House of Commons
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
The House will know that tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The Speaker’s Chaplain will deliver a special prayer before the start of business in the Chamber tomorrow. Members will also have an opportunity to mark this anniversary during tomorrow’s Adjournment debate. I know that colleagues across the House will join me in remembering the victims of the horrific 9/11 attacks, the families of all those who died, and the men and women involved in rescuing people.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
I am grateful to the commission for its thorough work, which we are considering carefully. We know that more can be done on transparency around lobbying and will present our response to Parliament in due course. There is a great deal of interest in this—understandably so—and we are determined to get it right.
Joe Powell
I strongly welcome the Government’s efforts to rewire the state and create more accountability for decisions made by the Government. As part of that effort, cleaning up our politics is so important, as we have seen from the summer of scandals on the funding of the Reform party. The Ethics and Integrity Commission has laid out how lobbying can be reformed to make it more open, rational and accountable. Can the Minister outline what immediate steps might be taken, and can he assure us that he will keep an open mind to the commission’s central recommendation, which is legislation for a unified digital open lobbying register?
Mark Ferguson
We certainly recognise that the current system of transparency around lobbying does not have widespread support; it is not good enough. That is why the Ethics and Integrity Commission was asked to report on this matter. We are considering the case for legislative reform very carefully and will respond to the EIC’s report as soon as we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When it comes to lobbying, Northern Ireland has a peculiar circumstance where one party can be involved in politics in Northern Ireland and at the same time be involved in politics in the Republic of Ireland. When it comes to the accountability that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) is calling for, can the Minister assure us in this House and in Northern Ireland that the rules that apply here will apply equally in Northern Ireland, including to those political parties that traverse the border between the north and the south?
Mark Ferguson
It would not be a first outing at the Dispatch Box without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I welcome his question. We will, of course, consider that in the response to the EIC.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Ethics and Integrity Commission’s report rightly argues that our transparency rules are stuck in the past. Influence is being exerted in ways that just did not exist a few years ago. There are Members of this House earning more than their salary as an MP for posts on X—a platform that actively incentivises divisive content. Indeed, the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has declared earnings of over £108,000 since his election to this place. Does the Minister agree that our current laws on what constitutes lobbying are too narrow, and that when an MP is financially rewarded by an algorithm for their political output, it crosses the line into financial influence? Will he update lobbying and ethics rules to tackle that loophole?
Mark Ferguson
We will, of course, consider that as part of the response to the EIC. I take very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House do, the issues of outside earnings by Members, and particularly potential undue influence. With regard to X, I share the hon. Lady’s concerns; personally, I do not use it.
Mr Speaker
I presume the hon. Lady let the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) know that she was going to mention him.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
This Government are strengthening our national resilience so that we are better prepared for threats like extreme weather, cyber-attacks or another pandemic. We are implementing the resilience action plan; we have published a new pandemic preparedness strategy; we are updating what we call the “war books”, with a home defence exercise planned next year; and we will run a public awareness campaign later this year on how households can prepare for emergencies like severe weather.
Martin Rhodes
In order for us to have national resilience, we must have a network of local services that have local knowledge, local experience and are based in local communities. That should include well-funded local fire and rescue services that can keep response times low and communities safe. Does the Minister agree with me and the Scottish Fire Brigades Union that the Scottish Government should reverse their cuts to fire and rescue services and stop the planned closure of Yorkhill fire station in my constituency, to avoid undermining the resilience of local communities and our preparedness for emerging risks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those important points. I understand the concern that the closure of any fire and rescue station brings to people. We have seen in recent weeks, with widespread wildfires, just how crucial fire and rescue services have been to saving lives and keeping the public safe. Decisions on fire services in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, but we have given them a record level of funding, with the biggest block grant in the history of devolution.
Chris Vince
I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), to his rightful place on the Front Bench. As Ministers may be aware, in late July there was a severe wildfire off Second Avenue in Harlow; I thank the fire services and fire officers who attended and dealt with the issue so well. What is the Minister doing to increase awareness of fires starting, particularly in the dry weather, which is likely to continue next year as well?
Dan Jarvis
Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of fire and rescue services across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s Harlow constituency over the summer. As the House will know, the Government issued an emergency alert to advise people of the steps they should take to avoid inadvertently contributing to already widespread fires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is exploring ways to expand its “Fire Kills” campaign to deliver targeted messages and resources to the public.
Graeme Downie
As the Minister says, the UK is facing a growing range of threats for which people and businesses are not fully prepared, including climate change, cyber-attacks by hostile states and organised misinformation. Recent incidents in Germany, including attacks on energy infrastructure and the attempted airport bombing in Leipzig, which has been linked to the Russian state, highlight the seriousness of these risks. Given the breadth of these challenges, a whole-of-Government approach is required to inform and prepare the public. What steps is the Minister taking to co-ordinate that work and provide clear public guidance? Has he engaged with countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Estonia and Taiwan on how they have built their public resilience through increased and honest information?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I recently visited Estonia to sign a landmark defence road map, designed to deepen military co-operation and modernise allied forces. Likewise, we regularly engage with our partners to learn about not only what they have done, but crucially what has actually worked to build public resilience. We are using that insight to develop a campaign tailored to the needs and strengths of the United Kingdom, bringing us closer in line with our international partners, most of whom do this regularly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Over the summer, I met two fire resilience experts in my constituency, who have experience of fires in California. They told me that simple measures taken locally can have a significant impact, including things like clearing vegetation around a house and making sure that there are no log piles next to a home. That can all be done through parish councils and local resilience planning, so what steps will the Minister take to support parish councils as they develop local resilience?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point in the way that he does. The resilience action plan details how we will better integrate the voluntary, community and faith sectors into planning, and I would include parish councils within that. It will also enable us to test new structures for leadership, and provide accountability and assurance through the stronger local resilience forum trailblazers programme. I acknowledge and agree with the point that he made, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed. According to a leak—presumably from a briefing from the Cabinet Office—reported in The Times this week, the Cabinet Secretary is proposing to take new powers to direct permanent secretaries of Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether legislation is planned to change the statutory basis of the civil service? Most importantly, does he think that the Cabinet Secretary should or should not have the power to direct permanent secretaries?
Dan Jarvis
I gently advise the hon. Member, as I am sure he is aware, not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. However, I hope that he and the House would approve of the fact that this Government, with a new Prime Minister and new First Secretary of State, will want to look very carefully at the structures of the civil service and ensure that they are delivering for the priorities of this Government.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
After a winter of torrential rain and a summer without any rain, residents in Mid Sussex are incredibly concerned about the impact of drought and flooding, and among those residents are our farmers. Yesterday was Back British Farming Day and I spoke to Caroline, a West Sussex farmer, who is really concerned about their capacity to grow the food that we all need to eat. Will the Government make better use of water storage capacity available on British farms, including by removing planning and funding barriers to on-farm reservoirs as part of their approach to building national resilience?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady is right to raise those important points. Food security is national security, and this Government will always back our farmers. This Government, and Government Departments, stand ready to respond to natural hazard risks such as drought, flooding, severe storms and extreme temperatures. The Cobra directorate in the Cabinet Office works in partnership with departmental policy teams and public entities to ensure that our response is proportionate to the nature of the climate threat that we face.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
This Government are committed to deepening our ties with the European Union. It is right at the centre of everything that we are trying to do on the cost of living and energy, as well as the security of our continent. I will continue to lead discussions with my counterpart, Commissioner Šefčovič, who I met most recently on Monday, on how we can continue to strengthen the UK-EU partnership.
Caroline Voaden
British farmers and fishers, and my shellfish exporters, continue to face unnecessary trade barriers with our largest export market. A 2024 report from the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy found that exports of British food to the EU had dropped by nearly £3 billion since Brexit. Our farmers and fishers desperately need a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—and fast—to reduce costs and bureaucracy, and to allow them to export their produce to the EU, yet the second UK-EU summit was postponed following the resignation of the former Prime Minister, and we have had no update on when it will take place. I hear the Minister say that he met Mr Šefčovič, so can he commit to the summit taking place this year? Can he give our British farmers and fishers a date for when that will happen?
Mr Falconer
I am determined to get the SPS agreement done—it is the subject of intense discussions. I cannot provide the House with a date just yet, as that will need to be agreed between the UK and the EU, but I hope to be able to provide a further update soon.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
An extraordinary debate is going on right now inside and outside AI companies about whether the possibility of AI destroying humanity is more or less than 10%. The European Union is moving ahead with a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, but the UK continues to rely on existing regulation. What discussions is the Minister having with the European Union about aligning AI regulation, especially given that Anthropic has refused to submit its model to the AI Security Institute? How is he ensuring that we can keep European and UK citizens safe?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the shared challenges that we face with the European Union, including the very rapid developments in artificial intelligence. I am proud to sit next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), the first AI Minister to attend Cabinet—here, and indeed anywhere—and I know that he will be answering some questions during this session. This is clearly a matter of real interest and concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) says, and we are working at pace to address it.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his post. I very much look forward to him updating the House on his negotiating mandate and his conversations with the European trade commissioner. Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be wrong to rerun divisive arguments about rejoining the EU, but, soon after, the Minister refused to rule out rejoin being an option in the next Labour manifesto. Will he tell the House: will Labour rule out rejoin featuring in its next manifesto? [Interruption.]
Mr Falconer
I can hear that there is outrage behind me. I have many responsibilities, but writing the next Labour party manifesto is not one of them. We are committed to the red lines. We were all elected on that manifesto. We want to go further and faster—we have inherited a poor deal with the European Union, and it is my job to improve it.
Alex Burghart
It is perfectly reasonable to rule things out. The Minister has had plenty of time to talk to No. 10 since his interview on Sky. I am sure the Labour party would rule out many things at this stage—I am sure it would rule out leaving the European convention on human rights, getting rid of net-zero targets and bringing back the death penalty—so why is it so hard for the Minister and the Government to rule out rejoining the EU?
Mr Falconer
I want to be really clear with the House, as the Prime Minister has been repeatedly: despite the anxious desire of Opposition Members, we are not rerunning the arguments of 2016 once again. My constituents, and the constituents of Members right across the House, are concerned with the day-to-day impacts of the deal we have inherited; it is my job to improve it, and that is what I am focused on. Our manifesto red lines remain in place, and I will of course update the House on the proceeds of the negotiation. We have been clear in the King’s Speech that, should that negotiation result in the need for legislation in this House, it will of course face scrutiny here.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
The Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and No. 10 North, are working closely with regional leaders, the Treasury, and Departments across Government to align national policy with the long-term economic priorities of different places and to remove barriers to growth. This includes fiscally devolving a share of income tax and business rates to mayors, giving local leaders greater power to attract private investment, create good jobs and deliver growth in every postcode.
Sarah Hall
Britain’s future growth depends on having the infrastructure, energy, skills and industrial capacity to support it, but too often, investment is held back because the problems—whether grid capacity, water, transport or skills—sit across different Departments. How will the Department make sure this Government deal with those problems together, so that we can reindustrialise Britain and bring growth to every postcode?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. For too long, in order to unlock growth for their areas, local leaders have had to navigate Whitehall Departments that have played them off against each other. No. 10 North brings those local leaders’ priorities into the heart of Government, gets the right people around the table and drives joined-up action, ensuring that the centre works as one to unlock good growth in every part of the United Kingdom.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Our long-term economic success is only going to be strengthened by our cyber-security. As Ministers are aware, right next to GCHQ in Cheltenham is the Golden Valley development, which is going to support our cyber-security capacity. It is a vital development for the nation, as well as for my local area. Will the Government go a little bit further on the matter of the designated area, so that proceeds from that development can be held locally, which I think is in line with the new agenda being set by the Cabinet Office? Will they also restart the discussions with the local authorities and the developer around the places for growth scheme, as they seem to have stalled?
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is exactly the kind of project that No. 10 North will gladly look at, to consider whether it should be a designated zone for further retention powers. I will ask No. 10 North to write to the hon. Gentleman and consider the proposal.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
The Government have reviewed all 306 active arm’s length bodies, and we have commitments to reform over a third of them, but we will go further. Devolution by default means that we will transfer functions of arm’s length bodies to local leaders or return them to Departments, because all critical decisions should be taken by Ministers who are directly accountable to Parliament and the public.
Mr Bedford
There are actually over 400 quangos in existence, which spend over £390 billion a year—that is £1 in every £3 spent by the Government. Last year, Ministers promised a full review of those quangos; as an accountant, we would call that zero-based budgeting. Will the Minister tell the House how many of those bodies have been scrapped and how much has been saved?
Mark Ferguson
I am afraid that the hon. Member appears to have not fully heard my initial response, which I believe addresses a lot of the issues he has raised. His question was about arm’s length bodies, so of course I answered on arm’s length bodies—there are 306 of them, and we are reviewing over a third. I would have hoped that he would welcome that, because devolution by default means restoring powers to where they should be, with democratic accountability.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
Current service levels are completely unacceptable, and we are holding Capita accountable by withholding payments in the short term and assessing the long-term viability of bringing the scheme in-house. We will continue to use the most stringent commercial levers we have under this contract—which was signed by the last Government—to ensure we have full accountability.
Darren Paffey
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place, and thank her for her answer. In Southampton Itchen, I have constituents who have been deprived of their pension for many months. One waited over a year even for an accurate quotation, another is yet to receive a penny after 40 years of service, and one with stage 4 cancer took three months to get any money—and even then, only after I had nagged a Minister to intervene. When I was a Southampton city councillor, we ended Capita’s contract and took those services back in-house. Is it not time for the Government to consider doing the same?
Sally Jameson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising his constituents’ cases. I have had many similar cases in Doncaster. I assure him and his constituents that I am using all the levers at my disposal to ensure that Capita delivers a better performance at the earliest possible time. We have set out our intention to advance the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are now actively shaping a long-term strategy to look at what it would look like if we brought the pension scheme back in-house. He will be aware of our manifesto commitment to have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I am committed to fulfilling that.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) in warmly welcoming the Minister to her new position. In surgery after surgery, I too have examples of Capita failing to do its job. The latest example was in a surgery just the other week, where I met my constituent Craig, who has received no pension payment or calculation since July. Will the Minister please look into Craig’s case and do everything she can to give Capita the boot?
Sally Jameson
Capita’s performance has been totally abysmal, and I too have raised it a number of times in this House. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will be holding Capita to account, including withholding nearly £10 million of contractual payments, because we will not pay for services that have not been delivered. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I will ensure that his case is investigated, and I will get back to him at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Despite dedicating their lives to public service through long careers in the civil service, many of my constituents have faced severe delays with their pension payments, causing them anxiety and financial hardship. How will the Minister ensure that her Department gives my constituents the support they need, that this crisis is resolved and, just as importantly, that it does not happen again?
Sally Jameson
An independent, Capita-funded remedial adviser has been appointed to identify service delivery issues and to allow us to continue to hold Capita fully accountable. Around 147 surge staff have been deployed in this crisis. The Government remain committed to maintaining resource levels. No team members will be withdrawn from that surge team until service levels are permanently fixed. As I have said in my previous answers, we are using all commercial levers at our disposal, including withholding those payments, so that Capita is held accountable. We are looking closely at options for bringing the pension scheme in-house.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Numerous constituents of mine have had the same problems with the civil service pension scheme run by Capita. One example is Ruth, whose husband worked for the Ministry of Defence and died in service nearly a year ago. She has been waiting 11 months for a death-in-service payment and pension. Capita promised to have this resolved, with all bereavement cases done by the end of August. It broke that promise. This week, she is still waiting. This is utterly unacceptable. I welcome the Minister saying that there will be penalties for Capita, but does she not recognise that this is such a clear example that outsourcing does not work? Will she ensure that Capita is not given contracts like this ever again?
Sally Jameson
I thank the hon. Member for raising her constituent’s experience, which I am sorry to hear about. I have many similar examples in my constituency, as I know have Members across the House. I hope to provide a more substantive update in October. As I have said previously, Capita’s performance is totally unacceptable. I will not defend it, and I will continue to hold Capita to account every single day that I am in office, until the service levels are brought back up to an acceptable standard and all our constituents have received the pensions that they should already have had—in the hon. Member’s constituency case, 11 months ago—and I will continue to do that. We are looking at bringing the pension scheme in-house, and we are looking at the different viable options to do that. In our manifesto we committed to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are all committed to doing that.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
I am working with colleagues right across Government to deliver good AI jobs in every part of this country. That means a focus on capabilities, the AI skills boost for individuals and BridgeAI for funds. It means a focus on compute with the AI growth zone programme and the AI research resource for British start-ups. It means a focus on capital through the British Business Bank and Sovereign AI. At the heart of it, it means a focus on culture, so that we are building AI for good in every part of the country.
Rosie Wrighting
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place—I am so pleased to see him become the first Minister for AI at the Cabinet table. In order for AI productivity gains to be felt in every postcode and in areas such as Kettering, we need to reduce the barriers to entry for small and medium-sized businesses. What is his Department doing to ensure that it is as easy as possible for SMEs to upskill their workers and access this new technology, so that its impact is not restricted to a few large companies?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend has been a champion of AI in this place and has great experience of technology, given her previous career, which is a source of insight for us all. On the question of AI support for small businesses, our AI skills boost programme has a particular focus on upskilling 2 million individuals in small and medium-sized enterprises—the biggest targeted training programme since Harold Wilson’s Open University programme. Alongside that, my focus is on ensuring that the procurement programmes in AI support small businesses in every part of this country, including through an AI research and development scheme that is supporting those businesses.
Paulette Hamilton
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Birmingham has enormous potential to benefit from the growth of AI, but communities like mine in Erdington must not be left behind. What steps is the Minister taking with colleagues across Government to ensure that young people in constituencies like mine have access to the skills, apprenticeships and training they need to secure the new, well-paid jobs being created by AI?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend for her shared commitment to the fact that, unlike in the last wave of technology, everyone across this country must feel the opportunity that AI offers. For that reason, we are focused on both the AI skills boost programme and the AI upskilling challenge fund, so that local areas across the country can benefit from those resources. I am also looking very closely at introducing boot camp pilots so that young people not in employment, education or training can learn about AI, and I am working closely with trade unions through the Early Careers Jobs Alliance. We are thinking about the future of jobs so that Britain is best prepared for every community to make the most of AI.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
There is a well-established process for the revocation of honours. Any instance where a recipient may be deemed to have brought the honours system into disrepute can be considered by the independent Forfeiture Committee.
Ian Byrne
In December last year, the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that Sir Norman Bettison, the chief inspector for South Yorkshire police at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct had he still been a serving officer today. This related to his role in the Hillsborough cover-up, his deliberate dishonesty in the aftermath of the disaster, and his lying about his involvement during his application for the post of chief constable of Merseyside police in 1998. Yesterday I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask whether the Forfeiture Committee has taken December’s finding into account. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that finding is being considered by the Committee? If not, will he make representations that it should be?
Mr Falconer
Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. This Government are absolutely clear that nothing like the Hillsborough disaster must ever happen again. That is why the Public Office (Accountability) Bill will establish a new duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations, backed by criminal sanctions. That will also extend to police misconduct investigations. My hon. Friend will understand why I am not in a position to comment on an individual case from the Floor of the House, but I reassure him that I have seen his correspondence with my predecessor on this question. I am looking at it very carefully.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has asked 6,321 people to start their claims. I am sorry to say that the horrible nature of this awful scandal means that there is inherent uncertainty about the number of eligible people, but we are deeply committed to ensuring that everyone eligible receives the compensation they are due. IBCA has a registration service, which supports its understanding of who intends to claim. As of 25 August, IBCA had received 20,487 registrations.
Dame Meg Hillier
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for that response, which demonstrates the complications of these schemes. I asked the National Audit Office to look into this, and yesterday the Public Accounts Committee published its report on compensation schemes, suggesting that a central body be established. I know that she and her Department will respond formally to that in due course, but could she give the House a hint about whether she thinks there is room for improvement? The Government set up different compensation schemes on different systems that can be very complicated, and we do not seem to be learning from better practice.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend, with her considerable experience in this area, is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is that no amount of money will make up for the impact that this terrible tragedy has had on countless victims and their families, but we are determined to deliver justice as swiftly as possible. We are very grateful for the work and time of the Committee in assessing the progress made on compensation schemes. We are also considering this as part of the Government’s response to the Williams inquiry report, in which we indicated that the Government would give further thought to how redress should be delivered in future. We will respond to the Public Accounts Committee in due course.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I recently met my constituent Stan, whose father died as a result of contaminated blood. Like many families, he is facing an endless delay through poor administration of the scheme. It feels as though a scandal within a scandal is unfolding as mistakes are made and further stress is caused to families. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the scheme is administered properly and mistakes are cut out, and would she consider meeting me to explore the issues raised by my constituent’s case?
Louise Haigh
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the experience of Stan and the death of his family member. Unfortunately, that experience has been shared by too many people, and the Government, including my predecessor as Minister for the Cabinet Office, have done considerable work to improve the scheme, setting out a number of reforms and new statutory instruments. I will ask my noble Friend the Minister in the other place to meet the hon. Member and his constituent to consider his experience and how we can improve the system.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Dan Tomlinson)
No. 10 North will drive growth in every postcode of the country, working alongside mayors, council leaders and businesses from across Britain. The costs of setting up and running No. 10 North are covered by existing Cabinet Office budgets.
John Lamont
I thank the Minister for that answer, but of course for my constituents it is not No. 10 North, but “No. 10 Midlands”. According to a freedom of information request, tens of thousands of pounds have already been spent setting up No. 10 North, including £10,500 on branding, £1,700 on crockery and nearly £1,000 moving a replica Downing Street door. Does he think that this represents good value for money, and will he commit to publish annually the full cost of running No. 10 North, including staffing, travel and security?
Dan Tomlinson
For me, as a north London MP, visiting Manchester is very much going north, but it is fantastic to go up there and meet local businesses when I do so. On the hon. Member’s specific question, the expenditure on No. 10 North will of course be published in the usual way, along with the Cabinet Office accounts.
Greg Smith
Can the Minister be really specific? How many civil servants and special advisers are due to be permanently staffed at No. 10 North, and once they are all in place and working there, will the Government publish statistics for their attendance at the office?
Dan Tomlinson
As permanent teams are formed, and they will be formed, we will ensure that those who live nearby and at a commutable distance are encouraged to apply, and we hope they will do so. There are already some 80,000 civil servants working in the north-west of England, and I think it is a fantastic change, introduced by this Government, that more civil servants and more people from more parts of the country can contribute, at the heart of Government, to building the change that this Government want.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
After 14 years of austerity and “Westminster knows best” from the previous Conservative Government, my constituents in Ealing Southall feel just as left behind and ignored as those in Manchester and Makerfield. Does the Minister agree with me that, if No. 10 North finally makes this country work for constituents such as mine, it will be worth every single penny?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is totally right that the objective of No. 10 North is to drive good growth in every postcode across the whole country. Too many places and too many communities have been left behind for too long because power and decision making was hoarded in Westminster. Members on the Labour Benches know that the route to growth everywhere is getting it out across the country. Members on the Opposition Benches, it seems, want to keep hoarding power and decision making here in Westminster.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We have heard again what we have had in response to a number of written questions. The Minister either does not know or will not tell us how much No. 10 North will cost, how many people work there and how many of them actually turn up to work—it is almost as though this has not been properly thought through. Does the Minister understand why, with so little information and so little transparency, so many people feel that this is a gimmick rather than a strategy?
Dan Tomlinson
When it comes to the efficient use of taxpayer money, I would like to point out to the House that the hon. Member—he is, of course, welcome to submit as many questions as he likes—sent 371 questions, at a cost to the taxpayer of potentially around £80,000. Of course, we are willing to have debates in this place and on the Floor of the House, and my hon. Friends in the Cabinet Office will continue to answer questions, but in the end we need to make sure that the Government are driving good growth across the whole country. No. 10 North, bringing together businesses, leaders and senior politicians from across Government, is the right route for doing just that.
Mike Wood
We would not have had to table so many written questions if Ministers had actually answered our first question, instead of expecting us to come up with precisely the right form of words to leave them with no way of getting out. Surely it cannot be right that it requires a freedom of information request to discover how much it costs for a replica door at No. 10 North, but the Minister refuses to answer legitimate parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister at least—if he does have this information, which the Department surely does—finally commit to publishing the total budget for No. 10 North, the number of staff and special advisers who are going to work there, and attendance statistics?
