in the passage of this legislation once introduced. I have read his correspondence with the Home Office, including the activities that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, referenced, and his expertise across all these areas will be hugely welcomed once it is introduced.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said that we know what the Minister will say: that it will be in a future piece of legislation. To that extent, we are pleased that at least we have a commitment to it, but this has been going on for an awfully long time. We tabled amendments during the passage of the Crime and Policing Act and the Data (Use and Access) Act. There has been plenty of time for the Home Office, or any other department to address this—DSIT could have taken this by the scruff of the neck—because it is such an egregious aspect of the current legislation.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister has read the correspondence. I hope she did not fall asleep while doing so; it is pretty interminable. She may well find that we come back to this on Report because, as she said at the beginning, feelings are running high about it. It is almost a demonstration of how not to run a Government. If you cannot get to grips with something as straightforward and important as this and just make a decision about it, that speaks volumes.
I thank noble Lords who have spoken today and demonstrated support across the board. On a light-hearted note, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, that of course Claude said that; it is trained on my speeches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, this is self-evidently sensible. The trouble is, it is self-evident to us, but we despair sometimes, and the perfect must not be the enemy of the good. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said, the objective is to put researchers in a safe position.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, exhorted me to make sure that we have a date and a timeline. When will the national security Bill come forward? We saw it in the King’s Speech but I have had no contact from anybody in the Home Office about what they might insert in the Bill. I do not know whether anybody in this Committee has had notice of when a Bill might come forward. I think the Minister recognises the sheer impatience that most of us feel in this field, and I very much hope that, between Committee and Report, we can get some more clarity in this area for the benefit of all those researchers. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
“Increasing resilience by reducing data retention(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, open a consultation on the potential impact of minimising data collection and increasing data anonymisation on the resilience to cyber attack of relevant public bodies. (2) In this section, “relevant public bodies” are public bodies that are operators of essential services or digital service providers under the NIS Regulations or this Act.”
Lord Markham (Con)
Amendment 174E in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Holmes builds on the point I made in the debate last Thursday that the best defence in cyber is, of course, not to present an attractive target in the first place.
I go back to my experience of the Synnovis hack when I was Health Minister. The reality was that it did not need to hold any of the detail or data that it had in the first place. When you are doing a diagnostic test of someone, you do not need to know their name; there can be a serial number that can be matched up later. Not only did Synnovis have names, it had whole medical records going back years and years, and there was no deletion policy either. The whole reason that it was an attractive target was its very sloppy standards in the data it held and its retention policy.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, despite the fact that this is the last group, it is a really important area and this amendment rightly reflects that. We strongly support Amendment 174E. It would introduce a fundamentally elegant and highly necessary cyber security principle that the Bill has otherwise completely ignored: that of data minimisation and the proactive reduction of what is called our national data attack surface.
The most sophisticated cyber defence system in the world cannot protect data that has already been stolen. Conversely, the most ruthless ransomware gang or hostile state-sponsored actor cannot compromise data that was never collected or which has already been securely deleted. In the realm of digital defence, we must move past the narrow defensive mindset of simply building thicker walls around our databases. We must begin to ask a more fundamental strategic question: why are we keeping these massive, un-anonymised and highly vulnerable data honeypots in the first place?
The empirical evidence from our public sector is deeply alarming. We have received detailed and coruscating briefings from the Centre for Long-Term Resilience and our technical authorities. The National Audit Office’s January 2025 report on government cyber resilience revealed that approximately 28% of government technology is legacy software, leaving our public bodies highly vulnerable to attack.
Consider the catastrophic ransomware attack on the British Library in October 2023. When the library refused to pay a ransom of 20 bitcoins, the Rhysida ransomware group released 600 gigabytes of stolen customer and staff data on to the dark web. The library’s own subsequent post-mortem was clear: its reliance on legacy applications and older network designs substantially and unnecessarily increased the volume of sensitive customer data sitting on the network. This was data hoarding, plain and simple, and the price was paid by the British citizens whose personal details are now permanently compromised.
Consider the hack by ExfilSquad, when normal teenagers living with their parents managed to breach a public database, leaking the sensitive personal details of 100,000 police officers and staff on the dark web, alongside data from the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education. How did they do it? They did not deploy supercomputers or advanced zero-day exploits, they simply exploited a basic, misconfigured Power Pages database. The hackers’ own boast on the dark web was chilling. They said the data was accessible without any authentication whatever.
Why are these databases so large? Because our public bodies routinely collect and indefinitely retain vast, sprawling, unanonymised datasets, from birth certificates and benefit records to housing benefits and electoral roles, without any systematic statutory drive to minimise or anonymise them. That is why the Association of British Insurers and the NCSC both advise that data encryption and data minimisation are critical to reducing the leverage that a threat actor has in ransomware attacks. By rendering exfiltrated data unreadable through encryption—or better yet, non-existent through deletion—we take away the hackers’ ammunition.
While the Bill focuses heavily on the administrative paper exercise of incident reporting, it remains completely silent on the contents of the databases themselves. Amendment 174E would provide a strategic corrective. It would legally oblige the Secretary of State to open a public consultation within one month of the Bill’s passing to evaluate the cyber-resilience benefits of minimising data collection and increasing data anonymisation across our public bodies. By forcing our public sector to lead by example, this amendment could begin the vital work of shifting the UK towards a genuine resilience-by-design model. It would reduce our vulnerability, harden our national defences and protect the digital lives of our citizens. I urge the Minister to accept this vital safeguard.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for raising this important issue again. Good data hygiene and security is essential to ensuring that public bodies are resilient to cyber attacks. Through the Bill, we are better protecting data, to make our essential services safer and more secure for all those who rely on them. This includes through security and resilience requirements, which will form part of the duties placed on regulated entities and which I have mentioned at previous sittings of this Committee. In our consultation later this year, we will propose that these requirements cover data security.
Let me emphasise that where personal data is concerned, all public bodies must already comply with the data protection principles in the UK GDPR. This includes requirements to keep personal data secure, process only the minimum amount needed to deliver their objectives, periodically review whether this data is relevant and adequate for the public body’s purposes and not to retain this data for longer than is necessary. The Information Commission regulates the data protection legislation independently of the Government. It has a range of powers at its disposal to investigate alleged breaches and require public bodies to address non-compliant practices.
Significant obligations exist under the UK GDPR. In addition, our upcoming consultation will examine measures to strengthen data security within the security and resilience regulations. A separate consultation, as proposed by the noble Lord, would not be a good route through, but it would be a good idea for us to meet and think about the most appropriate route for advice on data security in the context of the SRRs. I suggest that we focus our discussion on the SRRs in the intervening period.
As this is the last time I will speak in Committee, I want to reflect on some of the points made by noble Lords. Obviously, productivity and growing the UK economy are big themes for all of us. It is true that we have progressed through Committee faster than perhaps people anticipated, but I have heard very clearly the points that have been made very succinctly, both on fundamental structural issues—to which, as I have said, I think the approach in the Bill is right, I am just logging the fact that I have absolutely heard the motivation for that, around consistency and so on—and indeed on some of the more technical points that noble Lords have made about some of the details of the Bill, some of which I have already undertaken to come back on.
I thank the Committee for its scrutiny and noble Lords for the experience they have brought to the Committee from their practical walks of life.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
In the spirit of her final remarks on the Bill overall, is the Minister able to give any update as to when the national cyber action plan might emerge?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I have nothing further to add what I have said in previous sittings.
Lord Markham (Con)
Nice try. I will get the final word then. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his strong support. Honey pot is a very descriptive and apt term for it. I thank the Minister for her comments and will definitely take up her offer of a meeting. I must admit that the responses she gave were almost exactly the responses that the NHS gave to me on all this, so she is absolutely right: everything is being kept under GDPR. Data security and how that is held were mentioned quite a few times, but I did not hear anything about data minimisation and why we are collecting or keeping it in the first place. That is a gap in all of this because, as I said, a lot of this data does not need to be held or gathered in that way. It is just basic discipline. I would very much like to take up that offer on how we can do that, because—perhaps the Minister can look at this ahead of our meeting—I do not think this issue is addressed anywhere in the Bill.
I do get the last word. I thank everyone who has taken part in this. There have been a number of important issues raised. I really appreciate the willingness of the Minister to engage, and I know there are a number of follow-up meetings that I think we will all want, because there is a lot that we need to work on between now and Report to make sure that the Bill really gives us the sort of protection we would all hope to have. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness McAnea
Introduction: Lord Smith of Ranmoor
Retirement of a Member: Lord Wilson of Dinton
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from yesterday, of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Neighbourhood Health Services
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to measure the success of neighbourhood health services in reducing demand for hospital care and improving access to primary care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, success will be measured against five minimum national goals in the neighbourhood health framework, which was published in March 2026. That will include improved access to general practice and better urgent and emergency care performance. Integrated care boards and local authorities will establish locally owned neighbourhood plans with metrics that reflect population needs. An independent national evaluation, which will be commissioned through the NIHR, started this April to support national policy and delivery of neighbourhood health and evaluate its adoption and uptake.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. She set out the government policy, which states that local health and well-being boards will work with communities, health and care organisations and wider partners to establish outcome measures that cover the whole life course of the individual and reflect both health and social care needs. Can the Minister say how, bearing in mind the wider devolution agenda, the Government will measure neighbourhood health outcomes to allow for effective comparison between regions?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness set out exactly what the plan is, and I am grateful to her for doing so, but I emphasise that the whole point of the independent national evaluation is that it will evaluate the whole breadth of neighbourhood health. It started in April and will run for three years. I further emphasise that it is about continual engagement and developing different ways that neighbourhood health can be successful. It will also model what the long-term outcomes and improvements can be, depending on how you do it. All that will mean working with the local ICBs to see about their progress, but they are well aware of the expectations upon them, and they will set their own ways forward.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, if neighbourhood health services are to succeed, more care will be delivered through general practice and community settings, yet NHS funding allocated to general practice has fallen over the last decade. Will the Government consider introducing a primary care investment standard to ensure primary care can grow in line with this ambition?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We do not intend to bring forward the investment standard that the noble Baroness seeks. I am aware that a discussion is going on—probably as we speak—through the Health Bill, which is about to be introduced to your Lordships’ House. That is about increasing accountability and responsiveness to local needs and improving outcomes. I say to the noble Baroness that our fear is that bringing in yet another approach, through an investment standard, risks undermining that.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, since 1948, successive Governments have shifted care into the community without a simultaneous shift of people, estates or money. We have just heard that general practice now receives its lowest share of the NHS budget for a decade. Will the Minister agree to address this so that GPs can deliver continuity of care, which we know improves access, reduces demand, improves outcomes and fundamentally delivers better value for money?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that that is what I feel the whole neighbourhood approach to the NHS is. As she is aware, it is about joining up around the person and bringing together teams, including GPs. It is important to acknowledge outcomes: we have delivered nearly 14 million additional appointments through GPs in the year to June 2026, and patient satisfaction is going up with GP access. We need to look at what the situation is as well as the concerns.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most important contributions of a neighbourhood health service is in the preventive work that it does—things like exercise, smoking cessation, addiction counselling, and so on. Does my noble friend agree that it is important to measure those aspects, which reduce further the demand for hospital and primary care services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly do agree with my noble friend, who sets out what is at the core of this key shift, which is one of three. There are many examples. The service in Kensington, Chelsea and North Paddington has already supported people to access the right care in the right way. It has seen a reduction of over a third in GP appointments, of over two-thirds in A&E attendances and of over half in sick notes issued, with residents reporting a 40% increase in well-being. That is what can happen when we join up around the person.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s continuation with the initiatives taken by the previous Government to develop much greater online activity and contact between patients and their GPs, but how do we deal with people who are particularly vulnerable, particularly the elderly—those who do not have direct access to online activity? How can they be looked after or helped to be in touch with the new facilities that are going to be available?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As this will be locally led, the priority groups will be those who are more excluded, and that may well include those who are digitally excluded. But the noble Lord makes an important point. It is not just about local care in a physical sense—indeed, we have already committed to over 120 neighbourhood care centres—but it is also about digital access, because that is how many people now access it. However, in every single case, if someone cannot, there is an alternative for them.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. The Minister will recognise that, increasingly, pathways of care for the management of chronic diseases will extend across institutional boundaries, both in primary and secondary care, and will be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of different healthcare professionals. Is she content that the present regime for regulation, both institutional and professional, will facilitate that cross-institutional delivery of care and care delivered by multidisciplinary teams?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As we develop neighbourhood provision, bring care closer to home and join up as the noble Lord suggested, it is key that the regulatory framework supports that as well as all the other work. We are ensuring that the regulators are able to do that. Dr Penny Dash recently did a review and we are looking at what more needs to be done.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean for the Question, but I want to go back to points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Gerada. Successive Governments have spoken about the shift from hospital to community, but one reason it has not always happened is that there has not been a commensurate or corresponding shift in the funding. I therefore ask the Minister once again: what consideration are the Government giving to rebalancing existing funding—I stress “existing”—to deliver that shift from hospital to community?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
First, we are investing where it is needed, particularly on new estates and on improvement support. We are also asking ICBs to refocus their existing resources. This is not just tinkering; it is a fundamental shift—one of the three main shifts—to deliver neighbourhood health, which people very much welcome. We are also creating financial incentives. We are creating—the national evaluation will assist us more with this—funding flows and payment mechanisms, which means that savings from improved quality of care will then go into investment in new services. I say to the noble Lord that that has not always been the case in the past.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we know, and it is very well researched, that people with learning disabilities face enormous barriers in access to primary health care and have lower life expectancy as a result. Can the Minister assure me that these neighbourhood health services will ensure that screening and support for people with learning disabilities will be embedded in this service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly can. To support that, the prevalence review, which focuses particularly on mental health services for those in the group that the noble Baroness describes, will soon come forward with its report, which will help us greatly. Certainly, there are priority cohorts, which are listed by definition, but localities can add cohorts. I very much expect that the group to which she refers would absolutely be a priority.
Public/Private Partnerships
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the 10-year infrastructure strategy sets out our approach to private finance and infrastructure through a range of approaches. Public/private partnerships are one model, and the strategy sets out the circumstances in which these are considered. The 2025 Budget considered that public/private partnerships would be available for neighbourhood health centres and projects decarbonising the public sector estate. The Government will carefully consider the most appropriate model for each project to ensure value for money. All this is to be overseen by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, or NISTA.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I am pleased to hear today that the Chancellor has mentioned the possibility of involving mayors in these investment programmes. Can my noble friend ensure that we do some further work to keep the momentum going and that we look at the possibility, on the private side, of starting to offer shares to the public to participate in PPPs? Secondly, in furtherance of that, can we involve the Opposition in this too, so that we have joint partnership in getting greater investment?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We committed to getting Britain investing again to support our wider economy. In April, we launched targeted support with a new regulatory regime to improve access to financial guidance, moved the long-term asset fund into the stocks and shares ISA and welcomed the industry-led Invest for the Future campaign and risk warnings review to promote the benefits of investing to the public. The Invest for the Future awareness campaign has pointed out that more and more people are willing to invest their money rather than keeping it in cash ISAs. I confirm to my noble friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced this morning that regional mayors will be involved as strategic partners in the delivery of the National Wealth Fund.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, will the Government speed up the identification of suitable projects and the granting of the necessary permissions? There is plenty of private capital that could help the Government. Will they make sure that enough risk is transferred to protect taxpayers’ interests?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some very good points. I do not know whether the noble Lord heard the Chancellor’s speech earlier today, but that is one of the things he wants to do: he wants to break down all the regulation, look at ways of investing more money into infrastructure, et cetera, and make sure that investment is there from the private sector. The National Wealth Fund has £27.8 billion in it, but we want to ensure that it releases £100 billion of investment over five years.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, so many PFIs and PPPs were inappropriate, poorly negotiated and cost the taxpayer a fortune. Frankly, they were motivated primarily to keep debt off the public books. Surely it is time to draw a line under those frameworks and update that approach with a much better record, such as joint ventures, concessions and targeted capital collaborations, as well as tackling the overall weakness in government procurement.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness has got the wrong end of the stick. We are not going to go back to the PFI contract system that we had in the past and which came to an end in about 2018. However, we are going to learn the lessons of what happened with PFI about flexibilities on contracts, investment and transparency, for example. It is also fair to say that where the PFI worked best, it gave us more schools, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, and it helped us with Sure Start. It had some good points and we should not throw it all out just because there were some issues. We will learn from that and invest in a way that protects the public purse.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that there are still some issues with PFI contracts, particularly with hospitals. Can he confirm the scale of the debt that hospitals are still burdened with because of PFI? What are the Government going to do to renegotiate those contracts and, if possible, renege on them?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
There is no possibility that we are going to go back to PFI, as I said. We have learned the lessons from that. I am not quite sure about the figure of total expenditure that is out there—I think there were some 700-odd projects, of which 600 are still in progress. We are going to make sure, when we invest using public and private money, such as in neighbourhood health centres, that public money goes to the best rewards. For example, there are going to be 250 neighbourhood health centres, of which 120 are due to be completed by 2030 and all 250 will be completed by 2035. That is good news that should be celebrated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that where some PFI projects went wrong it was usually because the people negotiating the contract at the local level on behalf of the public sector did not have the expertise to do so effectively? However, as a result of public/private partnerships between 1997 and 2010 in the NHS, we built 100 new hospitals. I therefore ask my noble friend: can we expect to see, as a result of what the Chancellor has said today, a big expansion in capital expenditure with public/private partnerships?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We will deploy public/private partnerships where it is in the best interest of the Exchequer and of the public to do so, because we need to protect taxpayers’ money. My noble friend is absolutely right, however, that we benefitted under PFI, with those 100 new hospitals, new schools and new health centres. That has to be celebrated. Yes, you learn lessons, but I hope we will go on to see more public/private partnerships in future—but only if it is in the interest of the Exchequer to do so.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the private finance initiative. As he will probably be aware, many countries now, in many jurisdictions, are adopting new risk allocation systems built on PFI. These include—I have a long list here—France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, South Korea and Japan. What are we doing about this, as we were the inventors of it? Can we make some more developments in this direction, which could even help calm the bond markets and lower our appalling debt interest?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are learning from all these other jurisdictions. The 10-year infrastructure strategy set out the Government’s long-term plans for the economy and we are going to invest some £725 billion over that 10-year period—so some £72 billion a year. Obviously, if we are going to do that, some of it will end up being in public/private partnerships but, as I have said repeatedly, just like we would with any other scheme, we are only going to do what is in the best interest of the taxpayer and of the Exchequer.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned ISAs. Could he tell us why the Government give tax relief, via ISAs, to people who invest in overseas equities?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
From next April, we are planning to reduce the allowance for investment in cash ISAs to £12,000 to encourage people to invest in stocks and shares ISAs. Figures for 2024-25 will be published later this month on how much more money is being invested in stocks and shares ISAs. We do not have the figures for the current year, but we will see from those figures the investment levels that are being transferred over to stocks and shares ISAs and how that money is going to be spent.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, will public/private partnerships form part of the Burnham Government’s new architecture for growth beyond the health sector, which the Minister has described, and decarbonisation? It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, returning to the battle on this matter.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We will always look at public/private partnerships beyond health centres and beyond decarbonising the public sector, but, as I have continually said, we will do that only if it is in the best interest of the taxpayer and of the Exchequer. We are looking at how best to use public/private partnerships through the National Wealth Fund and we are bringing regional mayors into the system. That will broaden out what we can do with public/private partnerships beyond the two main initiatives that have been announced.
Creative and Performing Arts Teaching Grants
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the decision to cut funding to creative and performing arts teaching grants in universities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, decisions on the strategic priorities grant for academic year 2026-27 reflect the challenging fiscal position and not the value we place on creative and performing arts courses. We recognise the important contribution that the disciplines make to our cultural life and economy. We have had to prioritise funding towards the highest-cost subjects and areas facing the most acute skills shortages, while protecting £57.1 million of funding for world-leading specialist providers, including 12 arts institutions.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, far from being “challenging”, as the previous Secretary of State put it, this is a disastrous decision that will further imperil higher education arts courses already under threat from closure. It is at odds with the industrial strategy’s commitment to the creative industries and the concerns of Skills England, including those skills combining creativity and new technology. Does the Minister agree that increases in tuition fees are not relevant, since that will affect all courses equally? Will the Government reconsider this decision and instead formulate a strategy which will improve access to creative subjects in higher education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I understand the disappointment in this decision, but to be clear about the scale, we are talking about the removal of £130 per student for those taking some creative and arts subjects. That is roughly 1% of the contribution towards those subjects. A £6 billion increase in the income to higher education that comes from the decisions this Government have made about tuition fees is not insignificant; it is by far the biggest part of the funding for all higher education courses, including those in creative and performing arts.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, before I ask my question, I must apologise to the House for my inadvertent failure to declare my interest as chair of the independent inquiry into the Police Federation of England and Wales when I spoke last week in the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. This interest is recorded in the register.
Does the Minister agree with me that access to higher education and careers in the creative and performing arts should be open to all, regardless of wealth or social background?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Absolutely I do, which is why, in the strategic priorities grant, we have focused on at least maintaining the funding that goes towards access and participation, including for students going into creative and performing arts subjects. This is why, as a Government, as part of the support of the creative areas, we have additionally invested in, for example, a wider spread of awareness of careers in the sector. In fact, there is a £9 million UK-wide creative careers service.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, given that the creative industries are one of the country’s most productive money earners, is it not perverse to cut grants to young people hoping to bring their skills and talents to the world of work? I was recently up at the Edinburgh Fringe, where brilliant young musicians, actors and dancers often to have to fund themselves, so tight are the purse strings for funds, yet they give such pleasure. How do the Government to propose to encourage more young people into these creative industries with these cuts?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To be clear, this is not a cut of a grant to students; this is a cut of £130 per student to the institutions that run these courses. This is partly in order to safeguard, for example, the £20 million funding that goes to Uni Connect to open up opportunities to get into higher education for more young people. It goes alongside the expansion of other ways to develop skills in this area, such as higher technical qualifications, creative skills bootcamps and the lifelong learning entitlement, all of which provide support and opportunities for young people and people throughout their lives to get into the creative sector.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, universities need more teachers generally, but so do schools. The Government pledged to recruit 6,500 new teachers, but the annual school workforce census shows that there are 1,900 fewer teachers across all schools. Does the Minister agree with Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union, who called it a “mockery” of the pledge?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, because we have been clear in our pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers that we would focus them on the areas in secondary and special schools where we are not seeing a fall in the number of pupils and where we know that there is a particular need, and there we have done so. The latest number is over 2,500 more teachers. We are delivering on our commitment to teachers and pupils.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, £76 million of capital funding from this grant has been let out to competitive bidding. The OfS prospectus, subject to separate guidelines and the guidance letter, identifies bids that relate to the creative industries nationally and locally as meeting the criteria for growth and priority skills needs. I am confused, as I am sure the universities and the industries are. Please can my noble friend the Minister clarify the situation? Does she agree that, with a new Secretary of State in DfE, it is an excellent time to reflect on the evidence base, ready for next year’s guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sorry that I am not completely clear about the point that my noble friend is making with respect to SPG capital, which I think is what she was referring to. I will write to her about that.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, it is not all gloom and doom—I declare an interest at the University of Oxford—as there are other ways to encourage capital and money to come into creative education in our universities. I draw the Minister’s attention to the recent donation by Stephen Schwarzman to the University of Oxford, which provided £200 million for a new centre for the humanities and, within that, all sorts of performing arts spaces using the latest technology. If we can encourage business and commerce to invest here and make more money here, I know of lots of other organisations, like Bank of America and Steve Schwarzman, that would put more money into the creative industries and higher education in this country. Does the Minister support philanthropy coming into this area to help?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, of course. I do. Philanthropy has always been an important way in which facilities in our universities have been supported. To help that happen, as other noble Lords have commented, we have already made the creative industries part of our industrial strategy. As a Government, we are supporting an extra £100 million of investment for the next wave of creative R&D clusters. We are supporting the arts through additional money to Arts England, and we are making sure that there is a pipeline of young people coming into the sector as well. Given the enthusiasm that there always is in this House for the creative industries and the arts, which I know is reflected out in the country, I hope that where people have the money to contribute to higher education and other areas of education, they will consider doing so.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, the reason that I was able to retrain as a design and technology teacher is that I have a graphic design degree. There is evidence that universities are already reducing their creative courses. How are we going to get the new generation of people with the subject knowledge to teach these badly needed courses that are part of the new national curriculum if nobody has the subject knowledge?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have said previously, I am very glad that the noble Lord has a degree and was able to train as a teacher. I am not quite sure when that happened, but I suspect that the availability of a bursary was probably as important as his first degree. It is by investing in our teachers through pay awards and bursaries for shortage subjects, and because of the success that we are having in retaining more of them in the classroom, that we are seeing more teachers in all areas of the curriculum, including the creative areas.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend looking forward, as I am, to the freeing up of the curriculum, so that there can be much more drama and other creative subjects in the secondary phase? This will ensure that we have enough students to continue the very good place in which the creative industries are at the moment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes. That was absolutely a theme in the commissioning of the Curriculum and Assessment Review. We are already making changes to the curriculum, as my noble friend says, to ensure that the breadth, enrichment and value of creative subjects are reflected both across the curriculum and in the wider enrichment opportunities that we want all schools to offer to their pupils.
Rural Businesses: Taxation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prentis of Banbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reduce taxation on rural businesses.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as an executor who is currently trying to sell our family farm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government keep all taxes under review, with decisions being for the Chancellor at fiscal events. We recognise the vital contribution of rural communities and businesses to the UK economy and the need for policies that actually work for rural areas. Support available includes rural rate relief, small business rates relief, a high VAT registration threshold and the small profits corporation tax rate. We are also supporting farmers through reduced red diesel duty rates until the end of this year, and through measures to promote sustainable farming and food production.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, the family farm tax is both hated and feared. It taxes a business asset as if it is personal wealth. I know that the Minister was not consulted—nor was her department—before the tax was put in place. Will she reassure the House, which I know appreciates all that she does for us, that she will personally make representations to this Chancellor before this Budget, as those of us who care about the countryside and the NFU are currently doing, to make sure that this hated tax can be removed?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that the noble and learned Baroness is aware that, absolutely, I support the importance of farming to the rural economy and the importance of the work that farmers do through food security to the wider economy of the country. She will also be aware that we have discussed this matter on a number of occasions and that the Treasury has made it quite clear that it is not intending to revisit the issue of inheritance tax. I am aware that the Prime Minister was asked about this during the by-election in Makerfield. However, as I said in my original Answer, the Government always keep taxes under review. I will ensure that the new Chancellor is aware of the strength of feeling on this matter.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that rural businesses are hit disproportionately by the increases in petrol and diesel prices that we have seen over recent months? These add to their costs: of inputs, of getting goods to the market and of those working in rural areas travelling to work. Is there any way that the amount of taxation that is raised on petrol and diesel can somehow be frozen rather than added to every time there is an increase in international prices? This hits rural areas.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As someone who lives in a rural area and has to travel long distances to get anywhere, I completely appreciate the noble Lord’s point. We have rural fuel duty relief and are looking at the costs of that. We need to look at how we can best support rural communities and rural businesses as a whole rather than just picking at little issues. It is the cost of the whole that makes the difference and there are other ways in which rural businesses and communities are being supported financially.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Even before the summer drought, failures of agricultural businesses had risen by 450% under the pressures of the energy costs that we have just heard described, with higher taxes and subsidy changes also playing a major part. Do the Government recognise that many people will be very concerned that today’s announcements by the Chancellor had so little focus on action in the rural UK? Will the Government now put themselves behind the proposed good food Bill that is being demanded by the industry to support domestic producers and provide us with greater food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In Defra we have been working an enormous amount with farmers and other relevant stakeholders around food security. That includes biosecurity. It looks at how farmers can be supported through veterinary services and how we manage drought and climate change going forward. It is about not just drought but flooding. We have potential heavy rainfalls coming this winter. If we are to continue to support good, sustainable food production in this country, it is important that we work cross-departmentally, including with the Treasury, to ensure that we have the best possible support for farmers.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that over the last few weeks the Opposition have been calling for more public spending at the same time as calling for lower taxes? Have they all joined the “Liz trust” of economics?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point about how you cannot have something for nothing. If we are to have the public services that people want in this country, we have to look very carefully at how we intend to pay for them.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I regret having to ask this question following the noble Lord, Lord Watts. One thing that needs to be taken extremely seriously with the inheritance tax issue is that it is stifling investment. I thought that the party opposite and the Government were supporters of growth. This is the perverse consequence of this imposition. I ask the Minister to act on behalf of Defra with the Treasury and the Government. This is acting as a contrary-to-growth tax.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I hear very clearly what the noble Lord has said. As I said to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, I will make sure that the new Chancellor understands the strength of feeling in this House about the inheritance tax.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very pleased to hear the Minister talk about the whole burden on rural dwellers and farmers. In that regard, can she say how her department is looking to minimise the burden on farmers, not just the tax burden but the regulatory burden, and in particular for those farmers in Northern Ireland, given the differential regulations that occur there?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very aware of the kinds of regulations that the noble Baroness is talking about, which is also why, when I visit Northern Ireland, I always make sure to meet the Ulster Farmers Union, for example, because there are slightly different perspectives and it is important that we understand those differentials. For me, the most important thing is to listen to farmers and not make assumptions about what works and what does not. Tomorrow, for example, I am holding a meeting with farmers specifically on bluetongue, because I want to know what is causing their difficulties most of all, what will actually make the difference and what we need to do so that we do not end up with so many problems next year as well. I am keen to work in a very proactive way to provide the best support we can.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, every day I become more convinced that it is business not government that creates growth. Farming and family businesses in rural areas are under tremendous pressure from a series of high taxes, including IHT. Will the Minister, or her colleague, the Chancellor, meet US economist Arthur Laffer during his visit this week to discuss how the perverse effect of such high taxation might be minimised and government revenues even increased by cutting taxes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think the gentleman that the noble Baroness suggests I meet might be rather disappointed if he met me. I am not sure that I would fully comprehend all the very important points that I am sure he would be making, but I imagine that it would be an opportune moment for him to meet someone from the Treasury.
Lord Swire (Con)
The original Question from my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis concerned the selling of a farm, so that raises issues of probate as well. When the Minister is discussing these fiscal matters with the new Chancellor, will she also raise the blatant unfairness of the 7.75% charged by the Government on late payment during probate, compared with the 2.75% repayment ceiling when the Government owe the taxpayer money?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If you are looking at issues to do with probate, that is not just to do with family farms. That is a much broader issue. I am sure that Treasury officials will be listening very carefully to this debate and will take that into account.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, there is some speculation in the press that farmland might be included in the calculation of the value of a home when it comes to the mansion tax. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether or not that is true because, clearly, if it is, an awful lot of modest farmhouses would then be included in the mansion tax, and that tax at the highest rate is quite a lot for a farm.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not aware personally of any such speculation, I am afraid, so I am not able to provide any further information to the noble Earl.
Falkland Islands
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
To ask His Majesty’s Government, what recent discussions they have had, if any, with (1) the Government of Argentina and (2) the Government of the United States pertaining to the future of the Falkland Islands; and what steps they are taking to ensure the security of those islands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Winterton of Doncaster) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK remains steadfast in its support for the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination. This is not the first time Argentina has made economic threats against the Falklands. These threats have not prevented the community’s remarkable economic development, and we have made clear to Argentina that the measures announced by President Milei will not change the UK’s unwavering commitment to the islands. The US is our closest ally. It can have no doubt about our unwavering support for the islanders.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and, indeed, welcome her to the Dispatch Box and her new job. I look forward to many happy exchanges with her in the future.
The Falkland Islands are British. We fought to defend them in 1982 and there should be no doubt of our national resolve. Argentina’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric in respect of the Falkland Islands has no doubt been emboldened by news that the United States is reviewing its position on British sovereignty and, of course, by this Government’s restated policy of handing over another UK overseas territory, the Chagos Islands, to Mauritius. They have been emboldened by our weakness.
Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are preparing for all eventualities, including military scenarios, and can she confirm that they could provide a real deterrent to Argentina by ditching their failed policy of handing over the Chagos Islands?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind welcome, and I remember our CPA trip to Singapore and Malaysia.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
Very fond memories.
Let me be clear. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable as far as the UK Government are concerned. It always has been and it always will be. The whole House will I am sure agree with me that we need to reiterate that fundamental principle. Political unity here is really important. The noble Lord mentions defensive forces. We have a variety of military capabilities there for defensive purposes, but it is very important that we do not speculate and get into hypothetical situations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I also welcome the Minister to her brief. I should perhaps declare I was on that visit too, but I saw nothing untoward between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. This is also my first opportunity—since she is here—to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for her service as Minister as well.
I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands and I will relay to the House what I said to the Falkland Islanders. As far as these Benches are concerned, sovereignty has been, is and always will be in the hands of the Falkland Islanders themselves; sovereignty should be under no question whatever.
There will be obvious concern among the islanders that, as a result of what President Trump has been saying, there could be question marks over the health arrangements with our relationship with Chile and Uruguay; there could be concerns over the integrity of the territorial waters, which have seen almost-ingressions by foreign-flagged vessels from China; and there could be question marks over the lifeline satellite communication services. So can the Minister reassure not only this House but the islanders themselves that, when we send very strong signals to our closest ally in the White House, all those services are part of sovereignty too.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
First, let me thank the noble Lord for his kind words and fond memories of the CPA visit. I also echo what he said about my noble friend Lady Chapman.
With regard to the US, I assure him that we, of course, engage regularly with the US on a range of foreign policy issues. I am sure he will understand that I cannot give a running commentary on all of our engagement with the US, but it is our closest ally. We engage on a number of issues, including this one, and of course I take on board the points that he has made about the areas that may be of particular concern to the Falkland Islanders.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Minister is aware that the UK is a prominent member of the CPTPP. Argentina applied to join a few weeks ago. Is this a point of leverage that can be used against a country that is threatening our sovereignty?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point but, just to be clear, accession to the CPTPP is a matter for the member states themselves. We do not comment on individual applications for accession.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Minister for the forthright statement in support of the Falklands and the Falkland Islanders. But does she share my concern at the interview given last week on Radio 4’s “Today” by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, the previous head of the Foreign Office, which indicated quite outrageously that, in effect, Britain should consider handing them over and gave arguments regarding how much money was being spent and whether the British public would wear that? This was extremely unhelpful. Can she dissociate the department from that?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. Let me be clear that we do not agree with that position. As I have said, the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable as far as the UK Government are concerned. I welcome the political unity that has been shown today, because it is important that this House and the other House send that message, so that it is very clear that all political parties are united on this issue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as a former Overseas Territories Minister, I too welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box, and her strong statement. I also recognise the services of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. What representations have been made to Argentina directly? As someone who served in the Foreign Office for a long time, I know that diplomacy matters, but that diplomacy comes with the hard metal glove of our military strength. I commend the fact that the Minister of Defence is sitting to the noble Baroness’s right. Would she reiterate, once again, as my noble friend said, that military action is on the table if required. That message may be sent privately to the Argentinians. What bilateral representations have been made directly?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question and I should say that I am always very reassured when the noble Lord from the Ministry of Defence is sitting next to me. I am very confident that Argentina understands the message that the UK Government and this House are sending. The Foreign Secretary posted on X:
“The UK’s position on the Falkland Islands is unwavering. The Islands are British and will remain so because that is the overwhelming position of the Islanders. Their right of self-determination is paramount, grounded in international law and we will resolutely uphold it”.
I touched previously on the defensive forces that we have in the area, but I hope the noble Lord will understand that I do not want to enter into hypothetical discussions.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her position and the unanimity of the House on this issue. Argentina obviously has a lot of international support for its claim, which worries me. If a UN advisory council committee were to say that the Falklands were actually Argentinian, would we then do exactly as we have with the Chagos Islands and say that that has to be complied with?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
Our position is clear, as I have said. When it comes to raising this issue in international fora, I should say that my noble friend Lord Collins attended the Organization of American States on 24 June to provide a right of reply on the Falkland Islands on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, asserting UK sovereignty over the islands and their right of the islanders to choose their own future. We use those opportunities, at international level, to make our position absolutely clear.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I welcome my noble friend to her post. Is it not a good thing that we are demonstrating clarity in our determination to defend the Falkland islanders and their right to self-determination? It stands in marked contrast to the Thatcher Government, who displayed weakness, took ships away from the Falklands and almost said to the Argentinians, “There you are, it’s yours if you want it”. We are standing in contrast to that and I congratulate the Government on it.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome and for his support for our position. I reiterate again how important it is that there is a clear message from this House itself, so I welcome the political consensus that we have seen this afternoon and thank the noble Lord for his kind words.
Lord Swire (Con)
I also join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness on her recent appointment to the Front Bench. It is extremely important that, whatever we say in this country, we say it together. I think the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, were unfortunate and an attempt to rewrite history. That is not what happened last time.
Would the noble Baroness consider calling in the Argentinian ambassador? I am all for not ratcheting this up, because it is purely electoral posturing by the President of Argentina, but would she take this opportunity to call in the Argentinian ambassador to make these points again: that the future of the Falkland Islands depends on the people of the Falkland Islands? As they remain British and wish to remain British, they will enjoy the full protection of this country and everything that that may mean.
At the same time, would she remind those who suggest that this is a transplanted population that there have been many generations of people living on those islands: far longer, perhaps, than the ancestors of the President of Argentina have been living in Argentina, having arrived from Calabria in 1926?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. The message that will be heard today from this House reiterates our position. Our position is clear: the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable as far as the UK Government are concerned. That is a clear message. I have every confidence that that message will have been heard.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister to her well-deserved new post. Will she update the House on where we have got to with the important investment in the oil field 140 miles north of the Falklands? Is that not also going to be transformational for the people of the Falklands, who rightly wish to remain British?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. With regard to the oil field and the investment there, that is decided by the Falklands Islands people. It is their investment. We are absolutely supportive of the decision that they have made in that regard.
Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill [HL]
Economic Affairs Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September
Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.
Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitt-Watson
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 2 July and 6 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September
Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Buckthorn, Amey and Acteon. I warmly welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, who was a highly knowledgeable and impressive Minister.
Given the Government’s outright opposition to new drilling in the North Sea, does the Minister nevertheless agree that there is no reason not to approve Jackdaw and Rosebank, which have already had drilling activity, with Jackdaw now ready for production? In contrast to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, to the Private Notice Question just now, given that the Government themselves have the final sign-off on Falkland Islands production licences dating back to the early 1990s, when both Tim Eggar and I were ministerially involved, what is the Government’s position on the Falkland Islands Government’s pro-oil and gas position on the Sea Lion oilfield, which is at the centre of the diplomatic row with Argentina? Is it consistent with the department’s position on the North Sea—in other words, outright opposition to new drilling and new offshore oil and gas infrastructure? If not, what is the difference?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. We know each other, and I know that we both welcome robust discussion—which is just as well because I think we will have a few disagreements along the way. He made reference to the enormous contribution of my noble friend Lord Whitehead to this portfolio and the work that he has done. I have learned a lot, and will continue to learn a lot, from my noble friend.
On the substance of the issue the noble Lord raises, he will know that the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice period is closing on 10 and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and make separate decisions on each project in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further on either project because it is important to maintain the robustness of the process and not pre-empt or predetermine the decisions.
I note the detail of what the noble Lord asked me in relation to the Falklands. I refer him back to the comments of my noble friend Lady Winterton, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment, and I look forward to working opposite her. I also pay tribute to the outgoing noble Lord, Lord Whitehead.
I know the Minister is unable to comment before the decision, so instead I ask if she agrees with me that the Onward report, through which the Conservative Party has argued that we should abandon our net zero targets and could save £320 billion, is not worth the paper it is written on, as it is based on an incorrect underlying assumption that future gas prices will be low and stable and would result in an extra 524 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that question and for his welcome, and I pay tribute to his work on this issue in the House. Again, I have learned a great deal and will continue to do so from listening to his speeches. I recognise and appreciate the point being made about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions. I recognise the interest in them, but I cannot be drawn on that.
On his wider point, the noble Earl is right about the Onward report, the general disappointment people feel at the breaking of the consensus we have seen from the Conservative Party over recent months, and how significant that is. He will know that climate scientists and energy industry bodies have overwhelmingly challenged the report’s methodology and logic as applied to grid and infrastructure costs, and how it has costed the high volatility of gas along with its political and economic costs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would confirm that under the Conservatives, production in the North Sea reduced by half between 2010 and 2024—which is no surprise because it is a super-mature basin—and that giving consent to these two oilfields, which I know my noble friend cannot comment on at the moment, would have a minimal effect either on achieving net zero targets or on prices. The reality is that what the Government need to do, whatever the decision on these oilfields, is stick to the policy of going as fast as possible towards clean energy.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I pay tribute to the work he has done in this field and to the very significant contribution he made as a Minister, particularly within the nuclear field. I cannot be drawn on the points he raises but I can assure him that the North Sea and oil and gas will play a vital role in our energy mix for years to come. He noted that under the Conservatives, by the end of 2016 more than 120,000 UK oil and gas jobs had gone. It is a changing basin, but we see it as part of the mix. We understand that the North Sea not only has an oil and gas sector but can play a vital role in a clean energy economy. That will make an enormous contribution not only to the north-east of Scotland but to the wider UK economy.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness back to her position on the Front Bench. Does she agree that a major issue underlying the decisions—which I know she cannot talk about—is the widespread concern about the cost of energy in this country? Does she further agree that the important thing is to make some progress on decoupling the price of gas from the price of energy and electricity generally? When are the Government going to make some progress in separating off those two strands?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and for that question. I recognise the work that she does and, as a former member, I hope I can continue to engage with Peers for the Planet. She makes a central point underlying the work that we do. The cost of energy is central to the Prime Minister’s mission in tackling these issues, and he has said that affordability will be at the centre of what he tries to do. She is also right to emphasise the de-linking of electricity and gas, and that will remain a priority of our work. I look forward to meeting her to discuss that and to continuing these debates in the House. I can assure her that that is a priority for our work going forward, as is affordability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government wish to increase world CO2, and why do they wish to pay taxes to foreign companies and countries rather than to British ones by insisting on importing LNG rather than getting our own gas out of a pipe, which generates much less CO2?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question, but I cannot be tempted to answer it directly, as I perhaps would wish to, because of the implications of what I might say. I ask noble Lords to really appreciate the significance of this decision; we cannot jeopardise it by any loose words. I obviously do not accept some of the assumptions behind his question. This Government are committed to ensuring that all companies pay due tax and regenerate the economy. We will work with businesses in the North Sea and across Scotland to make sure that they are thriving. I plead with him to understand that the work this Labour Government are doing is contributing to a thriving clean energy sector as well, and that that performs competitively in the economy. No doubt that will be something we will discuss in the future.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, my erstwhile friend in the Scottish Cabinet, to her place on the Front Bench. Whatever decision is taken on Jackdaw and Rosebank, can she confirm that clean energy, whether developed by solar, wind or other means, will remain at the heart of British energy policy? It not only provides the scope for decarbonisation of our economy, but also for new jobs.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and colleague for that question. He knows that I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister in the Scottish Government. In that capacity, I met the oil and gas sector many times and worked very closely with them. I understand the contribution they have made and will continue to make, but there is no avoiding the fact that we live in challenging times in terms of climate change. Clean energy is not only necessary but is a huge opportunity for economic development. It will help us meet the challenge of our times through reducing carbon emissions, electrifying our economy and creating opportunities for people in the United Kingdom.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:45 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 164 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
17:31 - Division on Amendment 10 - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 165 - Amendment 10 agreed. See col. 495 for explanation of mistake in voting figures.
18:32 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 11 disagreed.
19:19 - Division on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 14 disagreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe, seeks to allow for a debate on the Government’s intentions around a new regime to be laid down in the regulatory rule book in place of that established by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and associated legislation, and how they will ensure parliamentary and industry oversight of such a regime.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to open our discussions on Report on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which we support in general but seek to improve. I congratulate the Minister on his new position and thank him for his engagement. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, whom I am glad to see in his place, and other noble Lords for their constructive approach in six expert Committee sessions. Despite the scale of the Bill and the complexity of the subject, we also ran to time—to the satisfaction, I hope, of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. As it is the first day on Report, I declare my registered interest in Meta and Amazon.
This is a large group of amendments, reflecting the anxiety of many of us over the excessive use of delegated powers and the uncertainty this creates in the modernisation of consumer credit law—a move we support. I am moving Amendment 1 to Clause 1, but I intend to focus my remarks on the final amendments in this group: Amendment 93 and Amendments 100 to 103, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham, whom I also thank for his work on this Bill.
I hope these amendments might provide a compromise. They address one of the most serious concerns that we and noble Lords across the House have raised about the approach taken in the Bill: the question of how we preserve meaningful parliamentary oversight as increasingly significant powers are transferred away from primary legislation and into the regulatory model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That Act was passed when we were still in the European Union, with scrutiny of new areas of regulation in the European Parliament and at ECON, the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. Post-Brexit, there is a democratic gap and therefore a huge task for the Treasury Committee in the Commons and the Financial Services Regulation Committee in your Lordships’ House, which is so well chaired by my noble friend Lady Noakes.
We recognise that there are considerable advantages to the FSMA model: greater regulatory flexibility can allow the framework to respond quickly to changing markets, new technologies and innovation. In areas such as consumer credit, the industry itself has argued that moving away from parts of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 could make the regime simpler and less costly to operate. However, flexibility must not come at the expense of accountability. The effect of the Bill is to place considerable trust in the Treasury and, ultimately, the regulators to use their new powers proportionately, effectively and with sufficient clarity for both consumers and industry. Yet we simply do not know what the regulatory landscape will look like once these provisions have been commenced.
These amendments propose a simple and practical safeguard: before the relevant powers are brought into force, the Treasury would publish and lay before Parliament a report explaining how it expects them to be used. The requirement would apply both where the new areas of regulation are being transferred to the FCA, the PRA or the Bank of England, and where the Bill creates significant new powers. This includes: consumer credit regulation, currently provided for under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; payment systems; anti-money laundering supervision transferring from existing professional and industry bodies; the powers relating to overseas recognition regimes; and the new powers under Clause 46 concerning crypto assets. As will be apparent, many of these powers are presently in primary legislation. There is a further problem with the excessive powers on access to banking in Clause 3, but we will come on to discuss a different solution to that in group 2.
The transparency that would be achieved by our proposed approach would benefit not only Parliament but consumers and industry. Greater clarity before commencement should mean better scrutiny, greater certainty and better regulation. I hope the Minister will recognise these amendments for what they are: a constructive, workable and proportionate compromise on an issue that has plagued our discussions on the Bill because of the sheer scale of change envisaged. They preserve the flexibility that the Government say they need while introducing a modest but meaningful mechanism of parliamentary accountability.
I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what assurance the Government can give that Parliament will receive this kind of information before these significant powers are brought into effect. If we do not receive sufficient comfort from the Government, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 93 and its consequentials on Wednesday. Finally, I thank other noble Lords for their amendments in this group and look forward to hearing from them. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my non-diminution Amendments 2 and 3, and to Amendments 4 and 5, which stem from them. In Committee, the Government made it clear that they wish to remove tail risk for firms—a theme running through the changes to the CCA and FOS. I agree that issues such as font sizes and business practices need updating—I would certainly prefer not to have to agree instantly to a garbled recitation of terms and conditions over the phone just to access basic service contracts—but the Consumer Credit Act is fundamentally about protecting consumers from bad corporate behaviour. Aside from the much-cited font issue, tail risk usually arises from bad behaviour that simply takes a long time to surface. There is no justifiable reason for remedy to disappear.
Although I see the attractions of using the FCA framework, I do not accept that there should be a time limit after which bad behaviour is insulated from rectification, or that protections requiring judicial remedy might fall away—over which there is no current certainty. That is the purpose of my non-diminution amendments: to allow modernisation, but not at the cost of significant consumer rights.
A long-standing defect in the CCA illustrates the point: the Act was drafted in 1974, before securitisation existed. As a result, consumer credit has been sold on in ways that mean that the statutory definition, and thus obligations, of the lender no longer apply. This was a happenstance of financial evolution, not intentional design, yet it seriously degrades a regulated product and directly created the modern mortgage prisoner problem that my noble friend Lord Sharkey has brought to this House more than once. One can foresee the same happening with student loans once they are sold off.
The solution is straightforward. Whenever any right stemming from lending or credit is exercised, including the setting, levying or collecting of interest, the corresponding obligations must travel with that right. That must hold even where responsibilities are split across multiple entities under securitisation structures that currently allow each actor to claim it is not the statutory lender. This is entirely consistent with the CCA’s original assignment provisions, and we have precedent, because the MCOB rules already require obligations to follow the exercise of rights in mortgage services.