Dan Tomlinson
I think it would be best for hon. Members, rather than getting in a flap about No. 10 North, to back what we are trying to do to drive good growth, opportunity and devolution across the whole country. It is the right thing to do. The previous Government passed on to us a country that was the most geographically unequal advanced economy in the whole world. We are setting out to turn that around for the people of this country. Of course, the details on employment and the costs of No. 10 North will be published in the usual way, along with the accounts for the Cabinet Office.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Climate change brings an increased risk of severe weather. We are learning from the summer droughts and planning for what will likely be a challenging winter. As I saw when I visited the hon. Member’s St Ives constituency back in January, extreme weather can cause disruption to the essential services that we all rely on. We are working to make public infrastructure, such as telecoms, more resilient. We will also launch a public awareness campaign this year, so that people know the small but important steps they can take to be ready for emergencies such as severe weather.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As he said, he kindly visited my constituency shortly after the significant devastation that was caused to west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly following Storm Goretti in early January this year. In his letter to me shortly thereafter, he committed to a comprehensive review of the response to the storm, to ensure that lessons are learned and that preparedness and response plans are improved. In what way have those plans improved? Given that communities are now preparing themselves to improve their own resilience—we are bringing them together this autumn—would he be prepared to visit west Cornwall again and meet my communities?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for consistently and constructively raising those points. Having visited his constituency and seen the devastation at first hand, I am personally extremely keen to ensure that we learn the lessons from what happened during Storm Goretti. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Cobra officials have worked closely with Cornwall council on resilience planning. We are going to launch a public awareness campaign that will support people in Cornwall and beyond during future emergencies. I am also pleased to say that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is receiving over £2 million this financial year to tackle flooding. He kindly invites me to visit his constituency, so I say to him: time spent in Cornwall is time well spent.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Water privatisation and climate change have left us with the twin resilience challenges of water scarcity and flooding. To reduce demand on our drinking water supply, is the Cabinet Office looking at the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s landmark report from March, which sets out a governance framework for rainwater harvesting? Could we look at installing rainwater collection for toilet flushing in our publicly owned buildings? We could cut our costs, increase our resilience and make steps towards sustainability.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will look closely at the report she references and ensure that we are discussing it with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Flooding during severe weather incidents is often predictable, because those same areas suffer from low-level regular flooding throughout the rest of the year. The issue affects multi-council areas, up and downstream, and covers multiple Government agencies. Bodies such as flooding boards that cover those areas are a great way of co-ordinating agencies and councils, but we do not have them across the whole UK. Would the Minister consider rolling out flood boards in every part of the UK?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am proud to say that I think I was the first metro mayor to launch a catchment flood management plan. I recognise the importance his point, and I want to give it due consideration. I will consult with ministerial colleagues at DEFRA and come back to him.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Returning to the topic of Cornwall, the Minister mentioned the possibility that Cornwall could be a pilot area for storm resilience measures, so it would be good to hear more about that. Measures to raise awareness would be very welcome, and guidelines for how people in Cornwall should act—on an individual, a local emergency plan, a council and a unitary level—would be useful going forward. Could the Minister say more about that?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her championing of not only her own constituency, but wider issues relating to infrastructure and resilience in Cornwall. The Prime Minister has committed to meet with Cornish MPs. I will carefully consider her points, along with those made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—I get a sense that I am going to be heading back to Cornwall.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
Last month I announced reforms to public procurement that will cut red tape and focus social value on delivering good jobs and skills development. In the autumn, I will publish new guidance to ensure that central Government procurement consistently supports jobs, skills and people in every postcode.
Alex McIntyre
Procurement matters because, done well, it supports local jobs in Gloucester and in communities like mine. Together Gloucestershire is a local organisation that is an excellent example of how procurement can be done differently. It works with local businesses and the public sector to showcase the talent and skill in our county and provides a procurement portal for organisations to access them. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Together Gloucestershire to discuss how that model can be better supported and developed further?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the important work of Together Gloucestershire to the House’s attention. It is an excellent example of where social value can ensure that British taxpayer’s money is directed towards delivering British jobs and skills in our constituency. I will ask the Minister and our officials to meet with my hon. Friend and businesses in his constituency.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
It is my core belief that technology should not be the preserve of the privileged few; instead, it should be a great leveller, supporting dignity in our public services and opportunity for British businesses. That is why I am focused on redesigning the way that Government use AI and technology to support our brilliant public service professionals to achieve those ends.
Gordon McKee
I thank the Minister for his answer. The pace of innovation has never been faster, which means that the value lost by slow procurement processes has never been higher. We need the Government and Departments to be able to buy in the most advanced software and technologies without lengthy delay. Can the Minister say what work he is doing to enable Departments to do that?
Kanishka Narayan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; there is only one thing faster than the pace of technology, and that is the pace at which he keeps up with technology, and, in particular, online engagement. I will flag two areas of particular focus for my efforts on this question: first, ensuring that we are creating examples of swift procurement support for British businesses, not least through the sovereign AI research and development procurement scheme; secondly, a more systematic focus on bringing the best package of AI tools to support procurement professionals to move faster.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The first duty of any Government is to keep people safe. Our recent decision to issue an alert was made in direct co-operation with the National Fire Chiefs Council at a time when emergency services were facing unprecedented pressure, with 43 active fires and four major incidents. Evidence from the 72 hours following the alert indicates that this intervention was effective, with a measurable reduction in new wildfire incidents.
Helen Morgan
In North Shropshire, we are on the border with Wales and have poor to non-existent mobile phone signal. This meant that many of my constituents received the emergency alert in Welsh first and either did not receive it in English at all, or received it in English many hours later. Because there was no pre-briefing, they were concerned to receive an emergency alert that they could not understand. Would the Minister consider pre-briefing when an alert is going to happen in future so that when people get an alert in a different language, or if people are trying to keep their phones secret because they are vulnerable, they have time to prepare for that and are not unduly alarmed?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable point. I hope that she would acknowledge that we look very carefully when an alert has been issued and seek to learn lessons from that. I can tell her that all emergency alerts are sent in conjunction with local partners, and that in Wales the alert was sent first in Welsh, and then in English, in order to fulfil our legal responsibilities under the Welsh Language Act 1993. I will look carefully at what she has said, and I assure her that we will seek to learn lessons from the way in which the alert was issued.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
All Departments have set ambitious small and medium-sized enterprise spends, and we have strengthened late payment policy and are now making it easier for SMEs to bid by raising the threshold for when social value should be taken into account. This Government are determined to use public procurement to back small and medium-sized enterprises. I was pleased that the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed our social value changes over the summer.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I welcome the Government’s commitment to helping SMEs to access public contracts. In Calder Valley—or valve valley, as we often call it— small manufacturing firms contribute to nationally significant projects through supply chains, but are often left out of the conversation about national procurement. How can we ensure that these smaller manufacturers have the opportunities created by Governments to create a new generation of skilled manufacturing jobs?
Mark Ferguson
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner on behalf of businesses in his local community. In his community, like mine, small and medium-sized industries play an absolutely critical role, not just in our industrial past but in our industrial future. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss how, as we develop this agenda, we can make it work for communities like ours.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Louise Haigh)
For far too long, the state has found itself reaching for the comfort blanket of consultation, review and process. To deliver change at the pace and scale the public expect, my Department is stripping out needless bureaucracy. Between 2019 and 2023, the Government asked the public three times for their views on introducing legislation to microchip cats—you couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we cannot microchip cats without tying them up in red tape, it is little wonder the public have lost faith that the Government can deliver change. I am telling ministerial colleagues that consultations are not required, and we will introduce reforms to minimise the risk of judicial review. Once the necessary legislation has passed, transport, water and other major infrastructure projects will benefit from parliamentary authorisation. Governments are elected to lead, not to hide behind process. This Government will lead and put public control at the heart of our decision making.
Tom Gordon
No sum of money can truly replace the loss of a loved one. On my summer supermarket surgery tour, I spoke to one constituent who lost his father as a result of contaminated blood products. He wanted me to ask the First Secretary of State about future scheduled payments. Will she consider index-linking compensation to inflation so that delay does not shrink the value of what families have been awarded?
Louise Haigh
I am very sorry to hear about the appalling experience of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. As was mentioned earlier in Cabinet questions, we have made considerable efforts to improve the scheme and ensure that constituents receive their compensation as quickly as possible. Reports are being laid in the House today, and we will consider the hon. Gentleman’s question as we go forward.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that appalling case. Current service levels are completely unacceptable. We continue to use the most stringent commercial levers that we have under this contract, including withholding contractual payments. We have 147 surge staff deployed in this crisis. We will not be moving any of those team members until service levels are permanently fixed. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I will happily make sure that any of his future cases are looked at with urgency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Over the summer, the Prime Minister announced that mayors will keep a proportion of income tax receipts. Why will mayors like Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen not be allowed to use that money to cut taxes or offer rebates to local residents and businesses?
Louise Haigh
The Mayor of the Tees Valley Ben Houchen already has the ability to provide grants to businesses and communities. He is very welcome to do so with the considerable funding that he already receives.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer, but she did not answer my question. My question was about the income tax receipts that Ben Houchen will be allowed to retain. Over the summer, she said that he would not be allowed to use that to give rebates to local individuals and businesses. At the moment, councils already have the power to levy council tax discounts and business rate discounts. Why can mayors not do the same with income tax receipts?
Louise Haigh
I will explain it to the shadow Secretary of State. There is a difference between rebates and grants. The mayor does not have the ability to provide rebates now and is unlikely to in the future, because it would involve getting data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and having the ability to set income tax thresholds, which we will of course not be devolving to a mayoral level. If the Mayor of the Tees Valley wishes to support businesses and communities, he is as welcome to now as he will be in the future.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
Giving young people opportunities to reach their potential is a key priority for this Government. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn to push forward this agenda, looking at young people not in employment, education or training. We are using specific local social value schemes that suppliers can support through public procurement, which will provide much-needed education, employment and training so that young people can progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Last week, Channel 4 showed senior figures from Reform UK discussing how money from an American donor could reach the party through his UK-based son. Do the Government agree that covert overseas finance represents a clear and present threat to our national security? Do they accept that measures in the Representation of the People Bill do not go far enough when it comes to stopping foreign money being funnelled into our democracy and that the best way to reduce the options for those who seek to exert undue influence through big money is to put a cap on all political donations?
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the important points that she raises and for the constructive conversations that we have had about these matters. She will note the work of the Rycroft review, and I know that she understands the important work we do through the defending democracy taskforce. As the chair of that taskforce, I have always believed that this is a shared endeavour across the House.
We will assemble a new cross-Government task-and-finish team to identify next steps for tackling the issue of megadonors in UK politics and putting politics under public control. Many hon. Members will have seen the programme to which the hon. Lady refers and will share her concerns. She will understand that there is now a live police investigation, so there is nothing more I can say about it.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
I commend my hon. Friend for his remarkable stamina over the summer, with more than 80 visits across his constituency—the largest in England. He is certainly a passionate campaigner for farmers. He will know that our recently announced reforms to social value mean that businesses bidding for Government contracts—a market worth £90 billion—will be rightly judged on whether they create high-quality jobs, skills and apprenticeships in local communities. That includes food procurement, and our aim is for at least half of all public sector food to be produced locally. I will gladly join him and one of his local farmers to talk about that further.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
I thank the hon. Member for raising that case. As I have said, Capita’s performance is diabolical. I will not make any excuses for it from the Dispatch Box —there are no excuses for it—but we are holding Capita to account every day. As I said, we have deployed 147 surge staff to help during this crisis—they will not be removed until service levels are brought up to scratch—we are withholding contractual payments, and an independent Capita-funded remedial adviser has been appointed to identify further issues. If the hon. Lady writes to me about that case, I will ensure that it is escalated.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It has been nearly two years since the contaminated blood inquiry report was published. People think that the matter is finished, but it is not: some 18,000 infected and affected individuals still have not begun their claims. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm to this House her commitment to the contaminated blood community, and will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood so that we can discuss the best way to press those cases home expediently?
Louise Haigh
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend on his many years of campaigning on this terrible issue. He will know about the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in and commitment to this issue, about his personal experience of campaigning alongside the victims, and how important he and the Department consider the matter. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now paid out over £2.2 billion in final compensation payments, but we are very aware that there is much more to do. The Minister in the other place will be happy to meet my hon. Friend’s APPG.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Sally Jameson
I am sorry to hear of the experience that the right hon. Member’s constituent has had with Capita. As I have said, its performance has been abysmal, and we will hold it to account every single day until service levels are brought back to a good standard. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the case, and I will personally ensure that it is escalated.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was right last week to say that too many buses are being bought from abroad. The 10% social value commitment from combined mayoral authorities following the conclusion of the bus manufacturing expert panel earlier this year will not be enough to protect British bus building as China continues to scale up its automotive dumping. Will the First Secretary of State work with devolved mayors, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring social value requirements in line with the 20% she has rightly set for major Government contracts?
Mark Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend for his work through the all-party parliamentary group. He is a passionate campaigner for British buses, particularly with regard to the impact on his constituents. I am of course happy to meet him to discuss the issue further.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Louise Haigh
A number of responsibilities were removed from the Cabinet Office in order to create the new Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a central new body at the heart of Government committed to delivering the priorities of the Prime Minister and the British people.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
May I say how happy I am to welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to her place? I know she will continue to be a fantastic champion for the Isle of Wight. Per capita—not the pension people but per head of population—the island tops the league for tech and advanced manufacturing, but despite our brilliant pedigree, under the previous Government, we were continually overlooked for funding and investment. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will use her office to secure sustained growth in our postcodes, so that the island can finally receive the recognition, investment and job opportunities that its contribution to our economy deserves?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and continual championing of the Isle of Wight. I will ensure that fixing his ferry is top of my to-do list. The proposal that he outlines is exactly the kind of work that No. 10 North has been designed to champion to drive good growth in every postcode, north and south.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome the procurement changes that this Government have brought in. In the summer, the docks in my constituency lost a UK Research and Innovation contract on the RRS Sir David Attenborough to a Danish dockyard. Can the Minister assure me that the new rules will refer to agencies across government, rather than just procurements within Government?
Mark Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on behalf of Cornwall and her constituency. I assure her of the seriousness with which we take that issue and broader procurement issues, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the case.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Minister said that Governments are elected to lead. Most people would assume that means that Ministers are elected to lead, because they are accountable to Parliament and to the people. Why, then, are the Government giving away powers to the Cabinet Secretary to direct permanent secretaries, which should be the role of Secretaries of State? Do Ministers not want these powers to actually do their jobs?
Mark Ferguson
We are committed, and the Cabinet Secretary is committed, to conducting a full review of the civil service. It is at a relatively early stage, but I look forward to hearing what decisions are made. Of course, what powers are determined will be a matter for the Prime Minister.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I hate to take the Minister back to Capita, but unfortunately, I have a number of constituents who have been through the many stages already explained by the Minister. Capita is not working, and I accept that you are doing all these things in government, but it is not making a blind bit of difference. I have people who cannot pay their mortgages and who have been waiting for more than a year for a settlement sum. Something more needs to be done, and it is very depressing for these people when they read in the papers that Capita is getting more Government contracts, so what more can the Government do?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, that is the first “you” of the day and hopefully the last.
Sally Jameson
I hope to be able to update the House shortly after recess with further steps that the Government are taking. As I have said, we have a Capita-funded remedial adviser in place who is identifying the delivery issues, and we have also deployed auditors to Capita to get a full understanding of the exact state of the service. We will continue to look at withholding contractual payments and, as I have said, this Government are committed to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. While we inherited this contract from the previous Government, we will ensure that going forward looking at in-house schemes is a priority.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Brexit has created a web of red tape preventing businesses in Wokingham from developing relationships with European partners. Will the Government start negotiations for a growth and defence partnership with the EU to boost trade and growth?
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We are engaged in discussions with the European Union on exactly the questions that the hon. Member refers to. We have made good progress in the first two years; I wish to go further, as I set out in my answer to the question before.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Returning to the emergency alerts, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of issuing alerts on a regional or county basis for important but more local emergencies, such as bluetongue outbreaks in cattle and sheep in rural areas?
Dan Jarvis
I hope that the hon. Member heard my earlier response about how seriously we take the issuing of the alert, and how we take considerable effort to look carefully at how it has worked and whether it can be improved in future. I say to her that every emergency alert is carefully co-ordinated with the responding public bodies and agencies, and each request is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it is necessary for public safety.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am sorry to return to Capita, but I may have a solution. My constituent John is retiring partly due to ill health and his salary is now at half level—he is really struggling. He explained to me that under the current system a retirement date must be selected four months in advance, and if the delay goes one day past that, rather than amending the figures, the system has to start all over again. My suggestion is that we make a slight tweak so that we save Capita a lot of work and our residents a lot of heartache. Will the Minister comment on that and pick up my constituent’s case?
Sally Jameson
I thank the hon. Member for bringing that idea to this House. I will be happy to put that to Capita when I next meet it, and if she wants to write to me with her case, I will happily ensure that it is escalated.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The next national adaptation programme, NAP4, is not due until 2028, but the wildfires and droughts we saw this summer and the impending extreme El Niño show that we cannot wait that long. Will the Minister commit to taking urgent action to tackle resilience before then and give our farmers, communities and householders the support they need to face the challenges of drought, wildfire and flood risk?
Dan Jarvis
I completely recognise the importance of the point that the hon. Lady has made; she has made it previously. The Government have established and tested response protocols in place for all severe weather events. The impact of each is often very different based on different factors, but I give her an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these issues. We are working across Government to ensure that our response is proportionate to the nature of the threat we face from climate change.
Air Traffic Control Disruption
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we come to the urgent question, I must say how disappointing it is that the Government were not forthcoming with a proactive ministerial statement on this matter. The disruption to aviation and the impact on many constituents has been considerable. I hope the Minister and the Treasury Front Bench will pass that message on to the Secretary of State.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the failure of the United Kingdom’s air traffic control system and the resulting disruption to flights and passengers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will ensure that your comments are relayed.
May I begin by again apologising to passengers across the United Kingdom who faced significant disruption as a result of the issues that impacted NATS’s operation on 8 September, resulting in delays and cancellations for hundreds of thousands of passengers, as well as the disruption that it has caused for industry? Let me be clear that disruption of this kind is absolutely unacceptable.
To provide some context to the House, at around lunch time on 8 September NATS experienced an issue with its flight processing system at its Swanwick centre affecting the data that was available to controllers. The disruption had a significant impact across the UK aviation network resulting in widespread delays, cancellations and diversions. NATS worked hard to fix the issue, but that took time as the systems needed to be tested to ensure that they had fully recovered and operations could safely return to normal. My officials were in regular contact with NATS, airlines and airports during the incident to understand the issues impacting them and to offer Government support, such as granting night flight alleviations to support recovery at regulated airports including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
NATS has confirmed that it was a technical issue and it does not believe it to be cyber-related. The Secretary of State and I met Martin Rolfe yesterday, and we have agreed that he will send a report to us by Wednesday 16 September setting out the cause of the incident and the actions being taken to ensure that this cannot happen again. The Secretary of State has also asked the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent review to establish cause and to ensure that our air traffic control systems can get passengers to where they need to be, with an update to be provided to me within six months. We will work closely with both organisations as well as airlines and airports to ensure that lessons are learned and that any necessary improvements are implemented.
This morning, I met representatives from Unite the union to hear directly about the impact of the incident on airport and airline staff and to discuss broader issues with them relating to the abuse of frontline transport workers. I express my and the Secretary of State’s gratitude to all those staff at our airports and airlines who provided support to passengers whose journeys were disrupted over the past few days. Our sympathies remain with all those passengers who have experienced delays to their travel plans or cancellations.
Greg Smith
Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches.
Nothing sums up the situation facing real people this week better than Martin Brundle’s scathing post on Tuesday:
“Nine hours and counting sitting on a plane which has travelled nowhere. At a remote parking bay, no food throughout, and mother/baby and a person with a medical condition desperate to get off. As is everyone else. Toilets no longer available as blocked. No sign of steps or buses. And that’s before the wait for luggage. Pathetic and dangerous lack of corporate contingency and responsibility.”
Is the Minister not embarrassed? A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics.
The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates. Ministers cannot suddenly discover the virtues of arm’s length government when something goes wrong in an organisation of which the taxpayer owns 49%. Passengers have heard before that lessons will be learned, reviews commissioned and improvements made; they do not want another sorry story of apologies and assurances while everyone waits for the next failure.
A cyber-attack has been ruled out, so exactly what did happen? Was it a software failure? Were sufficient engineers available on site? Were previous recommendations actually implemented? If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground? The Secretary of State needs to take responsibility, get a grip of this mess and ensure that this time lessons are not simply learned but acted upon.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asks me for more detail about what exactly happened, given that a cyber-attack has now been ruled out. The disruption was caused by a technical issue in NATS’s Swanwick flight processing system, which affected the processing of flight plans used by data controllers. NATS advises that the problem was affecting the flight processing system and the data that was being fed into controller radar displays. A fix was implemented later in the day, but recovery took time, as NATS needed to test that the system was safe.
The shadow Minister is right to raise the experience of Martin and the other hundreds of thousands of passengers across the United Kingdom who were adversely affected. That raises serious questions about contingency and resilience planning at our airports, and I am determined to have conversations about that with the CAA, NATS, airlines and airports in the coming days.
The shadow Minister criticises the fact that it will take around a week to get the report back. It is incredibly important that we take the time to figure out exactly what happened, because ultimately this is about aviation safety. It is about making sure that the UK can retain its reputation for getting passengers to where they need to go while protecting their safety. He asked about the report coming back over recess; I am happy to return after recess to answer any questions that hon. Members may have about the issue.
There is a broader question about the CAA being asked to conduct an urgent review and report back within six months, and whether that is the right timeline. I remind hon. Members that after the largest recent outage, in 2023, it took two and a half years for the CAA to fully assess the implications and all the technical improvements and requirements that were needed as a result of that incident. It provided 34 recommendations, all of which have been implemented. A six-month timeframe to get to the bottom of what is a highly technical matter and an incident of disruption is proportionate and timely, and will allow us to react quickly, with stringent ministerial oversight.
The shadow Minister asks Ministers to take control of the situation and exercise effective oversight on behalf of passengers—that is exactly what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have noted the Minister’s proactive commitment to a ministerial statement.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. NATS used to be in my constituency and then moved down to Swanwick. Of course, with Heathrow in my constituency, I receive—as I mentioned yesterday—a large amount of correspondence from a whole range of other MPs’ constituents, who think I am responsible for Heathrow airport.
John McDonnell
It is not a laughing matter—I am sorry for interrupting the flow of the discussion.
It would be useful if the review looked at NATS’s long-term investment plans, particularly since its partial privatisation in 2001, which I opposed.
I thank the Minister for meeting Unite this morning and thanking the workers, who have worked so hard. From my experience, when things go wrong at NATS, the Public and Commercial Services Union members—the technical members—scramble and work incredibly hard to put them right. I hope that we can thank them as well. The Opposition spokesperson never made any reference to the workers themselves. They have worked incredibly hard and, as the Minister said, some of them have experienced horrendous abuse. We should congratulate them and support them in their work.
Keir Mather
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive question. He is right to ask whether NATS’s resourcing is exactly where it needs to be to ensure that we have the capacity and the right people in the right places to deal with these issues when they arise. I am confident that the fantastic teams of people working at NATS responded with all possible haste and diligence to the disruption that was experienced, and I thank them for doing so.
My right hon. Friend raises broader questions about NATS’s resilience. Part of that is about implementing the large-scale technological transformation programmes that are required to ensure that our air traffic control systems are fit for purpose. More often than not, the UK has a formidable reputation for aviation safety, but that does not mean that when disruption like this occurs, we should not take a cold, hard look at NATS’s processes and see where we can do better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this urgent question. I join the Minister and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in thanking airport, airline and air traffic control staff for handling this incident and helping passengers who experienced such significant disruption.
This is the third major incident in recent years to do with our air traffic control systems. Given the poor passenger experiences, the poor management of the disruption and the poor customer service resulting from it, should the Government not commit to fixing our air traffic control systems before they commit so enthusiastically to massive aviation expansion, which our current systems and processes may not be able to accommodate?
Keir Mather
I would like to point out that more often than not, our air traffic control systems and the individuals who work in them provide a safe and effective service for UK air passengers. In a typical year, NATS handles over 2.5 million flights, and around 300 million passengers travel over the UK and across the north Atlantic. We are responsible for a large proportion of European air traffic, and NATS does a good job to ensure that UK passengers get to places safely.
However, incidents like this, and the fact that they have occurred three times within four years, bring home the fact that when disruption occurs, it is incredibly difficult for passengers and for our airlines and airports to adapt to. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that lessons must be learned. There are technical lessons that must be learned, and that is what we will get to the bottom of through the report from NATS and then the six-month report from the CAA. He is right to raise broader questions. If we are to facilitate what this Government want to achieve, which is an ambitious programme of expansion in our airport capacity, particularly in the south-east of England, we will do so with passenger safety at its heart, and effective oversight of NATS must run to the core of that.
Mike Kane
I thank the Minister for his answers, and I am sure he will join me in thanking the management and staff of Manchester airport, who have worked overtime to minimise the disruption to passengers over the last couple of days.
The Minister will be as aware as I am that we are in danger of playing regulatory whack-a-mole here. Less than three years on from the last disruption and the 34 recommendations that followed, we have to ask questions about why those recommendations did not cover the technical issue we face today, and maybe then we will begin to see that we need wider reform of both the CAA, which I am pleased to say is under new management since 2023, and NATS. Are we making progress in vertical take-off and landing and in drone technology at pace? We have seen progress this year in the upper echelons of Scottish airspace, but Manchester airspace and northern airspace are stuck in neutral. These organisations need to show the vision that will allow our aviation sector to remain world-class.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend and predecessor in this role for all his work in holding the CAA and NATS to account and managing some of the difficult conversations following previous disruptions. He raises the valid point that those recommendations were passed on by the CAA and have been implemented in full, and yet we have seen this disruption. Part of this is about us working with the CAA to encourage NATS to go further, faster on some of the technological innovations and transformations he describes. He is right to say that, despite the negativity of the situation, this is a useful opportunity to ask ourselves questions about where we can encourage NATS to go further and push the boundaries in terms of regulatory innovation in the areas he spoke about, such as eVTOL—electric vertical take-off and landing—and drones, and to learn the lessons from this incident and think about how we can build a greater depth of resilience across our UK aviation sector.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
NATS falls within my constituency, in Swanwick. May I place on the record my thanks and dedication to the staff of NATS, who I have seen work day in, day out to make our skies safer, and to 78 Squadron Royal Air Force, who are based at the same site?
I must ask the Minister to look seriously at the six-month timescale for the CAA review and to commit to full transparency, to ensure that the lessons learned are not held only in the Department for Transport but are shared more widely with Parliament. In the topsy-turvy world in which we live, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in asking the Minister to look seriously with the management of NATS at ensuring that, after the third incident in as many years, the long-term investment plans are in place to make sure that this does not happen again and that the management of NATS cannot blame lack of investment for the systems failing.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for representing the staff at NATS so admirably and for his constructive questions. I believe that six months is the right timeframe in which to report back, because it allows us to learn the lessons effectively and get to the bottom of what is ultimately a highly technical matter, but he is right to say that Parliament must engage with the lessons learned. It is also important that we think about the connection between this incident and legislation that is moving through the House. The Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will give us new powers to give the CAA the ability to set aviation safety rules, enhance air passenger rights and directly enforce consumer rights. Parliament must have its say on how the lessons that we learn from this incident can inform the Bill, so that it practically improves the travelling experience of passengers up and down the country.