This principle works. We explained it to the previous Minister and officials before the summer, providing copies of my first amendment and documentary explanation. I recognise there have been changes on the Government’s side, but it is regrettable that there has been no engagement since, especially as collaborative working on good ideas was a stated commitment of the new Prime Minister.
Some may ask: who loses? The answer is that no one suffers unjustified loss. When a regulated consumer product is transferred, the protections attached to it must remain intact rather than be severed, whether by design or accident. For consumer credit, this simply maintains existing rights or, in the case of mortgage prisoners, restores them prospectively. But they had those rights when they took the mortgages out.
Taking the same principle to student loans, once sold into the private financial system, they must carry with them the standards of respectable financial products. Borrowers must be protected from predatory interest rates and, under international accounting rules, when projected non-repayment exceeds 50%, the entire corpus of loans, not just the unpaid part, is pulled on to national debt metrics. Allowing predatory interest rates simply deepens that problem.
This is the logic behind this family of amendments. I urge the Minister to engage constructively as the Bill progresses. As he will know, when I have a principled solution in my sights, it does not go away, because it rests on my conscience, as it should on his.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5 in this group. Structurally, the amendment follows the approach used by my noble friend Lady Bowles in her previous amendment, and I am very grateful to her for the help and support in drafting. My amendment has a simple purpose, which is to bring relief to mortgage prisoners. As many of your Lordships will know, mortgage prisoners are people who are stuck with their existing mortgage holders—who are not active lenders—on very high interest rates and who cannot access a better deal, such as the normal market fixed-rate deals. As a result, mortgage prisoners continue to pay interest at around four percentage points over the normal market fixed-term rates. This costs them hundreds, and even thousands, of pounds extra per year.
According to the UK Mortgage Prisoners action group, there were originally around 195,000 mortgage prisoners. This number is declining slowly due to death, reaching the end of term and repossessions. The largest group of mortgage prisoners are former Northern Rock customers. After nationalisation in 2007, these mortgages were placed in a Government-owned company run by UK Asset Resolution—UKAR. When returning these mortgages to the private sector, the Conservative Government could have sold them to active lenders, which would have offered the prisoners a fair market deal. The Government did not do that. Instead, they sold the mortgages to non-active lenders and vulture funds; the consequences we continue to see.
It is not as though the Government were not warned about the problem this would cause. The risk to customers was clearly identified. In January 2016, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, wrote to the Treasury and UKAR, warning them that:
“Many of … those affected by these sales, will be mortgage prisoners and will be unable to switch lenders”.
He told the Government that the customers affected by the sales should be protected, offered a fair deal and given access to fixed rates. He warned that:
“Given the prospect of rising interest rates it is important that all mortgage customers are given the opportunity to achieve certainty over their payments by accessing a fixed rate”.
He told the Government that he was,
“concerned that some customers affected by these mortgages sales … will not be offered reasonable fixed mortgage rates”.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, to which I have added my name. As we have already heard, this amendment would ensure that, when provisions of the Consumer Credit Act are repealed or replaced by FCA rules, the overall level of consumer protection would not be diminished. The Consumer Credit Act has long provided established routes of redress to consumers; it has done so for decades. It provides a core of fundamental protections enshrined in primary legislation and developed through parliamentary scrutiny, and probably is fairly well known.
As financial services continue to evolve, the ways in which consumers are protected must be capable of adapting to change. Were we to open up the CCA to repeal by the Treasury and the FCA without putting significant statutory protections in place, it would risk reducing standards of consumer protection for all people. Indeed, in its own review of the Consumer Credit Act, the FCA stated that many of its provisions
“could not be replaced by FCA rules”
under its current powers
“without adversely affecting … consumer protection”.
I have spoken many times before about the importance of equal financial opportunity for underserved communities, especially those who have less financial literacy or who face language barriers. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us that a record number of people in this country are currently living in “very deep poverty”. Without equal access to financial services, they are deprived of the tools that might help them to stay afloat. For many families, credit is a lifeline in the face of the cost of living crisis. It is what enables them to make ends meet, but accessibility must be accompanied by adequate protection.
Data from the last year shows that 25% of cases seen by the Financial Ombudsman involved vulnerable consumers. It is these groups who are least able to advocate for themselves when things go wrong or to navigate complex complaints processes on their own. To increase access to financial services of vulnerable groups while simultaneously hollowing out the protections from which they disproportionately benefit introduces greater risk for those who already stand to lose the most.
The protections of the Consumer Credit Act are to be opened up to repeal. We must be certain that consumers will enjoy protections that are at least as strong as those from which they benefited before. This amendment is essential to preserving the fundamental rights which enable vulnerable groups to participate fully in economic life and provide consumers with the confidence they need that they will be protected when things go wrong—as from time to time they do.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, and I feel that this Bill has an opportunity to improve—or at least not diminish—the protections that are offered to consumers of financial services. We have long known that from a consumer perspective, the asymmetry of information and the asymmetry of understanding leaves ordinary consumers open to being taken advantage of by financial services companies. The law is supposed to protect them and currently we have legal protections in place—albeit they are out of date and need updating, as we have already discussed. However, I certainly hope that the Minister—who I warmly welcome to his place—would understand that the aims of these amendments are to ensure that the financial consumer is protected both at the retail level and against practices that have arisen in the past and will arise in the future.
I particularly feel that the amendments about non-diminution when it comes to consumer credit and student loans, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, are extremely important to the ordinary person in the street. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on continuing the attempts to ensure that mortgage prisoners are treated much more fairly. We have another opportunity now to remove this stain on our financial services landscape, and I really hope that the Government will be able to agree and accept that capping, at the very least, the costs and interest rates that mortgage prisoners have had to pay—at such great cost and pain—will be a possibility within this Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief because my Bench has just spoken very clearly on this issue. I share with the Conservative Front Bench concerns about accountability with a further removal of powers directly into the hands of the regulator, and had they pressed their Amendment 1, we would have supported it.
Very briefly, I will address the other amendments. I am still in a state of genuine concern that the Government will not accept an amendment that would confirm that the changes they are proposing to the Consumer Credit Act, which will be absorbed now into the role of the FCA, will not involve a diminution of consumer credit protection; this is the non-diminution of rights that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, described. Of course, the FCA could keep those rights in place, but there is nothing that compels it to do so. I find it extraordinary that we cannot be given this reassurance.
However, I am more exercised than anything else about the position of mortgage prisoners. The people who have been impacted, and many are now elderly, have dealt with a shocking situation over the past years. We could now give them relief for the remaining years in which they will be tangled with paying extraordinary levels of interest on mortgages that were taken out in good faith, for which they properly qualified and which were, at the time, market-standard mortgages. It has happened because, in essence, an arm of government has made mistakes when it has sold on those loans to vulture funds. It is shocking that we have not corrected this. The amendment before us today is new thinking. It is incredibly effective at making sure that, going forward, this incredible injustice is ended, and I hope very much that, even in these last few minutes, the Government will think again and provide support.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be here today to debate the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Stockwood for leading the earlier stages of this debate and thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate in Committee and beyond.
If noble Lords would allow me, I would like to say a few things about the Bill itself before moving on to address the amendments that have been put forward. The Bill has a purpose on which I think we are all agreed: to construct rules that help the financial services industry to serve its customers better and to prosper as a result of doing so. Noble Lords will therefore see that, in responding to the debate in Committee, the Government have been persuaded of some significant points made then and are proposing some significant amendments which I hope will be welcomed by the House. There are also amendments that will be suggested on Report where the Government disagree with the specific measure proposed but, in many cases, have great sympathy with the ultimate goals of the particular amendment.
However, there are many amendments which we do not believe belong as part of the Bill, in part because they are complex and require consultation, and/or go beyond the scope of the Bill, and in part also because the aims of the amendment are not best served by changing primary legislation but where the Government often would want to help promote the goals of the amendment—indeed sometimes, they already are—and can perhaps seek to encourage better practice. Central to all this is accountability, which I will come to at beginning and end of this group and then again later today.
To turn to these specific amendments, Amendments 1 and 6 would remove Clause 1 and Schedule 1 from the Bill and prevent the Government’s programme of Consumer Credit Act reform. Amendments 2 and 3 would ensure that the reforms do not diminish consumer protections, and Amendments 4 and 5 relate to the assignment of student loans and of mortgages. Similar amendments were debated in Committee, and the Government have carefully considered the concerns raised. However, we have concluded that we wish to press ahead with these much-needed reforms.
I think that we all in this House agree that the FCA is the right body to take on the role of consumer protection, and Parliament has already given it the right powers and objectives to do so, including a consumer protection objective. Since the 2014 transfer of consumer credit to the FCA, important protections, including creditworthiness and affordability assessments, have successfully operated through the FCA framework. I recognise the concern, raised both in Committee and again today, that Parliament is being asked to approve reform before replacement FCA rules have been finalised. However, I emphasise that the FCA must consult on proposed rules and engage with parliamentary committees as part of an established statutory framework. This includes the Financial Services Regulation Committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Both the FCA and the PRA are clearly aware of scrutiny. Last week, they sent me a letter, which I think has been circulated to all noble Lords, making a number of commitments further to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, and I have placed those letters in the Library. I expect to cover this information, including that in the letter, in detail in a later grouping today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and his detailed explanation of how Clause 1 is framed. I am also grateful to the other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—on the recasting of consumer protection law, which is very important to us all, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on mortgage prisoners. I would describe that as a sorry tale.
We remain of the view that, when this process of recasting takes place, Parliament and industry must have a practical mechanism through which they can exercise oversight and make such representations as they need to make, such as those that we have heard today, on how the powers are used. The system would not be undermined by that; it is a first-occasion proposal. That is what Amendment 93 and its consequentials seek to provide. It is a workable and proportionate mechanism which allows the Government to achieve their broader objective of introducing a more flexible regulatory framework, but not wholly at the expense of scrutiny, transparency and democratic accountability. We should not be signing away any rights and protections without knowing what will replace them.
I am very grateful to the Minister for engaging with us on our concerns. I do not think that the delegated power memorandum meets them, because it does not explain what all these new powers in these areas are going to be used for, including consumer credit. There must be a meaningful mechanism to acquaint the House with how the powers are exercised and to ensure that regulatory officials turn up to the committee at the convenience of the committee and are able to answer questions on a suitable report on how these important changes are taking place.
We support the general drift of these changes, as the Minister knows well, but we are worried about accountability. I am happy to have further discussions but, if need be, I plan to test the opinion of the House when we reach Amendment 93 on Wednesday. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Sharkey
“Protection of consumers where regulated credit agreements or regulated mortgage contracts are transferred to inactive lenders (1) This section applies where rights under any regulated credit agreement or regulated mortgage contract are assigned, sold, securitised or otherwise transferred to a person who is an inactive lender or closed book owner.(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the consumer shall retain against the transferee all statutory and contractual rights, protections and avenues of redress that were available against the original creditor or lender.(3) Any variable interest rate, fee structure or other pricing term applied by an inactive lender or closed book owner must not exceed a reasonable market proxy determined by the Financial Conduct Authority.(4) Any person exercising rights of enforcement arising from an agreement or contract to which this section applies is treated as a creditor or lender for the purposes of this section.(5) For the purposes of this section, the exercise of rights of enforcement includes the setting, varying, applying or collecting of interest, fees or other pricing terms, whether undertaken directly or through an agent.(6) The duties in this section apply from the date on which this section comes into force—(a) to any regulated credit agreement or regulated mortgage contract in force on, or entered into after, that date, and(b) to any person who holds, or subsequently acquires, rights under any such agreement or contract, regardless of whether the assignment, sale, securitisation or transfer of rights occurred before, on or after that date.(7) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section requires the reopening, invalidation or unwinding of any assignment, sale, securitisation or transfer effected before the date on which this section comes into force, but any exercise of rights, variation of interest rates or enforcement occurring on or after that date in respect of such a transfer is subject to the provisions of this section.(8) For the purposes of this section—“inactive lender” or“closed book owner” means a person who holds rights under a regulated credit agreement or regulated mortgage contract but does not actively offer new regulated credit agreements or regulated mortgage contracts to consumers in the United Kingdom;“regulated mortgage contract” has the meaning given by article 61 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/544).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that when regulated credit agreements or regulated mortgage contracts are transferred to inactive lenders or closed book owners, consumers retain their full statutory and contractual rights. It would allow the Financial Conduct Authority to cap variable interest rates and pricing terms at a reasonable market proxy.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I had hoped that the life-crippling injustice visited on mortgage prisoners by government would produce a more sympathetic approach. In fact, it is hard to tell what approach, if any, the Government are proposing. What are they proposing to do about this long-standing and obvious injustice? Let me point out one thing. There has been a lot of research in this area, much of it funded by Martin Lewis and Money Saving Expert. That report, three years old now, put forward six areas for discussion to arrive at a solution.
Martin Lewis has had no response from the Government at all to his report: more talk, but no action that would actually help. The difference between what the Government are saying and what the amendment is saying is that the Government are promising nothing, not even making a commitment to do something, or even think about it, and the amendment delivers something. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Kramer
“(2A) Regulations may only make provision arising directly from the review carried out under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the scope of the regulations so that they may only implement matters that have been reviewed and consulted upon. It seeks to prevent the power from being used more broadly than Parliament intended.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it was exceedingly remiss of me, when I spoke earlier, not to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to his role. We have had so many conversations that I have begun to think of him as the established Minister, yet sitting just a few Benches away is the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood; we are so glad for his presence and that he will stay engaged with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, was also with us earlier: he was a relentless proponent of the Government’s position and I will miss my engagements with him.
Clause 3 deals with access to banking services. The Government have told us that the powers in this clause are intended to allow them to incorporate into law and regulation recommendations from the independent public review of access to banking services, chaired by Richard Lloyd and due in October. The review will evaluate the impact of ongoing bank branch closures and access to face-to-face banking across the UK.
We on these Benches strongly support this review. Banks have closed a third of their branches in the last five years and, since 2015, nearly 7,000 bank and building society branches have shut down. We have been strong advocates of the banking hub scheme to create at least minimal access to services; 235 have opened, but the commitment is to a total of only 350 hubs. Much stronger action is needed, and soon.
But—and it is beyond my comprehension why—Clause 3 has not been drafted for the narrow purpose stated by the Government of implementing the recommendations of the Lloyd review. It allows the Treasury to amend any Act of Parliament and to give any powers it wishes on access to banking to the FCA. Nothing is confined to the Lloyd review; it is Henry VIII on steroids.
I put down Amendment 7, which would limit powers to allow the Treasury to implement only those provisions arising directly from the Lloyd review. That at least has been consulted on and had some broad engagement. The Government have not accepted that amendment. We therefore cannot accept the huge constitutional breach that Clause 3 represents.
If the Conservative Benches move ahead with their Amendment 10, which would knock Clause 3 out of the Bill, I have strong hopes that the Government will come back with proper wording in the Commons, by which time the Lloyd review will have been published. As I say, we expect to support every aspect of the recommendations from the Lloyd review, although we have not yet seen them, but we cannot set the precedent of allowing sweeping powers that go way beyond the stated objective to be incorporated in a Bill of this significance.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I am speaking on Report, I should remind the House of my interests as a shareholder in Fidelity National Information Services Inc, which provides services to the financial sector, and as a non-practising member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to his new role, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, because, when we discussed this clause in Committee, I jokingly referred to the Minister not always being the Minister, for which I apologise.
I have Amendment 9 in this group, which would remove the egregious Henry VIII power from Clause 3. I have also added my name to Amendment 10, which would delete Clause 3 altogether. As I explained in Committee, as someone who lives in a very rural area, my nearest bank branch, now that the last branch in my nearest town has closed, is a 100-mile round trip—so access to banking is a subject with which I have a lot of personal sympathy. I look forward to seeing the Lloyd report once it has been published in October. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I expect to support an awful lot that will be in it.
The problem with Clause 3 is that it gives the Government incredibly broad and unfettered powers in this respect, including an unlimited power to amend any Act of Parliament. Indeed, there is nothing in the clause that would prevent a Government reducing access to banking if they chose to do so. I do not think I can put it any better than our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report of 17 June, which brought these wide powers to the House’s attention. It concluded that
“the problem with clause 3 is that it confers a wide regulation-making power on Ministers before any key policy decisions have been made, before any problem has been clearly identified and assisted by a power to amend any Act of Parliament ever made. Such a power severely compromises effective parliamentary scrutiny. We consider that the power in clause 3 is inappropriately wide and should be removed from the Bill”.
This Government have form on pushing through legislation before they know what they want to do with it, and this example is particularly egregious. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, in Committee when he was the Minister, which Acts of Parliament the Government had in mind to alter using this power. The response, I am sorry to say, was less than illuminating. He said that
“the Treasury expects to use the power if needed to amend relevant legislation, for example, financial services legislation”.—[Official Report, 22/6/26; col. GC 232.]
He went on to say:
“As the recommendations of the independent Access to Banking Services review are currently unknown, it is necessary for Clause 3 to be able to amend primary legislation to respond to any recommendations that are made”.—[Official Report, 22/6/26; col. GC 235.]
In other words, “We don’t know what we want to do, so we’re just going to make it as wide as possible”. My guess is that it is actually highly unlikely that any primary legislation will need to be changed as a result of this, but we shall see.
I think that makes the case against Clause 3. It is not satisfactory for the Government to give themselves the widest of powers, including the unlimited power to change any existing Act of Parliament, when they have no idea what they want to do with those powers.
The Government claim, in the Explanatory Memorandum and elsewhere, that they will narrow the powers once the Lloyd report has been received. But this is Report. We have not seen the report. It will take I do not know how many months for the Government to come up with recommendations based on the report. The Bill will probably already be law by then, so there will be no real opportunity to narrow the powers.
I am sure that the House will support moves to improve access to banking when in due course the Government actually have a plan, and, in the unlikely event that changes are required to existing law, a short, focused Bill can be created to do that, which, as all changes to the law should be, can be subject to the proper scrutiny processes of Parliament. This unfocused clause is too wide and any resulting changes to law would not be subject to proper scrutiny. That is not the right way to legislate. At the very least, the Henry VIII clause should be removed, as I suggest in Amendment 9, but the clause as a whole is too wide, and therefore I urge all noble Lords to support Amendment 10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to remove this unrestricted power.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to support Amendment 8, but no one seems to have spoken to it, so is it in order for me to say a few words on it? It is an important amendment because it contains really the only mention in the whole Bill of post offices. The amendment, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, talks about the Treasury considering
“the effectiveness of alternative frameworks, including the Post Office Banking Framework, in providing access to banking and cash services”.
That is an important aspect of all this.
Increasingly, we are seeing that people, particularly in rural areas or areas where there is high deprivation where people do not have access to online facilities and do not particularly want to go online because they do not trust banks enough to go online or they do not trust the internet, are using their post offices. The post offices could be doing so much more to widen access to cash and money.
I draw attention—although I am sure most noble Lords will have seen it—to the National Federation of SubPostmasters 18-page report on the access to banking services review, which shows statistically just how much more post offices are being used by people and how they could be used to provide even more services. When banks close in areas now, it is usually the post office that picks up a lot of that business.
I welcome the Minister to his position, and I hope he will say whether the Government are serious about increasing the use of post offices, not just for some of the issues to do with banking. You can no longer pay your television licence—if you still want to pay it—in the post office. So many services have been taken away from the post office, but such services would make it much easier and more accessible for people, particularly in rural communities. People trust their local post office. They find that it is somewhere they can go and get the advice and reassurance that they cannot get in a local bank because they do not ever see a bank. I have already mentioned the lack of trust.
I ask the Minister to respond to this amendment and say whether he is willing to talk directly to the National Federation of SubPostmasters to discuss these issues further and how we can make our post offices more vibrant and involved with the local community by being able to offer them the services that they want.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. As this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, as adviser to the Crown Estate and Simmons and Simmons LLP and as non-executive director at Avalanche Foundation and Avalanche (BVI) Inc. I shall speak to Amendment 8, which I had pleasure in signing.
How many brands or businesses have we in the UK that have been on our high street for over half a millennium? That is what we have with the post office, which rode into our lives in 1511 and continues to have just shy of 12,000 branches up and down the country. Whatever happens with digital—and finance certainly is going to become, and already in many areas is, digital—we need, and must support, physical presence and human access to, and interaction with, finance, not least for those who find themselves at the sharpest end of financial exclusion. As I have already mentioned, financial inclusion often and perniciously goes hand in hand with digital exclusion, compounding both of those exclusionary forces.
The post office has a unique role. Of course, it has had well-known difficulties recently, but that does not diminish the potential role it can play as other financial services providers retreat, and have already retreated, from so many of our high streets. It can be the core of the community with inclusive, accessible finance at that core and rippling out all kinds of other financial, digital and small “s” social services. It has such positive potential. We have seen this with the hub model, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response as to whether the Government believe we have enough hubs, whether the plan for hubs is ambitious enough and whether we need to bring other players into this hub model to ensure that, wherever you are, whoever you are, in the country, in socioeconomics, you can have effective access to finance and through that meaningful, sustainable and often physical access to cash and financial services. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to add a few of my own concerns on Clause 3 and to support the remarks made earlier on this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Protecting customer access to essential banking services is, of course, a goal we all share. However, the granting of such wide-ranging executive powers, basically conferring almost unlimited powers on the Treasury for this matter, seems unnecessary, even allowing for the understandable desire to act quickly. The Treasury’s own review of in-person banking access does not report until October, as has been mentioned, and we are being asked to legislate before we know the nature of the problem we are solving or the policy decisions that might follow. Would they be proportionate? Would they be effective? We really have no way of knowing this at this stage and do not even have the benefit of seeing the report.
The Treasury’s memorandum to the DPRRC seeks to narrow these powers when the review concludes, so the Government are implicitly aware, I assume, that the delegated powers are too broad. But the answer is not to grant excessively wide powers now and then tidy up later; surely it would be better to wait or bring back a properly balanced set of powers when the evidence exists. I offer my support to Amendment 10, which would delete Clause 3 altogether.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also support the amendments in this group. I believe that the description of these extremely wide powers should, in itself, alert the House to the dangers that Clause 3 of the Bill could pose. I believe that it is important for the Government to understand, for example, what has been revealed in the latest report, just a few days ago, from Age UK about digital exclusion among the older age groups in this country. It is all very well for policymakers—and Members of this House, indeed—to believe that everyone can manage to bank online and that there is no need to go into a physical branch. But when it comes to the older generations, that is simply not the case. Certainly in terms of the population aged over 65, the research suggests that only 15% of pensioners, or of the over-65s, are fully digitally included and able to use all services digitally—it is 20% of men and 10% of women—and that 1.4 million over-65s are fully digitally excluded. The more we see bank closures and the less access to banking these people have, the more excluded from society they become.
I hope the Government will recognise that we need to make sure that there is an opportunity for Parliament and for the legislation to ensure that these older people are not forgotten or left behind and that the access to banking that they may rely on is not removed, perhaps inadvertently, from legislation where it could have been avoided. For example, if we agreed some of the amendments in this group, they would ensure that either Clause 3 altogether or the most egregious parts of it are removed, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we should make sure that the Lloyd review, which is meant to deal directly with this, is part of the legislation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment, which would leave out Clause 3. I very much agree with the noble, Lord Vaux, and other noble Lords who have spoken.
I support these amendments on constitutional grounds, because of the importance of the separation of powers and the role of Parliament in checking executive power, as my noble friend Lord Massey mentioned. How can we hold the Government to account if we have no knowledge of the powers proposed? Clause 3 allows the Treasury the power to make any regulations it considers appropriate. We have no knowledge of what they are. Clause 3 also gives the Treasury power to delegate powers to the FCA. It allows the FCA to “make rules”,
“amend an Act of Parliament”
or
“make different provision for different purposes”.
There are many concerns about the regulators. I will mention two. First, the regulators do not supervise or explore predictably in accordance with their own rules. You will find different interpretations given to their rules in their rulings. We must ensure that their decisions are consistent between firms which operate businesses of similar sizes. Secondly, formal decisions by the regulators do not necessarily include sufficient explanation to serve as precedents to allow the application of the relevant rules.
I am very pleased to welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and to say how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, but I wish the Minister well. It is on constitutional grounds that I ask him to think very carefully about these amendments.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I will say a couple of words on Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which I fully support. The phrase:
“The Treasury may by regulations make such provision as they consider appropriate in connection with providing access to banking services”,
is not just wide; it is ocean-wide. It is far too wide, and it is without parliamentary consent or any investigation as to what our democratic processes consider to be the right level of banking services and access to banking across this country.
I will also say a few words on Amendment 8. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, spoke about the Post Office. When I was a constituency MP, I faced—as anyone who lives in any part of this country faced—the closure of banking services, which always caused concern, particularly to older residents. I purposely kept my father, now deceased, away from digital banking because of the risk of scams and of those dodgy emails coming in. He was of perfectly sound mind and very capable, but he perhaps was not as scam aware as younger people are, so I wanted him a long way away from digital banking services—and why should he not stay away from digital banking services?
We were always told by the banks that were closing, “Fear not: we have a Post Office network for all that your constituents and customers need to do in terms of access to cash, banking cheques and that more standard stuff”. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I use digital banking—of course I do. However, when faced with cheques, which are a little bit rarer these days than they used to be, I struggle—for obvious reasons—to hold the camera and go up a bit, left a bit, right a bit, down a bit, get told, “It’s not all in the picture yet”, and press the button. I am sure we all share that frustration. Let me leave your Lordships with this about the Post Office: it is not the panacea of everything. Over the last few months, Lloyds Bank has stopped the use of Post Office services to its customers. I do not know why. This is a two-way street: at the banks’ discretion, they can have a relationship with the Post Office or not. For reasons known only to itself, Lloyds has decided not to use the services of the Post Office. For those reasons, I sympathise massively with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who now has to make a 100-mile round trip to a bank. No doubt there is a post office nearer than that, but if you are a Lloyds customer, hard luck: 100 miles.
This is not about the quantity and texture of tomato sauce in a can of beans, which might lead to officials and statutory instruments; these are fundamentals of life that everybody faces on a daily basis. To allow the extent of this power is a power too far. We see far too much Henry VIII in all legislation, not just from this Government but from the Government I was with over the years. There has been a temptation for this creep to happen, and it must not enter the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Mackinlay, for reminding us of the value of post offices and the importance of banking hubs, especially in this ever-expanding digital world. There are serious issues here across the country.
I will speak to my Amendment 10, which would do a very simple thing: remove Clause 3 from the Bill. My argument for it is equally simple: Clause 3 contains no detail about what the Government intend to do. Instead, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, explained, it grants Ministers extraordinarily broad powers, including the power to amend primary legislation on access to banking.
Once the Richard Lloyd review has concluded, the Government may legislate for whatever they subsequently decide is necessary. That could include anything on banking services, with huge implications for consumers, banks, other financial services and the high street. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, the Government will have the power to amend any Act of Parliament. That is a huge power grab by the Treasury and a very significant delegation of power to ask Parliament to approve in advance. We do not know what problems these powers will ultimately be used to address, what regulations the Government envisage making, or which Acts of Parliament they wish to amend. Yet Parliament is nevertheless now being asked to hand over the power to do all these things.
We should be very cautious about giving any Government powers of this breadth on the basis that they will decide later, in good faith, how they wish to use them. Parliament should not be asked to give Ministers carte blanche, particularly where the powers include the ability to amend primary legislation with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. That would set a terrible precedent.
The right course is straightforward: Clause 3 should come out. Once the Government have completed the review of access to banking and know what they wish to do, they can return to Parliament with legislation setting out the policy, the powers required to deliver it and the appropriate safeguards.
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friends Lord Massey, Lord Mackinlay and Lady Lawlor for supporting this amendment. The Minister has a problem: we have a lot of concern across this House, not only among those engaged on the Bill. The amendment reflects the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, with its very expert membership. The committee has also advised that Clause 3 be removed; I say to the Minister that that is usually a killer argument. For these reasons, I do not believe that Clause 3 can remain in the Bill. When Amendment 10 is called, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I am hearing two arguments here: a strong consensus across the House for the need for access to banking and for the appropriate actions to be taken to make sure that that takes place; and a concern, also raised in Committee, about the breadth of the power, particularly its constitutional implications and the degree of scrutiny that Parliament would be able to exercise over any regulations made under it. These are serious points and the Government have considered them seriously, but they have concluded that Clause 3 is needed at this stage. Because the independent Lloyd review of access to banking has not yet concluded, we do not know whether it will recommend intervention, which consumers may be most affected, the nature of any detriment, and what form any intervention should take. Removing Clause 3 altogether, as Amendment 10 would do, would risk leaving the Government without a mechanism in the Bill to respond promptly if the review identifies a focused and time-sensitive need for intervention.
Amendment 9 would remove the ability to amend primary legislation through regulations made under Clause 3. If acting on the review’s findings required changes to an Act of Parliament, removing this ability would risk removing the mechanism to respond promptly to the review and could delay implementation. Amendment 7 would take a different approach by limiting the powers to matters arising directly from the review. I understand the intention behind that amendment and the review should clearly play the central role in shaping any future intervention. That is why the Bill already requires the Treasury to have regard to the review’s recommendations, but it would not be right to prevent Ministers from considering other relevant evidence alongside the review when deciding whether and how to act. The Government need to preserve the ability to respond proportionately to the full evidence that is available.
Amendment 8 is probably one on which we all agree. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, talked about the central part that post offices can play in making sure that banking access is available. I can confirm that the chair of the review into access to banking services has received representations from and has engaged with the Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters and that officials will continue to engage as part of the development. As noble Lords know, the target is more than 350 full banking hubs, plus 10,500 post offices, involved in this, and I thoroughly commend the points that they have made.
I absolutely understand the concerns about the Henry VIII powers, which seem very broad. Clause 3 does not itself impose new obligations on firms, or any specific model of banking provision. Any regulations under the power would also be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, I assure noble Lords that the Government do not expect Clause 3 to remain in its current form. I forget how the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said her hopes would be fulfilled, but I think they would be fulfilled by amendments that were focused on the thing that we all agree on, which is the need for proper access to banking for older people, for younger people—for everyone.
The Government remain committed to keeping the scope of the power under review as the independent review completes its work. We expect to narrow this power after the review reports in October, when I expect the Bill will be in the Commons. Once the Lloyd review has concluded, the Government will be in a better position to consider the correct scope of this power. It would therefore be premature to narrow the power at this stage. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, though perhaps more in hope than expectation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, given that the Conservative Front Bench have expressed their interest in moving Amendment 10, I will withdraw Amendment 7.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I seek to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Access to affordable credit(1) The Financial Conduct Authority must—(a) within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish and publish a framework for assessing and rating the performance of relevant deposit takers in providing access to affordable credit,(b) annually publish updated ratings and scores produced by the FCA under the framework, and(c) keep the framework established under paragraph (a) under review and publish an updated framework as it deems necessary.(2) The framework must—(a) assess the extent to which relevant deposit takers serve the credit needs of individuals, households and small businesses, including those who are underserved by mainstream financial services, and (b) enable comparisons to be made between relevant deposit takers.(3) In developing the framework, the FCA must have regard to—(a) the distribution of lending across income groups, geographic areas and customer characteristics,(b) the availability of affordable credit to consumers who may otherwise be at risk of financial exclusion,(c) the provision of affordable credit to small and medium-sized enterprises, and social enterprises,(d) the extent to which a bank supports access to affordable credit through partnerships, referral arrangements and funding agreements, with credit unions, community development finance institutions or other community-based lenders, and(e) such other matters as the FCA considers relevant to the objective of promoting access to affordable credit.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), the FCA may—(a) make use of regulatory data already collected by it, including product sales data,(b) require relevant deposit takers to provide such information as it reasonably considers necessary for the purposes of the framework, and(c) make different and proportionate provision for different sizes of business.(5) Where a relevant deposit taker receives a score or rating below a minimum threshold prescribed by rules made under this section, the FCA must require the deposit taker to take proportionate remedial action to improve its rating.(6) For the purpose specified in subsection (5), the FCA may—(a) make such rules or issue such guidance applying to designated persons as appear to the FCA to be necessary or expedient, and(b) give a direction under this section to a designated person if it considers that it is desirable to give the direction.(7) For the purposes of this section, “relevant deposit takers” are—(a) banks, within the meaning given in section 2 of the Banking Act 2009;(b) building societies, within the meaning of section 119 of the Building Societies Act 1986;which meet an FCA-set threshold for the total volume of personal and small and medium business lending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the FCA to establish a framework assessing banks’ and building societies’ provision of affordable credit, including via partnerships with credit unions and community development finance institutions. It uses existing regulatory data where possible, with proportionate requirements for firms of different sizes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns itself with financial inclusion. I have two important but very different amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 11, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has added his name, and I thank him for that. The House will know that I have long been an advocate for CDFIs—community development financial institutions, which are usually banks or credit unions—which are dedicated to serving the banking and finance needs of local communities and small businesses, as our high street banks once did. They do what I suppose in modern terms we would call “place-based lending”; they know the community, its businesses and its people, and they are structured, staffed and skilled to provide those services. By contrast, SMEs struggle to get mainstream bank credit.
The Government have taken steps to grow CDFIs, providing £150 million to the British Business Bank to develop a community ENABLE fund, and increasing the growth guarantee scheme by a significant £6.5 billion over four years. They have set up a UK community finance partnership taskforce, with an impressive membership, to build partnerships between CDFIs and mainstream banks. But the key piece of the puzzle is missing; we do not have the driver to create many more CDFIs or community banks, if you prefer that term, and credit unions across the country, especially in our most disadvantaged areas.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this group and, indeed, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. There is a thread which unites all the amendments in this group: they all make sense, they are all clear and the Government should accept them.
Before I talk about the amendments in my name and the ones I have signed, I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, around child trust funds and follow her in acknowledging the great work that the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Young of Cookham, in particular have done for years on this issue. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, are particularly pertinent to this point. He was the Minister in charge at the time, in a Labour Government, and he has said things on numerous occasions in this House along the lines that this was never the intention. If this was never intended government policy from a Labour Government, then we now have a Labour Government. Would this not be the ideal opportunity to stop this being government policy and to make the changes set out in this amendment—and, if not to make the changes along the lines of these words, for the department to come up with some words of its own to make this change?
A review is not the solution. We know the issues; they have been well set out over years. We have the opportunity, with this Bill, to resolve the issue and to make such a difference, not just to the 80,000 or so individuals who have those trust funds but to the hundreds of thousands of family members, friends and communities who are adversely affected by this current position for want of government action, which could make this change and, through that, make such a difference.
I turn to my amendments on financial inclusion and the role of the various regulators. The regulators have a lot of obligations put upon them. I suggest just this: how can we have, in the United Kingdom, a financial services regulator which does not have clear responsibility for financial inclusion and a clear obligation to report on what it has done to advance it, specifying in detail all those affected? Financial inclusion—and, indeed, the adverse, financial exclusion—is not just a matter of the same people having the same effects and suffering the same exclusion. It is specific to older people, to disabled people, to those in certain socioeconomic groups and to those in certain geographies. Specific solutions and a strategy which incorporates all that and puts it into an operational road map are required if we are to get behind solving financial inclusion.
We have a Financial Stability Board, but I argue that you cannot have financial stability if you do not have effective, sustainable financial inclusion. It may not be measured, because the adverse impacts are often in other government departments and other parts of the state. But be in no doubt: when you gross up all the costs, implications and consequences of financial exclusion, that is financial instability, not just for individuals but for communities and for our country.
The financial regulators, among others, should take a leading role to get after this pernicious problem of financial exclusion, which has dogged our society for decades, blighted lives, impacted individuals and had an impact, when all put together, on what the Government constantly—and rightly—go on about in terms of growth. Well, if they want growth then financially including individuals right across this country would be a fine place to start.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I have only put forward one amendment to this entire Bill, Amendment 70. I spoke at great length in Committee and highlighted then, as I will highlight now, that I am a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, and have conducted probate work over many years.
Let us just lay out a little the framework of where we got to in the provision of IHT423, because it will not be familiar to everyone in this House, I am sure. The IHT423 arrangement was first rolled out in 2003 and applied only to banks and building societies, or cash-based liquid accounts. It allowed for the breaking of the Catch-22 situation which executors find themselves in when they administer an estate. An estate is often in two parts, one of which is called the free estate, which is your cash and liquid investments. The IHT on that has to be paid six months after the end of the month of death. The other part of the estate is property and often unquoted securities, where there is a non-liquid market; an instalment basis can apply over 10 years. Given that the new rate of IHT interest chargeable on unpaid tax, following Rachel Reeves’s first Budget, is now 4% above base, so currently 7.75%, then no matter whether it is free estate, payable immediately, or part of the estate that can be paid over 10 years, given the 7.75% interest rate, which is truly penal, most executors would like to pay the tax as soon as they possibly can, and certainly by the due date of six months after the date of death.
In the old days, the IHT423 procedure, which is a means by which a financial institution can release funds before probate, was working, because very few estates were hit by IHT. But because of fiscal drag—I will admit as much as anybody else that a lot of it occurred over our Government—the levels of free amounts for IHT have remained unchanged since 2009, which has meant that more and more estates are dragged into the IHT pot. So the IHT423 arrangement, of getting funds out of an estate before probate can be obtained—as I say, a Catch-22 of chasing one’s tail of having to pay the tax before probate can be obtained—was widened to any types of investment. That was negotiated by HMRC in 2024, so fairly recently, in recognition of the huge number of estates that now face IHT.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I fully echo the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, just made, having had personal experience, sadly, of just what he described. Amendment 70 would provide at least some relief to those executors who cannot access funds and who see the interest racking up while probate delays or other delays beyond their control are occurring to the estate.
I urge the Minister also to take back to his department that if inheritance tax is indeed levied on unused pension funds from next April, there is not even the allowance in the new system for a 10-year delay, as there is with property, so it will not just be interest that racks up; there will be penalties and so on. There is a real problem in that regard and, indeed, there is a real issue with the costs involved in probate for the executors who cannot have the money released because some institutions have decided that even though the money is going to be paid directly to HMRC to satisfy inheritance tax, it will still not release the money—and, of course, it will still be charging fees on the funds that it retains. So I hope that the Minister will take seriously the ideas in Amendment 70.
I strongly support Amendment 60, and I would have added my name to it had I been more on the ball. It was so nobly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She spoke of the child trust fund issue, where parents and carers of children—who cannot make the decision for themselves—who are managing the money for those children, and have done so since the child’s birth in some cases, are being told that they must go through an enormously lengthy legal process just to be able to take a bit of money out of the money that the Government gave for those children, which was safeguarded until age 18. When they reached that age, they were unable to access the funds.
Child trust funds started in 2005 so this problem of people being unable to get money from the child trust fund has been going on since 2023. Indeed, there was a consultation in 2022, which recommended that a small payment scheme at least should be introduced, but in the meantime, nothing has happened. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, the costs of going to court and obtaining an order to be able to take money out of a trust fund could use up most—or, even, in some cases, all—of the money in the fund. There is an issue that needs to be addressed. Amendment 60 would be a way of helping these families, and I hope that the Minister will take this back to the department and come back with some positive news on this issue.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I have sympathy with all the amendments in the group, but I will focus my comments on Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I added my name. As we have heard, this would require the FCA to establish a framework assessing banks’ and building societies’ provision of affordable credit.
Credit is a lifeline for families facing debt and financial hardship. According to a recent report, 60% of the clients of Christians Against Poverty—CAP—an organisation that is very active in my diocese, find that they have to borrow money to pay for household essentials and bills. They are not borrowing for luxuries: when credit is unavailable, they are left to delay essential spending and go without meeting their most basic needs. Sometimes, spending a little now will save you spending a lot more down the line.
I am extremely grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Credit inaccessibility has real consequences for those who are struggling the most. According to CAP, 47% of UK adults who currently have debt that they are struggling to manage have been unable to access their preferred credit option in the past two years.
This kind of financial exclusion means that we are locking vulnerable families into a cycle of poverty. We are depriving them of the tools they need to climb their way out. Unable to look beyond the pressing need to put dinner on the table, it is those with the most desperate need who are forced to sacrifice the most to get by. Left with limited choices, they are the ones most likely to enter riskier credit deals and to pay the greatest poverty premium. I have worked as a vicar in parishes where loans were enforced by men with baseball bats.
Since Committee, we have had the report of the Commons Treasury Committee on the Government’s financial inclusion strategy. The report highlights the need for
“proportionate firm-level financial inclusion metrics. These should focus on the largest providers and on markets where exclusion causes the greatest consumer harm”.
That specifically includes “affordable credit”. The report proposes that metrics
“should be designed to identify whether progress is being delivered consistently across firms and sectors”.
The committee also concluded:
“Voluntary action and pilots … cannot be the main driver of a national financial inclusion strategy unless there are clear routes to scale and clear consequences if voluntary action fails”.
What is proposed in this amendment clearly has much wider parliamentary backing than simply from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and me. Indeed, several major lenders indicated to the Treasury Committee that they would be entirely happy to provide financial inclusion data as part of a statutory system.
This Bill, and this amendment to it, provide a sensible and practical solution to implement what the Treasury Committee advocated. Importantly, it will place responsibility for access to affordable credit on the lender, and introduce a clear framework by which banks and building societies can be assessed on how effectively they are meeting the financial needs of underserved communities. The new requirement for this framework to be kept constantly under review will ensure that those requirements remain open to scrutiny and adaptable to ever changing patterns of financial exclusion—patterns that could become more dynamic and entrenched as society rapidly changes. This amendment is an important step towards ensuring that our financial services meet the needs and uphold the dignity of real people, rather than expecting individuals to adapt to systems that too often exclude them from full participation in economic and community life. The only people who will not like it are the dodgy lenders who harass people in my diocese. I pray that we all support this amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate. I much look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on child trust funds for those in that capacity. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackinlay that we have a problem with HMRC administration of estates, with the risk of more chaos in prospect as IHT on pensions arrives. We should be finding a way to improve the system—for example, by widening the application of IHT423.
I will focus on Amendment 94 on financial education. This is an issue on which I have campaigned for a long time. It reflects my belief that financial capability is an essential life skill and, indeed, that it is essential if we are to have financial inclusion for those struggling to make ends meet. I will not repeat the strong case I made in Committee on 8 July which can be found in Hansard at column 149. Our revised amendment would require the FCA to take reasonable steps to work with the Money and Pensions Service, the Secretary of State for Education, relevant education bodies, providers of teacher training and professional development and industry bodies to support the effective delivery of financial education. It is good that I now have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
The financial decisions that people are expected to make are increasingly complex. Young people, as well as adults of all ages, need a working understanding of concepts such as compound interest, inflation, pensions, savings, taxation, borrowing and so on. My noble friend Lord Agnew was on the BBC this weekend. He has written about how 10 million adults in Britain right now have the numeracy of a primary school child, yet we are asking young people to make extremely significant financial decision—sometimes taking on tens of thousands of pounds of student debt—without necessarily giving them the grounding in financial concepts that would allow them to understand those decisions.
I was very grateful to the Minister for helping to arrange a meeting with the Money and Pensions Service. I recognise the work that it is doing. However, one concern I took away from that meeting was that a considerable amount of financial guidance focuses on moments when an individual has reached a major financial event, such as taking out a mortgage, dealing with a divorce, approaching retirement or experiencing financial difficulty. I believe we need to be more ambitious. Our objective should be to build financial capability throughout the population before people reach these moments and, indeed, to encourage sound investment and savings for a rainy day.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these issues around financial inclusion. The Government fully recognise the importance of improving access to appropriate and affordable financial services—particularly those for people on low incomes and in vulnerable circumstances—and of improving the financial education of the nation. We support the intention behind many of the amendments, but we are not persuaded that putting this measure into primary legislation is necessarily the right way forward. I hope to describe what the Government are doing, including actions that we have taken as a result of some of the issues raised in Committee.
I start with Amendment 11, which would measure what banks and building societies are doing about affordable credit then set standards for them; for example, setting up something such as a CDFI would count against what they would be required to do. I would like to take a step back because quite a lot is already happening and there are important things that the Government are doing, as was articulately described by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Let me start with small businesses. In the Mansion House speech in July, the then Chancellor announced the expansion of the British Business Bank’s growth guarantee scheme, doubling SME lending to £3.5 billion.
I share the focus of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on community development through financial institutions. Through the Community Finance Taskforce, we have brought together banks, community finance advisers and the Government. At Mansion House, more than £10 million of philanthropic funding from JPMorgan Chase and support from BNY was announced for the sector. The taskforce will publish a road map early next year to support the ambition of unlocking a further £1 billion of SME lending over five years. The British Business Bank’s Community ENABLE Funding Programme committed nearly £120 million of funding, with a second phase intending to grow that to £500 million. We are improving competition and supply through the enhancement of commercial credit data sharing in order to strengthen bank referral arrangements.
On personal lending, the Government’s financial inclusion strategy includes measures to strengthen community finance and partnerships between mainstream lenders and CDFIs. We are supporting practical interventions, including a small sum credit pilot in which Monzo has already announced it will be the first participant, as well as a transformation fund for credit unions alongside the common bond reforms—those are even part of this Bill—to make sure that credit unions can do their job better. I was quite taken by what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said about the centrality of being able to provide this sort of fund; I note that the only businessperson to receive a Nobel Peace Prize was someone who did that by finding a way to lend unsubsidised money to poor people in Bangladesh.
This is important, but a lot is already going on, and I wonder whether supporting that might be something that we would want to think about. The amendment would require the FCA to act against firms that do not meet minimum lending standards. However, do we not want customers and businesses to access appropriate credit and balance that with risks of overindebtedness? The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right that what gets measured gets managed; equally, we need to be worried about creating a system where people are hitting the target and missing the point. For these reasons, the Government are not persuaded that these amendments are the right way of improving behaviour or pricing. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and, please, support the other actions that are being taken by the Government to address this critical question.
Amendments 57 and 61 concern how the regulators report on financial inclusion. Amendment 57 seeks to require the FCA and PRA to publish annual reports on how they have advanced financial inclusion. Amendment 61 seeks to require the FCA to publish an annual report on financial inclusion detailing how it has had regard to financial inclusion in exercising its functions and assess the impact of its activities on financial inclusion outcomes. These amendments would impose new statutory reporting duties that risk duplicating existing arrangements for how the FCA reports about the state of financial inclusion and its impact on it. Amendment 57 would also place reporting duties on the PRA, whose statutory duty is prudential regulation. This would create uncertainty about the PRA’s remit and what it would be expected to report against.
Financial inclusion is a shared responsibility across government, regulators and particularly the industry rather than a matter for regulators alone. We know that exclusion is driven by a broad range of complex and overlapping factors, including wider economic conditions, technological change and behavioural drivers. Accountability for improving financial inclusion should therefore remain a collective effort rather than being placed on one or two institutions whose powers extend to only part of the challenge.
The Government have set out this collective approach through our Financial Inclusion Strategy. We continue to work closely with regulators, firms and consumer groups to improve access to financial services and support those who are underserved. The strategy is subject to a public review, which will take place next year, to assess the progress that has been made through this collective effort and where further work is needed. I look forward to the input of Members of this House when that is published.
Amendment 60 concerns child trust funds, which have been spoken about passionately and very articulately by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Decisions about who may act on behalf of persons lacking capacity are governed at bottom by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and determined by the courts. The Act provides a well-established framework, including oversight by the Court of Protection, to ensure that access to and management of a vulnerable person’s account takes place where appropriate safeguards are in place and in that person’s best interest. This reflects the very real need to safeguard and protect vulnerable people.
This amendment seeks an alternative route of access outside that framework. However, it is difficult to ask the FCA to put that court protection aside—and the FCA does not even have the power to do that. Legislating to permit that would require giving the FCA the power to alter the effect of primary legislation through its rules via a Henry VIII power but without the same degree of oversight. That cannot be the right way forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned, on 8 July the Ministry of Justice convened a round table on mature child trust funds and young adults who lacked the mental capacity, not least because of debates in your Lordships’ House. That meeting was attended by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, other stakeholders and the previous Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Blake. My noble friend Lady Levitt spoke directly with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and members of the public, and she made it clear that any solution to this issue would likely need to be delivered through primary legislation. Ultimately, this cannot be resolved through the FCA rules or changes to tax legislation. Primary legislation would be required.
However, we do take this matter very seriously, and I have raised it with the Ministry of Justice. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it is exploring how the Government can best facilitate access for parents and carers to child trust funds on behalf of their children. I do not have a solution, but we are trying. In the meantime, the FCA is conducting a review into provider practices under child trust fund accounts, including on whether there are barriers to vulnerable young adults accessing their money. We welcome this review. However, as I said, the underlying issue lies in the Mental Capacity Act, and it is not possible for the FCA to substitute or override the primary legislation in that Act.
Amendment 70 would require the FCA to ensure that financial institutions that are registered or regulated by the FCA facilitate the payment of inheritance tax by executors, before probate is obtained, through direct payment schemes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, for raising this question. I am sorry to hear of the difficulties that he experienced. The duty of administering an estate often arises at one of the most difficult times in a person’s life, and I understand the noble Lord’s desire to ease that process for people who face similar circumstances.