Alan Gemmell
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his leadership on this incident. NATS has rightly apologised unreservedly for the incident at Swanwick, which affected, infuriatingly, hundreds of thousands of travellers. Will the Minister join me in thanking the staff of NATS in Prestwick, in my constituency, for their support in the management of this incident?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to thank the NATS staff at Prestwick, and across the United Kingdom, for the incredible work that they do. NATS will come under a lot of scrutiny in coming days and weeks—rightly so, because we expect it to maintain a system of air traffic control that keeps the British public safe—but I am resolute in my belief that all the staff at NATS responded with all the haste and diligence that we would expect to protect passengers, and to ensure that aviation could restart safely. Ultimately, that is what we expect of NATS.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is clearly a very unfortunate incident, and full transparency is essential. Does the Minister have a view on what the overall cost of the incident was to the UK economy? If the Government do not have that figure at the moment, will he update the House on that separately? What plans do the Government have, working with industry, to compensate affected passengers? There will have been all manner of costs borne by those who were unable to fly, and I am sure that collectively, they run into millions of pounds.
Keir Mather
While I am not currently in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a pounds-and-pence figure for the economic impact, I am under no illusions about this; it will be incredibly significant. We need to learn the lessons from what has happened to minimise the chance of disruption of this kind ever happening again. He asks me a broader question about compensation or refunds for passengers. Passengers whose flights have been cancelled are entitled to assistance from their airlines, including either a refund within seven days or a rerouting to their destination, including through another airline, where appropriate. Passengers may also be entitled to care and assistance while waiting for a delayed or rerouted flight, but we saw lots of incidents of airport capacity not being able to deal with the number of passengers who were disrupted. That is a key lesson that we have to learn from this incident.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his thanks to the staff who have been working to overcome the incident. Yesterday the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill passed its Second Reading, but as part of the review, and as the Bill progresses, will the Minister commit to looking at how our most vulnerable passengers, particularly wheelchair users and blind or partially sighted passenger, can be supported when they are caught up in incidents like this?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his determined advocacy for passengers with disabilities in both our aviation sector and the wider UK transport system. He is right that the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to conduct a review of how to enhance air passenger rights, particularly for those who can face the most acute forms of disruption while travelling, including people with disabilities or other protected characteristics. We need to take a cold, hard look at how some of the most vulnerable people in society are affected by disruption of this nature, and think about how we can strengthen our air passenger rights regime to respond effectively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Do you need medical assistance, Sir Alec?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am okay, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will struggle on, thank you very much.
The Minister has outlined that there is an investment programme for technology and upgrades, but with software upgrades, there is always the concern that the premise of the programmes will keep getting changed, and that can bring in delays or bugs to a system. Does the Minister have oversight to ensure that the plans for what needs to be done do not keep getting sidetracked by people deciding, “This is a bit more shiny—we should do that”? That would delay the whole thing, and leave us with what looks like an increasingly antiquated system.
Keir Mather
Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, that we have a system of prioritising what we feel as a Department is most important, passing that through the CAA, and down to NATS. The Secretary of State puts together a priorities letter that sets out very clearly her expectations of our air traffic control system, and chief among them, when that was last done, was technological transformation to ensure that our systems are resilient. That recommendation is more pressing than ever, given what we have seen. The Secretary of State and I will both reaffirm that in our meetings with NATS and the CAA, because this incident teaches us that that technological change should be completed with all possible haste.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for all the work that he is doing to get this situation resolved. Unfortunately, the cancellations impacted some of my Redditch residents yesterday. Will he assure me that he is reminding airlines that they have a continued duty of care to people, and have to get them home as quickly as possible, particularly those who have been stranded far from home?
Keir Mather
We are in close dialogue with both airlines and airports, and are reminding them of what needs to be done to protect the welfare of their passengers. Both airline and airport staff and the companies themselves across the country are endeavouring to do the right thing by their passengers who face this disruption. The Department needs to ensure that it is doing its bit, and we will never be shy of fighting for passengers and their rights.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I apologise for the earlier slip, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I echo the comments about the fantastic job done safeguarding the British public by the staff at NATS? Just recently, I visited air traffic control in our control tower at Edinburgh airport, and I saw at first hand the amount of work that goes into keeping the public safe. However, through the airport, I am acutely aware that there is dissatisfaction with the delays in the new airspace management programme. We have not made progress in Scotland; in fact, we fear that this will be put aside for yet another year. That all feeds into a lack of confidence among the British public and air passengers in our transport system. Can the Minister assure me that steps will be taken to speed up the management, and to ensure that our air passengers get the improved system that they deserve?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her challenge. She is right; both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports have ambitious programmes of airspace redesign under way. I reassure her that the Department is committed to working productively with them to ensure that they can realise those airspace change proposals as quickly as possible. That will help us to make our flights more efficient, reduce carbon burn, stop planes idling when they do not need to, and hopefully minimise noise. Scotland is well ahead of other areas in that space, and we need to give it all possible tools, so that it can deliver that important work.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Many passengers and their families across the country will still be wondering whether the disruptions caused by the incident have been fully cleared. Will the Minister confirm the current situation? When does he expect that airports will return to providing the excellent service that they generally provide?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issue that caused the initial disruption was fixed as quickly as possible by NATS, but a number of hours then went by, because it needed to ensure that the system was stable when it was rebooted, and that flights could return to the air safely. That is the most important consideration for NATS when it faces disruption of this kind. I can confirm that the congestion we have seen has largely passed through, despite the fact that lots of planes were out of place and needed to be rerouted. It is now up to the Department for Transport, NATS and the CAA to work practically together to ensure that any subsequent congestion is minimised, and that the British public can carry on flying to where they need to go.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Against a backdrop of realism—things just go wrong, no matter how much money is invested in them, or how up to date they are—does it not seem slightly ludicrous that NATS has put all its eggs in one basket? There is no shadow, back-up or secondary scheme that can be used. If there was, it might not be as good as the main one, but it would minimise, or certainly attenuate, disruption. Is it in the Minister’s thinking to put the eggs in more baskets, rather than just relying on one particular bit of software?
Keir Mather
The Secretary of State said from the Dispatch Box yesterday that she is of the view that while this disruption was not foreseen, it was not unavoidable, and there are lessons to learn about how we can minimise the chances of this recurring. The hon. Member is right to point to the fact that resilience is clearly not where it needs to be. We need our technological systems to be more adaptive and more reactive. That is exactly why the Secretary of State has said that technological change needs to be at the forefront of the CAA and NATS’ priorities, and agility and the resilience in the system need to be among their top considerations.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this issue has had a huge impact on my constituency of Harlow. Not only do many passengers use Stansted airport, but over 1,000 members of its staff live in my constituency. I have full faith in the Minister and his ability to lead on this issue, but can he reassure my constituents that he is doing everything he can to hold the leadership of NATS to account and to ensure that this does not happen again, and to ensure that, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, if something like this does happen again, there are contingency plans in place?
Keir Mather
The Transport Secretary and I met Martin Rolfe on Wednesday, and expressed our concern about the scale of disruption on behalf of passengers and the industry. The Transport Secretary has asked for the cause of the issue to be identified and addressed as quickly as possible. Scrutiny of both the leadership of NATS and the technological programmes and processes is critical, and is something that the Department will keep at the forefront of our minds in the days and weeks to come.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this incident, and the other ones that preceded it, are a threat to national security? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) said, more than 100 RAF personnel are stationed at Swanwick, and are involved in protecting our national interest and our defence. The Minister has not yet addressed the security threat to our country posed by this incompetence.
Keir Mather
Allow me to reassure the hon. Member that the civil aviation air traffic control systems and those used by the military and the Ministry of Defence are separate. However, it is right to say that our air traffic control for civil aviation is a foundation of the resilience of our aviation sector, and an enormous amount of economic growth is dependent on that sector functioning effectively, whether that be through air freight, the movement of business travellers to where they need to go, or facilitating the UK tourism industry. That is why it is so important that lessons are learned from this incident, and that we identify how we can minimise impacts on our national resilience in future.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
NATS is a significant local employer for my constituents, and I put on record my thanks to the engineers and controllers who worked hard to restore the system and keep passengers safe. However, this is the third such collapse in three years, and all employees who work for NATS, as well as the airports, airlines and passengers who rely on it, deserve better. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that a genuinely effective back-up system is in place, so that we are not back here again in another two years?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her work representing her constituents who are employees of NATS. Let me use this opportunity to thank them again for the hard work that they do. However, she is right to say that resilience in those systems is not currently where we need it to be. We never want disruption of this kind to occur, but when it does, we need to use it as a productive lesson on how we can strengthen systems and ensure that when things do go wrong, they are restored as quickly as possible. I am confident that NATS responded to this incident in the shortest possible timeframe, while ensuring that safety was paramount for aircraft, both arriving and departing, but there are lessons to be learned about the contingency plans that need to be put in place, and we will endeavour to learn them.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Just how confident is the Minister that this was not a cyber-attack? How confident is he of the resilience of the system in the event of such an attack, and how confident is he in the willingness and ability of the Government to retaliate in the event of such an attack, as the best form of deterrence?
Keir Mather
As the right hon. Member knows, retaliation against cyber-attacks is not an appropriate matter to discuss at the Dispatch Box. However, he raises an important point about our overall resilience and ability to defend against cyber-attacks when they occur. While NATS has confirmed that this was a technical issue—it does not believe it to be cyber-related—I can reassure the right hon. Member that the CAA, NATS, DFT and transport providers work very closely together to defend against cyber-attacks from our adversaries, and any other threats that may emerge.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Any disruption to aviation has an adverse impact on travellers coming from Northern Ireland. Will the Minister give reassurance that when he speaks of contingency and resilience, he includes the Northern Ireland airports—Aldergrove airport in my constituency and Belfast City airport—within that?
Keir Mather
Aviation connectivity is perhaps nowhere more important than from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is an economic and a social lifeline—I am cognisant of that. I can reassure the hon. Member that retaining resilience with the links from Northern Ireland to the UK mainland is of the utmost importance to me, and I would be glad to speak further to him to think about how we can strengthen those aviation links.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Many of my constituents work at Heathrow airport. They have had to work extra hours, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, and they have suffered abuse, too. I put on record my appreciation for all that they have done. Even more of my constituents use Heathrow for business travel and social travel. Some will have insurance, but others will not. What advice is the Department giving to those people who have been affected on claiming compensation and alternative opportunities for travel? Has he set up a hotline, for example, whereby people can phone in and get advice immediately?
Keir Mather
Let me just say quickly to the hon. Member that if he has constituents experiencing particularly thorny issues in engaging with airlines to get the support they need, he is welcome to raise them with me. Passengers whose flights have been cancelled are entitled to assistance from their airlines, including either a refund within seven days or rerouting to their destination. The CAA has published guidance on its website stating that delays and cancellations caused by the NATS technical incident are likely to be considered extraordinary circumstances, because they are beyond airlines’ control. That being said, we will think about how we can work with a range of actors, including the airports and airlines, to get the right information to passengers in order to ensure that they can access the support they need.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
A constituent has contacted me to say that their shift at an airport was cancelled yesterday due to the problems with the air traffic control system. They were told to not come into work, but they were also told to not expect pay for that day’s shift. Will the Minister confirm that he expects all workers who were due to work at airports yesterday to get paid for that shift regardless?
Keir Mather
Let me use this opportunity to restate my thanks to workers across UK airports who have responded to this disruption. I am concerned to hear about the case that the hon. Member raises, and if he writes to me with more detail, I can ensure that the appropriate action is taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for those answers. This has happened three times in three years. Normally, on the third strike, you are out. Instead, the chief executive gets an £871,000 bonus. For people in Northern Ireland, a flight to Great Britain is a basic utility. When NATS crashed, my constituents were entirely cut off. What specific resilience measures is the Minister’s Department implementing to guarantee that Northern Ireland air bridges are prioritised during system recovery? Hard-working families in my constituency who suffered this week are told that they will not get a penny of compensation because the NATS failure counts as an extraordinary circumstance. If such incidents are avoidable, why on earth are passengers carrying the financial burden while NATS avoids accountability?
Keir Mather
That is a very fair challenge. Our response to ensure that his constituents get the protections they need is threefold. First, we need to learn the lessons of what has happened, the nature of the technical fault, and to fix it to minimise the chance of it ever happening again. Secondly, there is a broader resilience question about air connectivity from Northern Ireland. I would like to work with him and other Members to think about how that can be strengthened further, but I reassure him that resilience work on that matter is widespread across the Department for Transport and is at the forefront of our minds. Thirdly, there is the question of residents in Northern Ireland being able to benefit from the measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill that are specifically designed to strengthen consumer protections, enhance air passenger rights and make our system of aviation safety more streamlined. I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members on those important issues.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business of the House?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 14 September will include:
Monday 14 September—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sovereign Grant Bill, followed by motions to approve recommendations by the Modernisation Committee and Committee of Privileges and changes to Standing Orders following machinery of government changes, followed by a general debate on Israel and Palestine.
Tuesday 15 September—General debate on the potential merits of a full ban on fracking, followed by a general debate on World Sepsis Awareness Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 15 September and return on Monday 12 October.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 October includes:
Monday 12 October—General debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 13 October—Remaining stages of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Wednesday 14 October—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 15 October—Second Reading of the Highways (Financing) Bill.
Friday 16 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 October includes:
Monday 19 October—Committee of the whole House of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, day one.
Tuesday 20 October—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Members may also want to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the November recess at the close of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 17 December, and will now return on Tuesday 5 January 2027. The House will rise for the February recess at the close of business on Thursday 11 February 2027 and return on Monday 22 February. The House will rise for the Easter recess at the close of business on Thursday 25 March and return on Monday 12 April. The House will rise for the May Bank holiday recess at the close of business on Thursday 29 April and return on Tuesday 4 May. The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June. The House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 22 July.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the business and, of course, the recess dates. It is always good to look forward to the next recess.
Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the appalling terrorist attacks on the United States. We remember the thousands of innocent people who went to work that morning, boarded aircraft or reported for duty in the emergency services, and never returned home. We remember their families and all those whose lives were changed forever. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of visiting the 9/11 Memorial in New York. Standing where the Twin Towers once stood, it is an incredibly moving experience and a powerful reminder of both the terrible events of that day and the courage and resilience that followed them. A quarter of a century on, we should never forget the victims, nor should we ever waver in our determination to confront terrorism and defend the freedoms and values that those responsible sought to attack.
I turn now to matters closer to home. The Leader of the House has announced that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will be rushed through the House over a couple of days in October, with no separate Report stage. That is very little time to consider such a complex Bill, particularly as the Government are reported to be preparing to table over 100 amendments. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government amendments are tabled before the House rises on Tuesday, and will he explain why the Government are not providing a separate Report stage?
There seems to be growing chatter on the Government Benches about an early general election, with some Labour Members apparently wondering whether the new Prime Minister might even go to the country before Christmas. The Leader of the House is of course a man right at the heart of Government decision making and will know better than most what is being discussed in Downing Street. So for the benefit of increasingly nervous Labour Back Benchers, can he give the House a simple assurance today: will this Parliament run its full course, or will the new Prime Minister already be running away from difficult decisions?
Turning to Scotland, last week the SNP Government published their latest programme for government. After nearly two decades in power, Scotland was promised renewal. Instead, as Russell Findlay put it, we got more “meddling” and “gimmicks”—more centralisation, more bureaucracy and yet more attempts to distract from the SNP’s dire record in office. This was on full display when the PISA school results were published recently, showing that Scotland’s once world-class education system is now considered to be just average.
Of particular concern to my constituents is the extraordinary proposal by the SNP Government to abolish Scotland’s 14 territorial health boards and replace them with just two. This means the abolition of NHS Borders as we know it. People in my constituency in the Scottish Borders have already experienced the consequences of SNP centralisation with Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. They do not want vital healthcare decisions taken further away from the communities those services exist to serve. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the hard-working staff NHS Borders, and call on an increasingly centralising SNP Government not to forget rural and remote communities in Scotland?
Finally, farming is the backbone of communities across the Borders and across rural Britain. Despite the enormous concern expressed by farmers and farming businesses, Labour’s family farm tax is now in force. Ahead of the Budget next month, will the Leader of the House convey a very simple message to the Chancellor: listen to our farmers, recognise the damage this tax is doing to confidence and succession planning, and finally do the right thing—scrap the family farm tax?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the deputy shadow Leader of the House for his remarks. Before I turn to his specific questions, may I remind the House that today is World Suicide Prevention Day? When someone takes their own life, the impact on family and friends is devastating and widespread. Today is an opportunity for all of us to unite behind one clear and unambiguous message: suicides are preventable. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the many community groups and charities across the country that offer compassionate, lifesaving support to those affected. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her thoughtful contribution in leading the Westminster Hall debate on this matter on Tuesday. This Government are firmly committed to tackling suicide, and the new mental health hubs and emergency centres announced over the summer represent a crucial step forward in delivering early community-based support.
As the deputy shadow Leader of the House said, tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I, too, have seen the site of the attacks, and it is a harrowing reminder. We remember the 2,977 innocent lives lost, including 67 British citizens, and the countless families whose lives were forever changed. We pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of the first responders—the firefighters, the police officers and the medical personnel—who risked and sacrificed their lives running towards the danger in order to save others.
It has been an important week for Government announcements. On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary set out our response to illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories. The Government have announced targeted sanctions, introducing an important ban on goods originating from illegal settlements and taking action against companies and individuals providing services, infrastructure or finance for settlement expansion. As we have made clear, these settlements are illegal and the occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful. The Chancellor set out this week how the Government will make Great Britain “Growth Britain” again. We will drive devolution and provide more public leadership and control, and with more investment, more innovation and more jobs, there will be growth in every postcode.
Let me now turn to the remarks of the deputy shadow Leader of the House. On the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which I have just announced we will be taking shortly after the conference recess, I have announced two days on the Floor of the House for Committee stage and remaining stages. It is often the case, when matters are dealt with on the Floor of the House, that a Report stage is either unnecessary or there is not a great deal of time, but I will take away what he says. I will also take away his point about ensuring that amendments are timely. We want to go further in Committee, with a substantial package of amendments to safeguard our Operation Banner veterans. None of the protections were included in previous legislation, which instead left our veterans in legal limbo, so although I do take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, we will take no lessons from the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned chatter about an early general election. If there is any such chatter, it is on the Opposition side of the House. I would just say to those on the other side of the House to be careful what they wish for. The Prime Minister, as he has made clear, has no intention of calling an early general election, because there is an important job to do and he is determined to get on with it. I think he has made a fantastic start and he intends to continue doing everything we can to make our country a better place to live and work in again.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the situation north of the border and mentioned Scottish education. I remember when Scottish education was the model for education not just in the United Kingdom, but often around the world. All I would say on the matter is that the apparent lack of ambition from the current Government north of the border stands in stark contrast with our ambition for every young person on this side of the border.
I am happy to pay tribute to NHS staff in the hon. Gentleman’s area, as I would for NHS staff everywhere, and I agree with him. This Prime Minister and this new Administration are very clear that we believe devolution is the way forward: decisions taken locally where they affect people is the way forward, rather than centralisation. Therefore, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
As far as farming is concerned, obviously I am not going to comment on what might or might not be in the Budget. I simply point out that we are supporting farming, not least with the £65 million extra that we have provided.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House said, today is World Suicide Prevention Day, and I thank him for his comments. In the UK, someone takes their own life every 90 minutes—the length of a football match. Partnerships such as the Premier League and the Samaritans’ “Together Against Suicide” initiative show how sport can break stigma and save lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming that campaign and set out how the Government are supporting community-led suicide prevention across the country, and will he allow a debate in Government time on suicide prevention?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said in my opening remarks, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever, not just for her question but for her continued contribution on these matters. It is really important that she continues to raise them. I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to the many community groups and charities across the country that offer compassionate, lifesaving support to those affected. I agree with her absolutely that organisations such as the Premier League, in playing a role, draw very welcome attention to what needs to be done, and I thank them very much for that. The Government remain committed to tackling suicide, which is why we announced new mental health hubs and emergency centres. It is important that we try to prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible. Were she to seek a further debate on these matters, either through the Backbench Business Committee or in Westminster Hall, I expect she will find that many Members share her concerns, as she will have heard from the murmurs across the Chamber just now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I echo the comments made in relation to the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Nearly 25 years ago, in the April after the attacks, my husband and I visited the site of the twin towers. We were both police officers at the time, and realising that we and our colleagues would have faced the same dangers that others had faced really brought home for us the scale of the sacrifice made. Having attended a debate on confidence in policing yesterday, I know how important trust in policing is.
Reform UK’s disdain for British electoral law was broadcast to the nation last week in undercover footage involving the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have emailed him—and some of his closest advisers. The Metropolitan police were already investigating Reform UK, and they have now confirmed that they are broadening their inquiry to include foreign donations involving polling. I find it ironic that a party that stakes so much of its reputation on claims of patriotism spends far more time trying to get around British law than strengthening it. Will Reform MPs share with the country whether they and their campaigns have ever benefited from any foreign money? I also reiterate the calls I made over recess for Reform’s home affairs spokesperson to provide evidence for the damaging claims he made online against a business in my constituency. Several weeks on, that business and I are still waiting.
We are living in an unstable world, where dodgy donations are routine and corruption is common. Bad actors such as Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Reform pin-up boy Donald Trump are dedicated to destroying our democracy. The Government and all parliamentarians should be standing up against those threats. Again, for a party so keen to ensure relationships with our nearest neighbours, Reform UK seems happy to jeopardise our sovereignty by encouraging foreign interference. However, the Representation of the People Bill that passed through the Commons last week did not include a donation cap and therefore failed to protect our political system from the corrupting influence of foreign money. Given that the Bill was debated before MPs were aware of these concerning allegations, will the Government find time to legislate to protect British democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Lady in her remarks about the bravery of those New York police officers who, 25 years ago, ran towards danger. To be clear, were something similarly terrible to happen in this country, that is what our police officers would do as well. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady in her previous role, as well as to her husband and colleagues. Our police officers are fantastic servants of our communities and, indeed, our nation.
The hon. Lady talked about political donations. We will have to see how the current crisis for Reform plays out. We have been considering the Representation of the People Bill in this place, but there will be an opportunity to look at some of those matters again in the other place. As this Government continue to get on with the job and look to make the long-term changes that are necessary to clean up our politics, there will be future opportunities for legislation.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
May I first congratulate Merv Johnson, who has been shortlisted for an award in recognition of the countless hours he gives to Outcasts cricket club, keeping its ground in fantastic condition throughout the season. Volunteers like Merv are the backbone of grassroots sport, but their dedication depends on clubs having somewhere to play. Will the Leader of the House set out how he will support clubs going forward?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Merv Johnson on his hard work at the Outcasts cricket club. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone benefits from quality sport and physical activity opportunities in their local area. We are investing at least £400 million over the next four years to provide communities with the sports facilities they need, which includes £3 million for the England and Wales Cricket Board this financial year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Since the changes, we have been inundated with requests from Select Committees to have statements in the House, which I welcome. Next Tuesday, before the two debates that have been scheduled, there will be Select Committee statements on the Treasury and Public Accounts Committee reports.
I know that the Leader of the House will share my concern about the debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week being scheduled for the first day back after recess, following what happened last year, when the number of Government statements meant that the debate took place late at night and it was difficult for many Members to contribute. We thought long and hard before allocating the debate and approaching the sponsors, who were insistent that they wanted the debate on the first day back. I hope that the Leader of the House will again provide protected time and prevail on his colleagues not to have too many Government statements, so that we can have a reasonable debate on the subject.
In addition, there are potentially another five Select Committee statements to come forward in the next few weeks, which I once again welcome. If we are offered 22 October, we have potential debates ready to go.
In Westminster Hall, on Tuesday there will be a debate on building safety remediation of residential buildings. On Tuesday 13 October there will be a debate on the future of the UK coach industry. On Thursday 15 October there will be a Select Committee statement from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, followed by debates on support for unpaid carers and on the progress towards a smokefree UK. On Tuesday 20 October there will be a debate on manufacturing skills. On Thursday 22 October there will be a debate on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the importance of hospital radio across the country. It gives great comfort to patients, through the music, the discussions and the news, particularly when people are suffering in hospital. I am pleased to say that Radio Brockley, which operates at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, will be celebrating its 60th anniversary next month, before we come back from recess. It is the longest-running hospital radio station in London. Indeed, we have volunteers who have served for more than 40 years, giving their service to that hospital. I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Radio Brockley on this wonderful anniversary. Perhaps we could have a statement in Government time on the importance of hospital radio in the health service and the benefits it brings to patients and staff.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has told the House today and for his ongoing work as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. He is right that the baby loss debate is scheduled for the first day back after recess. He will know that the way in which this happened last time concerned me greatly, which is why we wondered whether the debate could perhaps take place at another time. That has not turned out to be the case, so it will be on the first Monday back.
The hon. Gentleman talks about two things. The first is protected time for the debate. I have already thought about this, and I will certainly give it further thought. I hope we can get to that place. I have to say to him, though, that it might be a bit of a mixed blessing, unless we have real discipline on the day, and some of that discipline—I will be careful how I say this—is not entirely in my hands. What is to some extent in my hands, and in the Government’s hands, is the number of statements we have. We are coming back from conference recess that day, and I would expect there to be announcements over the recess, so I would therefore expect statements. However, I will do everything I can to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of time for that debate. So many parents and family members come down for the debate, and they deserve the best that we can provide.
Secondly, I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking everyone involved in hospital radio across the country. I agree about its importance and join him in congratulating Radio Brockley on its 60th anniversary, which is a remarkable achievement. Well done to Radio Brockley, and thank you to all the volunteers—not just now, but all those who have volunteered in the past.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have many colleagues to get through. I can see that some Members are holding bits of paper with far too many sentences on them—cross them out and ask a question in one sentence. I call Sharon Hodgson.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be very brief. Next Thursday is World Patient Safety Day. As the landmark Cumberlege review confirmed, patients—particularly women—have had their concerns dismissed and denied for far too long. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group “First Do No Harm”, I ask the Leader of the House if he will grant a debate in Government time on when they will respond to the excellent Hughes report.