The noble Lord has previously acknowledged that the direct payment scheme generally works well in its existing voluntary form and that it is rare to come across a case where an institution refuses a request to pay tax that is due. Following our debate on this amendment, we asked HMRC officials to contact the company where the money was lodged to understand more generally its policy on the direct payment scheme. The company confirmed that it does in fact facilitate direct payments to HMRC, normally through investment holdings, but there were some types of investment products that it did not consider suitable for release directly to HMRC before grant of probate. These included certain types of bond products. That is as far as we have got on this.
However, the noble Lord’s amendment proposes to mandate the use of the direct payment scheme by FCA-regulated institutions. Our experience—and, I think, his experience—is that most financial institutions facilitate direct payment schemes most of the time. There may be certain types of financial product where releasing funds to HMRC before the grant of probate presents a particular legal and technical complexity. Perhaps we can write to people who are not following the voluntary scheme well, but the advantage of a voluntary scheme is that institutions can assess the level of risk involved and make payment only if they are satisfied that they are releasing those funds correctly. The amendment as drafted would not allow for that to happen.
The noble Lord suggested that this change be made through FCA rules. However, changes to primary legislation may also be required to make this change. FCA rules do not generally displace the private law framework. Making this change through FCA rules could leave financial institutions on an uncertain legal footing. However, we have taken most seriously the points that the noble Lord has raised. They are good points and this area may still need to be addressed, but not by this amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will not reargue the points, and I thank everybody who has participated in this debate. I will just say to the Minister on Amendment 11 that, having cited a number of American banks, I suggest that he goes to talk to them and tell them that this amendment both works and is vital. Because of that, and because of the significance of growth for the future of the UK economy and growth in every postcode, I intend to press Amendment 11.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, before I move to the next amendment, I should inform the House that there was a small discrepancy in the numbers announced for the second Division, which did not affect the result, but the result should have been: Contents 246, Not-Contents 165. That was Division 2 on Amendment 10.
Clause 4: The Financial Ombudsman
Amendment 12
Lord Pitt-Watson
“(ga) in paragraph 14 (scheme rules), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (f);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the power of the scheme operator to make rules providing for the delegation of functions from the Financial Ombudsman to staff, given the Financial Ombudsman’s general power to delegate under new paragraph 1B inserted by clause 4(8)(b).
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group. Before turning to the detail, I should briefly note that almost all these amendments were previously tabled by the Government in Committee, where, in light of concerns expressed about the way in which they were tabled, the Government agreed to bring them back on Report. The group contains a modest number of minor and technical amendments, which are not unusual for a Bill of this size. They do not alter the underlying policy of the Bill. Their purpose is to ensure the Bill is relevant and that the relevant provisions in FSMA operate clearly and consistently. I will try to be quite quick, therefore, in going through them all, so as not to tire your Lordships.
First, turning to Amendments 18, 21 and 23 to 25. These are minor technical corrections to Schedule 2 to the Bill, which, taken with Clause 13, abolishes the Payment Systems Regulator and gives broadly equivalent functions to the FCA. Amendment 18 removes the duplicative provision from new Section 131Z19. Amendment 21 corrects a cross-reference so that the Bill refers to the correct FCA payment system. Amendments 23 to 25 ensure that references to the chair of the PSR, which should be obsolete after the PSR is abolished, are deleted in the correct places.
I hope this is all making sense, but if noble Lords have a particular thing they want to talk about, please do indicate. Amendments 73 to 75 are, once again, minor and technical amendments.
Amendment 12, which relates to Clause 4, makes a consequential amendment. New paragraph 1B of Schedule 17 to FSMA, inserted by Clause 4, permits any function of the Financial Ombudsman to be performed by any member of staff.
Amendments 76 to 79 relate to Clause 33. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill introduces a more flexible senior management approvals framework, including the ability for firms to apply for conditional or time-limited approval in specified circumstances. These are technical amendments to ensure that the framework operates consistently and in line with the original policy intent.
As regards Amendment 81, finally, when the Bill before us gains Royal Assent, there will already exist a number of overseas recognition regimes created under existing powers in FSMA 2023 to restate regimes inherited from the EU. This amendment enables the Treasury to make consolidating provision, which would restate the existing regimes within the new overseas recognition regime framework. This is essentially a tidying-up exercise.
In summary, this group of government amendments makes technical corrections to ensure the Bill works as intended. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward these already tabled amendments, assembled this evening in group 4, and declare my interest as a director of South Molton Street Capital. These amendments, as the Minister explained, remove duplication, correct drafting, make the provisions of the Bill work better together, and make the Bill intelligible, internally consistent and ultimately more workable in practice. Therefore, we support them.
Lord Sharkey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provisions relating to how the Financial Ombudsman Service may refer matters on complaints to the FCA.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 13 to 15 and 99. Clauses 7 and 8 propose radical reform of the relationship between the FOS and the FCA, and of the method of determining complaints to the FOS. These proposals will have a critical effect on consumer protection. They will turn the independent FOS into a subset of the FCA and make successful complaints harder to progress or achieve. Parliament designed and brought the FOS regime into being to provide accessible, no cost procedures for quickly determining complaints. At its heart is the “fair and reasonable” test. This test is abolished by the Bill, despite having been explicitly confirmed in July last year in the memorandum of understanding signed by the FOS and the FCA. The Bill will reduce access to free and impartial redress, introduce additional bureaucracy and costs, and ultimately risk damaging confidence in the financial services industry.
The Government have not supplied any meaningful hard evidence that might justify, or at least explain convincingly, the rationale for these reforms. They say only that the Government’s review found that,
“in a small but significant minority of cases, the FOS has acted as a quasi-regulator”.
They do not say how small or how significant these cases are, or how significance was defined and engaged, and they have completely ignored repeated requests from these Benches to provide a clear description of the problem being addressed and of the necessity for such radical changes.
Three months ago, at Second Reading, I asked for hard evidence. I got none, not even an acknowledgement of the request. I asked again on the first day in Committee, and again had no result. I asked again on the last day in Committee. This time, the then Minister—who is in his seat—apologised for not writing in answer to my questions and promised to get back to me
“as soon as we have that information to hand again”.—[Official Report, 8/7/26; col. GC 161.]
I have heard nothing since. This lack of response displays an almost contemptuous approach to parliamentary scrutiny, and it also makes obvious that the Government are unclear about the existence of any significant problem in the way that the FOS and the FCA operate under their current MoU.
I am grateful to Sarah Pritchard, FCA deputy CEO, for her attempts to persuade the Government to answer our questions in a meaningful way. In her letter to me and my noble friend Lady Kramer of 6 August, she said:
“We recognise that you have consistently sought further evidence from HM Treasury to support the case for reform, particularly the contention that uncertainty in FOS decision making may be constraining innovation. Following our meeting, we have formally re-iterated this request to HM Treasury and highlighted the importance of ensuring parliament has access to the evidence and analysis underpinning these proposals”.
HMT appears to deal with these things even-handedly; it has ignored her as well.
Her letter went on to say:
“One area where legislative change is being proposed concerns the interaction between our rules and the Ombudsman’s ‘fair and reasonable’ test. The aim is to provide greater consistency and alignment between regulatory requirements and complaint outcomes, while preserving the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider the wider circumstances of the case”.
This sounds like the arrangements currently in place under the MoU, but the Bill goes much further in practice. In effect, it reduces the scope of this discretion and reduces the FOS to a subset of the FCA, with the FCA rulebook being the determinator. It is very hard to see that this preserves the independence of the FOS and, of course, independence is desirable.
In evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee on 15 July, Nikhil Rathi said:
“From the FCA’s perspective, we want an independent Financial Ombudsman Service. That is a really important safeguard for your consumers”.
Both Mr Rathi and Mr Alder, the FCA chair, in the same TSC session, went on to express concern about the interaction between the FCA’s interpretation of rules and the FOS’s decision-making. Mr Rathi said that
“with a system where people can try to instrumentalise it so that everything that they disagree with can get pushed to us to try to deal with in 30 days because it is deemed ambiguous, you will gum up the system”.
His chair emphasised the point of this:
“To Nikhil’s point, if we get this wrong, the system will become gummed up … As a result, the main objectives of those changes in the legislation will not be met. It is very important that we get this right”.
This is the very real danger of a requirement for the FCA to respond to a referral from the FOS within 30 days. In the same session, Sarah Pritchard said:
“We have been clear that we want the Financial Ombudsman Service to deliver quickly for consumers. We do not want to turn into a backdoor appeal mechanism. Where there are important matters around the intention of our rules, absolutely we should be there to clarify. We are already taking referrals from the Financial Ombudsman Service that do that”.
The July 2025 MoU between the FOS and the FCA is in operation now. It seems clear that this blueprint has taken into account current and anticipated problems, but it differs radically from the FOS proposals in Clauses 7 and 8, including on the absolutely critical criterion of the FOS making a determination. If the MoU is working and if it is working with, as it says, the fair and reasonable test at its heart, why are the Government proposing to abolish that test and the FOS’s effective independence?
My Amendments 13 and 14 address these issues. Amendment 13 would remove Clause 7, with its referral method and four other pages of prescriptive micromanagement, including a kind of Henry VIII power on page 6. Amendment 14 seeks to restore the “fair and reasonable” test agreed in the MoU.
Consumer groups have noticed the proposed changes in the Bill and many are very strongly opposed. For example, Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert strongly supports the removal of Clause 7 and the replacement of Clause 8 with the current “fair and reasonable” test. In all, 12 leading consumer organisations have written to us asking for support for Amendments 13, 14 and 15. I will not read out the whole list, but they have agreed a statement that says:
“At a time when the cost-of-living crisis is pushing household budgets to breaking point, the Government should not be altering the fairness test and introducing new bureaucratic hurdles in the very system that provides redress for financial loss”.
Finally, my Amendment 15 would create breathing space to enable a proper evidence-based review to take place, with a report to Parliament on its findings and recommendations. Amendment 15 sets out the proposed independent review process and its scope and timelines. It requires the review to take place not before the second anniversary of signing the MoU and then to report within 12 months. Amendment 99 would simply put the commencement of Clauses 7 and 8 on hold until the review’s report has been laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on making a very powerful case for keeping the existing system under which the FOS operates. The problem here, expressed in the considerable representations that we have received from consumer groups, is a lack of clarity about the problem that this is meant to address, coupled with clear concerns about the loss of the fair and reasonable requirement. That is the central point. We have a system that works, in which there is a degree of consumer confidence. The reason for interfering in that system is not clear to the bodies representing consumers, so my Government have to do more to justify these changes.
Interestingly, I had some discussions with the previous Minister, who is now sharing the same Bench as me, and one of the points that came out is that it is quite difficult for the Government to point to cases in which they expect a different result following this change from what was happening before. It would be unreasonable for the Government to pick on individual cases and say, “Those people really should not have had that finding from the ombudsman”, but that is at the heart of what is being proposed here.
Before my noble friend the Minister’s elevation, I discussed this with him at length. He assured me at the time that the impact on the consumer would not be material—that the way that the legislation is worded, in particular the rules that the FCA would have to interpret for the FOS, would embrace the concept of “fair and reasonable”. It would certainly help a great deal in allaying my concerns if those assurances could be given to the House. The Minister probably cannot express it in these terms, but it would help if he could say that these changes are contingent and will be reviewed and judged on their effect. That would allay my continued concerns about what is being proposed here.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s amendments. Some years ago, I gave a speech on ethics in finance in connection with the international Robin Cosgrove Prize in which I outlined what I called my eggshell strategy. The premise was simple: we must force firms, boards and employees to think, not merely to comply. Worry is a warning system. The question is never “How close to the line can we sail?” but “How fair have we been?” The core issue here is exactly that: rule compliance is not a substitute for fundamental fairness. The FCA’s consumer duty expresses the same principle, but that does not mean that the FCA should become the sole repository of judging fairness. We have always had the courts as the backup, and the Financial Ombudsman Service more recently, because courts are financially inaccessible to most consumers.
The proposal to tie the ombudsman strictly to FCA rule compliance assumes that, if a firm follows the letter of a rule, it has acted fairly. The motor finance saga demonstrated the opposite. For years, firms relied on nuances in the FCA’s disclosure rules to argue that discretionary commission arrangements were permissible, but these were hidden discretionary commissions, and any reasonable person looking at those structures from a consumer’s perspective could see that variable hidden commissions, with costs levied on the consumer, were inherently unfair.
Honesty and transparency are always the best policy, irrespective of rule nuances. They are your defence. Firms must think like a consumer when considering what is fair, rather than asking their compliance officers how close to the line they can sail. If we shackle the ombudsman to technical rule compliance, we destroy its core statutory purpose to provide an independent, common-sense check where formal regulations have fallen short or lagged behind market practice.
Equally, imposing a rigid 10-year absolute long-stop creates a dangerous incentive. In long-tail products or hidden commission structures, unfairness may be actively concealed. A 10-year cut-off rewards firms that manage to keep material facts hidden for a decade, while shutting the door on consumers who discover the harm only years later. Under Section 32 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not allow time to run when material facts have been concealed. Why should the Financial Ombudsman be forced to do so? A regime that rewards concealment is not a regime that promotes fairness.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, we take a different view on the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our position is that the present FOS model now requires more fundamental reform. We propose that the Treasury should publish draft legislation to replace the FOS with a new financial adjudication service, alongside a dedicated financial services chamber within the First-tier Tribunal.
We accept the need for consumers and SMEs to have access to redress that is fast, expert and affordable. Our concern is that the FOS has evolved well beyond a simple dispute resolution function. Its decisions can shape market behaviour and influence how FCA rules are understood, without the same accountability as a regulator or the legal certainty created by binding precedent.
At the heart of that concern is the fair and reasonable test. A firm may comply with the law, FCA rules and its contractual obligations but still face uncertainty about whether the ombudsman will take a different view. We simply cannot have this situation if we want a regulatory landscape that is conducive to business confidence. We therefore understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, but we start from a different premise. Our position has not changed. We want a redress system that remains accessible to consumers but is also more predictable, legally certain and consistent.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I start with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, if I have failed to respond to him appropriately, but perhaps I can do so in the remarks that I will now make. In response to my noble friend Lord Davies, I am clear that treating customers fairly is one of the business principles of the FCA and is therefore one of the criteria by which a complaint will be able to be made to the FOS.
The FOS plays a vital role in the redress framework for financial services, ensuring that consumers have confidence that, if there is a complaint about a financial services provider, there is an independent, impartial service that can resolve that complaint and has the ability to put things right. That role will not be changing as a result of these reforms. However, the framework within which the FOS operates is not as consistent as it needs to be, and that is not good for consumers or financial services firms. That inconsistency is not surprising because the FOS’s fair and reasonable test was determined before the consumer duty came to the FCA.
The Government’s review of the FOS found that there is a small but possible minority of cases where that inconsistency in the framework could cause false determinations to have the effect of quasi-regulations by setting standards that may not be in line with FCA regulations. To be clear, these are all the FCA regulations. If noble Lords had been with me three months ago, they would have seen me writing letters to my predecessor confirming that that was indeed the case.
As far as the House of Lords is concerned, the Financial Services Regulation Committee stated in its report Growing Pains, that the FOS’s actions can,
“have regulatory impacts by creating precedents that the FCA requires firms to follow”—
again, a quasi-regulator. That is the background to why we are doing this.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
The key issue that I think the Minister has rather glossed over is the evidence base for making these changes. We have been told it would be coming; it has not come. Consistently, we have been told that letters are being developed, but letters have not arrived. I asked for a specific letter and was told that of course it could be provided. It is about the car finance scandal, which was basically exposed through the FOS while the FCA stood to the side, and what would be different now in the consequences of the complaints. What would happen to the complaints that would be different? This seems to be the issue that lies at the heart of this. The FOS exposed a major scandal. As the Minister will know, car finance is the second largest financial market in the UK. Nine out of 10 people who buy a car finance that car. The redress scheme that the FCA has been forced to put into place is currently £7 billion. If I understand correctly from listening to the Minister and his various advisers, in future the FCA approach to the problem would reign, this scandal would never be exposed and there would never be redress. I am waiting for the letter that is supposed to tell me whether that is exactly correct.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
Let me try to address that question. The FCA and the FOS are independent. It is not for the Government to decide what was a correct or a false decision. All that the Government are saying is that the criteria by which the FOS adjudicates should be similar to the rules that practitioners are trying to exercise in the way in which they are working. I think that is just good common sense. I believe there will be a publication coming out shortly from the industry with examples of where the industry may think that the FOS treated it in a way that was inconsistent with the FCA. It is not for me to judge whether that took place. It is for the FOS to judge whether that took place. That may be the reason that I am proving so frustrating in being able to write back properly to the noble Baroness.
Amendment 14 would remove Clause 8 from the Bill and add a list of factors that the FOS must take into account when determining what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. In Committee, the noble Lord and others raised concerns that Clause 8 might remove the ability of the FOS to consider fairness in the round. That is not the case. The FOS will still make its determination based on all the circumstances of the case.
The amendments made to FSMA by Clause 8 do not abolish the fair and reasonable test. That is the final adjudication that will be made by the FOS and, because of the principles of business, treating customers fairly is one of the criteria by which a complaint could be made.
Where the relevant FCA rules apply, the Government consider that FOS determinations should be consistent with those rules. Consumers and firms should be able to understand and rely on the FCA rules as providing the standards against which conduct is going to be assessed. I want to be clear: that extends to all the FCA’s rules—I think that addresses my noble friend Lord Davies’s question. That includes the principles for business, the consumer duty and the code of conduct. These are designed to secure high standards of conduct and consumer protection. If a firm fails to meet its obligations under these broad principles-based rules, the FOS may conclude that it should pay redress to the complainant, taking into account this failure and any other relevant information, such as the impact the failure had on the complainant. There is no requirement for a firm to have breached one of the more specific, detailed rules in the FCA’s rulebook.
The consumer duty was introduced by the FCA to improve consumer protection across all financial services, and the Government are confident that it sets a high standard of care that firms should provide to their customers. It includes a requirement to act to deliver good outcomes and an expectation that firms will act in good faith, avoid causing foreseeable harm and enable and support retail customers to pursue their financial objectives. The consumer duty, as I pointed out, did not exist when the FOS was established and the fair and reasonable test was introduced. It is right that the framework governing the FOS should be updated to reflect this landmark piece of consumer protection regulation. Without clarification, we are left with a situation where two different bodies are independently making assessments of what standards firms need to meet, and that does not seem like a sensible approach. The reforms to the fair and reasonable test strengthen consistency across the framework. They do not weaken consumer protection.
Amendment 13 would remove Clause 7. In Committee, the noble Lord suggested that the referral mechanism would in effect subordinate the FOS to the FCA. That is not the case. The FOS will remain completely independent and responsible for resolving complaints between consumers and financial services firms. The FCA will not determine individual complaints, it will not investigate disputes and it will not direct the outcome of cases. Those functions will remain entirely with the FOS.
The amendments to FSMA made by Clause 7 ensure that, where the FOS considers there to be an ambiguity within the FCA rules, the FCA must provide an opinion requested by the FOS. That is entirely consistent with its statutory role as a rule-maker. The FOS will then use that opinion, applying it to the individual circumstances of the case to make a determination.
Lastly, some noble Lords expressed concerns about the potential for referrals to lead to delays, including with reference to the FCA’s comment about the potential operational load. The Government recognise the importance of maintaining the FOS’s quick and informal model, but the Government anticipate that only a very small number of cases are going to be referred to the FCA. The vast majority will be resolved without the need for referral. To avoid delays, the timeline for the FCA to respond will be set out in secondary legislation.
The FCA and the FOS are already gaining practical experience of operating such a mechanism by trialling arrangements through their memorandum of understanding. The experience gained through this trial has provided valuable lessons for the implementation of the legislative mechanisms. The Government will continue to work closely with the FOS and the FCA ahead of those changes taking effect, preparing them to ensure that the new system works effectively. The memorandum of understanding, by the way, is creating a very small number of referrals from the FOS to the FCA.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all the others who have spoken for the way in which they have covered the issue. But it is notable that a lack of evidence for the reform proposals still exists. We still have not seen what it is that is wrong with the current system. We have not seen any hard data. We have seen soft data that suggests there is a problem with the operation of the FOS. It is the case as well that the definition of the determinator contained in the memorandum of understanding contains direct references to the FCA rules in its book, and that is the expanded definition that is currently being worked on by the FOS and the FCA. But it is still the case that I cannot see a compelling problem that is addressed by the radical changes that the Government seem bent on making.
If possible, I would like at some stage to continue the conversation about the evidence. I feel that we are somewhat wide apart, perhaps unnecessarily when on the one hand we seem to have a system that works very well, and on the other hand we have a desire for fairly radical reform. I am not sure that that plays out happily together, but I would be happy to discuss that if the Minister is willing. Having said that, particularly my remarks about the evidence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“Determination of complaints: matters to be taken into accountIn section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (determination of complaints under the compulsory jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme) in subsection (2), at the end insert “, having taken into account the relevant law and regulations, the relevant regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, the relevant codes of practice and (where appropriate) what the Financial Ombudsman considers to have been good industry practice at the relevant time”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove Clause 8 from the bill and insert a new clause requiring the Financial Ombudsman, when determining whether an outcome is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of a case, to take into account various other points.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 14.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:
“This Government are committed to delivering good growth across the country and power in every postcode, with places able to set their own ambitions and integrate services to meet people’s needs. Achieving that requires a fundamental rewiring of the state, giving power held in Whitehall back to the people and the places where they live and work. As we set out in the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state, effective and sustainable local government is the vital foundation of our devolution ambitions.
As we are now determined more than ever to devolve power closer to the people we represent, it is only right that, as the new Secretary of State, I make sure that everything we do is working towards that plan to change Britain without delay. The Prime Minister told the House last week that he was
‘prepared to look at local government reorganisation’.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 65.]
and he asked me, as his Communities Secretary, to do that. Throughout this process, the Government have listened to representations from Members of this House, councils and the public, and I want to be clear how critical this is to me, given their importance to our democracy and the services they provide for local people. But there will always be a wide range of divergent views, which means that achieving perfect consensus will never be possible.
I understand that feelings run high and people naturally have strong views in different directions. In that context, and in the light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself, first, that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law. Secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of the new Administration and the new Prime Minister, and any additional considerations.
With those two considerations in mind, I have decided to withdraw the decisions made in March this year for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk, and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitary authorities. The Government’s legal representatives have notified the court of this step. I have also decided to conduct a full review of the local government reorganisation programme, including the decisions that were announced in July this year for a further 14 areas, and the two areas where decisions have not yet been taken, and I ask that reorganisation activity be paused. These 14 areas are Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitaries.
I do not take this lightly. I recognise the huge amount of work that has already gone into progressing reorganisation in each of these areas, and I am very grateful for it. I know that many Members of the House and many council leaders outside the House will have lots of questions about what this means for them and their communities, and I will try to address these as best I can today.
First, we are working across Government on rewiring the state following the Cabinet statement. We recognise that effective and sustainable local government is fundamental to our ambitions for a devolved country that works better for and with communities. We will consider this issue as part of our wider approach.
Secondly, as an immediate step, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth to undertake a rapid review of the current local government reorganisation programme, including the position in the four areas where we have withdrawn and the further 14 areas that we are reviewing and pausing, alongside the two remaining areas. The new councils for East Surrey and West Surrey will be unaffected because they are already established in law, have had their first elections and are on track to go live in April 2027.
Thirdly, I want to be clear about what this means for elections scheduled for next May. Elections will go ahead in May 2027 on existing council boundaries.
Fourthly and finally, my department will provide support to council leaders, officers and Members representing impacted areas, and the Minister for Local Government has written to leaders and copied in Members of this House.
I want to ensure that all those who represent these areas feel included in considering their future, and I will update the House at the earliest opportunity. My ministerial team and senior civil servants from the department are ready to discuss and to work with those representatives. My team will proactively reach out to discuss the local implications in detail. My department remains committed to working in partnership with local government, both in this immediate period and in the longer term. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this quite significant Statement. The Government have suddenly paused the reorganisation plans they started for local government. This is astounding. Proposals to merge councils in Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire, and Essex have been withdrawn. The 14 areas which formed the third tranche of the programme have also been put on hold. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, which were awaiting the Government’s decision, now face further uncertainty for residents, councillors and council officers.
We are told that this new review follows updated legal advice but is also to align the plans for local government with new government priorities. The only area unaffected is Surrey, where the two new unitary authorities have already been established. This has come too late for them.
It was only in June that we were told that this Government
“remain fully committed to the timetable already set out”,—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 141WS.]
and that their local government reorganisation programme was
“a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 139WS.]
Time has hardly passed, and the programme is paused.
Let us not forget that local elections were postponed. Now, elections in May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries. So much time, not to mention money, was spent drawing together proposals, conducting and responding to consultations nationally and locally, with staffing, governance, finance and service delivery about to be restructured—without, by the way, any guarantee that this would end up saving taxpayers any money or improving services for local people. Are we now being told that it may have all been for nothing because the Government did not think through the legal implications or because the new Prime Minister simply does not fancy it?
What is the estimated total cost of this review, both to national government and to the authorities affected? Do the people making those decisions have any idea how damaging the uncertainty and inconsistency is to many councils, including to staff recruitment and staff morale? Councils are losing large numbers of staff who want certainty on their future, and, for the same reason, cannot recruit replacements.
Your Lordships’ House spent eight days in Committee and two days on Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Bill would
“drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation”.—[Official Report, 8/12/25; col. 30.]
However, we now have the rewiring of state White Paper to look forward to, which will focus on devolution and local government. Can the Minister clarify, if this new Bill is to deliver devolution, was the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act not devolution at all? As we said at the time, it was not community empowerment. It shifted power away from the local to the regional and to Whitehall—from locally elected councillors to mayors, and from democracy routed in local identities to new managerial, technocratic boundaries. Will this new Bill reverse that direction of travel?
We are hearing the same platitudes from this Government to disguise their lack of long-term vision. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the priorities of the new Prime Minister are, and how they will differ? What certainty can she give to local councils receiving this news? I look forward to her response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Across England, there will be thousands of councillors and council officers who have worked for months, sometimes years, to deliver an effective solution to the Government’s top-down reorganisation diktat. They will have devoted scarce resources in both funding and precious time. Today, they will be despairing. With the stroke of a ministerial pen, all their careful planning has been consigned to the waste bin.
The principle of devolution is the right one. Unfortunately, the Government have conflated devolution with local government reorganisation, and that has resulted in this sorry mess. There are any number of questions that the Minister must answer, given that, in July, she gave an assurance in this Chamber that a decision on the final reorganisation plans for the remaining councils would be made in October.
I am confident that there will be many specific questions about individual councils, so I will restrict my questions to general principles. First, given that the Government’s decision has been made following legal advice, can the Minister publish that advice and provide a summary for us in her response? Will she tell the House when those councils with agreed plans were informed? Some councils had already developed financial planning on the basis of agreed reorganisation. What support will the Government provide for those councils now facing severe financial pressures?
Today’s announcement has left councils and their residents in limbo. The Statement makes it clear that elections for districts will take place next year. That indicates a longer timeframe for reorganisation than a speedy review. Asking people to become councillors for a non-specific period is difficult. Equally, encouraging voter enthusiasm will be more challenging. What are they voting for? How long will it last? Local democracy has been the real loser in all this, with elections cancelled and democratic terms of office extended on a whim.
The process by which the Government determined the parameters of this reorganisation defied the importance and relevance of local communities. For example, new councils were told they had to have a population of at least 300,000, with a maximum of around 500,000—although, of course, one of the new Surrey councils has a population of 700,000. That was stated despite many existing unitary metropolitan councils being smaller than that. For instance, Calderdale, in my own west Yorkshire, has a population of just over 200,000. Many councils in the Manchester mayoral authority have a population of around 300,000 or fewer. That was one reason why communities lost out in this top-down reorganisation.
This is a thorough and embarrassing dog’s breakfast for the Government. It has all stemmed from the flawed notion that the financial crisis facing county councils could be resolved by changing the seats around the table and going for reorganisation, while ignoring the historic community ties around which many councils were created. The Government have much to do to put the “local” back into local government. I look forward to a thorough explanation from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have to deal with the Front Benchers first, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his enthusiasm. I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments, and I understand the frustration that has been expressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about updated legal advice, government priorities and the fact that, in June, we said we were fully committed to the timetable. It is important that we do not conflate the timetable with the commitment to LGR. As I said, there has been additional legal advice, but we also have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. In view of both those things, it is only right that we take a step back and have a look at these issues; it would not be right to not do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about elections being postponed, the time and money that has been spent, and improving services and financial gain. The Government’s vision is still that local government reorganisation will go ahead; we are not stepping back from that in any way whatever. This afternoon, my right honourable friend in the House of Commons stated many times, specifically, that our intention is not to row back from local government reorganisation. We see that as a way of improving services, generating the growth we all want to see, and making much more efficient use of the finances that go into local government. The work that has gone in already, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is certainly not wasted, because we are not scrapping the LGR process; we are taking a step back to have a look at it, but we are not scrapping the process.
The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the review and the uncertainty. The uncertainty caused by legal uncertainty is not tenable. The programme that we are setting in place will probably last for at least 50 years and maybe longer—the last local government reorganisation did—and it is very important that it is built on a firm foundation of legal certainty. Otherwise, our colleagues, not just in local government but their partners in business and the third sector, will be facing that uncertainty going way forward into the future. We need to make sure that we have the certainty we need.
I still stick by what I said when we debated the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: this is the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall. That is why it will never be straightforward or easy to do. It is a dramatic change to the way the state is wired, and the Prime Minister wants to see that happen. We want to get powers and funding out of Whitehall—I think there was not much disagreement to that in the Chamber when we debated the English Devolution Bill—and, to do that, we need a firm foundation of local government to build on.
The other question the noble Baroness asked was around the Prime Minister’s commitment and the long-term vision. I do not think you could have a stronger advocate for promoting devolution than our Prime Minister. He lived and breathed devolution and the devolution agenda during the time he was Mayor of Manchester. He genuinely believes in the transfer of power to every postcode in the country and he has set out very clearly that he has a long-term vision for this country to do just that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about top-down reorganisation. This absolutely was not that. I have sat through many meetings with our local government colleagues, who came forward with their own proposals. They did not always agree in each area and it was sometimes very difficult to work through the different options that they came forward with. It will continue to be so, as they can once again put forward their views—some of them very strongly held, as the noble Baroness is aware—as we go through this review process. The process is certainly not confined to the waste-bin, as the noble Baroness put it; it is still very firmly on the table to be worked on, and I look forward to working with our colleagues in local government as we go forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the assurance that decisions for those areas where we had not taken decisions already would be made in October. We are going to work as quickly as we possibly can on this review. My right honourable colleague the Secretary of State referred many times this afternoon to the fact that she wants this review to proceed at pace. This is not being kicked into the long grass or anything like it. She wants that to move forward as quickly as possible, so we can provide the certainty that local government needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned legal advice. We considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process and the decision to withdraw the four decisions reflects that legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as she will know only too well, that Governments do not publish or comment on legal advice. The legal powers for local government reorganisation remain valid. There are no court findings against the Government. We want to be able to review the decisions, so that the Secretary of State can reassure herself and the Prime Minister that they are the right ones. Respecting the court process means that the way to do this is to withdraw those and consider the programme afresh.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked when councils were informed. They were told today. The legal advice was considered over the weekend and the Secretary of State informed the councils involved today: the 14 that were going to be paused and reviewed and the four that have been withdrawn from the court process.
The Secretary of State received many questions on financial provision this afternoon. The Government were putting forward some £63 million to help councils through the transition phase of local government, and she will consider the issues around funding as we go through the review process.
I turn to the elections next year. Elections will be held according to the usual boundary elections, so if a council was up for election by thirds next year, that will happen, and if it is the election of a full council, that will happen. From talking to councils in my local area, I can say that they are all very keen on the process of LGR going forward and they look forward to this. They know that the process is coming. They know that it is paused and not stopped, so they will continue to work with their local parties and local councils, as they have done so well in the past.
On the importance and relevance of council size, we have always said that council sizes were not fixed. Having gone through all the applications myself, it was clear that you cannot make a fixed point in terms of size. You have to look at each area individually. Geographies and demographics are different, and it is very important that each area is considered separately, according to its needs.
On the issue of historic communities and all the other issues, this pause will give the opportunity for people who had those strong views to put them forward again in the review process. I am sure they will do that. Nobody is backward in coming forward in this process and I look forward to hearing from many of them. But the right thing to do at the moment is take this short pause, particularly in respect of the legal advice and the wish of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to review this, so that, when we go forward, it will be with the certainty that everybody in local government needs.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, first, the un-cancellation of local government elections and now the embarrassment of this one, from a hapless MHCLG. Back in April, when your Lordships debated local government reorganisation, I characterised the proposals for Norfolk as a cut-and-shut job that would shame Arthur Daley. It would create England’s poorest council in east Norfolk and throw up in the air the authorities responsible for homelessness, housing, economic growth and planning. No wonder we challenged it. Today, the leader of my council tells me that the Government will refund our legal costs, well into six figures. Can the Minister tell us quite how much money the Government will be refunding to councils across the country to reimburse them for challenging decisions which we now conclude were unlawful and should never have been taken in the first place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The strength of the representations of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on this matter shows the differing opinions that we have seen throughout this process. There are strongly held, different views on all sides, and it is important that we continue to take those into account as we go through the review process.
First, as I should have emphasised more when I was speaking earlier, I recognise the amount of work that councils have already put into preparing for reorganisation. As I said, this work will not be wasted, but I appreciate that it comes with a cost. Financial commitments may have been made, and we will look at this as part of the review.
I have already spoken about transition costs. The overall costs of reorganisation are of course to be taken into account, but we also know that reorganisation can save money. There has been a £90 million saving in North Yorkshire and £75 million in Buckinghamshire since their unitaries were established. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, saved money when she reorganised Wiltshire into a unitary.
There are also associated legal costs. LGR is often contested in the courts. It is a right and proper part of our democratic system that important issues can be challenged in the court system. The Government engage legal advisers to defend those decisions whenever challenges are brought, and that brings costs with it. But the questions are so significant, and the implications so long-lasting, that the extent of legal costs should be viewed in that context. Legal costs will be determined in the usual way.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging the hard work that my noble friend the Minister has been putting into this over the last couple of years, and the work of those councillors who have been arguing for these changes in their boroughs and counties over the last few months. I speak as someone who is entirely supportive of these proposals; they offer a much better way forward for local and regional government. I have benefited from a similar model in London for many years.
However, there have been some mixed messages today, which I ask the Minister to help with. First, both my noble friend and the Secretary of State have talked about this being a rapid review, but I also understand that officers are being told to stand down all work and elections have been postponed, which does not suggest rapidity in the review. Can my noble friend the Minister throw any light on this, and can she reassure us that devolution will happen in this Parliament and that new unitary authorities will be up and running by the time of the next general election?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his support for the overall programme. We are asking councils to pause work on progressing local government reorganisation. It will be a short pause. This means that councils should cease work on implementing previous decisions, but there are shared projects that will be useful in any potential reorganisation and of course they can be continued. We want this process to be done with good local engagement and we will listen very carefully to the views that councils provide.
As they have done throughout this process, officials will proactively engage with places and support them throughout the period. Ongoing work, for example, could include improving data quality and data sharing, mapping services, finances, workforce assets and contracts, identifying key risks and dependencies, undertaking ICT and digital discovery work, and continued engagement with partners and residents. We recognise the need to provide certainty as quickly as possible, so that areas have clarity over their future. We will work at pace on the review and report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The House understands that the Government will not publish their legal advice, but are these decisions the result of specific legal advice about the nature of the decisions that were made or of changes of mind on the part of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? Would it not be better to start a rapid review by restating or amending the criteria against which the decisions are to be made? Would that not make the decisions, ultimately, less prone to legal challenge?
Where Cambridgeshire is concerned specifically, we were told that there would be a decision in October. Is that still the case? We were also told that that would lead to elections on new boundaries in May. Presumably that is not to be the case.
Finally, on strategic spatial planning, which I know the Minister—and I and others—supports, can she say that the lack of progress on unitaries does not mean that we cannot have progress on establishing strategic planning boards?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The criteria will be looked at as part of this review process. It is important that we take account of the legal advice—we are not going to publish it—and look at the impact on the future programme; it would be unwise not to do so.
On the issues around Cambridge, the noble Lord asked me about elections. Let me start with the October decision-making. We had said to colleagues in Cambridge and Peterborough—and indeed in West Sussex, where decisions had not been taken—that we would endeavour to have decisions in October. Both those areas will go into the review process, so those decisions will now be announced alongside the other areas that are being reviewed. I hope that that will not lead to too much further delay in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and West Sussex. Noble Lords will be aware that an important part of this process is the statutory instruments that have to go through both Houses. We were on a very tight timetable for all this anyway, so it is not likely that elections will be able to go ahead to the shadow authorities as planned in 2027. That is why we have said that elections will go ahead, but on the old boundaries.
On spatial planning, the devolution work can continue to look at planning and how that will work through in the devolution process.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches, then we will hear from the Labour Benches and the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, if the legal concerns were serious enough to halt the programme today, suddenly, with rapid action, can the Minister tell the House whether any similar concerns had been raised previously by officials, local authorities or external counsel? Will she place a letter in the Library with the chronology of the key decisions that led to the suspension of the programme, so that Parliament can understand how this arose?
To be a little more specific—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is on the same page as me in this—I am not asking the Minister to disclose privileged legal advice, but can she tell the House which aspect of the process is now considered potentially unlawful? Is it the criteria, the consultation, the decision-making or the implementation? How can Parliament scrutinise ministerial decision-making if Ministers are unwilling to explain the nature of a legal defect that has caused such extensive disruption and waste of public money?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will have a look at the chronology of the decision-making and talk to colleagues about it. Clearly, as I have said, very categorically, we will not be releasing the legal advice, but I appreciate that there is a chronology that takes account of the legal advice but does not divulge what it is. As to which aspects of the programme, I fear that that would be part of the privileged advice. We will look at any issues that have been raised as part of the programme of review. We will be clear and transparent about what we are doing in the review, so I hope that it will come out as part of the review process.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
M, my noble friend has talked about this to some extent, but can she assure the House that there will not be a wholesale return to the drawing board, as it were—in other words, that all that work will not be wasted? By that, I suppose I mean: does the Government’s commitment to devolution remain as strong as it has been for the past two years? Many of us feel that power has drained from municipalities to Whitehall for probably the past 50 years; we would like some of it to start going back to municipal centres.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can reassure my noble friend that there is no drawing back on the programme of devolution. It is a very key part not just of government policy but of the Government’s vision for the country. For too long, we have had a very centralised model in this country. Many of the people in this room have been council leaders and will have been at the sticky end of that model. We do not want a begging-bowl culture where local councils have to go to Westminster for almost anything they want, whether a small power to do something or funding for an important local project. There is no rowing back from that at all. I am sure that noble Lords have heard enough from our new Prime Minister to know that his commitment to devolution has been strengthened by the years he spent as Mayor of Manchester, not weakened or diminished in any way. I know he is keen that we get that power and funding out to every postcode in the country, so that our country can achieve the potential we know it has—in every corner of the United Kingdom.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I would like to probe the Minister on a couple of the things she said, because I think they were a tiny bit inconsistent. The Statement says that there will be a full review and the Minister said it would be a rapid review—and she also said in one of her answers that outside organisations would be given the opportunity to contribute, implying that there will be a public consultation. If it is to be a rapid review, then I do not understand why we are having elections next year. Can the Minister give some indication to those council candidates and successful councillors the term of office they are seeking to be elected to? If it is a rapid review, arguably the decisions will be taken before the elections have even taken place. You have to give people a level of certainty. There are a lot of inconsistencies in what the Government have set out, and they need to clarify these sooner rather than later.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is possible to have both a rapid and full review. It means doing the work carefully but as quickly as possible. To create the level of certainty everybody wants to see across local government, the decision-making has to be completed quickly. The rapid review will look at the programme as a whole, and the work on the rewiring the state delivery plan must include a question about the role of local government in the devolved country. The review will be led by the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth, and it will engage with MPs and all councils impacted. An extended delay is in no one’s interest. It is right that Ministers listen to concerns and the new Administration undertake this review to make sure that local government reorganisation aligns with our priorities and work on rewiring the state.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former Norfolk MP. Judging by my mailbox this evening, there is real anger and consternation across Norfolk. A huge amount of work and professional resources have been put into this. For example, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council and Breckland District Council have spent a vast amount of money on preparing for the new unitary; that is money that could have been spent on vital services that is now down the drain. Furthermore, dozens of Norfolk County councillors took a decision not to stand last May because they trusted the Government; they stood down and many of those seats were taken by paper candidates put up by Reform UK. Morale is at rock bottom, and the chief executive of Norfolk County Council, Tom McCabe, has resigned. The Government have multiple questions to answer, and they should be ashamed of what they have done.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I have already made clear that I do not think any of the money that has been spent is wasted. The work will go ahead on local government reorganisation and on devolution. When I did the engagement meetings on this, it was really interesting to hear stories from around the country of councils, which had not spoken to each other in 20 years or more, sitting down and working together. We have really appreciated that. It has been a good way of bringing councils and councillors together to work on this jointly, and we have no intention of rowing back on it. The money spent is not down the drain, nor has it been wasted; the money will be used in the future programme.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Government’s policy in this area; it is a brave policy and one I think the Opposition parties have behaved shockingly badly about over the last few months. Today is a difficult day; I feel it is difficult as well. But it needs to be said that this Government have support for the prospect of proper devolution. How can that take place without some local government reform? The two obviously go together. It is nonsense and just not right to say there is no relationship between them—there has to be.
I want to ask my noble friend about the cities that lost out so badly during the last local government reorganisation so they have become much too small, not natural in the slightest way and incapable of managing to get the necessary funding to be able to build the even more necessary houses and generate growth. Is it still the Government’s policy to make sure that those cities—including my own city of Leicester—have that extra space and are expanded in the way that is intended?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I do not think it is helpful for me to comment on individual areas. However, he is right to point to the focus on growth. There were three main focuses that we looked at: the potential for growth and making sure we could achieve that across the country; ensuring that the key services delivered by local government are protected and supported going forward, including those for vulnerable people; and the issue of community identity which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned.
Wherever we looked at those issues, there were different opinions in different areas, which is why we stuck very firmly to the criteria we set ourselves. The growth criteria came in the first criteria, and we looked at all of the proposals before us in respect of that. But we must not make any bones about the fact that we need to change things to get the growth we want to see. That involves making sure local government is enabled to drive that growth forward in the way it is organised, and that we have the devolution so that people who are taking decisions about growth, the economy and key services in their local areas are in that local area and have some skin in the game in relation to the decisions being taken.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, when the elections take place next year, what period will the people elected serve? Will it be one year, two years, three years or four years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
For elections that take place next year, if the programme works through as we anticipate it will, the shadow elections will be in 2028.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I suspect one of the main reasons why there has been a delay is that not enough attention has been given to the financial viability of these new authorities. In my own area of Hampshire, that is certainly so. I dispute the assertion that opposition parties have not been co-operative in trying to help the reorganisation, but there is an issue about the viability of the authorities. Is the question of viability the problem, or is it more likely that the Government are reluctant to put the resources in that are needed to make them viable?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To answer the last question first, we have already made a significant financial commitment to make sure that this programme works properly. A great deal of attention was paid to the issue of financial viability as we went through the process. We need to make sure we continue to focus on financial viability; it is incredibly important that these councils are financially sustainable. As I have already stated, we have seen that the councils that have already gone into unitaries make very significant savings, so that financial stability is absolutely key to what we are doing on this.
To come back to the original points that I made, we are making a generational change here to local government. We must make sure that we give the certainty to local government that we all want to see and that we create a local government framework across the country that can actually deliver the power and funding we need in every postcode, to see opportunity realised in every postcode in this country.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:06 - Division on Amendment 17 - Ayes: 26 / Noes: 119 - Amendment 17 disagreed.
Baroness Hoey
“Claims management services: Northern Ireland(1) The Treasury may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for claims management services provided in, from or into Northern Ireland to be regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on a basis equivalent to claims management services provided in, from or into Great Britain.(2) Regulations under this section may amend primary legislation, assimilated direct principal EU legislation or subordinate legislation, including—(a) the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000,(b) the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, and(c) Part 2 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.(3) Regulations under this section may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Treasury must consult—(a) the Financial Conduct Authority,(b) the scheme operator of the ombudsman scheme under Part 16 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000,(c) the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland, and(d) such other persons as the Treasury considers appropriate.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) In this section, “claims management services” has the meaning given by section 419A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this amendment follows on from the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I am bringing the House’s attention to a growing and deeply concerning problem in Northern Ireland’s insurance market. The market is shrinking in insurer capacity, it is becoming less competitive, and it is leaving consumers and businesses facing higher premiums and fewer choices. It is an issue that the British Insurance Brokers’ Association has been highlighting for some time, and about which it has been getting in touch with noble Lords and Members in the other place.
The evidence suggests that the root cause is claims inflation driven by various factors that are within the power of government and regulators to address. Let me be clear to noble Lords, especially to the Minister: I am not calling for a new, immediate regulatory regime without proper consultation. Rather, the amendment would provide the Treasury with a targeted enabling power, subject to consultation and affirmative parliamentary approval, to extend FCA regulation of claims management companies to Northern Ireland. They are, of course, currently regulated in Great Britain by the FCA.
I will give a brief backdrop to the amendment, which paints a very stark picture. In home insurance, brokers in Northern Ireland now have access to just six markets, down from 11 in 2020. In motor insurance, the number of available providers has fallen from more than 15 to just eight over the same period. As competition has reduced, premiums in Northern Ireland have continued to rise, even as prices in Great Britain have begun to stabilise or fall. In motor insurance, Northern Ireland consumers are being affected by premiums increasing year on year, and they are already paying much higher premiums compared with the rest of the UK. Of course, as noble Lords will know, access to public transport in Northern Ireland’s extensive rural areas is very limited.
Therefore, there is no regulation of claims management companies in Northern Ireland. This has led to many of them exercising poor practices, which in turn leads to inflated claims settlements and therefore higher premiums for consumers and businesses. As fewer insurers have a physical claims-handling presence in Northern Ireland, so the prevalence of CMCs has become more apparent. The number of CMCs has grown rapidly. We estimate that there are probably twice the number operating than a year ago, suggesting that it is a very lucrative enterprise. Adverts appear everywhere, pointing people to them if they have a car accident, et cetera. Of course, in GB, since the regulation came in, the number of CMCs operating has halved since 2019.
Another reason for the growth of CMCs is their attraction of higher personal injury awards in Northern Ireland, which makes it a lot more lucrative for them. The difference between Northern Ireland and England and Wales is striking. For whiplash, for example, in England and Wales a compensation of around £1,500 would be paid. In Northern Ireland, it could be up to £15,000 with psychological claims added on. Obviously, those higher awards feed directly into higher insurance premiums for consumers and businesses alike. In some cases, we see clear conflicts of interest. Vehicle hire, legal services and CMCs are brought together under the same commercial structure, creating clear conflicts of interest, with some CMCs operating various companies under different names but with the same overall ownership. Ultimately, these additional costs are paid by consumers through higher premiums.
As we all know, insurance is not a luxury; it is essential. It must be accessible and affordable for all. It is very unfair that we in Northern Ireland are paying a higher premium compared to those in Great Britain.
The consequences of no regulation at all of CMCs are becoming increasingly clear. Major insurers have already withdrawn from Northern Ireland and new entrants are refusing to come. Some insurers are refusing to insure young drivers at any cost, and some insurers are refusing to cover certain postcodes where there is a high prevalence of CMCs and perhaps more perceived evidence of collusion. One insurer has reportedly reduced its Northern Ireland motor business by 75% and customers of a major broker have seen their premiums rise by 45% between 2023 and 2026. All this, of course, could lead to market failure.
Northern Ireland consumers deserve access to affordable, fair and competitive insurances. To achieve that, we will need co-ordinated action from the Northern Ireland Executive, the Treasury, Westminster, regulators and industry alike. We have to work together to make this happen. Everyone agrees that there is a problem and now we have to fix it. The issue has become quite a political hot potato in Northern Ireland, because the Department of Justice, the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure have all been examining it.
The FCA is aware of the problem but powerless to protect consumers. The Treasury is aware of the problem. MPs and MLAs continue to hear from frustrated constituents, yet despite all this—and, I hope, an agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—nothing has actually changed and there is no regulation. While responsibilities pass from one department, committee, regulator and jurisdiction to another, premiums remain higher, choice remains limited and opportunities are denied to people who can least afford it.