Sir Alan Campbell
We recognise the profound, life-changing impact that these harms have on individuals and their families. As my hon. Friend will know, we are carefully considering the Hughes report. She asks for an opportunity to debate it, but first of all I will seek an update from Ministers to see whether we need to make further progress on this really important matter.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I love to do everything I can to support our pubs and hospitality industry—and I do mean everything. I am pleased to represent an area of the country that has many fantastic pubs, many of which are participating in my current “Pub of the Year” competition, and voting is now open. Can we have a debate in Government time about the important role of our hospitality industry in our local communities? Can I invite the Leader of the House and you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, everybody—to the winner of the competition, wherever it may be? I do not promise to pay for every pint, but we will see how it goes.
Sir Alan Campbell
Should the hon. Gentleman wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate on this matter, I am sure that other colleagues would join him to talk about the importance of pubs in their area. It would also allow a Minister to talk about the cut to business rates for pubs that this Prime Minister has already insisted on.
I will certainly give careful thought to the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the second time that we have been invited out together—
Sir Alan Campbell
Well, “couple” is not necessarily the word that I would use at this point, but it is interesting that people are reading more into this than is the case. I will certainly bear the invitation in mind. I wish all pubs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency the very best, and it is fantastic that he is having that competition.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not think I have ever been publicly invited and dismissed from a date in one sitting. I call Euan Stainbank.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Heavy goods vehicle drivers such as my constituent Peter Cunningham are vital to Falkirk’s local economy. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has directly risked Peter’s livelihood by requesting duplicate medical information a month after he already submitted it in full. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister on how DVLA and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency delays are being addressed, and will he support my representations to help Peter get his licence back?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend highlights, these delays are having real impacts on our constituents’ livelihoods. I am not across the detail of the case that he raises, but if he shares the detail with my office, I will ensure that it is taken up with the relevant Minister.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Cruel experiments on children are the stuff of dystopian fiction or the fact of past tyrannies, yet as the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), reminded us, such experiments are taking place here and now to establish the damage that puberty blockers do. When challenged on this in the House, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), said in an agonised fashion that he would be requesting monthly updates on the progress of those experiments. We have heard nothing since.
I am confident that Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would want this House to know first how these experiments are going. Will the Leader of the House demand from Ministers a statement on these matters, as was promised, or was that promise merely a rhetorical device to assuage the genuine fears of Members across the Chamber?
Sir Alan Campbell
Knowing the former Health Secretary, it was not the latter. It was a commitment that we will seek to uphold, so I will take that away and talk to current Ministers in the Department and see if we can get what the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Last month I visited HMP Foston Hall to see the work it was doing giving catering and hospitality experience to women there, but when so many in our prisons are on remand, waiting for trial or temporarily back on recall, it is much harder to do the work that can break cycles of reoffending. Last year, I was able to secure a debate on work in prison, but will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the broader issue of education, training and work in prisons to prevent future offending and keep our communities safer?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter. The Government recognise that high-quality education and vocational training are central to rehabilitation and reducing offending. We are expanding vocational opportunities to help prisoners develop the skills needed to secure sustainable employment on their release. My hon. Friend talks about the previous debate that she had on related matters. I would encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate to pursue this particular aspect.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
This week’s debate on the Health Bill was poorly organised and not enough time was allowed. Many Back Benchers from my party, as well as others from across the House, were not called to speak despite hours of bobbing. I wished to address new clause 72, on the provision of minor injuries units in rural areas. When such measures, which can add validity to the Bill that is under discussion, are not given the time that they deserve, it results in frustration among MPs, who are trying to represent their electorates, and in a lessening of the effectiveness of our democracy. Will greater thought please be given to allowing Back-Bench MPs a more valid say in such debates?
Sir Alan Campbell
To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. There have been a series of statements since our return from summer recess—that is not unusual. What is unusual is that we got a new Administration and Prime Minister at the beginning of that recess. A significant amount of time was allowed for that Bill, but I will bear in mind what he says about the opportunity for Members to talk about their constituency matters. The Modernisation Committee is considering the use of time in this place. It is becoming clear that, when considering time for the Government, for the Opposition and all the other things, we must think about statements, urgent questions and how the day starts, so that when there is great demand for discussion of legislation—that is not always the case, but it was in this instance—time is available.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s expansion of free school meals for children in households eligible for universal credit, which will take 500,000 children out of poverty. However, the fact that those children will not be eligible for holiday activities and food funding will lead to two-tier poverty. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate to consider how we can reverse that situation?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises the important steps that the Government have taken. I understand her point about HAF funding, which has been raised by others, too. She may wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate, not only to expand on her points but to allow others to take part and hear from a Minister about what more the Government can do.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Last weekend, I visited Cornerways in my constituency, which provides supported living for vulnerable adults. The Friends of Cornerways have spent the last year clearing the garden so that it is now a workable space for residents. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and other community groups that do so much for our local areas, and will he grant Government time to debate the importance of community projects for societal good?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have said on numerous occasions that community volunteers are the golden thread that run through our communities. In fact, they make our communities what they are, so I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging his constituency case. Should he seek a Westminster Hall debate on communities and volunteers, it would allow others from across the House to share similar positive experiences.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I recently met the Royal Society of Chemistry and, as a former teacher, spent far too much time reminiscing about my time in the classroom. We turned quickly to the contribution that chemistry makes to our economy. In 2023, chemistry contributed £60.5 billion in gross value added, including over £64 million in Wolverhampton. Given the pressures on the skills pipeline, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we can ensure that young people have the skills needed to support growth and innovation in that vital sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to point out that chemistry makes a considerable contribution to our economy. As the House will know, the UK is a world leader in science, due in no small part to the quality of our teachers. On skills, we are committed to ensuring that young people are equipped for the future, including through new technical education pathways for science. If she wishes to look at the matter more broadly, she should perhaps consider applying for an Adjournment debate.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Industrial hemp is at the forefront of innovation in agriculture, and my constituent Martin Cessford is a farmer at the forefront of that in Scotland. Hemp has great promise for industrial, health, climate and building applications. However, Martin has been thwarted at every turn by the Home Office and its absurd application of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as it relates to hemp products. With my help, he has made some progress, but his shipment, which is going to Germany for quality control testing, is now stuck in the Netherlands. I asked the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for help over a month ago, but have not heard anything. Might we have a debate in Government time on the tension between the Government’s need for growth and innovation and their Departments standing in the way of that, and will the Leader of the House use his good offices to give the FCDO a shake?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a former Drugs Minister, I understand the complexity of this matter and the frustration involved, too. I will raise it with both the Home Office, which has responsibility for it, and the FCDO to see whether we can get clarity on the situation.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Residents in Gardner Way in my constituency are stuck. They are subject to an Act from 1925 and a rent charge that makes it incredibly difficult for them to sell their homes, because if they miss a payment, their home could be repossessed. Most owners with those rent charges allow a simple change in the deed. I have every faith that this one will as well, and we are planning legislation in this area. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the owner to allow a simple change to the deeds and to confirm that we still have legislation planned to change this horrible practice.
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope the owner has heard my hon. Friend’s comments. As a Government, we are committed to banning the use of draconian and outdated remedies for non-payment of rent charges through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which we published in draft in January and will be introducing. I will ensure that my hon. Friend has a meeting with the Minister for Housing and Planning so that he can hear more about the progress that we intend to make.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I was shocked and appalled at the vitriol and hate shown towards volunteers for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution across the entire south coast, including at RNLI Selsey in my constituency. They go out day in, day out and show us what actual patriots look like when they are saving lives at sea. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to our brave RNLI volunteers and make time to debate how we can better support them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Lady in sending our support and appreciation to the RNLI, not least because I have RNLI presence in my coastal constituency. It is wholly unacceptable that RNLI volunteers face abuse of any sort, including on social media. Let me put that very clearly on the record. They have to feel safe in their roles to make their lifesaving contributions, so she is right to raise this matter, and I absolutely endorse what she says.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Yesterday, we received the fantastic news that the Buy Back Brixton community campaign has been named as the preferred buyer for Brixton’s iconic markets, Brixton Village and Market Row, which are in my constituency. That means that the markets can be purchased by the community for the community, safeguarding their character and heritage and securing the long-term future for the incredible traders who make their living there. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising and celebrating the milestone reached by Buy Back Brixton and encourage everyone to support its drive to raise the remaining funds needed to complete the sale? Could we have a debate in Government time on what more can be done to safeguard community assets and independent businesses on our high streets and in our town centres and to expand community ownership?
Sir Alan Campbell
I offer my congratulations, and I am sure the congratulations of the whole House, to the traders and campaigners in the Buy Back Brixton campaign, and I am delighted to hear of their success. We have implemented new high street rental auction regulations, and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 introduces a new community right to buy. Later this year, we will be bringing introducing a high streets strategy, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise local matters in the debate on that.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
With an estimated 1.4 million approved homes unbuilt, brownfield capacity for 1.41 million homes and more than 750,000 empty homes in England, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on unlocking that housing to meet the Government’s 1.5 million target before any more green belt is released?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady has raised housing matters and is right to do so on behalf of her residents. But there is that tension between the feelings often of local residents and their concern where there is green belt, and the need for additional housing. I will take into consideration what she said about the potential for a debate and see what we can do.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Since 2011, 15 years ago, my constituent John has been forced to use a bucket in his garden in lieu of a toilet because his own toilet pumps raw sewage back into his house. I have raised this on the Floor of the House before, and after my intervention, Severn Trent finally provided a Portaloo and promised a permanent solution. Unfortunately, this week it informed John that the permanent solution will not work and there is no timeline for delivery of a solution to this absolutely shocking failure on its behalf. It is a matter of dignity for John and his neighbours in Hill Ridware. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the Minister to discuss this shocking case, because it simply cannot go on any longer?
Sir Alan Campbell
The situation my hon. Friend describes is simply unacceptable. I hope that Severn Trent has heard his powerful representation, and I will certainly ask Ministers to meet him.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This House will know that I continue to push for the issues affecting men and boys to be addressed, and we were making progress—the last Prime Minister committed to a men and boys summit. Sadly, there has been a reshuffle and that summit has not yet happened. I have written to the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office, but have not heard anything back. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to raise with No. 10 whether the summit will go ahead and if not, push it forward so that we can discuss the issues facing men and boys in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on issues affecting men and boys, and I pay real tribute to him for that. I encourage him and others to contribute to the Westminster Hall debate later today on men and boys, but I will take away his concerns about taking this forward with the Government and, indeed, a summit to find out the new Administration’s plan, as I am sure they will want to honour that.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Today marks three months since the lockdown in Azad Kashmir. Over 100 peaceful protesters have been killed, over 1,000 have been injured, and many more remain under arbitrary arrest. Over 1 million British Kashmiris quite rightly remain concerned at this escalation. The all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, along with 80 parliamentarians across this Chamber, raised serious concerns about the human rights violations. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for a full and substantial debate so that we can put it on the record that the human rights violations of Kashmiris are in breach of international law, and that peaceful table talk must be resumed immediately?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for that. He is right that human rights apply and should be respected wherever they are. Should he seek an Adjournment debate or Westminster Hall debate on these matters, he would hear both from the relevant Minister on the Government’s position on Kashmir and any other concerns of colleagues across the House.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s stated intention to tackle the social care crisis and to work cross-party to that end, but I was disappointed that the talks convened in July did not involve all the parties that had previously been involved in the existing cross-party social care talks. Will the Leader of the House update the House on the timetable for the next steps in those cross-party talks? Will he also assure the House that they will be genuinely cross-party, because we on the opposition Benches are keen to work with the Government to tackle this essential issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is more than an intention; it is one of the things that drives the Prime Minister, as it did when he was previously a Member, and he has returned to the House with that drive, too. She is right that not all the parties took up the offer in the way the Prime Minister asked for. However, the Liberal Democrats did, and I pay tribute to that. I will take away her comments about other parties that might want to be invited in the future—we cannot guarantee that they will turn up—and see what the Government intend to do to move the situation forward. We must do so, and it will be much better done on a cross-party basis.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Fly-tipping and littering are a blight on our communities. That is why I am proud of amazing organisations like the Friends of the Welsh Harp, the Friends of Heybourne Park and the Burnt Oak Nepalese community as well as the litter pickers at St Mary’s and many more for the work they do to keep Hendon looking its best. I am working with them to hold my next big Hendon litter pick on 25 October. Over 100 people attended the last one, and this one promises to be even bigger. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the selfless volunteers and brilliant organisations who keep Hendon tidy and encourage people to come along on the 25th? There is a high-vis and a bin bag with his name on it if he is free that day.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is tempting, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I notice that it was only I who was invited and not you—there we are. I pay tribute to all my hon. Friend’s constituents who have selflessly volunteered to keep Hendon tidy. Community action like that is vital. I encourage his constituents to join him in his litter pick next month. The Government are playing their part by taking robust action against fly-tipping, increasing the maximum penalty to £5,000 and giving the council powers to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, but it is a whole-of-Government and communities effort that will bear down on this intolerable problem.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I was concerned to read that at the weekend RNLI lifeboats were turned away from two ports, Portsmouth and Southampton. As a result, brave RNLI volunteers had to face angry anti-migrant demonstrations—somehow, those protesters knew where the lifeboats were going to land. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that the Government make a statement on the incident, including why harbourmasters were allowed to turn away lifeboats that are there to save lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said previously, we pay tribute to the RNLI across the country. It is wholly unacceptable that volunteers anywhere should face abuse—they certainly should not be turned away. The Government take these matters very seriously and will be looking at what happened. On the importance of the RNLI going forward, as that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman and others, he may want to seek a debate and pin the Minister down on what further action might be taken.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
By the time I was 18, I had already had five years’ work experience stacking shelves in the local supermarket and making Big Macs in McDonald’s. Sadly, too many young people today do not have access to work experience. On 25 September, I will hold the fourth of my hugely successful job fairs, and I am encouraging all the exhibitors to offer work experience to local young people so that we can break down that barrier. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on the importance of work experience for our young people and for our economy?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to supporting young people into work and as, my hon. Friend says, work experience is an important part of providing insights into future potential career paths. As he will know, the Milburn review is looking at how we can tackle some of these issues. We want to ensure that every young person between 16 and 24 has the opportunity to earn and learn, and part-time jobs and work experience are an important part of that. I encourage young people to go along to his job fair, for which I pay tribute to him. I note that Education questions is on Monday, when he might want to raise the matter directly with Ministers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On Monday, just as campaigners from the New Forest and Waterside were handing into Downing Street a 32,000-signature petition against the appalling and unfair outcome of local government reorganisation affecting our area, the welcome announcement was made by the Government that the local government reform proposals for Hampshire and three other counties were being withdrawn and all the rest were being paused. May I invite the Leader of the House to secure a statement either from the Prime Minister or from the Secretary of State as soon as possible, confirming that that withdrawal and those pauses will be made permanent?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Secretary of State came to the House at the earliest opportunity, and making that statement was the right thing to do. The Government are going away to have a look at these matters, because we are keen that we get the best possible local government in this country. When there are further things to say on these matters, I am sure that the Secretary of State will come back and report to the House.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Offences under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 have skyrocketed 81% since July 2022—a stark sign that violence against women and girls in Scotland has reached crisis point. That fact was rammed home to me last week, as I listened to a woman in my constituency advice surgery describe the abuse she has been experiencing at the hands of her partner. This Labour Government are working hard to halve violence against women and girls, but to deliver that for the whole United Kingdom, we must tackle the root causes and demand urgent action from Holyrood. Will the Leader of the House outline what he thinks the Scottish Government might learn from the work of this Labour Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is clear that violence against women and girls is reaching a crisis point, and I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend’s assessment of what is happening north of the border, which is in contrast to the action that we are taking in Westminster. We published our violence against women and girls strategy, detailing how we will tackle this national emergency and halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. If the SNP Government do not share that ambition, I would encourage them to get on, do more about it and align themselves with that ambition. We are about working not just cross-party but between Governments. If they wish to engage in that, I am sure it would be worth while.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Robert Steele was a beautiful four-year-old boy who died three weeks ago in Newark when he was thrown from an off-road bike that was being driven by a 24-year-old man. This is the culmination of a number of incidents in my town, and many others across the country, involving off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. Will the Government consider a debate on the policing of these bikes, what further action we can take to prevent terrible tragedies such as this one, and the posture of police forces across the country, including when they can appropriately intercept these bikes and protect members of the public?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sad to hear of what happened in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency; our thoughts are with the family. He is right to point to the scourge of off-road bikes and e-scooters, because there are simply too many incidents of the sort that he describes. If he called for a Westminster Hall debate on these matters, he could hear from the Minister about what we intend to do. We do intend to crack down on them. I absolutely agree with him that, where police forces have the powers, they need to use them. That is probably easier for me to say than it is for them to do, but they need to use the powers. Together, we need to tackle this scourge.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Awaab’s law has support from across this Chamber. Does the Leader of the House agree that we now need an assessment of the impact of Awaab’s law? What parliamentary time could be allocated to that? We need to be certain that the scourge of damp and mould will be tackled by this Government in our lifetimes.
Sir Alan Campbell
Everyone deserves to live in a home that is safe and decent. That is why we brought Awaab’s law into force, protecting millions of tenants and forcing landlords to urgently fix dangerous homes within 24 hours of reporting. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 also tackles the blight of poor-quality privately rented homes, including by applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time. Should my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic campaigner on these matters, seek a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate, she and others will find out from the Minister what further steps can be taken so that housing improves for the many.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Bromsgrove continues to grind to a halt because of Worcestershire county council’s disastrous delivery of a local transport scheme, BREP—the Bromsgrove route enhancement programme. The scheme is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding. I recently wrote to the Transport Secretary with 34 questions that my constituents want answers to, and I received a reply that, frankly, did not answer a single one. I have resubmitted a letter to the Transport Secretary imploring her to answer questions. I am sure that I am often an irritant to the Government—whether through my campaign to protect Bromsgrove’s green belt or on this matter—but I make a plea to the Leader of the House: will he press the Transport Secretary to support me in seeking answers in the interests of my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is no bad thing when MPs are irritants to the Government, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work that he does for his constituents on this important matter. I am disappointed that he did not get a proper reply to the questions that he asked. Let me take that away, take it up with the Minister and see whether we can get him a better reply.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Following the visit this week by the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to Colchester’s much-respected Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse, or CARA, and the confirmation of an additional £9 million for victim support services in Essex, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the progress that the Government are making on their work on prevention, enforcement and survivor support?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming this Government’s action and support on violence against women and girls. As the Minister said yesterday, we are committed to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, whenever it occurs and whoever commits it. This has been a bit of a theme today and my hon. Friend is right to say that it is time for the House to discuss these matters, so I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate so that others can bring their concerns and suggestions and hear directly from the Minister.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This week I chaired a roundtable with cancer charities and leading clinicians on delivering early diagnosis. Everyone had concerns about NHS workforce shortfalls blocking the progress of the national cancer plan. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to assess what investment is needed in the NHS workforce to deliver the national cancer plan’s ambition of earlier diagnosis?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right that this Government’s plan for tackling cancer is ambitious. We have set out not just the investment that is needed, but our plans for the workforce. Some of the shortfalls in the workforce are being addressed but, as he points out, more can be done. We have brought in our national cancer plan, with £2.3 billion invested to deliver 9.5 million additional tests by 2029. We are making progress, but I will ensure that the Health Secretary hears the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Recent blasting at Taff’s Well quarry in my constituency caused water to be displaced, resulting in extensive flooding and damage to my constituents. This caused significant distress not just to them, but to anyone who lives near a similar site in Wales. May we have a debate on the assessment and monitoring of quarries near former mine workings in Wales? Will this Government encourage the Welsh Government to consider extending the transparent risk-rating approach that we have for coal tips to similar quarries in Wales, so that constituents can know the risks that are posed near them?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this very serious issue, and I commend him for doing so. I understand the concerns of his constituents. I hope that the Welsh Government have heard his words and that they will take action to address his concerns. He has brought to this House not just a concern about what has happened, but some good ideas about how it can be addressed. I hope that the Welsh Government are listening.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On 17 June 2025, my constituent’s four-month-old puppy, Teddy, sustained a serious leg injury during an introductory puppy grooming appointment. Upon complaining to the staff, they dismissed it as just a bruise, but later veterinary imaging confirmed blunt force trauma, resulting in three fractures to the dog’s leg. Instead of addressing the complaint transparently, they ultimately offered partial compensation, but only if my constituent signed a broad confidentiality clause.
I raised this matter with a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and received a response on 27 November 2025, but the response missed the nub of the issue that my constituent was raising. I also requested a meeting. I have since emailed and written to them on 12 January, 14 March, 16 April and 26 August, but have not even received a response from the DEFRA Minister. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to seek a response?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our best wishes go to Teddy and the whole family. I will take up the matter with the DEFRA Minister and do everything I can to get a meeting for the hon. Gentleman. He will know that this Government are concerned about the cost of animal welfare in respect of grooming, but also through vets’ bills. Raising his concern directly with the Minister is the right way forward, and I will see what we can do to get him a meeting.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Dr Anirban Bhattacharyya is a resident in my constituency. He has lived there for 60 years. He travelled to Kolkata only a couple of weeks ago, and it appears that he has been caught up in the horrendous flooding in Nepal. There have been numerous attempts to contact him, but they have been unsuccessful. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been less than helpful, basically pointing the family to the Indian consulate, which, again, has been less than helpful. He has lived in this country for 60 years. He is missing. Can we have a debate in Government time about how the FCDO can be more helpful to people who have lived in this country all their lives and are affected by such national tragedies? Because he does not have a British passport, we cannot help him.
Sir Alan Campbell
We are working with the authorities on the ground to support their efforts in this terrible situation, supporting survivors of all nationalities and trying to get information for families about missing loved ones. As my hon. Friend said, we are also in contact with the Indian authorities about the relief effort. I am disappointed that that has not led to the outcome that my hon. Friend seeks. I will see whether the relevant FCDO Minister will meet him to discuss not just this case but the wider issue about what Governments can do in what are often terrible circumstances.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Brierley Homes, a company owned by Conservative-run North Yorkshire council, is forecast to lose £5 million this year, on top of the £7 million it lost last year and an original £25 million loan from the council and repeated bail-outs. Multiple people have raised with me serious concerns about how this business is run, including allegations of bullying, corruption, fraud and potentially even money laundering. The council appointed an independent auditor earlier this year, but it turned out that that, too, was owned by the local authority. Can the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the transparency and accountability of council-owned companies?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises a very concerning situation. I do not know what the answer is off the top of my head, but if he gives me the details, I will take it up with the relevant Department and see what powers and influence it has to get a better outcome.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Both towns in my constituency have lost a number of banks and building societies, making access to cash really difficult. The other villages and communities across the constituency have lost a number of post office branches for a variety of reasons, and in some cases the Post Office has been reluctant to reopen them. Can we have a debate on what more the Government can do to ensure that communities—particularly geographically isolated ones—maintain access to cash, which a large number of constituents rely on?
Sir Alan Campbell
Access to cash is an issue that is often most acutely felt by those in rural areas of the country that rely on cash. We are accelerating the roll-out of banking hubs, with over 240 already open, but we have also launched an independent review of access to banking services. The Financial Services and Markets Bill will allow us to take further action in future to protect access to banking services if needed. This has been a common theme in these sessions over weeks and months. If my hon. Friend seeks an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate, I am sure it will be well attended.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Leaseholders in Maidenhead and across the country are stuck with sky-high service charges, and many constituents have raised them with me. I have seen many of these service charge bills, and some of the costs are astronomical. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss these massive service charges, which often prevent leaseholders from selling their properties?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises. We are committed to making changes, as he knows, and to implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We have published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. The Prime Minister is absolutely determined that we get on with this, and when that happens, the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise his specific constituency concerns.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Professor Jason Arday, aged 41 and the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history, was found dead at his home in my constituency on 13 August, days after resigning his chair and after sustained press intrusion and harassment. An inquest has opened, but there are serious questions for the Government on press regulation and widespread calls for a public inquiry. Tens of thousands attended a vigil in Trafalgar Square, and vigils have been held from Bradford to Bristol. Constituents have sent emails. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have both commented, but there has been no statement in this House. The Government cannot comment on their own terms, in a way that Members cannot scrutinise, and then resist a debate that the whole House can join.
Is the Leader of the House aware that this House regularly debates policy arising from deaths while proceedings are live, but leaving those proceedings alone—for example, we debated press regulation in July 2011 after the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, fire safety after Grenfell, and policing and the safety of women in March 2021 after the death of Sarah Everard, also my constituent—or during court proceedings, such with as the death of Molly Russell during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, and the deaths of Lucy Meadows and Caroline Flack, which were both connected to press conduct? But the press pursue a black man to the end of his life, and this House says nothing about their conduct. I do not have to tell the Leader of the House why that is wrong, so all I will ask him is when the Government will rectify it.
Sir Alan Campbell
Jason Arday’s death is an utter tragedy, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tireless work on behalf of Professor Arday and his family and friends. I hear what she says about what may have happened in past instances, but there is currently a coroner’s inquest into Professor Arday’s death, which the Government want to be particularly careful not to cut across. There will be an opportunity to respond to that, and I know that the Culture Secretary is very keen to work with her on this matter.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Every time I raise child maintenance failures in this House, my inbox and social media feeds are flooded with parents sharing harrowing cases of domestic abuse being perpetuated, income being undeclared and children being used as weapons in their parents’ relationship breakdown. A report from the other place made sweeping recommendations for change. The long delays and poor processes are really harming children, who should be at the heart of these decisions. We have already had several debates on this issue, as the Leader of the House will know, in which there have been commitments to change. Will he ask the relevant Minister to bring an update to this House, so that we can see what the Government are actually going to do?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the way in which the hon. Lady raises that point, because there is incredible frustration—and more, often—across constituencies about the workings of the Child Maintenance Service. Let me take that away and ask the relevant Department if it will consider an update to the House when it is appropriate.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
In Wigan today, the funeral service is taking place for Sir Billy Boston. He was rugby league’s first knight, a trailblazer on and off the pitch, a leader, an inspiration to millions and a gentleman above all else. On what will be a sad day for his family, will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Sir Billy one last time and sending condolences to his loved ones?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I did last week, I pay tribute to Sir Billy Boston, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with his loved ones at this time. He was one of the greatest and most popular rugby league players of all time, and his legacy will no doubt continue to inspire future generations of rugby league players.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill that contains a number of significant recommendations. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will respond to those recommendations before the next stage of the Bill? Can he give us an update on where the remedial order currently is? It passed through this House and went to the other place, but it has not completed its full passage.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises these issues and highlights some of their complexities in a very reasonable way. The Government are determined to get this right. If he will allow me, I will take away both his requests to the Department, and I will get him the assurance that he seeks on his first question, and an update on his second question.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I recently visited the Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboat station at Girvan. It was great to meet the fantastic volunteers who work all year round, in all weathers, to keep us safe along the coast. The RNLI receives funding from SP Energy Networks’ community benefit fund to support high-quality training for the volunteers who carry out these lifesaving duties. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is money well spent, and will he find time for a debate on the role of community benefit funds in local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the volunteers for their exceptional and lifesaving work. I agree with her that money spent on the RNLI service is indeed money well spent, with volunteers providing lifesaving services to coastal communities, like mine and hers, across the country. This has been a theme today, so if we had a debate on the RNLI, covering both the unfortunate things that have been happening as well as the positive things that it does day in and day out, I am sure it would be well attended.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On the honours system, when are the next triennial reports and quinquennial review due, and will the public be able to contribute their views to them?
Sir Alan Campbell
Although I have been part of the honours process, in short, I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. If she does not mind, I will take her questions away and get answers for her.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a number of occasions, I have raised the case of Lee Cheuk-yan, who many Labour Members will remember was the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong. He was detained during the democracy movement five years ago. In the last 48 hours, we have heard that he will be before the courts again on Friday. Having served a five-year sentence, he is now being tried for subversion, and faces the threat of a 30-year sentence. Will the Leader of the House liaise with the Foreign Secretary to see whether we can get a statement on behalf of Lee, urging clemency, and hopefully secure his release?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has had to give the House such a distressing update. As he asks, I will take this away and raise it with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I am sure that the Department will not wait for a statement before making its representations to the Chinese authorities.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
As the Leader of the House knows, it is World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide is the leading cause of death among under-35s. After nearly 30 years, Papyrus, the national youth suicide prevention charity, went into administration two days ago. Its HopeLine, a 24/7 crisis service, ceased with immediate effect. One of my constituents is absolutely terrified about their young adult child returning to university without Papyrus’s support, on which they were entirely reliant. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that this charity’s collapse is catastrophic for younger people? Will he speak to his colleagues about crisis support for young people and young adults immediately?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am obviously concerned about the collapse of Papyrus, and I will raise the hon. Lady’s concerns with colleagues. In previous responses, I have outlined our strategy and what we intend to do going forward, but I understand the urgency of what she is saying, so I will take it up with colleagues.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Many hon. Members, from all parties, remain incredibly frustrated by Capita’s performance and the ongoing failures relating to its administration of the civil service pension scheme. My office is dealing with many cases on behalf of constituents in Mansfield who are struggling to access their pensions in a timely manner, and I am sure other Members are dealing with similar cases. The delays are now simply beyond acceptable. Will the Leader of the House ask ministerial colleagues to provide the House with an urgent update?
Sir Alan Campbell
Following the move to Capita, the service levels have been completely unacceptable. Our immediate priority was to stabilise the service and give current and former civil servants the service they deserve. I urge my hon. Friend, and all hon. Members who are concerned about the issue of Capita, to contribute to the Westminster Hall debate on this topic next Tuesday, so that they can hear directly from Ministers. Before that, I would point them towards the written ministerial statement that was published very recently. It not only sets out what the Government are doing about the issue, but gives a commitment from the Minister to provide the House with a substantive update in October, following the conclusion of the technical audit and report from the remedial adviser, so the update that he seeks is on its way.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
When I met constituents who are family members of people living with dementia in Thame, their overwhelming response and emotion was anger at the lack of support for them, and concern about what would happen to their family members if they themselves became ill. Will the Leader of the House outline what the Government are doing to support carers of people living with dementia, and will he support a debate on the subject in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are doing a great deal in what we recognise is often a very distressing situation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Casey review came up with a series of recommendations on dementia and other conditions, such as motor neurone disease. We have launched the big conversation on care to ensure that people can feed back their views. Appointing a dementia tsar to help drive forward much needed improvements will be important. We are also investing more in services, but I recognise that there is a great deal more to be done. I will get a further update for him from the relevant Minister.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
As we have already heard, today is World Suicide Prevention Day and this week Papyrus, which is based in my Warrington South constituency, went into administration after almost 30 years. Its 24/7 HopeLine allowed young people experiencing suicidal thoughts, and anyone worried about them, to speak to trained advisers, day and night. I have written to all MPs and peers, asking them to sign a cross-party letter to the Health Secretary calling for emergency funding to protect Papyrus’s services. Will the Leader of the House make time for an oral statement from a health Minister on the closure of Papyrus, and the steps the Government are taking to restore HopeLine’s 24/7 service to support the young people who relied on it?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said in earlier responses, the news regarding Papyrus is deeply concerning. We are entirely committed to suicide prevention, and to ensuring that high-quality mental health support is available, particularly for young people. I will reach out to the relevant Minister, as I have offered to, including on behalf of my hon. Friend. Ministers may want to give an update to all Members on this, because it is an issue of such importance.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Families across Torbay are struggling to receive adequate special educational needs and disabilities provision. I know that other MPs are able to engage meaningfully with their local authorities to support those families, but sadly, the leader of Conservative-led Torbay council has written to me saying that it will not deal with me on a case-by-case basis. The ombudsman has refused to engage. Will the Leader of the House ask the appropriate Minister to give me some guidance about how I can best support those families in need in Torbay?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed do as the hon. Gentleman asks, but I find it outrageous that leaders of councils refuse to engage with Members of Parliament who are raising legitimate matters in a reasonable way, as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, on behalf of their constituents. I hope that the leader of the council has heard that, but I will get the hon. Gentleman the information that he seeks from the relevant Minister.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Despite being asked to pay more by Severn Trent, residents in Redditch and Wychbold continuously face water outages, as crumbling infrastructure takes days to repair. Despite being on the priority list, many vulnerable residents, including new mums, have been left without bottled water. The benefits of privatisation are seemingly non-existent for my residents in Redditch and Wychbold. Does the Leader of the House share their frustrations, and their sympathy towards a change in ownership model?
Sir Alan Campbell
The fact is that the water industry has not been working for people for far too long, and the incident that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates that. That is why the Government are looking at ways to give the public more control and keep bills as low as possible. That is a priority for the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the new Prime Minister. On Monday, there will be a petitions debate on a referendum on public ownership of the water sector, which my hon. Friend and others may wish to attend.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
On Tuesday, Salt of the Earth—a family-run business in my constituency—was formally awarded the 2026 King’s award for enterprise and sustainable development. From kitchen chemists to natural deodorant pioneers, this fabulous little business is now manufacturing from a 16,000 square foot facility. Does the Leader of the House agree that small and medium-sized enterprises such as Salt of the Earth are crucial to growth across the country, and that their success should be celebrated and supported?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do—and, more importantly, so do the Government. Small and medium-sized enterprises are so important to our economy, and I praise Salt of the Earth for its work. I can assure the hon. Lady that it is no mean achievement to get a King’s award, so the business and the wider community should be very proud.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Boulby underground laboratory near Whitby is leading the race to host a massive international experiment to search for dark matter. However, the 40% cut to the lab’s operating budget proposed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council has created uncertainty about the Government’s continued support for the project. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting with the responsible Minister to discuss these drastic cuts, and help to secure Boulby’s future as a world-leading centre for physics research?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important matter on behalf of her constituents and the sector. The Government are investing £86 billion to drive scientific breakthroughs across the UK. We have a proud record of science in this country, and we intend to keep that lead. There will be science questions next week, but I am happy to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Minister to allow my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns in greater detail.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents and I welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment in this House, on Tuesday 1 September, that he would familiarise himself with all the detail of the proposed asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Prime Minister further gave a commitment that he would “happily report back” to the House from the Dispatch Box. On 4 September, the Government announced that the short deadline for my constituents to respond to the application is Thursday 17 September. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a statement from the Prime Minister before the consultation deadline, so that my constituents can hear his conclusions from the Dispatch Box? If not, will the Leader of the House advise how the Prime Minister can fulfil his commitment?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents get an opportunity to give their views—that is why the consultation is valuable—and that there is time for those views to be considered, so that the Government can act on them. The Prime Minister is a man of his word, so I am sure that he will want to respond on this issue, perhaps once the consultation has closed.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Government’s new restrictions on fire and rehire are due to come into effect from January next year, yet some organisations are rushing to make use of this unfair and abhorrent practice in the time that remains. They include East End Homes in my constituency, which is deploying this practice against its long-standing housing workers, who are members of Unison, to force through the acceptance of diminished pension terms. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is unacceptable, and that fire and rehire practices should have no place in our society?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. I hope that the firms concerned have heard my hon. Friend, and that they think again.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Trains are running at half the normal frequency on the west of England line, because of dry embankments. This has been happening for months at a time, and for the second year in a row. New Civil Engineer has written that
“the London-Devon rail route needs investment”.
May we have a debate on adapting our rail infrastructure to the effects of climate change?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are very keen to learn the lessons of what is happening as a result of climate change, because that will be at least as grave a problem going forward—maybe even worse. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate on these matters, so that he can hear from the relevant Minister what the Government plan to do to address what I know will be a serious concern for his constituents.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rick Rescorla, a son of Hayle in my constituency, was the head of security at Morgan Stanley in the south tower on 9/11. He was widely credited with helping to evacuate more than 2,500 people, and singing Cornish songs as he did so. He sacrificed his own life while attempting to save the last few employees. Having served in both the Parachute Regiment and the US Air Cavalry, Rick is truly a national hero. Does the Leader of the House agree that Rick’s life, as well as the thousands who died that fateful day, should never be forgotten?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed. Rick’s life should be recognised and remembered. It is important that we continue to remember the innocent lives lost and the extraordinary bravery of service personnel like Rick. My hon. Friend may wish to attend tomorrow’s Adjournment debate on the anniversary of 9/11 so that he can tell Rick’s story in full, because it is a story that deserves to be told.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House, as always, for his answers to our questions. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on forced marriage and freedom of religion or belief in India, following reports of women being subjected to violence for refusing marriages chosen for them and continuing concerns over pressure and interference in interfaith marriage? Will the Government raise with the Indian authorities the protection of women’s freedom to choose both their spouse and their religion?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue, and the reports that he raises are concerning. The UK Government condemn any instances of discrimination because of religion or belief, regardless of the country or the faith involved. The British high commission in New Delhi and our deputy high commissions across India regularly meet with religious representatives from different faith communities. I will ensure that I raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns directly with Ministers and that he gets a response.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The mental health charity Stepping Stones in my constituency celebrates its 35th anniversary tomorrow. It is a member-led organisation, founded in 1991 by local people, that provides mental health services, and it supports around 1,000 referrals each year. It does so at a time when uncertainty looms over future funding. Will the House have an opportunity to debate a mental health strategy for all parts of our nation? Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Stepping Stones and congratulating it on its invaluable work across West Dunbartonshire?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me join my hon. Friend in thanking Stepping Stones for the vital services it provides and celebrating its 35th anniversary. As he suggests, we are developing a new mental health strategy for England. We have announced up to 159 new NHS mental health centres, backed by £343 million over the next four years. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Health Secretary so that he can hear more exactly about what we intend to do.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I am proud of the high streets in my constituency, as every other Member is proud of the high streets in theirs, and I want to see them continue to flourish. We should be doing everything we can to encourage more people to travel to their high street to support local businesses. It is therefore important that shoppers and other visitors do not have additional costs such as unnecessary car parking charges, especially due to unregulated private parking companies and their ticket machines, which often do not work. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of high streets and what steps can be taken to keep them vibrant?
Sir Alan Campbell
Small businesses are at the heart of our economy, and we are committed to supporting them. We will bring forward our high streets strategy later this year, which will build on our work to regenerate high streets across the country. I hear and share my hon. Friend’s concerns about car parking charges and rogue companies. If he applied for a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that it would be well attended by Members across the House.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I am working with a cross-party group of colleagues on a proposal for a parliamentary Committee for the future. The Committee would focus on medium and long-term challenges, from the impacts of climate change to the future of work, to ensure that strategic foresight is better integrated into policy making and legislation, and that young people and future generations are better represented in this place. From Finland to Kenya and South Korea, we are seeing this approach being taken up and starting to work. Does the Leader of the House agree that such a Committee could strengthen the work of this House, and can he give me any guidance on how to move this proposal forward?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will recall, I have met her and other right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this idea. It is an interesting proposal, and I encourage her to put it to the Modernisation Committee as part of our “pitch your ideas” session. As the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), can confirm, our first “pitch your ideas” session—which we had earlier this week—was a resounding success, so I encourage my hon. Friend to consider that as a way forward.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This year, 16 September marks the 89th anniversary of the Eastside bothy fire in Kirkintilloch, in which 10 young men from Achill in County Mayo lost their lives in what is widely considered to have been a deliberate fire in their accommodation. Like many thousands of Irish migrants before them, those young men came to Kirkintilloch to work as tattie howkers on the potato harvest. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the committed local volunteers who have done so much to ensure that those young men are not forgotten, whether in Kirkintilloch or in Achill, and are doing what they can to have a permanent memorial in place in time for the 90th anniversary next year?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the volunteers in her constituency who ensure that we remember the Eastside bothy fire—it is important that we continue to do so. I am pleased to hear that funding is being raised for a permanent memorial, and I hope that work with East Dunbartonshire council can progress swiftly so that it is built in time for the 90th anniversary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Concerns raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust led to section 92 of the Care Act 2014, which makes it a criminal offence for health and social care providers such as NHS bodies to supply, publish or make available false or misleading information where they are under a legal duty to provide information. However, despite multiple reports in recent years of NHS trusts failing to disclose relevant information that might be damaging to their reputation, the previous Solicitor General confirmed on 10 June that there had been no finalised prosecutions under that provision. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for me to meet the current Solicitor General to help me understand why that is the case?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which goes to the heart of the transparency and patient safety lessons that we have learned from the events at Mid Staffordshire. This Government take such matters extremely seriously, which is why we are progressing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to place a legally binding duty of candour on all public servants, but of course I will reach out to the Solicitor General and facilitate a meeting for my hon. Friend.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
A year ago, my constituent John McNab was stabbed in Leith in the early hours of 2 September 2025, and was tragically pronounced dead near the scene shortly afterwards. John’s mum Lisa has gone to heroic efforts to see bleed kits rolled out across key places, and has campaigned tirelessly, including by bringing the knife angel—a 27-foot structure made of 100,000 knives and blades seized by police officers across the UK—to Leith as part of raising awareness. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Lisa’s bravery and campaigning efforts, and will he facilitate a debate in Government time on the work being done across the UK to reduce knife crime?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that the whole House will join me in offering our condolences to Lisa and all of John McNab’s loved ones. I also want to recognise Lisa for taking such a tragic event and seeking to turn it into a force for good. In June 2024 we set out our ambition to halve knife crime in the decade following the election. Overall, knife crime has fallen by 11% and we have taken 63,000 knives off our streets, but I recognise how important this work is and how much more needs to be done. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, to hear from Ministers what further action they intend to take. Unfortunately, this problem continues, which is why we need to stay focused on it.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
My constituent Mrs McNeally moved from England to Glenboig in my constituency in January. However, a lack of compatibility between the medical records systems of Scotland and England means that all of her records have to be compiled and transferred by courier. As a result, nine months on, Mrs McNeally’s records are still not with the NHS in Scotland or with her GP practice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the NHS, both in England and in Scotland—where there has been a lack of digital records, which presents a major problem—we must work constructively to ensure these types of issues are avoided in future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend that waiting eight months for records to be moved across the border is simply unacceptable. Healthcare on the border has been raised with me on a number of occasions, not least by the deputy shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to work constructively on these matters. I will ensure that the Health Secretary hears the representations he has made today.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Worcestershire Royal hospital has pioneered a project to ensure that every patient it treats is addressed by the name by which they are known—surprisingly, one in four patients are known by a different name from the one that is on their hospital records. It is a simple step that has improved accessibility, treatment, safety and dignity, and rolling it out across the NHS requires no change to the law, but it does demand leadership from the Government. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on how we can modernise the NHS’s culture and practice, to better put patients as people at the heart of its processes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think everyone in the House will join me in praising Worcestershire Royal hospital and its staff for that initiative. Simple gestures such as these help build trust and bring comfort to patients, and I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on how we can modernise the NHS further and improve care.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this summer, I met brilliant scouts and volunteers at the 1st Shelton Lock scout group. Across Derby South, five of our young scouts are currently fundraising to represent Derby at the World Scout Jamboree next summer in Poland. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them on their fantastic achievement in being selected for this opportunity, and wish them the best with their fundraising efforts?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate those scouts on their efforts, and indeed scouts and volunteers across our country. They do a fantastic job, and I wish them well in everything they do in the future in what is a remarkable opportunity for young people.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
This weekend, Stirling will welcome thousands of music fans for Radio 2 in the Park. It seems a fitting moment to celebrate radio more widely, particularly in my constituency, which has such a strong radio tradition, from Central FM—where I spent many happy years behind the microphone—to Stirling Community Radio, Air3, Trossachs Radio and Radio Royal. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming Radio 2 to Stirling and make time for a debate celebrating BBC, commercial, community and hospital radio, and the rather special relationship we all have with it? If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, “It is 12.57. On your smart speaker and on your radio, this is the House of Commons, the voice of democracy, and now it’s time to hear from the Leader of the House.” [Laughter.]
Sir Alan Campbell
Once a radio expert, always a radio expert. I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming Radio 2 in the Park to Stirling. Radio continues to be a highly valued medium across our country and contributes significant public value through its trusted news and diverse entertainment, and I thank it for that. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that colleagues across the House will want to spend some time praising the efforts of local radio in their own areas.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Office’s revocation of health and social care visas linked to single employers has disproportionately increased recently. That is concerning, because it leaves 40,000 social care workers displaced, and only a small number are getting alternative employment. I am worried that people are slipping into the grey market. Can the Leader of the House ascertain with Home Office colleagues what steps the Home Office takes to track outcomes for those workers?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is an important matter. We want to give people who come here in good faith every opportunity to contribute to our country. The Home Office has therefore paused routine visa cancellations for care workers where sponsor revocation is the sole ground for cancellation, so as to give displaced care workers longer to find alternative employment. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I will make sure that she gets an update from the relevant Minister on where we are.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Sixty constituents from all across my constituency of Rugby have contacted me to complain about what is often a totally unsatisfactory service from Royal Mail, with no, slow or bulk deliveries. That has a real human impact. If I may, I draw attention to Rugby Talking Newspaper, whose customers are not receiving this vital service that they rely on. I believe that Royal Mail may well be in breach of its statutory obligation to deliver articles to blind people free of charge. Will the Leader of the House consider granting a debate in Government time on how we can exert more public control over this vital public service?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have been very clear as a Government that Royal Mail’s service is unacceptable, and the example that my hon. Friend gives simply underlines the unacceptability of its performance. The public expects a well-run postal service. I know that Royal Mail listens closely to these sessions. I hope that it has heard his concerns, because not just has it been the subject of inquiry by the relevant Select Committee, but it is a priority for the relevant Department.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Next week, on 18 September, it will be National Playlist Day, which celebrates the positive impact that personally meaningful music can have in reconnecting people living with dementia with their memories. The initiative was established by Playlist for Life, a charity based in my constituency. Does the Leader of the House agree that personalised music could benefit how the NHS approaches caring for those with dementia? Can time be made available to look at the issues raised by National Playlist Day?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise the good work of Playlist for Life, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in making its work possible. We are looking at how we can better support those with dementia, including through appointing a dementia tsar to help the drive towards much-needed improvements. His point on personalised music is an interesting one, and I will make sure that the Health Secretary is made aware of it and gets back to my hon. Friend.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Wildfire after wildfire throughout this incredibly dry summer have been devastating for Cannock Chase and elsewhere in Staffordshire. Crops were destroyed, animals perished, heathland rarer than rainforest was scorched, and six firefighters were taken to hospital. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a wildfire summit, but will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on wildfire resilience and preparedness, so that Members from affected parts of the country can discuss prevention, equipment, staffing and funding to ensure that we are in a much stronger position for next summer?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is not the first time that wildfires have been raised with me in these sessions, and my hon. Friend is right to do so. We have announced £97 million to upgrade the national resilience assets, including specialised firefighters and equipment. As he says, there will be a wildfire summit in the autumn to see how we can further strengthen our national response capabilities. I place on record again our thanks to all the emergency services, including firefighters. I also want to thank farmers for the fantastic job they did in combating this problem over the extraordinarily dry summer we have just had. I will make sure that the House is updated on the Government’s work going forward, because we are keen to learn lessons and make sure that we have resilience going forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Danny Beales to ask the last question.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I would say you have saved the best to last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you can be the judge of that.
My predecessor, when he was in this place, famously campaigned for a new fish and chip shop in Uxbridge. Now that he is the leader of the Conservative council, he seems to be closing the fish and chip shop that does exist in Hillingdon, along with the florist, the pharmacy, the hairdresser and the local convenience store. Local shops, whose landlord is the council, are facing a 100% rent increase, backdated for several years, all while repairs have not been done, sometimes for up to nine years. Does the Leader of the House agree that local businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and should be supported by councils? Can we have time for a debate in this place on the importance of local high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that small businesses are at the heart of our local economy, and our small business plan provides wide-ranging support for SMEs, including action on late payments and access to finance, business support and skills. It is disappointing, but not altogether surprising, to hear that Conservative-led Hillingdon council is letting businesses down in this way. I hope that it has heard his words today.
Ukraine and Russia
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)
With permission, I will make my first statement to the House as Secretary of State for Defence on Ukraine, the ongoing threat from Russia and the Government’s approach. It is not yet clear whether freedom or tyranny will define the 21st century. What is clear is that the United Kingdom will not be a bystander in that struggle. The frontline is Ukraine. In Kyiv, on my first overseas trip, I saw for myself what modern tyranny looks like. President Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion is a challenge to the collective security of all of us in Europe. History—especially the history of our continent—teaches us that when imperialist ambitions go unchallenged, leaders like President Putin come back for more. That is why Ukraine’s security is our security and why we will not waver for one second in our support for Ukraine.
This week, I co-chaired my first meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius, alongside Ukraine’s new Defence Minister Evgeniy Khmara and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. We know that President Putin, facing the reality that Russian casualties surpassed 1.5 million this week, is preparing to intensify his barbaric attacks against civilian and energy targets over the coming months. When I met President Zelensky, I heard loud and clear the vital importance of supporting Ukraine through this winter, as did the Prime Minister. We promised to mobilise allies and provide more support wherever we can.
We are delivering on that commitment, strengthening Ukraine’s defences and, alongside more than 50 nations, converting commitment into capability. This week I announced that the UK is pledging £100 million to support the rapid delivery of air defence interceptors in response to a direct request from Ukraine. We also reaffirmed our commitment to provide more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine over the course of this year. In total, the United Kingdom has committed £25 billion for Ukraine. That includes nearly 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 1 million artillery shells, more than 100,000 drones and thousands of air defence missiles and armoured vehicles.
Winter in Ukraine is no longer a season; it is a weapon. In Kyiv, the Prime Minister and I saw at first hand the destructive consequences of this war, but we also experienced the spirit and the strength of the Ukrainian people. The message we delivered on behalf of this Government, and on behalf of the British people, was unequivocal: we will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes. That commitment is built on the rock-solid foundations laid by our Labour and Conservative predecessors, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine from day one. Boris Johnson pledged anti-armour missiles before Russia’s invasion. In one of his first acts in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister handed over blueprints for British-made missile components so that Ukraine can produce long-range weapons on its own assembly lines.
It has been a striking feature, during an especially divisive period in British politics, that support for Ukraine unites this House. One of the things I feel most strongly about in this role is showing our allies, but particularly our adversaries, that there is an enormous amount of consensus and national unity when it comes to defence. That unity is itself a projection of strength and deterrence, so I say to colleagues from across the House: it is your job, and the job of Parliament, to hold us to account. It is right that you do so, but let us not manufacture difference where it does not exist. On this issue, more than any other, there is far more that unites us than divides us, and we have a collective responsibility to level with the British people. If the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, that is now a greater and more urgent responsibility than it has been for generations.
The threats we face are not only evolving; they are getting closer to home. Every day, the UK and our allies encounter espionage, cyber-attacks and military posturing by hostile states. Just yesterday, a 31-year-old British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency. Alongside these threats comes the bellicose rhetoric that we hear from the Kremlin. Russia is constantly probing us and testing us, and the tragic irony of where we find ourselves is that Russia sees the UK and NATO as a threat that, in reality, simply does not exist.
The UK is not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation with Russia, and nor do we have any quarrel with the Russian people. All we seek to do is to defend freedom, democracy, our interests, our allies and our values. Contrary to the propaganda, NATO has always been a defensive alliance, and if there is one thing that President Putin has achieved through the war in Ukraine, it has been to strengthen NATO and our commitment to our collective defence and security. Moscow should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO, should Russia attack.