The solution does not require years of further review or consultation; it requires action. Primary legislation is needed and the Bill is the perfect vehicle to deliver it. The amendment is practical, proportionate and targeted. It seeks to address what may become a market failure and create the conditions for a more competitive, affordable and accessible insurance market in Northern Ireland.
This is not a party-political amendment; it simply seeks to ensure fairness in Northern Ireland for consumers and to stop the rip-off merchants operating in this field. I hope that the Government will engage constructively with the amendment and work with us before the Bill goes back to the other place so that we can get the regulation needed.
The Bill is all about regulation. This is in the one place in the United Kingdom where we do not have that regulation. We have the ability to make it happen and I hope that the Minister will have some positive things to say. I beg to move.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is well thought through, balanced and modest. The House will be relieved that, for once, neither I nor the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, are even mentioning the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor Framework as part of this, albeit that that may be to our shame. The amendment is about trying to tackle a genuine problem for consumers. It is very much within the keeping of the Bill. Part of the purpose of the Bill is not necessarily to increase regulation but to have better and smarter regulation. This proposal very much fits in with that.
The amendment is cautious in its nature, because it would not compel the Government to take immediate action. It would give the power to the Treasury. Indeed, before any next steps could be taken there would need to be consultation, discussion and agreement with the devolved institutions and the respective departments. It would not be acted on by government but would have to be brought forward through the affirmative procedure. The amendment would take this in a sensible approach, one step at a time.
Ultimately, the amendment is to deal with a very real problem. Any of us who has been involved politically in Northern Ireland know that, during canvassing for every election, people will raise the issue of the higher rates of insurance. I am sure there will be agreement across the Chamber about this. Even as recently as the last general election, a number of candidates from different parties said that that was something that had to be tackled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, highlighted that part of the issue is that this has tended to fall between the cracks. It is not under the exact remit of any one particular department. Whatever the long-term issue is, it has become exacerbated in recent years, particularly since the end of Covid. In the last few years, we have seen shrinking choice. The number of insurance brokers and insurance companies has reduced for home and motor insurance. This has led to a vicious cycle of increasing premiums which, of itself, has meant more dependence on the role of CMCs. The direct impact of CMCs has been to raise overall premiums in Northern Ireland perhaps by around 30%.
As indicated by the proposer of this amendment, it is not purely the CMCs that have led to these increases, but they have played a very significant role. When part of the industry is unregulated, unaccountable and unchecked, it is no wonder that, for some, this has become almost a licence to print money. How this has then filtered down to the consumer has had a major impact. Any of us in Northern Ireland is used to the annual exercise, when we renew either our house insurance or our motor insurance, of our brokers quote us an exorbitantly increased level of cost. Generally speaking, we then try to probe that by asking them to explore whether there are any other options. At best, they will come back with something slightly less than what they originally quoted, but the prices go up and up for everyone. It is particularly acute for first-time motorists, for example. They face a situation either of exorbitant motor insurance costs or, in some cases, of simply not being quoted at all.
This is something which can be tackled. We have offered a very practical way forward through this amendment. The Government and, in particular, the new Prime Minister have put at the heart of the agenda the cost of living, not simply in a general sense but for every postcode in the country. If we are looking for something that can deliver on this promise then this is quite low-hanging fruit. I urge the Government either to accept the amendment or to find some formula, through discussions, in which its spirit can be brought forward so that we can actually start to tackle this problem once and for all. The amendment offers a solution by way of the Government intervening through the Treasury—or, at the very least, the sheer threat of the power may well lead to CMCs reducing back their costs. I hope that it may lead to good behaviour on their part. I urge the Government to give this very serious consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, taking up the last point from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, the Prime Minister, on his recent visits and tour of the UK, has emphasised that the primary focus of the Government is to help people with the cost of living. Because our population in Northern Ireland is spread out more than it is in Great Britain, there is much heavier reliance on motor vehicles to get around. This has a huge impact not only on farmers but on people who are resident in rural areas.
At one point a number of years ago, as Minister for Enterprise, I had responsibility for consumer protection. I have no recollection that financial matters of this nature were incorporated in the devolution settlement, so I believe that the Treasury has a key role to play. It seems odd that we in Northern Ireland have a sector that is unregulated. It is the only part of the United Kingdom where it is unregulated. People need to grasp that there is a different legal framework for dealing with claims for damages under insurance. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to a list of settlements that should be reached, whereas we have a thing called the green book, which allows for much greater flexibility and has resulted in much higher claims.
The noble Baroness quoted one example, for soft tissue injury, but that is only one. It does spread out, and of course that is not the only potential claim. There could be other mental health claims arising from the situation. So the Minister should perhaps reflect on this. If he is not content with this amendment, cautious though it might be, he could table something at Third Reading.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Lord Empey. In doing so, I declare my interest as past chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association and a practising solicitor in the City of London.
We have campaigned within the broking community for proper regulation of claims management companies for a very long time. Therefore, BIBA was particularly disappointed that this Bill did not address the problem, which is urgent. Average motor claims costs in Northern Ireland have tracked more than 30% higher than in England and Wales since 2021. The figures given by the noble Baroness bear that out. There is a need to do something about this problem. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken that this is a great opportunity for the Government to put right the anomaly. Claims management companies add between 15% and 30% to a total claim by taking a percentage out of compensation that does not reach the claimant. We must keep reminding ourselves of that.
This amendment would be a practical, targeted correction alongside the Bill’s wider focus on consumer protection, redress and better regulation.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding the anomalies that have been discussed—there are significant anomalies in insurance in England as well—we have some concerns about this amendment. It would hand the Treasury very extensive powers to act through secondary legislation, including the ability to amend primary legislation. We have raised concerns consistently in Committee and on Report about the use of broad, delegated powers of this kind. The same concerns apply here. Regulations being subject to the affirmative procedure provides a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it does not alter the fundamental point that Parliament will be delegating significant legislative discretion to the Treasury before the detailed regime on any transitional arrangements has been set out.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 16 would give the Treasury the power to extend regulation of claims management activity to Northern Ireland through secondary legislation. I am aware of the concerns relating to high insurance costs across the UK and would be supportive of action to tackle these where we can, but we should not rush to regulate without clear evidence.
The Government’s Motor Insurance Taskforce has examined the drivers of motor insurance costs, including claims-related costs and market practices. This work has not identified clear evidence that claims management companies are a primary driver of higher premiums in Northern Ireland. Moreover, any proposal in this area would also need careful engagement with the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland and proper consideration of the devolution implications. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 16.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there I was thinking that we had a Minister who was going to be much more reassuring, but, in fact, that was a very negative response. All the things he said have already happened and could be happening in more detail if the Government were to move forward with this. It really is a missed opportunity for the Government and it is not going to go away; it will have to come back in a different form.
I had not realised until recently—probably like many people here tonight—how appalling this situation is. I do not know where the Minister got his facts and figures; perhaps from the Treasury, but certainly not from the people who know what is going on in Northern Ireland. There is obviously no point putting this to a vote tonight, but I hope that, following this, the Minister will meet a group of us who understand this a bit more and will make it clear to him that perhaps, sometimes, he might be given the wrong advice. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Reimbursement of fraud: liability of technology companies(1) The FCA must make rules providing that, where a person is to be reimbursed in respect of losses arising from an authorised push payment fraud, the cost of that reimbursement is to be borne, in whole or in part, by any relevant technology company on whose service the fraud was initiated, facilitated or communicated.(2) Rules under subsection (1) must provide for—(a) the apportionment of the cost of reimbursement between relevant technology companies and payment service providers, by reference to the extent to which each contributed to the fraud occurring,(b) a process by which a payment service provider that has reimbursed a victim may recover the apportioned cost from a relevant technology company, and(c) the information that a relevant technology company must provide to the FCA and to payment service providers for the purposes of the rules.(3) In making rules under this section, the FCA must have regard to the principle that the cost of reimbursing victims of fraud should fall, so far as is reasonable, on the persons best able to prevent the fraud.(4) In this section—“authorised push payment fraud” means a transfer of funds executed by a payment service provider on the instruction of a payer, where the payer was deceived into giving that instruction;“relevant technology company” means a person who provides— (a) a user-to-user service or a search service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023,(b) an electronic communications service, or(c) any other online service by means of which an authorised push payment fraud may be initiated, facilitated or communicated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the FCA to make rules placing liability for the cost of reimbursing victims of authorised push payment fraud, in whole or in part, on the technology companies on whose platforms the fraud originates, rather than solely on payment service providers, and to apportion that cost according to who is best able to prevent the fraud.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, let me address Amendment 17 in my name, which is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I very much appreciate. It addresses authorised push payment fraud and would require the tech companies whose platforms are host to this fraud to share in the reimbursement of losses to the victims of such fraud.
At present, victims of APP fraud are reimbursed up to £85,000, half by the bank sending the payment and half by the bank receiving the payment. This is under rules set by the Payment Systems Regulator. The rules and the cost of reimbursement have had a positive effect, in that banks have set up a much more effective regime to alert people to the possibility of fraud. Many of us have seen that in transactions that we do and the warnings that we receive. However, APP fraud continues to grow relentlessly and, on the most recent figures, is up by 19% in the last year, reaching £576 million in the UK. Payment fraud altogether in the UK has reached £1.3 billion a year. It is essentially 40% of all serious crime.
Some 66% of these scams—that is what they are—originate on online tech platforms. These platforms made £430 million in revenue last year from advertising these scams. I find that outrageous. Surely these platforms should be picking up at least part of the cost of reimbursement, instead of the cost falling wholly on the banks while the tech companies pocket the advertising revenue. I do not think that the tech companies will ever stop scams and take them seriously until it starts costing them money.
I cannot understand why the Government are rejecting my amendment. Are they so afraid of the tech companies and Trump that they cannot provide this protection to ordinary consumers who are being defrauded on such a scale? But I also had a eureka moment in understanding why the FCA has not acted. It came from an absolutely chance conversation. Neither the FCA nor Ofcom is apparently sure which one of them should take the initiative in trying to deal with tech companies and this form of fraud.
Regulatory courtesy has led to inaction. Frankly, when I look at the number of victims and the size of the losses, this is completely unacceptable. This amendment breaks that conundrum, and I would expect the Government to attempt to break that conundrum and ensure that action takes place.
On other amendments in this group, I support Amendments 19 and 20. I know they will be spoken to eloquently, but I admit to not fully understanding the issues in Amendments 95 and 97. But I will listen carefully.
I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name in support of Amendment 17, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer has already explained, I have also tabled Amendment 19. Both amendments relate to the continuing problem of fraud. As noble Lords are probably aware, the last Financial Services and Markets Act led to the introduction of the compulsory reimbursement for APP fraud losses by the banks, split 50:50 between the paying bank and the receiving bank.
This has had two effects. First, it has increased reimbursement to victims; but also, importantly, by imposing the financial costs of fraud on to the banks, it has given them a strong incentive to take steps to protect their customers from fraud, and they have done so. There are some valid concerns about how this might change victims’ behaviour—the question of moral hazard—and I hope the FCA will keep that under review; but it is fair to say that the requirements to reimburse customers in respect of fraud has generally been seen to be successful.
The logic for pushing the obligation on to the banks is that almost every fraud has to be cashed out through the banking system at some point in the chain. It is also true, however, that very little fraud arises from the banks themselves. As we have just heard, most APP fraud starts online or on a telecoms service—around 66% online and 17% from telecoms. Once again, I will namecheck Meta, from whose platforms the greatest amount of such fraud originates. Surely, it would be better to try to prevent fraud where it originates than to just reimburse it. Despite various voluntary charters, this is not improving at all. Your Lordships’ Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, of which I was a member, recognised this in its report four years ago. We said:
“Until all fraud-enabling industries fear significant financial, legal and reputational risk for their failure to prevent fraud, they will not act”.
We were right: they have not acted. The Government's most recent fraud strategy also recognised this. It says:
“if industry partnership and market incentives alone remain insufficient to drive improvements, the Government will take legislative action within this Parliament”.
There have been no improvements. It is time to legislate.
I am sure the Minister is going to explain that the Online Safety Act is going to deal with all this, and it does help, but only to a certain extent. It is quite limited on what is covered and where in relation to fraud, primarily paid-for advertising, which is only a small area from where fraud originates. Amendment 17 would make the tech companies directly liable for their share of the cost of the fraud arising on their platforms. This Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to take the legislative action the Government have themselves committed to: to make the tech and telco companies take their responsibilities to their customers seriously without further delay. It is four years, as I said, since the committee reached its conclusion on this. So, I urge noble Lords to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, if she decides to press Amendment 17, as I hope she will do.
My Amendment 19 is very simple. During the passage of the last Financial Services and Markets Bill, the then Government agreed to ensure that the Payment Systems Regulator should prepare a report every six months that sets out how the payment services providers are performing in relation to paying out and receiving fraudulent payments, as well as their reimbursement performance. Since the compulsory reimbursement scheme started, that reporting has stopped, but the reports were very helpful—not only in relation to reimbursement performance under the then voluntary scheme, but also in identifying and publicising which of the payment providers were the riskiest. It led to some being closed down because their performance in identifying and preventing fraud was so poor.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 95 raises the issue of non-compete legislation. When this was raised in Committee, the Minister undertook to respond. His response was to refer to a 2025 working paper, but action is needed. Could I urge the Minister to pursue this and not to allow the report just to sit?
In Committee, the Minister commented that he was not an expert on employment law. That may be the case, but the ability to maintain confidentiality of important and expensive systems is vital in the financial services industry. Algorithms and sophisticated and complex computer systems are an essential part of today’s top-level financial service companies. They must be able to maintain the confidentiality of their systems.
Non-compete agreements are an essential part of this. Whether the Bill we are debating today is the right place for this is uncertain, but it must be dealt with if we wish to retain Great Britain’s predominant place in the industry—something that I hope the Minister favours. Even if non-compete is not precisely within his remit, he should certainly make it his business, in the interest of his department. I urge the Minister not to allow the 2025 report just to sit in a pending tray.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 97, which appears in this group in my name. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for providing us with powerful arguments, particularly for Amendment 17. I echo the noble Lord’s comments as, if the noble Baroness wishes to put this to the vote, the Green Party will certainly support it. We need to see the tech companies being made to pay for the huge profits they are collecting while continuing to allow illegality to operate in their spaces.
However, I will primarily speak to Amendment 97. I begin by acknowledging the work of Joshua Tjeransen, who is my King’s College London intern. He has identified this issue for me and done a great deal of work on this amendment. This amendment is about a different sort of fraud from that covered by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; it is about ransomware. I am sure noble Lords have come across many cases of this; it is a great concern to businesspeople, individuals and institutions, particularly the NHS. It is where a computer system or database is locked and access is prevented. The ransomware takes it over, and companies are told, “Pay up or you will never get this back”.
It is worth thinking about the circumstances of this. Very often, payment is demanded in cryptocurrency. People are told, “If you don’t do this in the next hour, the figure will double and double again” and so on, through alerts appearing on someone’s computer screen. These are tremendously frightening, difficult, challenging circumstances to face.
The figures we have for this come from Report Fraud. In the year from April 2025, 323 UK organisations reported such an attack. More than half of them were small and medium-sized enterprises, and the average loss was £270,000, which for SMEs is a huge sum of money. I said “reported” because it is generally acknowledged by experts in the field that there is a real issue of stigma here. Companies and organisations do not want to admit that they have fallen victim to such a fraud, and it is generally agreed that those figures are the tip of the iceberg. The accepted advice from law enforcement is “Don’t pay”, but it is generally acknowledged, although it is very hard to put figures on it, that a lot of people are paying right now, and this must be very lucrative for some very nasty criminals.
I come to the amendment, which would insert a new clause that would place a duty on the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules within 12 months of Royal Assent prohibiting the firms it regulates from
“making, offering, authorising or facilitating a ransom payment”
and would prevent the insuring or indemnifying of anyone against such a ransom payment. Firms would have to notify the FCA within 72 hours of becoming aware of a ransom demand. The only exception provided is where the payment is needed to prevent an imminent risk to life or serious injury, and then only with the prior approval of the Secretary of State. It covers authorised persons and firms supervised by the FCA under the Payment Services Regulations and the Electronic Money Regulations.
I think it is worth going back over how we have got to the point where we still do not have any action. In January 2025, the Home Office consulted on three proposed measures on ransomware: a targeted ban on ransom payments by public sector bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure; a payment prevention regime under which other organisations would have to notify the Government before paying; and mandatory incident reporting. The response was reported on 22 July 2025 and recorded 72% support for a targeted ban. There was an announcement that all public sector bodies and CNI operators would be banned from paying, and there would be a notification requirement.
On 14 October 2025, answering a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the Jaguar Land Rover attack, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, told the House:
“The Home Office is progressing a new package of measures to protect UK businesses, and we will update the House accordingly”.—[Official Report, 14/10/25; col. 169.]
In December 2025, the Security Minister said that the ban remained a priority and would progress—noble Lords know the dreaded phrase—when parliamentary time allowed. You might think that there would be coverage of this in the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, but my understanding is that there is no coverage of such issues.
Why does this amendment work? Why can we do this through the Financial Services and Markets Bill? Nearly every payment will pass through a financial company. If there is any kind of scale to this at all, whoever the victim is, the money will go through a firm that the FCA supervises. A rule on these firms therefore reaches most payments made from the UK, not just payments by financial firms themselves. I think the amendment is elegant. It would not create a new offence or a general ban on businesses as the Public Bill Office said that that would be outside the scope of the Bill. Instead, it would place a duty on the FCA to create the rules within 12 months. This is a step forward in dealing with a critical issue that is affecting businesses and organisations right now and on which the Government have promised to act. It follows the Government’s own design.
I am not expecting the Minister to accept the amendment, and I am not going to put this to a vote because we have not had the time or capacity to work through the detail of exactly how this is written, but none the less I hope that we will hear from the Minister that there is going to be significant progress in this area very soon. I am really hoping not to hear the phrase “when parliamentary time allows” because the Government have done the consultation on this and have promised to act. We need to see protection in this fraud capital of the world—the UK—for firms. If ransoms cannot be paid, it will not be in the interests of criminals to put the effort in to try to get ransoms.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we are concerned about the scale of fraud, and in particular by the continued growth of authorised push payment fraud and other forms of online economic crime. The Government and the banks have made progress, but the truth is that it is hard to keep up with the scammers, and the sums at stake are significant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has explained. I therefore strongly welcome the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for an annual report.
My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising is right to be concerned about the future protection of commercially sensitive information as part of a competitive UK sector. I am glad he has brought his amendment back, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide an assurance that this will be addressed.
The amendments in this group raise important questions about transparency, monitoring and the practical steps that firms can take to identify scams earlier, warn consumers, share information more effectively and pay compensation where that is appropriate. Indeed, there has been considerable progress since the APP reimbursement regime was introduced in 2024. I always remember my card being used in Korea to buy £2,500 worth of Louis Vuitton luggage. That would not happen today, as banking procedures and scrutiny are so much better.
However, the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a difficult one, as it is not clear what the technology companies could do to stop fraud systematically. They are not passing money on in the same way as the banks do. That may have been what the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, was getting at in Committee when he responded to this amendment at that stage. New regulations of this kind could also have a chilling effect on the supply of online services in the UK, so more analysis is needed before the FCA introduces new rules. We believe this is an area where the Government and the regulators should be prepared to make progress, but we also understand the constraints.
It is also important that people learn to avoid scams with simple procedures such as face ID, and to take care over what they buy online. This should be an important part of education, and indeed Ofcom, working with the FCA and the tech companies, should be able to make more progress here. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on this important area and how he thinks we can best address this problem.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond, I must start with a correction. In the third debate, I said that commercial credit data-sharing schemes improve bank referrals and strengthen personal lending. However, the CCDS and the bank referral scheme are different schemes. To correct the record, I meant that the Government are improving competition and supply through enhancements to commercial credit data sharing in this Bill and working with industry to strengthen bank referral arrangements. Both these schemes help to improve lending to SMEs. I apologise for that; I was speed-reading my way through my responses. I will try to be more careful in future.
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and noble Lords for tabling these amendments and to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. On Amendment 17, fraud causes profound financial and emotional harm. As noble Lords know, this Government take the issue of fraud very seriously and are dedicated to protecting UK citizens. As my noble friend Lord Stockwood explained in Committee, the Online Safety Act requires tech companies to take proactive steps to prevent fraudulent content. The Government remain committed to ensuring that Ofcom makes full use of its powers to undertake fast and decisive action against illegal online harms, including fraud. At the request of the Secretary of State, Ofcom will share an annual update on its enforcement strategy for online safety with Parliament.
In July, Ofcom published the fraudulent advertising code consultation, proposing more than 40 new measures to tackle online fraud on the UK’s biggest digital services. Among these measures, Ofcom proposes the mandatory verification of financial services advertisers. This will support legitimate financial promotions from FCA-authorised firms while cracking down on illegal financial promotions such as scam investments and crypto ads.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am terribly sorry to interrupt the Minister, but perhaps he could explain why the FCA has stopped the reports that the PSR was previously providing.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I am unable to answer the noble Lord’s question; might I write to him with an answer?
Amendment 20 was discussed in Committee and the Government’s position remains unchanged. As set out in Committee, a range of measures is already in place and further work is under way across government, regulators and industry. This includes firms using increasingly sophisticated fraud detection systems, confirmation of payee checks, work to improve data sharing between payment service providers and steps to ensure that fraud prevention is built into the design of future retail payments infrastructure.
Turning now to Amendment 95, concerning the protection of intellectual property, I agree that weak protections can be a drag on competitiveness. On non-compete clauses, in particular, there are no provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025 that would affect the use of non-compete clauses by financial services firms. The Government published a working paper on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts at Budget 2025. We are currently reviewing responses and will respond to the working paper in due course. The focus of the paper was on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. It does not consider reform to intellectual property law or other means to protect confidential information. The Government understand that a well-designed, balanced intellectual property system offers confidence for business investors and consumers to contribute to growing our economy.
Turning finally to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I recognise the continued threat posed to the UK by ransomware criminals. Following public consultation last year, this Government are already taking forward work through the Home Office to break the business model of ransomware and provide law enforcement with the information it needs to understand, investigate and disrupt ransomware activity. This includes proposals for a targeted ban on ransomware payments and mandatory reporting for businesses above a certain size. Taken together, the Government consider that the objectives of these amendments are already addressed through the existing framework and work that is under way and do not believe that further statutory requirements are needed. With that in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask for a potential timeframe on when the noble Lord expects to see progress on that work in the Home Office?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
Again, if the noble Baroness will accept it, I will write to her on that. I do not know the timetable offhand.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the online platforms know exactly what they have to do to stop online fraud; they are just choosing not to do it. The Government say that the answer will come from Ofcom, but that has certainly not worried the platforms one iota. The platforms will take notice only when they have to pay out to reimburse people who have been victims of those fraud scams. That is why Amendment 17 matters, and that is why I am going to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Pitt-Watson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a subsection which duplicates section 131Z19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 18 of Schedule 2).
Lord Pitt-Watson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct a cross-reference.
Lord Pitt-Watson
(ii) in its application as a secondary objective, the objective set out in section 30J(1) of the Bank of England Act 1998 (payment systems etc: innovation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Pitt-Watson that inserts a new clause after clause 22 relating to the Bank of England’s functions relating to payment systems and service providers.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
In moving my Amendment 22, I will also speak to government Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 22 is developed from our discussions in Committee.
Payment systems are essential national infrastructure. They allow households to pay bills, businesses to trade and financial institutions to transfer funds securely. As technology changes how we pay, those systems must continue to evolve, becoming more efficient and capable of supporting new services while remaining trusted and resilient. The Bank of England has a critical responsibility to protect and enhance UK financial stability. The Bank is also working with the Government and other authorities to support safe innovation in payments and digital finance. The Bank has welcomed this measure and will reinforce that work while preserving the primacy of financial stability.
Amendment 58 places the Bank’s role in facilitating innovation on a clear statutory footing. When exercising certain key functions for recognised payment systems, recognised digital settlement asset service providers, and in-scope service providers, the Bank must, so far as is reasonably possible, facilitate innovation with a view to improving the quality, functionality and economy of those systems and related services. The objective is expressly secondary and does not require the Bank to facilitate innovation where doing so would undermine its primary financial stability objective. This change will also bring the regulation of systemic payment systems and digital settlement assets into closer alignment with the Bank’s supervision of other financial market infrastructure. The Bank already has a secondary innovation objective for central counterparties and central securities depositories. Providing a comparable objective for payment systems and digital settlement assets provides the Bank with a clear and consistent statutory framework.