Knowing the gravity of the threats our country faces, this Government have overseen the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. We are already investing £15 billion more in defence than we were at the last spending review, and over the next four years we will be investing £298 billion. As a percentage of GDP, we have gone from 2.3% when Labour came to office two years ago to reaching 2.7% next year. We know that this Prime Minister and this Chancellor are both fully committed to funding our nation’s defence, including meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 and setting out an earlier 3% commitment at the next spending review. No one disputes that there is more to do to get there, but it is important to emphasise how much new money is already going into defence.
That money is what allows us to do the things we need to do to strengthen our deterrence so that our adversaries think twice about attacking us, and to strengthen our capabilities so that we have the resources to fight and win if deterrence fails. That means making sure that every penny—both new money and money from existing budgets—is spent wisely, so that our military has the equipment, the training and the kit that it needs to keep us safe. It means making sure that we are constantly pushing the frontier of defence innovation, so that we have an advantage over our enemies. And it means making sure that we are creating more skilled jobs, more training, and more opportunities for people and businesses in our own country—unashamedly backing British to reindustrialise places where defence runs in the blood. That is how we will keep our country safe in today’s more dangerous and volatile world.
As I take on this role, I feel the considerable weight of responsibility on my shoulders to proudly and robustly defend our country, our people, our values and our allies. I am lucky that in this endeavour I am supported by our exceptional armed forces, some of the smartest brains on the planet, and the extraordinary service of those working around the clock and around the globe to protect us. I have seen the capabilities that this country has, and they are considerable. We should have enormous pride in what our country does, let alone what we can do in the future. We will build a Britain worth fighting for, and a Britain capable of fighting for it. That is our mission, and that is what we will do. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On behalf of the shadow Defence team, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Defence Secretary—Labour’s third in three months—to his place and to thank him for advance sight of this important statement. On a personal note, we have a mutual friend in Labour councillor Gareth Barrett, who I know would be very proud to see his long-time friend standing at the Dispatch Box and representing the Ministry of Defence.
It is over four years since Russia’s brutal and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but as the Ukrainians reminded me when I visited Kyiv in February, the Russo-Ukrainian war has actually been raging for 12 years, because Putin’s Russia illegally annexed Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014. That is longer than both the first and second world wars combined. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the Ukrainians for their fierce and determined resistance. They are fighting for the values of freedom and democracy, which this House has represented for centuries, so when we say, “Slava Ukraini!”, we mean it.
On my trip to Ukraine, the Speaker of the Rada said something that I will never forget: “When you go back to London, tell them we know the Russians better than anybody, and if we fall, you’re next.” My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is joining our shadow Defence team, has just returned from Kyiv overnight. He reports how the Russians cynically suspended missile strikes on the capital while those on the American delegation were present, but resumed the strikes almost immediately after their departure. Tragically, a number of innocent civilians were murdered in Kyiv last night.
On supporting Ukraine and brave President Zelensky, there has been absolute solidarity between ourselves and the Labour party. When I served in the Ministry of Defence following the 2014 invasion, we began training Ukrainian troops on Salisbury Plain via what was then known as Operation Orbital, and that continues today via Operation Interflex. Between them, they have trained over 50,000 Ukrainian troops on British soil. The House will no doubt recall the very powerful footage of columns of Russian tanks being destroyed in 60 seconds in highly co-ordinated anti-tank ambushes north of Kyiv in February 2022, which were carried out by Ukrainian troops using UK-manufactured NLAW anti-tank weapons. Had it not been for that kit and the training that accompanied it, the Russians would likely be having lunch in Kyiv today.
We all want to see a ceasefire in Ukraine but, as the Ukrainians themselves would tell us, not at any price. The Government’s policy is to participate in a “coalition of the willing” in order to help maintain a ceasefire—I hope the Secretary of State can confirm that again. However, were we to deploy the British Army into Ukraine, our troops would need to be adequately trained and equipped. A few moments ago, the Defence Secretary invited the House to hold him to account. Taking him at his word, I must press him on some extremely worrying reports—first published in The Times on 3 September, and amplified in the Defence Eye journal on Tuesday—that British Army training is being seriously curtailed in order to provide in-year efficiency savings— “cuts”, in pub English— at the Treasury’s behest. For the financial year 2026-27, the MOD has been given a ridiculous efficiency savings target of over £3 billion, with much of it to come from operational spending such as training exercises. The Army’s share of that is reportedly £1.2 billion.
Given the seriousness of this situation, I wish to ask the Defence Secretary three very important questions. First, is it true that training in both the regular and the reserves is being materially constricted to save this money at the Treasury’s behest? Secondly, what actions is he as Defence Secretary, no doubt in consultation with the Chief of the General Staff, taking to push back against these pernicious in-year funding cuts imposed by the Treasury? What discussions has he had with the new Chancellor, who, ironically, resigned as Defence Secretary in June because Labour would not commit to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? The Government cannot keep kicking this can down the road. Thirdly, in which year specifically will Labour now commit to spend 3% of GDP on defence, as the Conservatives are now pledged to do by 2030 at the latest? We will not deter the likes of Vladimir Putin by capping bus fares.
In summary, we are four-square with the Ukrainians. We support the Government in supporting them, but they must support our troops, so what are they doing to train them?
Wes Streeting
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive spirit with which he responded to my statement, and I very much hope we can maintain that on both sides of the House. I have certainly enjoyed my early conversations with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), so we will continue to work in that spirit, and maximise and project unity globally wherever we possibly can.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced that I am the third Defence Secretary in recent months, for reasons that are evident, and I give him an undertaking to add this to the retention priorities for the workforce. I made that point very firmly to the Prime Minister, and I am very much in favour of retention in this post. On that note, however, I place on record my enormous respect for and thanks to both of my Labour predecessors —the Chancellor and the Security Minister. I particularly want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), who did an outstanding job during his time in this office, doing some considerable heavy lifting to get the defence investment plan over the line. Not only do I thank him for it, but I think the country will thank him for it in the longer term, too. I am enjoying working with him in his post.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned support for Ukraine, particularly the support we have given for a number of years on training. I should reflect back to the House, from my visit to Kyiv, that what is fascinating about the evolution of this terrible war is that, whereas we have spent a considerable amount of time training Ukrainians, we are increasingly finding that it is the other way around. We are seeing the rapid evolution of modern warfare, and the Ukrainians are at the forefront of defence innovation. We are actively learning from our Ukrainian friends, and their ingenuity and expertise. Yes, we have to provide them with the resources they need to fight and to win, but it is also important that we recognise their extraordinary capability under the most unimaginably difficult circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multinational force for Ukraine. We hope for the best and plan for the worst in terms of the continuation of this war, but we are also actively working to prepare for conditions in which a ceasefire has been agreed by Ukraine, with Ukraine and, from our perspective, for Ukraine. I am proud of the work we are doing, particularly with our French allies, on the multinational force for Ukraine. I enjoyed seeing the MNFU in Paris during a visit to meet my French counterpart, Madame Vautrin, earlier this summer, and I am looking forward to hosting the MNFU here in the UK later this year. The objective of the MNFU is, in the event that a ceasefire is achieved, to increase Ukraine’s deterrence against war breaking out again, and that is the focus of the mission.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports in the media about training, and I just want to unpack a few points. First, we are investing more in training, and it is certainly not true to say that training has ceased. [Interruption.] To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he did not make that claim, but I have seen people draw that conclusion from some of the reports. Of course training continues, although there has been some reprioritisation to make sure we are prioritising the activities that will provide most impact at this point in time.
I acknowledge, however, that one of our responsibilities as a Department is to live within our means. One discipline I have to bring to the Ministry of Defence, drawing on my experience at the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, is to ensure there is no culture of routine overspending, that we are improving productivity, that we deliver value for money and that we recognise that the money we are investing in defence comes with choices and trade-offs that apply across Government and ultimately rest with the taxpayer. Yes, we must make the case for more defence investment and spending, and we will—we will see that across the House—but we should not in the process distract from ensuring that we live within our means, that we deliver capability, effect and impact, and that we treat every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. [Interruption.] I hear from the Opposition Front Benchers that they agree with that point.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tempted me to announce the date at which we will hit 3% spending. He will know that getting ahead of a Chancellor and a spending review is a breach of the ministerial code, and having resigned from the Government once already, I have no intention of doing so again today.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
It was great to welcome my right hon. Friend to the Farnborough airshow, and it is great to have him at the Dispatch Box today. Our adversaries in China and Russia are mobilising their financial markets to sustain military aggression. We have seen the industrial ramp-up that has been needed for Ukraine to fight. The Prime Minister confirmed to me last week that the Government are looking at the multilateral Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, which our allies have brought together to mobilise the finance to rearm. The Secretary of State and I have talked about this a lot previously, but does he agree that we need to build the financial resilience to deter, and taking the opportunity to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank would send a powerful signal to our adversaries that we have the financial firepower to outbuild and outlast them?
Wes Streeting
I find myself having rapidly gone from asking questions about the DSRB to now answering questions about the DSRB, so my hon. Friend will know I have been tracking developments on this Canadian-led initiative very closely. I can certainly see the enormous benefits of the DSRB and Prime Minister Carney’s objectives. We are tracking that progress, talking to our Canadian allies and considering how that could work alongside the multilateral defence mechanism, an initiative led by our former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). As those discussions continue, I will keep the House informed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his role, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement. I say to him that the Liberal Democrats continue to stand ready to work constructively with the Government in the interests of our national security. Indeed, Ukraine is a great example of where we have common ground. He is of course quite right to say that Ukraine’s security is our security.
As another winter approaches, Russia will once again seek to weaponise the freezing cold weather to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and harm the civilian population, so the additional £100 million for air defence interceptors is a really welcome move. What discussions is the Secretary of State holding with NATO allies to secure more air defence systems and interceptors for Ukraine before the winter sets in, and is the UK prepared to provide further assistance should such a request be made?
We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to increase defence investment. However, the defence investment plan is still not fully funded, and given the threats we face, progress on the Government’s commitment to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP remains slow. In response to our supplying technology for deep strike capability, Russia has stated that UK military installations and equipment, both inside Ukraine and beyond its borders, are now considered legitimate targets, and that only adds to the urgent need for investment in our national defence. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose issuing defence bonds, with a plan to raise £20 billion over two years to meet the urgency of the situation head-on. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to consider defence bonds, and could he perhaps share his own view with the House on this idea?
Finally, we must do more to cut off the funding that fuels Putin’s war machine. Supported by western-linked shipping, insurance and financial services, Russian fossil fuels continue to flow into global markets. Will the Secretary of State push within the Government for tougher action to crack down on activities facilitating Russian fossil fuel exports and work with allies to impose a comprehensive ban on supporting Russian oil, gas and coal? Ukraine is fighting for its survival and for the security of our entire continent, and the UK must continue to stand with it.
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his constructive support and scrutiny. Through our work with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius and our coalition, we are regularly mobilising more support for Ukraine, through both direct contributions and active defence diplomacy. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the support of his Department in those efforts.
Every country involved in supporting Ukraine faces the same choices and trade-offs that we are debating here at home. We approach those conversations in that spirit, but we also ask people to think about the consequences were Putin to prevail and take that as an incentive to further threaten Russia’s neighbours and our NATO allies. That is why I make the case that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do morally, but that it is also the right thing to do in our national interest and in the interests of the collective security of our continent.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the defence investment plan and raises the issue of defence spending. I want to be clear about two things. We are already delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is a significant improvement on the previous position. He mentions the DIP not being fully funded. It is absolutely true to say that the negotiations on the DIP reached a position where there is a shortfall just shy of £5 billion which we need to deal with in the immediate term. The House should take reassurance from the instincts of the Chancellor and the Government, and from the fact that without any need whatsoever for persuasion from me or my Department, the Chancellor has already confirmed that he will close that gap at the Budget. I am reassured by that. It gives me even greater confidence as the Chancellor looks ahead to the spending review, but that does not mean that we, as a Department and as a Defence team, should be complacent about the need to make the strongest possible case, recognising the trade-offs across Government. We will continue to approach the spending review process in that spirit.
The hon. Gentleman raises defence financing. It is true to say that defence bonds are borrowing. None the less, we continue to work closely with our colleagues at the Treasury and our industry partners to look at what more we can do to leverage finance for defence and to do so in a way that creates jobs, skills, opportunities and reindustrialisation here in Britain.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State please outline what assessment the Government have made of recent statements from Moscow regarding the United Kingdom?
Wes Streeting
There is a distinction to be drawn between what the Kremlin says and what it does: the performative displays we have seen from Russia in recent months—I think particularly about some of its actions in the channel—and the actual threats we deal with, deter and repel on a daily basis. The British people should be in no doubt about the threat and intent of Russia, but they should also draw confidence from our capability. We have been debating actively in this House, and we ought to debate it more widely as a country, how we maintain our ability to deter and how we build our capability to respond to evolving threats, given the way in which modern warfare is changing, as we are seeing in Europe. The overall posture of the country ought to be to be alert to the Russian threat, but certainly not alarmed. I am proud of the capability we have, even as we seek to fund and build more.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to hear that the Government plan to replenish the dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles in Ukraine, which I suspect it will need this winter. However, Patriot is low volume and high cost. What the Ukrainians need is high volume and low cost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Fire Point consortium’s Freya missile system, which stands every chance of providing the solution to that conundrum not just for Ukraine, but for the UK and its allies in NATO as we try to face down the threat from Russia?
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I put on record my respect for the expertise and experience he brings to debates on defence in this House. He is absolutely right about what the objective needs to be: lower cost, higher impact. We are actively working to drive innovation in this space, particularly through initiatives such as Project Brakestop. We are tracking our allies, who are also actively seeking to push the frontier of defence innovation in this space. I will, of course, keep the House updated as those initiatives progress.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I am very pleased that he has now seen for himself, as I have, the reality of Russia’s illegal war on the ground in Ukraine. I know he will share my concerns about the deeply troubling reports in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that SAS veterans are training Russians to fight Ukraine. It states:
“An assessment compiled for Five Eyes intelligence agencies found, with ‘strong confidence’, that Western military veterans had been recruited to train Russian citizens as well as ‘active duty military’ personnel.”
Will he investigate, as a matter of urgency, those reports and report back to the House?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that very serious and important issue. She will understand that, as a matter of policy, I will not comment on intelligence, but I will address the reports she has raised.
One of the great privileges of being in this post in the last seven weeks has been meeting the people in our special forces and seeing the capability that they have. It is truly remarkable and my only regret is that we are not able to show, for obvious reasons, the country more publicly just how exceptional these people and their capabilities are. It is in that spirit that I find it utterly unthinkable and shameful that anyone who has served this country, in whatever capacity, would think it in any way acceptable to support the Russian state as it wages war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. Their frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy. Those actions are an affront not only to this country and our values, but to the values that underpin the uniform that those who serve in our armed forces wear. I know I speak for the entire armed forces community in saying that.
Let me reassure the House and send a very clear message that we have robust legislation in place to tackle foreign hostile activity. The National Security Act 2023 gives our intelligence agencies and the police the tools they need to detect and disrupt threats, but the Act specifies under its interpretations that
“‘information’ includes information about tactics, techniques and procedures”.
It is applicable to any individual and extends beyond the period in which personnel are employed by the UK armed forces. Let that be a warning to anyone who has supported, or considers supporting, the Russians as they wage war in Ukraine.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I warmly endorse almost everything the Secretary of State has said today, and I genuinely congratulate him on his appointment. In my first speech in this House almost 30 years ago, I promised to support Labour Governments as long as they supported the nuclear deterrent, the conventional armed forces and NATO. I would like to think that I have kept that promise.
The one area where I have to dissent, however, is the section where he comes on to the proportion of GDP spent on defence. As I have said to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessors, it is no good banging on about something being the largest increase since the end of the cold war. We are now in a situation that is worse than that at the height of the cold war, so the comparison we have to make is between what we are spending now and what we spent during the cold war, which was, in modern calculating methods, between 4.5% and 5.1% on defence. So let us not talk about increases to 2.7%. We really must remember that even when the Berlin wall came down, we were spending over 4% of GDP on defence at that stage. Those are the sorts of efforts that we have to make, because if Putin fails in Ukraine, the threat to this country will recede for a generation.
Wes Streeting
I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on those three things to make it as easy as possible for him to support this Government: supporting the nuclear deterrent, building capacity in our armed forces and supporting NATO are things I believe in very strongly. In the spirit on these exchanges, I will take at face value the point he makes about the comparison with the cold war and resist the temptation to discuss the starting point we were faced with on defence spending and the condition of our armed forces when this Government arrived.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw historical comparisons and provoke all of us to think more widely about the context we are operating in domestically, across Europe and internationally. I have not heard a suggestion from the official Opposition that the Government should be making a 4% or 5% commitment, nor any proposals to that effect, but let this discussion help the public understand why, at a time of constrained resources for households, businesses and Government, we are making an active political choice to invest more in our defence. I respectfully say, as someone who has been responsible for hospitals and the NHS, that schools, hospitals and homes are important things, but they are valueless if reduced to rubble. That is the experience of the Ukrainians; that is the kind of threat that we are operating under; and that is why we must commit, and continue to commit, to increasing defence spending.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Defence Secretary on his appointment. I want to make him aware of a range of fantastic organisations and charities around the country that regularly send convoys from the UK to Ukraine, giving not just humanitarian aid but some military equipment, including pick-up trucks repurposed for soldiers to use. I have had the honour of going out on and driving one of those vehicles. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues that could be solved to make those journeys smoother, from making it easier for public bodies in the UK, such as hospitals, to get rid of old vehicles that are coming to the end of their life and place them in the hands of those organisations, to issues, frankly, on the Polish side of the border, where the approach is less than consistent—sometimes the convoys can be held up for hours unnecessarily. Would it be possible for an MOD official to meet me and some of those organisations to thrash out some of the issues and help increase the impact of their brilliant work?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in this space and the considerable experience and expertise he brings to debates on these issues. I am proud of the fact that, in addition to the support we provide as a Government and the £577 million in humanitarian assistance, the British people have gone above and beyond, digging deep through financial contributions and gifts in kind to actively support our friends in Ukraine, as well as welcoming Ukrainian families into their homes. That is why, when the Prime Minister and I were in Kyiv, we were able to say with confidence and credibility that our support was on behalf of not just the Government but people up and down our country. I am up for supporting the initiatives described by my hon. Friend and would be happy to facilitate the meeting he asked for.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome everything that the Defence Secretary has said. I was particularly taken by what he said about learning from Ukraine. It is not just about learning how warfare has developed; we also have to learn from Ukrainian society. I organised an event here with a Ukrainian organisation called Still We Love, and I am holding another in Edinburgh next month. That organisation is made up of the loved ones and partners of those who are at the front—people who have been left at home and are trying to build resilience in society. Does the Defence Secretary agree that we have to look at building our social resilience as well as our defences? We need to ensure that our fire service, police service and NHS are ready in case of Russian aggression.
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her support. Under the Labour Government, we have had a resilience committee within the National Security Council to plug other Government Departments into the conversation about national defence and resilience. That is something that I benefited from as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as I was able to respond to that and plan. We need a wider national conversation. The Government are very happy to lead that, and we will, but it needs to involve everyone: Government, business, civil society and all of us as citizens. That is not just in the context of the warfare and security threats the country faces; as I reflected recently, it is in the context of wildfires, flooding and a wide range of disruptions the country could face. We are not as prepared as we ought to be, and as a result we need to work collectively to improve our national resilience, because it is everyone’s responsibility and duty as a citizen.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I was shocked to hear evidence from Amnesty International of Russia’s criminal trafficking of people from around the world. They are promised a job, but their passport is taken away, and they are given a gun and sent off to the frontline to fight. That is the enemy that we are talking about. I am proud to hear all the things that the Defence Secretary has talked about, especially the Patriot missiles; I know from talking to Ukrainian parliamentarians and politicians that those are what they have been asking for. With another winter coming, can the Defence Secretary outline how UK support matches what Ukraine needs to win this war?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend nails the character of the regime we face. Through our leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, we are mobilising support for Ukraine and ensuring that the support we provide matches what the Ukrainians need. I engage closely with my Ukrainian counterpart, Minister Khmara, and will continue to do so.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place. Romanian, Polish and Latvian airspace have all been violated by the Putin regime in the last year, and Russian drones are regularly shot down over NATO territory, yet the threshold for a NATO response is far too high. That only encourages Russia’s recklessness and probing of us, and it means that the risk of miscalculation by Russia, or of an attack on us, becomes much higher. Will the Defence Secretary commit to working with us to increase the number of article 4 referrals put forward, so that we crack down on this? If we do not pay any attention to those violations or dismiss them, we only increase the risk and the consequences to us, and we do not deter future threats.
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Member’s support and value her expertise in these matters. She is right to flag the issue of miscalculation; the need to avoid that risk gives us all the more reason to have a number of lines into Moscow. She is also right to challenge all of us across the NATO alliance to think about how we provide the right level of deterrence. I will reflect on what she has said.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place, his absolute commitment to our national security, and the mature tone of his statement, in which he talked about working cross-party on what is in our national interest. We have seen the critical importance of integrated missile and air defence, as evidenced by the war in Ukraine, and the need for low-cost options that tackle everything from cheap Shahed-style drones through to ballistic missiles. We have also seen that we need not only the asset, but the ability to replenish stocks rapidly. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T systems, but the UK lacks a ground-based missile interceptor. What progress have the Government made on procuring the right range of air defences for our national defence, and on building our industrial capacity?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and the work that he does, particularly with NATO. I reassure him that through the defence investment plan, we are investing £790 million in new homeland integrated air and missile defence, and are building on our broader air defence investments, including through directed energy weapons, Sea Viper upgrades and a new integrated air, space and missile defence operations centre. He is right to bring scrutiny to that issue, and it is right that the House maintains its focus on improving our air defences, not least given what we see in Ukraine.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation of our continuing support for Ukraine. He has set out the sustained threat from Russia facing not just Ukraine, but this country and the whole of Europe, yet for too many people, it is still business as usual. First, will he consider a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of the threat, like those in Finland and the Baltic states? Secondly, what message does he have for the companies that continue to trade in Russia and, in doing so, both undermine sanctions and provide funds for Russia’s war machine?
Wes Streeting
I will have to think of some parliamentary words, in response to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is an extremely serious issue, and I think the companies concerned, and those with executive decision-making responsibility, ought to think about the risk involved to this country and this continent, and to the values that we are trying to uphold by supporting our friends in Ukraine. Let me reassure him that the national conversation that we need to have is very high on my list of priorities, because we do need to raise awareness—but not alarm—in both a conventional defence and security content and a wider national resilience context. I will report back to the House on plans for a national conversation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Ukrainians living in my constituency of Rugby contacted me ahead of this statement to inform me of the devastating attacks in the Sumy region overnight, including on a shopping centre and on trains. I asked one of them what they thought was missing from the debate here, and, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read out what they said:
“The constant psychological pressure. When you live inside it, everything feels incredibly urgent. If drones are flying towards your city, every minute matters and then you look at the outside world, where decisions naturally take weeks or months, and it can feel painfully slow and very far away. Sometimes you feel almost alone in it.
There is also the information war. After years of this, people are exhausted, and of course there is anger. Why was this not stopped? Why is there not more protection? Russia tries to use exactly that exhaustion, fear and frustration to deepen mistrust. At the same time, it pushes another message outside Ukraine: that Ukrainians are tired of fighting, that Ukraine cannot win, and that continued support is pointless. But that is not what I hear from the people I know. They are exhausted, yes. They are frightened and angry. But they do not want to surrender. They want the opposite—the chance to live their normal lives again without Russia deciding whether they can sleep, travel, work, keep warm or see their family.”
Will my right hon. Friend just reiterate once again that this House is united with Ukraine, and will help it militarily, diplomatically, economically and in the psychological battle?
Wes Streeting
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful contribution; I am glad that he shared it with us, and that those first-hand words from Ukraine are on the record. I want to reassure him on two points. First, we recognise the challenge on pace, and I am determined to keep up momentum through the UDCG, which will meet again in November. Secondly, I pay tribute to the Ukrainian people and the leadership of Ukraine—President Zelensky and his team—who operate in the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The Ukrainian people can be proud of his leadership, and they can be proud of their resilience, too.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I want to welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) remains a member of the Defence team. On 19 March last year, I asked the former Prime Minister about seizing Russian assets. There is reportedly £185 billion-worth of Russian assets in Europe, £30 billion of it in the UK. The Prime Minister responded,
“it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 347.]
Will the new Administration now act, as they have done on Gaza, which the Government previously said was too complicated? [Interruption.]
Wes Streeting
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry—whom the hon. Gentleman praised—has just remarked, it is difficult and it is complicated, but I take up the challenge. We want to do everything we can in this space. The hon. Gentleman is right to keep pressing us on this, and to keep it in our line of sight. We will continue to do as much as we can, as fast as we can.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and thank him for characterising this conflict as one between freedom and tyranny. I was very privileged to go to Kyiv in July in my role as UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and while I was there, I heard from our Ukrainian partners how the Putin regime is weaponising the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly in the occupied territories; no one there has freedom of religion or belief, unless they are in the Russian Orthodox Church. That includes other Christians and the Tatars in Crimea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key dividing line in this conflict is freedom of religion or belief and wider human rights—the line between a free, open Ukrainian democracy, and an increasingly authoritarian Russia?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and wholeheartedly agree with him. I would just make the point that the weaponisation of Christianity is not something we see only in Russia; we see it here in Britain, too. If people are going to wear the cross, they should at least bother to read the Gospels before preaching a message contrary to them.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome him to his place. I also welcome the ongoing commitment to defend Ukraine. In his statement, he reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to providing more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine this year, which I very much welcome. He also mentioned the recent plot to sabotage a UK drone factory. What action is being taken to ensure that UK manufacturing facilities are safe and secure, and if any action is required, who is funding that?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support on Ukraine. He is right to raise this issue. He will understand that I am not going to comment on operational details. Suffice it to say that we take threats to this country and our assets seriously, and we work closely across society to ensure that people are prepared for any challenges they may encounter.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
If Russia succeeds in weaponising the freezing winter by destroying civilian power grids, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe will face a vastly superior threat. Will the Defence Secretary confirm that helping Ukraine stop these attacks is not only the right thing to do for our Ukrainian allies, but a strategic necessity to directly safeguard the long-term security interests of the British people?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we continue to make the case that supporting Ukraine is not only the right thing to do morally, but an act of national self-interest, in the interests of national security in Britain.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. The Wokingham area is a home to many Ukrainians who are concerned that international support for their fight against the Russian invasion is weakening. Like me, they will welcome his assurances that this Government will continue supporting Ukraine against Russian expansion, and the same strong commitment from the Prime Minister. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this support will continue even if the USA, under President Trump, backs away even more from supporting Ukraine?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have to say, it is my experience that international support for Ukraine is galvanising and remains extremely strong and resilient, and I have seen no sign of that commitment weakening. In fact, only this week, we have seen significant commitments made, right across Europe and beyond, to supporting our friends in Ukraine. I have to say, I found the United States actively engaged on this issue, too, in our bilateral conversations. The diplomatic track on which the Americans are driving is also important; we should not understate the engagement and commitment we see from our friends in Washington.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows how drone technology has transformed activities in Ukraine, and he will appreciate the importance of innovative companies like Skycutter to my regional economy in the east midlands. After winning a major contract with the US Government, Skycutter has been encouraged to move there, but I would like to see it investing here in the UK. Could the Secretary of State confirm the specific measures that he will take to ensure that UK-based drone companies stay and manufacture here in our country?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising this issue with me. It is now on the record, but his constituents should know that he has been actively campaigning around the corridors of this place too. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will be very pleased to meet him to discuss his constituency issue.
I say to the whole House that there is a big opportunity through defence investment to reindustrialise this country and create jobs, growth and opportunities. Members will see the commitment of this Government, Prime Minister, Chancellor and Defence Secretary reflected not just in words, but in deeds in the coming weeks and months.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; I knew it would not be long before we saw him back on the Front Bench. I have urged the Government before to use the frozen Russian Central Bank assets. It may be difficult, as he has just said to another hon. Member, but that does not mean it is impossible. Given the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown, can I urge the Secretary of State to lead the way in turning the difficult into the possible?
Wes Streeting
To retain the tone of these exchanges, I will resist making the point that the shadow Minister makes. Let me say simply to the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely the challenge I will take up.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. The New York Times published an article today saying that Ukraine has a defence budget shortfall of around £20 billion. He will know that more than £145 billion of frozen Russian assets are currently held in the Euroclear system in Belgium. Will he work with European partners and press Belgium to release that funding so that we can fill those shortfalls and secure Ukrainian and European defence?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right to link those two issues, which we have heard about from Members across the House. I can assure him that, particularly through the UDCG, and through our bilateral conversations, we will continue to do whatever we can to liberate frozen Russian assets and put them in Ukrainian hands to fight for Ukrainian freedom.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and support the statement he has made. I would like to press him a bit further on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) about turning off the taps on the Russian war machine when it comes to funding. Earlier in this Parliament, I raised the issue of cultural exports such as the likes of “Masha and the Bear” and how that was directly contributing to the Russian war machine. Ukraine has now sanctioned “Masha and the Bear”, but it is still on ITVX and Netflix in the UK. Will he work with Cabinet colleagues to look at how we can tackle the ways in which Russia finances its war?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that example. I know that my colleagues across Cabinet are willing for people to do more through their Departments to support Ukraine. I will certainly pick that issue up.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We know that Putin will be preparing to use winter as a weapon by continuing barbaric attacks against civilian and energy targets in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that this Government are taking to mobilise allies and provide more support wherever we can?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I am proud of the role that the UK is showing through the UDCG. With our friends and allies, we will continue to mobilise international support in that way to raise the resources and capability that Ukraine needs to win its freedom.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I agree with the Secretary of State that differences on defence should not be manufactured for party political advantage, and it is sad to see that happen elsewhere in Europe. The EU still gets 12% of its gas imports from Russia. While this is down from 45%—the level before the full-scale invasion—the proceeds are still fuelling the Russian war machine. What is the Secretary of State doing to maintain unity across Europe, as well as across the House? Will he encourage our friends in the European Union to cease all Russian gas imports?
Wes Streeting
I certainly welcome the support we have seen from member states of the European Union through the UDCG. I also pay tribute to the European Union’s work to mobilise support and financing for Ukraine, including some considerable announcements made only recently. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of Russian imports. These are the sorts of conversations that we have with our friends and allies.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The threat from Russia is clearly changing the way that we think about the defence of our country. In my constituency, the Civil Defence Social Club still exists, but civil defence itself does not. What discussions is the Defence Secretary having with Cabinet colleagues and, crucially, the devolved nations, including the Scottish Government, about what modern civil defence should look like? As is demonstrated by many countries, the closer a country is to the Russian border, the more military and civil society converge in a system of mutual deterrence and, if ever required, national defence. What more should Britain learn from that whole-of-society approach?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and the importance of learning from those who lead by example. We do need to raise our game in this respect. We absolutely will, and we are drawing on our international counterparts as we prepare for our own national conversation. We are also thinking through the capability that we need in terms of national resilience. I am very happy to involve him in those conversations and to underscore the importance of the UK Government—this is our responsibility—working closely with the devolved Governments as well. I want to have a constructive relationship in this post with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place. This morning, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe proposed a mechanism that could allow Ukraine to receive frozen Russian assets based on rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. The document states that directing Russian assets towards compensating Ukraine could be a legitimate countermeasure and is consistent with the norms of international law. Will the Secretary of State consider this mechanism in relation to the UK’s seized Russian assets as well as in discussions with European allies?
Wes Streeting
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will look very carefully at this development. I am keen to do all we can to liberate Russian assets to invest in Ukraine’s defence. I am grateful to him for invoking the ECHR in a positive context, which is not always a feature of debates in this House.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Through their Representation of the People Bill, this Government are already doing a lot to protect our democracy from dodgy foreign donations, but my right hon. Friend knows that I am also concerned about foreign misinformation and disinformation undermining our democracy, support for Ukraine and community cohesion. What conversations is he having with Cabinet colleagues about what more we can do to target foreign misinformation and disinformation, particularly from Russia, and to protect our democracy?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. As well as land, air, sea and cyber, we should absolutely see information and communication as a front in modern warfare and a risk to our own national security. We actively rebut misinformation and disinformation from Russia as well as from other states and non-state actors that pose a threat to our democracy and way of life. There is more to do on this, and it certainly needs to form part of the national conversation, because we can each play a part, particularly when trust in politics and mainstream media is low. In the context of the threats we face, we need to completely change the dial on the public’s level of trust and confidence in us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Defence Secretary to his place and thank him for his statement, particularly his ongoing commitment to support our Ukrainian allies. Going last is very difficult, particularly when my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has asked exactly the question that I was going to, so I am desperately trying to think of something else to ask. I absolutely echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell about disinformation online, normally from Russian sources. Whether it is extreme right-wing views or extreme left-wing views, this AI-generated nonsense is designed to disrupt and undermine our democracy. As this is the last question, can I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on that and to once again give this Labour Government’s commitment to support our Ukrainian allies?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend should know by now that repetition is not a crime in the House of Commons; it is a regular feature of our exchanges. I very much look forward to working with him in this capacity—he managed to leverage an enormous amount of money out of me when I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I look forward to those high-security containment labs being up and running in his Harlow constituency before too long. I also give to him the commitment not only to support Ukraine and press on investing more in our national defence and security, but to ensure that the good people of Harlow benefit from the jobs that defence provides in his constituency, not least through Raytheon.
Bills Presented
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Social Housing Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Good housing is the foundation of a flourishing life. Decent, safe, secure and affordable homes provide a platform for families to live, grow and build a better life. They make for stronger, healthier and happier communities. Everyone—and I mean everyone—deserves to have one. Yet, as we all know, far too many families in need across the country are languishing on social housing waiting lists, struggling in the private rented sector or in expensive temporary accommodation as a result, and driving up rents and the housing benefit bill in the process. At the same time, the ability and willingness of councils to invest in the building of new social rented homes has been undermined by the steady and significant loss of existing stock through the right to buy scheme.
It was for those reasons that the Government committed in our manifesto to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, prioritising the building of new social rented homes, enhancing protections for existing and new build social housing, and supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. In the 26 months we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments, making the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, vigorously prioritising social rented housing, rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, reinvigorating council house building, and taking initial steps to better protect existing stock.
The Bill supplements those efforts. It builds on the funding and regulatory certainty that we have already given the sector, and it supports the five-step plan we published last summer to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister starts strongly by highlighting the real reason behind the Bill. He is absolutely right: for many families, social housing is the only option to achieve dignity, security and stability. In my community, 25,000 adults are waiting for social housing, so I welcome the Government’s ambition for £39 billion to be spent on social and affordable housing over the next 10 years. The Minister alluded to this in his earlier submissions, but will he make it clear that all resources and flexibility will be available to local councils to deliver on that pledge?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: we absolutely need to give local councils flexibility. We have already helped councils to build their capacity. We have, as I will mention later, allowed them to keep 100% of right to buy receipts. We are considering everything we need to do to move the dial when it comes to house building, to build on the steps that we have already taken.
The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. Let me provide further detail on each objective in turn, starting with the measures designed to better protect existing social housing stock and incentivise the building of more social homes.
At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. In addressing them, I emphasise that we are not abolishing the right to buy—I know and respect the fact that some right hon. and hon. Members object to that decision on principle—but the Government remain firmly of the view that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, we need to radically reform the right to buy in order to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to build, and to attract broader investment in council housing.
As hon. Members will know, we have already acted to reduce maximum right to buy cash discounts, to increase the cost floor protection period, to ensure—as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain)—that councils keep 100% of right to buy receipts, and to allow council to combine those receipts with developer contributions and grant funding. The Bill delivers the broader set of reforms necessary to put in place a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme for the future, informed by the feedback we received in the public consultation that ran from November 2024 to January 2025.
Key measures in the Bill include increasing the right to buy eligibility requirement from three to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum cash discounts so that long-standing tenants benefit from the largest reductions, and exempting newly built social homes from sale under right to buy for 30 years. The Bill also exempts homes from sale under right to buy in areas designated as rural, given that homes in those areas are extremely difficult and expensive to replace. In the other place, peers sought to persuade the Government to set criteria for rural designation in regulations, and we have committed to amending the Bill to enable that.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister will know that clause 12 includes provision restricting housing associations from disposing of stock, including, for example, housing for which it is expensive to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of C. My area is haemorrhaging larger numbers of social homes because of that rather than because of right to buy. Will he ensure that rural communities, where there is a scarcity of social housing, are protected and supported in retaining those properties?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure that we will have ongoing discussions about that and other issues. The hon. Gentleman may wish to hone his private Member’s Bill—the Homes and Planning Bill—so that it focuses on this issue among others. As I said at oral questions on Monday, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on disposals. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector.
The new disposal notification requirements in the Bill, which I will address later, will maximise opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes, but housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. Yes, we are looking at what more we can do to protect much-needed social housing stock, but there are limits to the extent to which we can go. Further to that point, we are also taking equally important steps to ensure that councils are in a better position to buy any disposals—by raising the gap on grant funding for acquisitions, for example.
Taken together, those measures will fundamentally alter the trajectory of social housing supply. Between April 2012 and March 2024, there were over 124,000 council right to buy sales, with fewer than 48,000 homes replaced in the same period. Under the previous, pre-reform baseline, we could have expected to see an approximate net loss of another 26,000 council homes between 2026 and 2036. Following the implementation of this Government’s right to buy reform package, including the measures in the Bill, we instead expect to realise a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same 10-year period. To put it more simply, instead of vainly watching the loss of precious social homes massively outpace their building, we will, for the first time in decades, build considerably more than we are losing thanks to this Labour Government and this Bill.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Bill rightly prioritises the building of social rented homes. Back in 2003, however, Rushcliffe borough council transferred all its council housing stock away and has built none since, yet it has praised itself repeatedly for being debt free, despite being much poorer asset wise as a result of that decision. Does the Minister agree that, if the Bill is to succeed, we cannot treat stock transfer as virtuous and that we have to get to the point where housing revenue accounts are not treated and talked about as being traditional debt for local authorities?
Matthew Pennycook
There is lots I agree with in what my hon. Friend said. We want to see councils once again directly delivering homes at scale. We also want councils working in far closer partnership with housing associations to increase the number of homes that are built and managed by local authorities. The point my hon. Friend made about his local authority is on the record for people in his area to see.
In addition to introducing comprehensive reforms to the right to buy, the Bill will require private providers of social housing to notify the relevant local authority and other social housing providers in their area before they sell a social home, which is relevant to the point the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made. There can be good reasons why private registered providers sometimes choose to dispose of social rented homes, and we do not propose to prevent them from doing so, but when a social home is to be sold, councils and other social housing providers should have the opportunity to consider whether they are interested in purchasing it. Legislation to provide them with that opportunity will prevent homes from being lost to the private market when they do not need to be.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Some 27 years ago, my local authority, the London Borough of Bexley, sold all its council housing stock to Orbit and L&Q. L&Q now routinely sells those former council homes at auction. Will the Minister commit to looking further at how we can ensure homes remain social housing, because the council has no intention of buying those homes back?
Matthew Pennycook
It is disappointing to hear that my hon. Friend’s local authority is not interested in any way in trying to bring those homes back under local authority control. As I said, there are limits to what we can do. Housing associations remain independent organisations. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the risks concerned with the steps the Government might take on reclassification, but we are exploring what more can be done to protect much needed social housing stock. As I said, it is just as important that we ensure that those councils and other providers that do want to buy—there are plenty of them—are in a position to do so.
On the issue of disposals, having listened carefully to the debate in the other place on this matter, we have committed to introducing an amendment to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property to give councils and other providers more time to consider whether homes can be purchased and retained in the social housing sector, which we want to see.
Andrew George
Will the Minister also consider extending the option to consult community groups, community land trusts and housing co-ops? They could take on these properties, rather than their leaking out into the private sector. In areas like mine, if properties leak into the private sector, they will most likely become second homes.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. That is precisely why we are introducing the notification window: we want to give local authorities and other providers the maximum opportunity to bring those homes back under their control. It is just as important that they are able to do so in practice. There are other issues affecting local authorities. A number of my hon. Friends in oral questions at the start of the week spoke about pressures on housing revenue accounts. All those issues are bearing down on the ability of councils to buy homes. We are looking at reforms to this area, not least the cap on acquisitions.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a bit of progress, because there are a lot of Members who want to speak, but I will come back to my hon. Friend later.
I now turn to the Bill’s second core objective: increasing protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. No one should be forced to remain in an unsafe situation because they fear becoming homeless, yet last year about 15,000 households in England had to find a new social home as a result of domestic abuse. Existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators, but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that all too often victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their home. This is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs, and through the Bill, we will end it, as part of our Department’s ongoing efforts to deliver the Government’s unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill to support victims of violence, who far too often have to be evicted or leave while the perpetrator stays with the tenancy, as the Minister said. Rent arrears also prevent victims from gaining a tenancy or moving out of temporary accommodation into settled accommodation. Requirements that prevent those with rent arrears from getting a new tenancy do not take into account whether someone has been a victim of domestic violence. I know that the Department is looking at consulting and guidance on that. Could the Bill be a key mechanism for changing that across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
I know that there is interest in this issue in the Chamber. There is certainly interest in the other place about it. I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate fully that survivors of domestic abuse with debt can face barriers when applying for social housing. We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, but we have been clear in the other place, and I am happy to reiterate it in this Chamber, that if that guidance proves insufficient, we do have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
It is very good to hear the Minister commit to checking whether guidance is enough. Many of us who have tried to rehouse victims of domestic abuse, even after great laws have been written into legislation in this place, will know that getting them the priority need status under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 still takes a huge amount of advocacy. I therefore really welcome the commitment that, if guidance alone does not work, the Government will look at legislation. I offer to work with the Department to ensure that we assess whether the policy is working not from Whitehall but from the frontline.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend knows that I have the utmost respect for her and all that she has done to make women and girls safe. In response to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), the Government have committed in our national plan to end homelessness to address this issue. There is consensus on that point. I am more than happy to make it clear that, if the guidance is not effective and does not have the intended effects that we all want to see, we will not hesitate to pursue changes through regulations. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way. Madam Deputy Speaker is glaring at me because I am taking too much time. I know that many Members want to speak. I will try to come back to colleagues as I progress through my remarks.
To ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access safe and secure housing, the Bill provides for stronger legal mechanisms to remove a perpetrator from a social housing tenancy and enable victims to stay in their home or move to alternative accommodation as a sole tenant. In response to constructive debate on the subject in the other place, we intend to bolster the discretionary possession ground so that the existence of a relevant protective order can provide the basis for proceedings, rather than evidence that the order has already been breached being required. The new powers will apply where the victim is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and is a current or former occupant of the property. By aligning the approach with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Bill will cover a broader range of relationships, including partners, former partners and family members.
The Bill’s third core objective is reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and providing regulatory clarity so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. The Housing and Planning Act 2016—incidentally, the Bill Committee of which I happened to serve on as a young Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then shadow Housing Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—contains a series of social housing provisions that have never been brought into force. The Bill will repeal the following measures to clarify the statute book and provide the sector with certainty that they will never be implemented. First, this Government have no intention of implementing provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants, also known as mandatory pay to stay. The policy could have incentivised tenants to reduce work hours to avoid higher rent, so we are removing it from the statute book.
Secondly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to grant fixed-term tenancies of between two years and 10 years generally to all new tenants. This Government will continue to encourage landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need, but we have no intention of prohibiting lifetime secure tenancies, which provide much-needed security for many households and support social mobility, and so we are removing that policy from the statute book.
Thirdly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to sell off higher-value vacant housing stock and make annual payments in respect of expected sales to the Treasury. This Government have no intention of implementing this policy and want to see these assets remain for councils to manage and use as they see fit, so we are removing it from the statute book.
As well as repealing provisions from the 2016 Act, the Bill reforms the outdated housing consents regime, which can be time consuming and resource intensive for councils and often leads to delays in delivering new social and affordable housing. The Bill will streamline the consents process to empower councils and remove bureaucratic impediments that restrict councils’ flexibility in managing their housing stock, while retaining checks and protections where appropriate.
Did my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) want to intervene?
Matthew Pennycook
Or have I caught him unprepared? I was going to give him a chance there.
To conclude, after years of marginalisation, this Government have emphatically and unashamedly asserted the necessity and value of social rented homes. They are a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. This Bill will protect precious social homes for future generations and incentivise the building of many more of them. It will give social housing providers the confidence they need to invest in new social and affordable homes, and it will support social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
There is part of the Bill that the Minister has not referred to: part 2 on a review of shared ownership. Shared ownership is a tenure that provides a great opportunity to get into home ownership for many people, yet far too many people find themselves indebted and in a difficult position because of the service charges imposed on them and the quality of shared ownership. I am particularly interested in the different models of shared ownership that come forward. I am interested to know what this review will cover and how its outcomes might be reflected in any future investment in genuinely affordable homes.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents and others around the country on housing issues generally. On shared ownership, I know the pressures that shared owners face; I see them in my own constituency postbag on a daily basis. We have already taken positive steps to improve the shared ownership model such as introducing new expectations for landlords who bid for shared ownership grant funding to improve fairness and transparency. We are supporting shared owners affected by specific challenges, such as building safety issues. Clause 13, which hon. Members might be aware was added to the Bill in the other place, requires a review of the shared ownership model to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill passing. We do not believe a review is necessary as we are already actively considering specific issues that have been raised in debates, including data and long-term affordability for customers, and we will of course consider what more we can do to act on those issues within our wider programme to improve shared ownership.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress.
I am immensely grateful to my noble Friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for the customary skill with which she oversaw the passage of the Bill through the other place and for the extensive engagement she undertook with peers throughout the initial Lords stages. A number of important issues were raised during the debates in the other place and, as a result, my Department is undertaking rapid policy work to determine whether there is a case for strengthening the Bill further in a series of areas.
For example, in response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the noble Lord Best, we are giving serious consideration to what more might be done to provide greater security of tenure for social tenants who are fleeing violence, including serious youth violence. We are also considering what more can be done to bolster public control of social housing to ensure that it serves and supports those who need it most.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not; I am just about to conclude—apologies to my hon. Friend.
I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in relation to these and other matters as we look to improve the Bill further, and I commend it to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Housing Bill [Lords], despite supporting the measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse, because the Bill will effectively abolish Right to Buy, destroying the aspirations of social tenants who wish to one day purchase their own home; because the Government is failing to build the homes required, as in 2024-25 there were 12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year, and the Bill does nothing to promote much-needed housebuilding; and because the Bill does not ensure that social housing is used effectively and is reserved for British citizens.”
We come to the House, as we have done many times, to find that the Government are still failing to build more homes and still failing to support home ownership. This Bill is no different; indeed, it is a failure par excellence because for a Bill supposedly concerned with housing, it does nothing to build any new homes. The Bill does nothing to support the aspiration of home ownership; in fact, it goes out of its way to diminish it. It does not even free up any social homes for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list. It is a dud Bill and an ideological red herring.
Most egregiously, however, the Government have taken a much-needed reform—the need for a new and effective framework to enable landlords to take possession action against perpetrators of domestic abuse—and surrounded it with unnecessary, damaging and punitive reforms to right to buy. We agree with the Government that it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways they need, so His Majesty’s Opposition support this aspect of the Bill, but it is a shame to find the Government wedging it uncomfortably alongside the ideological and anti-aspirational measures that make up the majority of this counterproductive Bill.
Jess Phillips
As somebody who, I would wager, has rehoused more victims of domestic abuse than almost anybody in this House, I just want to say on behalf of victims of domestic abuse that building more council housing and ensuring that more council housing is in the system is literally the thing that almost every victim in the country would ask us to do. With that, I commend the ideology of the Bill and suggest on the hon. Gentleman’s point about “wedging it together” that they are the same issue.
Gareth Bacon
Sorry—I missed that comment from a sedentary position. This Bill does not contribute to building a single extra social home. I agree that people who are victims of domestic abuse should be rehoused—I said that in my remarks. We do not agree, however, that this Bill is the way to do it.
Let us come to the main thrust of the Government’s policy: the effective end of right to buy as we know it. In 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s Government offered millions of people a hand up on to the property ladder by extending the opportunity to own property to hard-working, aspirational people living in social housing.
Gareth Bacon
I will make some progress.
Ever since and right up to the present day, Labour MPs have called for restrictions on the scheme. They have essentially called for an end to the opportunity to exercise the right to own one’s own home for around 5 million households. When owning one’s own home can bring such pride and such a sense of community, and can offer security and safety, one might wonder why on earth anyone would seek to lock millions of social housing tenants out of doing so. Aside from ideology, which of course is a major part of the problem for Labour Members, the Government seek to do this because they have misdiagnosed the problem. In their mind, it is somehow acceptable to lay the blame at the door of right to buy, as 1.34 million households—children, families, the elderly, the disabled and others—wait for a social home, while every year approximately 33,000 new social tenancies, funded by British taxpayers, go to households where the lead tenant is not a British national.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I speak as the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants who came to this country and had a council house, and then bought that council house and profited from right to buy. The conversation we had around our dinner table was, “Isn’t right to buy great? The problem is they are not rebuilding the houses.” The idea of changing the policy is to stop the leakage out of the system. We cannot continue to pour more into the top while it comes out of the bottom. I hope we can agree that building more social homes is everyone’s objective, but keeping them in the system will also alleviate the pressure on social housing.
Gareth Bacon
I agree with the hon. Lady that building more social homes is part of the answer, but I will address the central point of her question a bit later in my speech.
Right to buy is not the reason for the diminishing available social housing, nor the reason for our current shortage of social housing. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out in the other place, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales leading to 5,450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this Bill were to pass and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales would fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes. That means that by their own analysis and admission, the Government would oversee a housing system in which there would be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
While we are talking about statistics, between April 2012 and March 2024 there were over 124,000 right-to-buy sales and fewer than 48,000 homes built to replace them. Which party was in charge during that period? [Interruption.]
Gareth Bacon
The point I am making, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says from a sedentary position behind me, is that there will be even fewer new social homes under this Bill. It is not the answer to the problem.
The Government’s own data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting right to buy. The Government have argued that the Bill will mean that around 3,000 additional homes are retained a year, but research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that about 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant every year, instead of 5,000.
The very premise that right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy. The only people who qualify for right to buy are long-term tenants, and Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that in three quarters of cases, we are looking at social homes that are unlikely ever to be available to a prospective tenant when they need it. All of that clearly demonstrates that right to buy is not the issue—it is part of the solution.
That is not the only available avenue that the Government could take to support those on the waiting list and get more people into the housing they need. I hope that you will not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I offer two key areas in which progress could be made. First and foremost, it could be made through house building. The Government put forward clear and definite promises to voters in 2024. We were told that by the end of this Parliament, the Government will have built 1.5 million new homes, including
“the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.”
The new Prime Minister—a self-proclaimed opponent of 1980s policies—has similarly committed to a social housing revolution, albeit without a defined target or an idea of what that looks like. But now, halfway through this Parliament, after the slog of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, multiple updates to the national planning policy framework and the publication of this Bill, we are left without a clear route to building more homes, and projections from the Government themselves show that they have managed to build just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of the time.
The Bill does nothing to prioritise building. It will not add a single social home to the housing stock.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Is it not slightly misleading to suggest that the delivery rate for those homes pledged in the manifesto will be constant throughout the term of this Government? In fact, we have to do the enabling work in terms of legislation and then we will see more of those homes built towards the end. Is it not also right and good that we have a target that stretches us? I would hope that the Opposition would join us in helping to deliver that target.
Gareth Bacon
The Opposition will be very happy if the Government hit that target, but the point is they will not. The target was not nuanced in the way the hon. Gentleman sets out in the manifesto, nor was it nuanced straight after the election. We were told that 1.5 million homes were to be built by the end of this Parliament. There is no chance that the Government will hit that target.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that while under the current right-to-buy rules only 20% to 25% of the receipts go back to the local council, under the Government’s proposals it will be 100%, which will make it much easier to build those homes? Richard Parker, the West Midlands Mayor, has already delivered nearly 2,000 new homes and is on target to deliver 5,000. Would he therefore agree that it is possible to deliver the target?