Amendment 58 also ensures that the Bank can be held accountable under its new objective. It enables the Treasury to make recommendations about aspects of the Government’s economic policy for the Bank to have regard to when considering how to advance its financial stability and secondary innovation objective in relation to payment systems. Those recommendations must be published and laid before Parliament. The Bank must explain the action it has taken, or its reasons for not acting, and provide updates where required. The Bank’s annual reports must now also explain how it has advanced the secondary innovation objective and engaged with interested stakeholders.
Amendment 59 reinforces that accountability by requiring the Bank to publish a stand-alone annual report on both secondary innovation objectives. The report must explain how objectives have been embedded in the Bank’s operations, processes and decisions, and how it has advanced them with respect to relevant functions. This will give Parliament and industry clear sight of how the objectives operate in practice.
Amendment 22 is consequential. It ensures that the mechanism already in the Bill for co-ordination between the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank with respect to relevant payment functions makes appropriate reference to regulator objectives, which would now include the Bank’s secondary innovation objective.
In summary, these amendments together place the Bank’s role in facilitating safe innovation on a clear statutory footing, while preserving financial stability as its primary objective. They also provide stronger and more transparent accountability for how the Bank applies the objectives in practice. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these amendments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have a couple of very brief comments. I am comfortable with the amendments that the Minister has just described, but I have one note of caution. The drive for innovation, which we all think is a good thing, in many ways also increasingly exposes the UK to a loss of monetary sovereignty, particularly where that innovation has to be brought in from overseas, and gives overseas companies far greater control of the payments systems in the UK. That is one of the ongoing fears that we have had. Scott Bessent has been quite open in saying tariffs are very old-fashioned in controlling western economies’ and that stablecoin is the way to do it.
I am therefore cautious when I hear this drive for innovation without some counter-warning and counter-consideration of the monetary sovereignty impacts. I never hear those words used, nor are they captured in any way in anything that I hear around regulation. So often, the move into digital assets—which is, in essence, what this is all about—is about plumbing and pipelines; it does not recognise the political implications. We have seen this in many other areas, such as where we have given away food security and energy security. We need to be very careful that we do not give away security in the financial services and payments sector.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we welcome these amendments and the movement from the Government on this important issue. I look forward to the Bank of England’s first report on its innovation objective and hope that it will help to drive much-needed growth in the economy. I am sure that the reports will also be useful to our specialist parliamentary committees.
Lord Pitt-Watson
“(aa) in paragraph 2(3), omit“, (ca)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a cross-reference to the paragraph omitted by paragraph 58(a) of Schedule 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct a cross-reference.
“(ca) in paragraph 5(a), for“, (c) or (ca)”substitute“or (c)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a cross-reference to the paragraph omitted by paragraph 58(a) of Schedule 2.
Baroness Kramer
“Anti-money laundering: provision of support to professional services firms(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Treasury must publish an assessment of the arrangements that will be made to provide education, guidance and compliance support to professional services firms subject to anti-money laundering supervision by the FCA.(2) The assessment must include a comparison between—(a) the education, guidance and compliance support currently provided by professional body supervisors, and(b) the support that will be provided by the FCA.(3) The Treasury must lay the assessment before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to explain how education, guidance and bespoke compliance support currently provided by professional body supervisors will be maintained following the transfer of anti-money laundering supervisory functions to the FCA.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that all the amendments in this group are mine. Amendment 29 has also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for which I am most grateful. I will be brief as the hour is late.
In this Bill, the Government will transfer all supervision of professional service firms in respect of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing from the current professional bodies to the FCA. Members of this House have received representation from a wide range of professional groups which are, frankly, utterly dismayed. They recognise that the FCA is trying to respond to their needs and issues, but it seems to have very little idea how to fund or resource the complex guidance and education required as part of that supervisory and monitoring process. It seems, as far as I can understand, that the FCA now says that it would like the professional bodies themselves to continue to provide all that work but, in essence, on an unpaid basis. That is not realistic.
The FCA has produced a high-level road map, but I hear universally that it is very short of information and low on timing details. I can agree that the current system has historically suffered from fragmentation, but I am not sure that we needed a remedy on the scale of the changes that are in the Bill. The fragmentation issue was being dealt with reasonably effectively by OPBAS—the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision—that had been created to sit above the professional bodies to provide co-ordination standards and make them effective. Where OPBAS had a weakness was in its communication with enforcement agencies, but this issue could have been remedied without the radical change on the scale represented in the Bill.
My amendments require an assessment of this transition process, particularly on issues such as education guidance and compliance support, timetables, regional coverage and supervisory fees. There is real concern now that with an additional layer of supervision brought into the picture, fees are going to increase very significantly. My amendment would also require the FCA to have regard to having the appropriate expertise on hand to provide that support and guidance—that is significant expertise ranging from accounting to taxation. It has not really taken on these issues historically.
I will not be pressing this issue because the FCA is trying to find ways to make this system work. I honestly do not think that the FCA would have wished this upon itself; nor would the professional bodies have wished it upon themselves. It really is important that the Government understand that they need to think much more carefully when they introduce radical change when, frankly, much more modest and targeted change would have served the purpose better.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her Amendment 29, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness has already explained with her usual clarity the concerns that lie behind this group of amendments so I will try not to repeat what she said.
The changes proposed by the Bill to the AML supervisory regime will move the AML elements of supervision from the relevant professional body to the FCA. This means that firms will now have to deal with two separate regulators rather than one: the FCA for AML and the professional body for everything else. It seems inevitable that this will have cost impacts for those firms even if, as the FCA argues, the regulatory rules themselves will not change. That is likely to be especially true for smaller firms.
The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill on this section is, frankly, almost laughably poor, relying almost entirely on the statement that the AML rules themselves will not change. It does not address, in any meaningful way, the question of moving from one supervisor to two. It must, therefore, be sensible to carry out an assessment of what the impact of the changes will be on firms and to ensure that the costs remain proportionate to the benefits that the FCA and the Government argue will accrue, before going ahead with the changes. That is what Amendment 29 is looking to achieve.
The Government are commendably keen to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this. Does he agree that there is likely to be an increase in costs to firms from having to deal with two supervisors rather than one? How will he ensure that that is proportionate to any benefits that will arise?
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, these amendments reflect a number of important concerns about the proposed transfer of anti-money laundering supervision to the FCA. We do not believe that each of these points requires legislative commitment. However, we have also been made aware of serious concerns from industry about how this transition is being communicated and how the new regime will work in practice.
These concerns include the governance arrangements following the transfer of the timetable and the transitional process, the maintenance of professional standards, proportionality, and the extent to which the FCA will retain specialist expertise needed to supervise highly technical sectors such as accountancy, legal services and trust and company service provision. There are also legitimate questions about the practical support available to firms, the likely cost of the new regime and whether smaller firms in particular will face disproportionate burdens.
This is why our Amendment 93, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, covers a transfer of AML supervision. Parliamentary and entire industry oversight of these changes will be vital in making sure that this new architecture works in the way the Minister wants.
The common thread running through our amendment and the other amendments in this group is therefore a sensible one. If the Government are going to centralise this responsibility within the FCA, they must demonstrate that the FCA is genuinely equipped to undertake it, and provide clarity to industry about how this process is going to be practically achieved. That means not simply having the formal regulatory powers, but having the right people, the right sectoral knowledge, appropriate transitional arrangements and a clear understanding of how supervision will operate across the country.
Industry is concerned about these questions, and those concerns should be taken seriously. I therefore hope the Minister can make a firm commitment today to provide considerably greater clarity about how this transfer will be implemented, how professional expertise, standards and proportionality will be maintained, and what firms should expect during transition.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for tabling these amendments concerning the implementation of the reform of the UK’s anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing supervisory regime. The points everyone is raising about the implementation of this needing to be well done are extremely important, as is the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, about parliamentary oversight of what is taking place here.
Amendments 26 and 27 concern support for firms and implementation planning. Amendment 26 would require the Treasury to publish and lay an assessment before Parliament, including a comparison between the education, guidance and compliance assistance currently available to firms and the support that will be provided by the FCA. The Government recognise the concern that professional services firms should continue to receive clear guidance, appropriate support and access to sector-specific expertise following the transition to the FCA.
Existing provisions in the money laundering regulations, which require supervisors to provide information about money laundering risks to supervised populations, will apply to the FCA in relation to its expanded responsibilities. The FCA already has significant experience of providing AML/CTF information and guidance to a large and diverse supervised population. For these reasons, the Government do not believe that a statutory assessment is necessary.
Amendment 27 would require the Treasury to publish a statutory timetable for implementation. While we do not believe such a requirement is necessary, the FCA has provided some additional clarity on the expected implementation timetables. The current expectation is that the first businesses will begin to be supervised by the FCA before the end of 2028. Further onboarding will take place in phases, with the broad aim that all firms within scope will be supervised by the FCA by mid-2030.
Implementation should proceed only when the necessary preparations are complete. This includes ensuring that appropriate systems and effective information-sharing arrangements are in place, supervisory staff are adequately trained, and sufficient clarity is provided to firms about the future regime. Retaining flexibility will allow the Government and the FCA to respond to stakeholder feedback and lessons arising during the transition.
Existing supervisors will continue to supervise firms, taking enforcement action where necessary and maintaining standards until the FCA assumes its new responsibility. The Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, OPBAS, will continue to oversee the existing professional body supervisors during that period. The FCA is already engaging with professional body supervisors and HMRC on information-sharing and data-sharing arrangements.
Amendment 28 concerns professional expertise. The Government fully recognise that effective supervision depends on supervisors understanding the sectors they regulate. Legal services providers, accountancy firms and trust and company service providers have different business models, risks and regulatory arrangements.
Of course, the FCA already supervises a large and diverse population, including many smaller firms, and has extensive experience applying a proportionate, risk-based approach across different business models and firm sizes. The FCA’s independent Smaller Business Practitioner Panel also provides direct insight into the perspectives and challenges facing smaller regulated firms.
This reform is not about applying a banking-style or one-size-fits-all supervisory model to professional services firms. The future regime will be proportionate and risk-based and establish a more consistent and effective framework, while recognising the different characteristics and risks of those sectors.
Amendment 29 is on supervisory fees. All businesses, particularly smaller firms and sole traders, want assurance that the future regime will remain proportionate and that firms will not be required to pay excessive supervisory fees. The FCA will consult on the design of its future fee model before assuming responsibility for these sectors. The Government expect fees to be proportionate and consistent with the FCA’s wider fee framework, where smaller firms generally face lower costs than larger firms. The detailed fee structure will depend on the final supervisory model and is therefore better developed through consultation.
Finally, Amendment 30—
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. The Minister has not answered the question of what assessment the Government have made of the cost impact on firms of moving from a single supervisor to dealing with two, particularly for small firms.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I am not aware of an individual calculation that has been done for that. I do not think that there will be a materially greater cost once the move is made. The key issue that we are trying to address here is that, right now, we have 23 regulators of AML, and that job needs to be done in a more co-ordinated and consistent fashion. If I have information on that, I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord on those costs.
Finally, Amendment 30 addresses the FCA’s capacity to undertake effective AML/CTF supervision across all parts of the United Kingdom. Amendment 30 would require the FCA to report on its capacity to supervise firms throughout the UK. The FCA already operates across the United Kingdom through its offices in London, Leeds and Edinburgh and anticipates having a significant presence for the new AML regime outside London. This provides a strong foundation for maintaining regional coverage, preserving local knowledge and ensuring that jurisdiction-specific issues continue to inform supervision and implementation planning. This will also help with ensuring that regional risks and jurisdiction-specific considerations are understood and addressed, while maintaining a consistent approach across the United Kingdom.
I recognise the objectives behind these amendments: careful implementation, appropriate support, maintenance of expertise, proportionate fees and sufficient FCA capacity. The Government understand why these assurances are being sought. However, additional statutory reports, assessments and fixed requirements are not necessary. These matters are being addressed through implementation planning, capability building, stakeholder engagement, consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the necessary secondary legislation. The Government will continue to work closely with Parliament, industry, existing supervisors and the FCA. Our aim is to deliver a more consistent, effective and co-ordinated AML/CTF supervisory framework, while ensuring that firms receive proportionate supervision and appropriate support. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Pitt-Watson
“(ba) the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 1EB), and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the strategic priorities set out by the FCA in a long-term strategy under new section 1JZA of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 must include strategic priorities in relation to the competitiveness and growth objective.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, growth is the top priority for the Government, and the financial services sector is key to delivering this. As my noble friend Lord Stockwood set out in Committee, the Government always intended that the FCA’s long-term strategy would set out its priorities for advancing its international competitiveness and growth objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly questioned if our legislative drafting was clear and, after further consideration, the Government have tabled this amendment to ensure that the law is clear on this point. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to our attention.
I turn to Amendments 32 and 33 which would place detailed statutory requirements on the content of the FCA’s and PRA’s long-term strategies, including requiring descriptions of future regulatory initiatives, indicative timelines and assessments of potential trade-offs. The Government agree that this is an important part of Parliament’s role in scrutinising the work of the regulators. I welcome the commitments made by Nikhil Rathi, the CEO of the FCA, in a letter he sent to me on 2 September, which has been shared with the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, the Opposition Front Bench and interested Peers. The letter made a commitment to pro-actively engage relevant parliamentary committees on their priorities before settling future strategies. Katharine Braddick, the new CEO of the PRA, also made commitments in her letter of 3 September to engage its stakeholders and Parliament in the development of its strategy. As I committed to earlier in today’s debate, I am placing these letters in the Library.
Much of the information that the noble Baroness seeks is, or should be, already available through existing channels, including the Regulatory Initiatives Grid, which is updated regularly and is specifically designed to provide firms and stakeholders with forward-looking information on forthcoming regulatory activity. The FCA also publishes and will continue to publish an annual work programme that details what it will deliver in the coming year against the strategic priorities in its current strategy.
The purpose of the long-term strategy is different. It is intended to set out the regulator’s strategic direction and priorities over a five-year period, rather than to operate as a detailed business plan. As the FCA sets out in its letter, the strategy is intended to provide greater clarity and predictability about its priorities, and to provide a strong basis on which Parliament and others can hold it to account for its performance against those priorities. The Government therefore do not consider that these additional statutory requirements are necessary.
I now turn to Amendment 68, which seeks to create new statutory offices for regulatory evaluation within the FCA and the Bank of England. I recognise the concerns expressed during Committee about ensuring that Parliament has access to meaningful information about the performance of the financial regulators. It is a point well made. This amendment would go further than this. It would establish permanent statutory bodies with dedicated directors, governance arrangements and reporting requirements, introducing additional costs on the regulators. As we discussed in Committee, there already exists a range of mechanisms to provide this information. This proposal could potentially duplicate these arrangements, and the Government do not agree that more institutional machinery will necessarily lead to better scrutiny.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, it is late, so I shall be relatively brief and not revisit the issues that we looked at in Committee. When I tabled these amendments, I still hoped that there would be some agreement reached on restoring the information hooks that Parliament has relied on until now for oversight, and to suggest a minimum set of reporting requirements in the current void of the strategy report. But it has been made clear by the Minister now, and in discussions between the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as chair of the Select Committee, that the Government will not accept any statutory requirements. If that is the case, the committee will have to draw that information in itself, and the letters from the regulators offer the promise that they will co-operate in that. I suggest that we should take that opportunity to be able to do more things in real time, rather than long after decisions are made.
Obviously, it is for the committee to decide what written and oral information it wants and when, but one way to address the gap would be a triennial cycle of structured meetings with regulators. Each session could explicitly track developments in consultations and rule-making, including the work of the statutory panels, with an additional cycle of other matters. A suitable timing could be late February, when you could do an operational alignment review of draft business plans, budgets and cost-benefit analysis variances before they are locked in for the financial year. In mid-June, a session could be focused on the secondary competitiveness and growth objective, tracking live authorisation times, licensing, service-level agreements and regulatory overlap arising from current consultations and rule-making activity. In October, one could do a post-Recess review of rule-making, “Dear CEO” letters and summer-period backlogs ahead of the autumn Budget. Those are just examples of how you can get matters to fit in with the other fiscal events.
Adopting that kind of timetable would give Parliament timely visibility. We could avoid boilerplate reporting and ensure accountability, even though we lose the statutory hooks. But I think that neither the regulators nor the Government really appreciated the message that crossing out all these previous statutory things indicated, and it seemed as if Parliament had been totally ignored as a stakeholder and as a party that should have been consulted.
I hope that we can recover and come through this, probably with more reporting in the end that is pulled in at our request. I do not see that this as something that we have to negotiate; this is something where Parliament can ask, and we expect that the regulators will comply. Now that sounds aggressive, but I actually think that it will be able to be negotiated relatively reasonably, at least if it is anything like the experience that I have had elsewhere.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on Report, so I need to declare my interests as shown in the register, namely, that I hold shares in listed financial services companies, which may well be affected by the content of this Bill.
I start by thanking the Government for tabling Amendment 31, which is in fact identical to an amendment that I tabled in Committee. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, who is in his place, said then that he could not accept my amendment because the Government were
“looking into this point to determine if this is fully clear within the drafting of the clause”.—[Official Report, 24/6/26; col. GC 333.]
That was nonsense, and I feel sorry for Ministers who are told by their officials to say these sorts of things. It was clear that the drafting of the Bill was wrong, and that my amendment put it right. I am very glad that the Government have now caught up with me.
The rest of the amendments in this group deal with the knotty issue of accountability of the regulators. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has tabled several amendments to try and improve what is in the Bill and reverse some of the changes in the Bill that will undoubtedly weaken the accountability arrangements. Of course, I support those amendments. But accountability means much more than plans and reports, which is what the noble Baroness’s amendments tend to focus on. Some of us put forward various ideas in Committee about how we could improve accountability—the point being that we are looking to get a step change in the accountability arrangements.
This all comes back to the FSMA model, which my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe spoke about in the first group. I support the FSMA model in principle, but it is under increasing strain, as has been mentioned already today. It was first invented long before Brexit, when swathes of financial regulation were drawn up in the EU and scrutinised in detail via the EU Parliament. When FSMA 2023 paved the way for this additional delegation to the regulators of all of those EU competences, it was partially offset— only partially—by strengthening the role of Parliament. When the regulators use their powers to create rules and guidance, they now have to send that into the parliamentary committees, including the Financial Services Regulation Committee, which, as has already been said, I currently chair.
I am clear that holding the regulators to account for how they are using their powers—that is, real-time accountability rather than the ex-post accountability that annual reports deal with—is an uphill battle for very many reasons, not least an imbalance between the scale of resources devoted to parliamentary committees compared with the vast resources that are deployed within our financial system regulators. As we know, this Bill creates yet more areas of delegated powers to the regulators—consumer credit, which we debated earlier today, but also the payment systems which the Minister spoke to a few moments ago. This, again, is why we need to strengthen the accountability arrangements rather than weaken them, as the Bill currently does.
The Government have partially recognised that the Bill went too far and have tabled amendments on proportionality, which we will debate on our next Report day. The balance, however, has still shifted away too far from Parliament being able to operate effective accountability mechanisms. That is why I tabled Amendment 68, and I thank my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for adding their names to it.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will speak very briefly on Amendment 68. My noble friend Lady Noakes just covered the waterfront incredibly well, in her exemplary manner, and made all the key points.
I will briefly say this. The first leg of this amendment, about the FCA’s office for regulatory evaluation, is an extremely measured and well-constructed proposal from my noble friend, but I propose to set up something different: an office for financial regulatory accountability that stands outside all the regulators and looks at financial services regulation, consultations and proposals in the round. It would therefore provide an independent source for Parliament and everyone else to look at the impact of those actions, so that they could be analysed and, critically, the regulators and supervisors could be held to account.
Many said to me that they felt this office would become a back-seat driver for the regulators and supervisors, and that we would, essentially, have someone second-guessing their actions, potentially undermining the operational independence that they have been given. This proposal from my noble friend overcomes that very well. While I am very pleased that the Minister is making constructive noises about the need for greater accountability and scrutiny, I am somewhat disappointed that it seems that this proposal, which builds, as far as I can see, on the work of the cost-benefit panels within the FCA, would help Parliament hold the FCA to account with much greater independent analysis. When he sums up, I would like the Minister to give us a bit more argument about why this is a bad idea.
I turn to the second leg of this amendment, which relates to the Bank of England and the office for regulatory evaluation. It is rather sad that, at 10.05 pm, about 15 of us are debating one of the most important institutions in this country, how it is held to account and the means by which it evaluates its performance. This speaks volumes about how we in Parliament potentially need to up our game in how we hold the Bank of England to account. That criticism may be aimed at all of us rather than at the Government.
The independent evaluation office within the Bank performs, and has performed, a critical role. When you look back to see what various chairmen of the court have said about it, many of them have gone on the record over the past decade praising its work and saying that it provides valuable input to the court by analysing what the Bank is up to and making sure that the Bank is internally held to account. So when the Financial Times reported several weeks ago that the Bank of England was dismantling the IEO, I have to say that alarm bells started to ring.
When the Minister sums up, perhaps he can answer some simple questions. I realise that he is speaking on behalf of the Treasury, not the Bank of England, but what I am trying to understand is, first, what is the problem that this decision to dismantle the IEO is trying to solve? What is it that the Bank is trying to achieve? What is the progress it is trying to make by abolishing and dismantling the IEO, in particular given that so many chairmen of the court have spoken in favour of it?
The second point builds on what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. When the IEO is abolished and these external independent analysts are brought in, how many reviews does the court expect to commission? As my noble friend pointed out, the IEO has published only a relatively small handful of reviews. Is it going to be more or less? Next, if the court chooses the subjects, how will we ensure that the uncomfortable issues that the Bank needs to confront will be confronted? Finally, does the Minister think that this move will increase the accountability and scrutiny of the Bank? That is my litmus test: will it make sure that the Bank’s performance is held even more to account?
There are questions to answer here. I very much welcome what the Minister said about his wish to increase accountability and scrutiny. I think that we are disagreeing here on the means by which to do so, so I look forward to his answers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Noakes, to the Financial Services Regulation Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley for their persistent pursuit of a very simple but important principle. As regulators gain more power and their remit expands, so too should the scope and effectiveness of the oversight to which they are subject.
My noble friend Lady Noakes powerfully articulated the concern that the FSMA model has been stretched too far and that even our expert parliamentary committees are struggling with the volume and complexity of oversight. We need stronger, not weaker, democratic accountability, which is why we saw value in the office of regulatory evaluation and/or my noble friend Lord Bridges’s original model tabled in Committee. We also share his concern about the dismantling of the Bank of England’s IEO.
This is an area where the Opposition will continue to develop our thinking for future legislation and would welcome engagement. We are not comfortable with a system whose reaction seems to be to delegate every new or persistent problem to our regulators. We are very pleased that my noble friend Lady Noakes will continue to work with the Treasury and the regulators on improving parliamentary oversight through the relevant committees, and we look forward to working with her and others across the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. What she has proposed represents a practical compromise that would allow us to move on. However, a positive response to Amendment 93 on first use of the new powers would also be important.
One practical way in which the accountability gap could be narrowed a little—and, indeed, trust in the FCA improved—would be to strengthen the remit of the cost-benefit analysis panels, which already sit within the regulators. Their remit could extend beyond rule changes to include guidance and enforcement activity. They could be given the ability to request an assessment of changes that the regulator has judged to be immaterial. This would strengthen internal challenge, improve confidence in the regulatory process and provide Parliament with more useful and more independent information. I have not brought back yet another amendment on this proposal, but I hope the Minister can commit to looking seriously at it as a follow-up to this useful debate.
I welcome the Government’s amendment on competitiveness and growth. I am only sorry that the name of the Financial Services Regulation Committee does not seem to have made its way into the statute.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I will not take up too much time because I responded to many of the points at the beginning of the debate. On the Independent Evaluation Office at the Bank of England, the Bank is committed to independent evaluation. It is strengthening the independence of the reviews that it commissions by moving to a model where it commissions external independent experts to lead the reviews.
I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I should add—because we have a commitment from the FCA. If you want to be cynical about it, it may not be as fulsome a commitment as we might want, but it says that accountability, scrutiny and proportionality are central and it wants to support effective parliamentary scrutiny, which I think is where we are all coming from. I thank the noble Baroness and her committee for picking up the baton on this because we must all—Parliament and regulators, with the help of the Government where we can help—work together to have a regulatory environment that is effective and proportionate.
With that in mind, the Government do not think that at this stage further legislative amendments are helpful. I beg to move Amendment 31.