Gareth Bacon
On the contrary, it was the last Conservative Government who in 2023 introduced 100% receipts going to councils to rebuild the homes that had gone. Although Government Members like to pretend that history only began in 2010, I point out to them that successive Governments since the 1980s could have changed that and did not; it was the last Conservative Government who did so.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On housing numbers, there is no Reform MP present this afternoon, but Reform-led Rochford district council has just published its regulation 19 local plan. During the May elections, Reform made a great thing of defending the green belt, and in the intervening period its councillors intimated to lots of local campaign groups that, when the plan came out, they would be all right. Yet we now find that nearly every single one of those green-belt sites has been recommended for development. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they do not really mean to defend the green belt—clearly they do not—they should never have said that?
Gareth Bacon
I share my right hon. Friend’s shock that no Reform MP is present in the Chamber. I am similarly totally taken aback that Reform would say one thing and do another. Of course, Reform councillors should not have said that if they did not mean it.
Gareth Bacon
That is very well put by my right hon. Friend.
The Government do nothing to prioritise building. The Bill will not add a single social home to the housing stock. The Government are seeking to heal an illness before they have properly diagnosed it, and are offering a solution to a problem to which there is already an answer. If they were serious about reforming the right to buy and building more homes at the same time, perhaps they would look at how proper management and effective reinvestment of receipts could lead to an increase in housing supply, especially on brownfield sites. As my colleagues in the other place noted, it is better for everyone and for the economy if we make two homes out of one. Through efficient, productive and successful management of right-to-buy receipts, we can both sell a family home and support a family on the waiting list into another one. As homelessness peaks at record levels and the number of children in temporary accommodation reaches a dizzying summit of 178,000, it beggars belief that the Government are not looking at that more closely.
However, I recognise that house building is not an overnight fix; it takes time, but for many families on the waiting list, that is something they simply do not have. We must therefore consider how best to free up existing stock to support those most in need.
Luke Murphy
The shadow Minister is giving his view eloquently on social housing, but in 2010, the then coalition Government cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. Five years later, there was a 97% fall in the building of social rent homes. Would he like to apologise to the House for that record?
Gareth Bacon
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, one of the things we do not get from Government Members is any commentary at all about the state of the economy in 2010, after 13 years of their party being in power. The public finances had to be right-sized—the country was heading towards bankruptcy. They are happy to disown their record and criticise everybody who followed, but perhaps it would be slightly more honest if they prefaced their arguments with an acknowledgement of that.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Mayor of London has been in power for over 10 years, and that London’s housing starts have fallen through the floor. Over 300,000 Londoners are estimated to be on housing waiting lists, the majority of them in Labour boroughs. Does he find the rhetoric today somewhat confusing, given that even though the Government have cut Sadiq Khan’s affordable housing target by 22%, he continues to miss it?
Gareth Bacon
My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. The Mayor of London’s record on housing is, of course, execrable. It is totally mystifying that at a time when London’s population and housing need is the highest it has ever been, the Government have simultaneously reduced the housing target for London and massively ramped up the target in outer London, where most of the green belt is. That tells us everything we need to know about their intentions, both for housing and for the green belt.
To the Opposition, two answers seem too obvious to miss, yet the Government wilfully ignore this part of the puzzle. The first answer is efficiency of stock management. Many councils and housing associations are well-run and proactive organisations, but too many remain plagued by poor stock utilisation, improper management and under-occupation. A proper understanding of national stock will go some way towards creating a fairer and more efficient system, in contrast to the failures we witness now. For example, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. That is clearly an inefficiency worth fixing, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility for many suppliers and managers to fix it, yet that does not feature in the Bill. Again, the Government look at the breadth of the issue and give a narrow and ideological legislative response.
The second answer is this. Too many struggling families are understandably frustrated to find foreign nationals in homes paid for by the British taxpayer. To be clear, we are not talking about just anyone—after all, until recently, British taxpayers were funding the First Lady of Sierra Leone’s central London pad, which was a British social housing flat. There are other egregious cases—more precisely, another 127,000 cases. Official figures show that 72% of those who identify as Somali in England and Wales live in social housing.
Natasha Irons
I want to clarify the point about people born in other countries and living here. If a person is born somewhere else, it does not mean that they are not a British citizen, or that their children were not born in this country. Being in social housing does not mean not being in work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if someone becomes a British citizen after moving to this country, they should have a different tier of support in the system, even if they have paid into it?
Gareth Bacon
No. If the hon. Lady will listen to the remainder of my speech, she will hear what I have to say.
It is understandable that as more and more people watch more and more of their salary slip away from their pockets and into the hands of the taxman, they begin to ask why they bother, and to question the fairness of the system. If the Government are not going to build enough social homes, they could follow our example, as laid out in our alternative King’s Speech: end all new social housing tenancies for all foreign nationals, as well as current tenancies for couples in which neither person is a UK, Irish or EU citizen, and free up those homes for British families. To be clear about the scale of what we are talking about, this would add 228,144 homes to the social housing sector—more homes than the Government built in the whole of 2024-25.
Finally, I turn to the problems around shared ownership that could be fixed—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in her place. My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully to bring this issue to the attention of the Government and see it added to the Bill. For far too long, and for far too many people, what should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder instead became a logistical, legal and financial nightmare. I am proud of the Opposition’s work in the House of Lords to force the Government to finally realise that this has become a national issue, and to obtain a welcome commitment from the Government to reviewing shared ownership practices. I call on the Minister to reiterate that promise, and not to seek to remove any such commitment or obligation from the Bill in Committee.
It is clear that this Bill fails the British people. By effectively destroying the right to buy, it does nothing to increase available social housing stock. It merely keeps people trapped in the system and not in control of their own life. It fails to provide more homes, to support aspirations of home ownership or to free up existing stock. Most crucially, it undermines the very essence of what makes for a successful and viable housing system. In such a system, people are supported to get into housing when they need it, and to own housing when they aspire to do so. This Bill, this Government and the Secretary of State—who is absent for reasons I think we all probably understand—not only fail but refuse to create such a system. That is why the Opposition tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill is so lacking in ambition, so ideological in its motivation and so punitive in its measures that it should not proceed beyond this stage, or get anywhere near the statute book.
I say that with great sorrow for the helpless victims of domestic abuse and violence, who deserve everything that the Bill promises on those issues. It is a shame that the Government have wedded such necessary support to such punitory legislation. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure the House that if the Bill makes it to Committee and beyond, it will be amended to make it fit for purpose for those in need of housing, in need of escape from abuse, and in need of shelter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit for Back-Bench contributions.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Safe and secure housing is the foundation of a good life, and the availability of social and affordable housing plays an important part in the provision of housing in this country, in what should be a mixed housing picture.
I would like to begin by talking about the right to buy. Between 2012 and 2024, 124,000 right-to-buy sales took place, but fewer than 50,000 of those properties were replaced in the same period. The maths alone demonstrate what is happening to social housing. I therefore particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming right to buy, including measures to exempt newly built affordable and social housing from sale under the right-to-buy scheme for 35 years. I also welcome 100% of right-to-buy receipts being left to local authorities. As an ex-council leader, I recall the frustration I felt about being unable to plough that money back into affordable homes. Councils will now be able to combine that money with developer contributions and grant funding; it will mean that councils that are committed to affordable and social housing can build more.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and it is good to see her in the Chamber. She mentioned her frustration, when she was council leader, at not being able to use 100% of right-to-buy receipts. Seeing as the last Conservative Government gave her the power to do that, why did she not?
Nesil Caliskan
There were a number of reasons hindering us from delivering affordable homes. The Conservatives’ measure did not go as far as the proposals that the Government are setting out today. The other reasons included record interest rates, which completely decimated housing revenue accounts for councils up and down the country.
In my constituency of Barking, rising rents and bills take a bigger piece of people’s household spending each month. That is the result of a housing crisis in this country that has got progressively worse because building simply is not keeping up with demand. Every week, I speak to constituents who tell me about their experience of the housing crisis, which leaves them with anxiety that they may be left without a roof over their head at any moment—and that is in a local authority that is building at a record rate.
I would also like to speak about the new powers to support domestic violence victims. Like many Members in this place, I speak to constituents who tell me about their fear of being left homeless, should they speak out and leave their secure home. I very much welcome the changes in the Bill, which will mean that women and children can sleep safer.
Katrina Murray
One of the issues that we discussed at my constituency women’s safety summit back in January was the gender debt gap and economic abuse, and particularly how it affects rent arrears. As a result of that, North Lanarkshire council, Aberlour Children’s Charity, the violence against women and girls sector and registered social landlords in North Lanarkshire are adopting an authority-wide common approach to supporting women. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent example of voluntary action for the Minister to take forward?
Nesil Caliskan
There are excellent examples up and down the country of local authorities doing very good work. With the backing of a Labour Government, we can see real progress in supporting women who are the victims of domestic violence, and their children.
Part 2 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Barking has a significant number of shared ownership properties, and I speak to constituents who tell me that a move that was full of hope is quickly turning into a nightmare. Many constituents have told me about the increase in their charges, in some cases from £2,000 to £4,000, and some are paying up to £6,000 in charges for a three-bedroom property. Simply put, a shared ownership property that is categorised as affordable has become unaffordable for many of my constituents. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing this, to ensure that affordable means affordable. Where charges mean that properties become unaffordable, my constituents should not feel as though they are trapped in them.
Housing and the provision of decent homes, including social and affordable housing, were the reason why I ran for public office. I am delighted to support the Government’s Bill. We need to build more social and affordable homes, we need to protect them, and we need to invest in them, so that they are fit for the future. I welcome the Bill and look forward to it being rolled out, so that my constituents in Barking can benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my experience as a social landlord.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a major programme of social housing—150,000 homes per year—so there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and we will support it today. Extending the qualifying period to 10 years and cutting discounts will slow the loss of social homes, as we have been hearing. Protecting a newly built social home from sale for 35 years should give councils more confidence to build again, as will the improved right of first refusal. The protections for tenants fleeing domestic abuse are welcome and overdue, and we support them. So there are important steps in the right direction, but the Bill as a whole is nowhere near the scale of what is needed.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, right to buy was not on its own the biggest issue; it was the complete failure to replace properties, home for home. Thanks to the Conservatives, in Taunton and Wellington, as in the rest of the country, there are thousands fewer council homes than there used to be, all while the need for social housing has grown and grown. There are 4 million fewer council houses in this country than there were in 1980. Even taking into account replacements, social housing and registered social landlords, the number of social homes in this country has dropped by 1.5 million homes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the majority of what the hon. Gentleman has said so far; he may come on to things that I do not agree with later in his speech, but we will have to wait and see. Will he reflect on the fact that the impact of councils losing their council housing stock has been that they have had to spend more and more money on temporary accommodation? It is a zero-sum game for local councils and the impact on families and young people has been particularly difficult, including in my constituency of Harlow.
Gideon Amos
I thank the hon. Member for I forget where—he does not mention it very often, but maybe it is Harlow. He is right and I will come to exactly that point about temporary accommodation.
The Resolution Foundation found that only one home was replaced for every five sold. That is a direct failure of Governments of all persuasions to build enough social housing. The Conservatives reversed their policy of allowing councils to spend 100% of receipts soon after they introduced it. In comparison, in 2004, a Labour Government required three quarters of receipts to be sent straight to the Treasury. Homes were sold at around half their value, and what money there was from receipts went elsewhere, not into building new social homes, and building rates plummeted.
I am glad that the new Prime Minister talks a good game on devolution, but even under the measures in this Bill, councils will remain unable to stop the loss of council homes from right to buy. The Liberal Democrats would give councils that power to end right to buy in their areas, if that is right for them and their communities. The Government should trust councils to understand their communities and their own housing markets.
When it comes to the Conservatives, who seem to be chasing their ideological bedfellows in the Reform party, apparently the priority is not building housing; it is finding a minority to blame for the problem—a group to alienate as “the other” when we should be focusing on building for the whole of the UK and everyone who lives here. Their amendment banning people who are not full British citizens from social housing overlooks the fact that people subject to immigration control are already ineligible for social housing—that is the law—but they want to go further.
The nurse on the ward at Musgrove Park hospital, in my constituency, would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment and would not be allowed to have a social home or a council house. The care worker who looked after people during the pandemic would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment. Under a Conservative Government, they would have nowhere to live when it comes to council and social housing. That is ironic for a party that has produced two Prime Ministers born outside Britain. As the Member of Parliament for Taunton and Wellington, I do not know whether I should inform his grace the Duke of Wellington that the first Duke of Wellington would not fully be a British citizen under the Conservative amendment tabled today because he was born outside Britain.
Gideon Amos
I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads the Conservative amendment that refers to reserving social housing for British citizens.
Gideon Amos
No, the Duke of Wellington was not born in Britain—the hon. Gentleman needs to have a look at his history books—[Interruption.] Regardless of the history of the Duke of Wellington, attempts to use the Bill to pump up divisive culture-war claptrap does not deserve our attention. Rather than pointing the finger of blame at minorities, we should be talking about how to build more social homes, and that is exactly what I will go on to do.
The failure to replace social homes, among other factors, means that more and more people are in temporary accommodation. There are 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, and councils spent £2.8 billion on it last year. The scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation exists for far too many children, and that is why we need a big public housing programme to match the scale of the challenge. If for no other reason, we must do that because it is incumbent on all of us in this House, across parties, to end the tragic loss of children’s lives. The Shared Health Foundation has highlighted that temporary accommodation was found by a coroner to be a contributing factor in the deaths of 104 children in the last five years.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is entirely right. People should be able to stay in their communities, and we need local, affordable housing and social housing at scale to deal with that issue.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Tory idea of capping the local housing allowance would mean that families who cannot afford to stay in their area will have to move out of the area, tear their children out of school and turn their lives upside down?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the local housing allowance and the huge effect that it has on local families and housing markets. It needs to be uprated. I must return to my speech, or you will start giving me looks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Among other things, we must free up councils to build. My Lib Dem colleagues on Somerset council would build 600 council houses; they are already building council housing in parts of the county for the first time in a generation. The council has sites for another 600 houses and wants to build them, but it does not have the headroom in its housing revenue account. The Government promised to confirm their approach to a discounted borrowing rate for housing revenue accounts in the autumn, so we and councils eagerly await that news. If Ministers will not raise the £3.9 billion per year to the £6 billion per year that we have put in our manifesto for social housing, will they use some additional funds to write off some or all of that housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can get building again, as Shelter and others have called for?
On the scale of the need, the Government have reannounced that 60% of their programme for 300,000 homes will be social housing, which is 18,000 a year. That is welcome, but when that was first announced in July 2025, we said that it was not enough, and reannouncing it this summer does not make it enough. Will the Government raise the target for social homes—if not to our target of 150,000, then to a number higher than 18,000 a year?
In addition, the Bill does very little to address the unique issues of affordable housing in rural areas. In Taunton and Wellington, all that people are seeing is unprecedented plans for private housing, which many cannot afford. The council has been instructed to consent homes for 180,000 people in the next 15 years. The population of Somerset has never grown by 25% in any 15-year period in its history, and it will not do so in the next 15 years, but acres of beautiful countryside will be gobbled up for private housing permissions that many people in my constituency cannot afford.
Proposals to eat up the green belt have a consequence for social housing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has brought to my attention an inspector’s decision in Gweek in Cornwall, following the Minister’s own policies, in which all social housing was removed from a previous consent on appeal, because, under new, mandatory Government housing targets, the new five-year supply could not be met. All private housing must now be allowed, and all social housing must be removed from the scheme. That needs to be addressed.
However, this is not just an issue in Cornwall. Most of England—at least, most of southern England—is covered by councils that, thanks to the new standard method, can no longer achieve the new five-year land supply. With the majority of those councils, we have a planning free-for-all in which social homes are not being safeguarded. The standard method has to go. We should replace it with a return to properly researched household projections that take into account movements between regions and safeguard exception sites for social housing, which are being lost. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has thought about this issue, and he has a Bill that would do exactly that. Permission in principle capped at nine dwellings sits below the affordable housing threshold, so that, too, means that sites are being lost.
The Government’s Bill does protect rural social homes from being sold, which I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome. However, as long as the planning system that runs alongside it closes down the supply of new ones, it will simply not be enough. Overall, this Bill does not go far enough. In contrast, our Liberal Democrat Housing Bill—I had the privilege of presenting it to Madam Deputy Speaker not so long ago—would establish a target of 150,000 new social homes a year, including a new wave of rent to own, allowing young people to get on the housing ladder. It would require the Secretary of State to report on progress on meeting that target and would give local authorities the proper powers over social housing they will need to achieve it, including the right to end the right to buy in their area if it is right for them and their community. That is the Liberal Democrat vision for a revolution in the delivery of social homes, and I commend it to the House.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The housing crisis in Kensington and Bayswater is one of the biggest drivers of inequality in our community, with overcrowding, damp and mould, families stuck in temporary accommodation, and a lack of options for people with accessibility issues. It is a huge drag on life chances and opportunity, including for children.
The issue is not helped by Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receiving a C3 rating from the Regulator of Social Housing—a staggering failure nearly 10 years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which the inquiry found major failings at the council. It certainly would not be helped either by an entirely arbitrary £4 billion cut in housing benefit, which would dramatically increase homelessness, require the local authority to spend more on temporary accommodation and dramatically change the socioeconomic make-up of communities such as mine. It is a truly shameful policy. I will happily take an intervention from Conservative Front Benchers if they want to defend it, but it certainly would not address any of the issues we are talking about today.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
My area is probably like my hon. Friend’s, in that local housing allowance does not nearly meet market rates. Market rates are well above the national average, and wages in my area are below it, so does he agree that the Conservative policy of capping local housing allowance and the lack of social housing building over the past decade have exacerbated the issues we are now seeing in our constituencies?
Joe Powell
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that policy would increase homelessness and would be entirely self-defeating, because it would just shift the bill to local authorities that would then have to deal with the problem, rather than tackling the problem, as we are doing today through this Bill. What we actually need is more social and genuinely affordable housing, and I welcome the steps this Bill takes to address the issue, because there is no doubt that unchecked right to buy has contributed to the problem.
The measures in the Bill are sensible and will make a difference. They build on policy changes that the Government have already made, including making permanent the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts. However, the implementation of these measures in communities such as mine will obviously be vital. In many of our council estates and buildings, the current owners of right-to-buy properties are actually open to selling. That is partly because of estate regeneration costs and concerns about service charges and quality, and because unlike other private leaseholders, those leaseholders may not necessarily benefit to the full extent from the easier path to commonhold and resident-run buildings that the Government will be bringing in for leaseholders in general. I would welcome further information about how local authorities can be supported to buy back properties in blocks where the council is already the freeholder.
I fully understand that this is an admission of the failure of the historical right-to-buy policy, and the situation certainly would not be helped by retaining the three-year eligibility requirement that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), supported in his speech. Changing the requirement to 10 years makes much more strategic sense for councils, because it incentivises both those buy-backs and investment in new council housing.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
My constituency is in the borough of Ealing, where 3,000 families are in temporary accommodation and 7,500 are on the housing list. Some 9,000 homes were sold off under the right to buy since the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill strikes the right balance between continuing social mobility for long-standing tenants while protecting homes for those most in need?
Joe Powell
I do agree. We have to increase supply in any way we can, and my point about buy-backs is that they demonstrate the false economics of the system. Councils are buying back at a premium, and often they have to buy back only for temporary accommodation—because that is where the costs are so high—rather than for lifetime secure tenancies, which is what we need.
We also have a real challenge on housing association disposals, which I know other Members will speak to. The classic examples are Victorian-era street properties in North Kensington and Notting Hill. I am hearing of accelerated sell-offs as housing associations raise revenue to deal with their recent challenging financial situation, given remediation costs and the requirements to improve standards. Given that the Government have now backed the sector with access to the building safety fund, a 10-year rent settlement, low cost loans and more, I hope that those disposal numbers will drop. I know from experience that those homes in my constituency are unlikely to be replaced in the same community.
The new four-week period for housing associations to notify the council is therefore extremely welcome, but it must lead to more purchases by local authorities of these properties. I would therefore welcome further information from the Minister on what impact he expects these notification periods to have. What guidance can be provided to housing providers, given their independence, to make it clear that private sector sales should be a plan B? What support will local authorities have to purchase these properties?
Moving briefly on to shared ownership, I welcome the Minister’s close attention to the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Ministers will know about the case of Shaftesbury Place, because I have raised that building near Earls Court before. It has approximately 30 shared ownership flats that have experienced a twenty-onefold increase in building insurance due to a disputed fire risk assessment. The shared ownership leaseholders have consistently raised issues—broken security gates, cleaning, unauthorised access requests and late accounts—with the management of the building by Notting Hill Genesis,. In many ways, these residents are experiencing the same challenges that many leaseholders have with managing agents in the private sector, for which I hope the Government will introduce a new independent regulator. Can the Minister assure me that how housing associations manage shared ownership properties will be considered not only under forthcoming leasehold reforms, but in the Department’s work to review the challenges of shared ownership?
I welcome the new measures in this Bill to keep victims of domestic abuse safer, and I look forward to seeing those powers used by landlords.
Clearly, there is no one solution to the housing crisis in a community like mine in Kensington and Bayswater, but today’s Bill is an important step forward, and I strongly welcome it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I put it on record that I am a passionate advocate for social housing. I have lived in it and I have worked in it. For the 14 years before I entered this House, I worked for a social housing provider in customer service, community development and housing management—my wife still does. I have seen the passion of staff who deliver those services every day, and I saw the frustration of customers who relied on them. I know how good the sector can be, and I know where it can sometimes fall short. As MPs, we see casework where tenants demand and deserve more, whether on housing allocation, repair issues or antisocial behaviour.
I am happy to put it on record that this Government have helped, not hindered social housing since coming to power. We have had rent convergence and long-term rent settlements, and they have listened to the sector about phasing in additional safety checks. Those things are real, and I welcome them, and they deserve recognition from those on the Opposition Benches.
I welcome the Government bringing forward more necessary changes, but I have to be honest that I am disappointed that the Bill is limited in scope, and I genuinely ask the Government to reflect on that. In particular, will they reflect on the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the Bill? On 24 July, the RPC rated the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”, based on its scrutiny of the evidence and the analysis put forward to justify the case for regulation. That is not a technicality; it is a warning that the case for what this Bill does and does not do has not been properly made. If we are to legislate on something as important as the future of social housing, the evidence base should be beyond question.
I will briefly address the four main areas of the Bill. On right to buy, I support increasing the minimum tenancy requirements and reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of property value and go up to a maximum of 15%. Exempting newly built social and affordable homes for 35 years will have a real impact, despite what the official Opposition say about house building.
I will move on to disposals, where I feel the protections are not adequate to empower local communities. I note that the National Housing Federation believes that the new requirement strikes the appropriate balance, but I have to disagree. In constituencies like mine, large-scale voluntary transfers of stock were the reason that providers got the stock that they did. In west Berkshire, the main registered provider has been created from an LSVT, and that stock must be protected. It is not enough for the local council to be notified; we must be told the reason for the sale and how, when and where the council will replace the stock within the local authority area. If that is not possible, a financial contribution must be made to a section 106 pot, following the practice of local authorities keeping right-to-buy receipts.
As my constituency has many rural areas, I welcome exempting rural properties from the scheme, but I also think that we should consider exemptions for much-needed larger homes, such as those with four or five bedrooms, so that they are not lost forever from the social housing stock. Of course, I support the protections for victims of domestic abuse. I have live casework on this very issue, so my constituents will be relieved that the Government have acted. The housing sector will be supportive of greater powers to help those who need it.
I have no major concerns about the repealing of unused legislation, but there are other areas where the Bill is completely silent, from protecting existing stock and empowering existing tenants and young people to have a stronger voice, to helping make homes safer by supporting housing associations to gain access for safety work.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
In Salford, around 3,500 applicants are on the housing waiting list, with 1,335 children living in temporary accommodation. Across England, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, but at the current rate of delivery, Shelter estimates that it would take 119 years to clear the waiting lists.
The crisis did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. We did not suddenly discover that council housing did not work; previous Governments sold it off. They stopped building it, cut the funding and hollowed out the housing departments that had given local government the skills, capacity and ability to build at scale. In their place, we became increasingly dependent on a private housing market whose primary purpose has always been to generate returns, so it is no surprise that the market did not deliver the social homes that we needed—it was never going to do that.
That is why I really welcome the measures in the Bill to protect existing social housing, particularly the reforms to right to buy, but it is only the first part of the story. We now need to build council houses at scale and to give councils the powers, funding and confidence to do it. We know it can be done, because in the greatest city on earth, Salford, we have already shown how to do it. In 2017, Paul Dennett and Salford city council established Dérive, a council-owned housing company that was created to develop land and increase the supply of council and genuinely affordable homes. The first homes were delivered in 2019, and 513 had been built by April this year, with another 700 in construction or development.
That is public ownership in practice, and it is particularly significant because much of this happened during austerity, when councils were on their knees. We used our land, our democratic mandate and our own housing company to rebuild the capacity that successive Governments had allowed to disappear, and we did it on a shoestring. Imagine what could be achieved with Government support! That is the lesson that I want the House to take from Salford: councils can acquire land, develop it and build high-quality, energy-efficient homes, but crucially, they can retain those homes as public assets for generations to come.
I very much welcome the Government’s ambition to put councils back at the heart of house building, including the £39 billion affordable housing programme and the commitment to a major expansion in council house building, but if we are serious about delivering that ambition, we need to see the detail that will make it real—not in 10 years’ time, but now. How many of those homes will actually be owned by councils? How much funding will go directly to local authorities? Will councils have the borrowing capacity that they need to deliver, and will grant rates make genuinely social rent homes financially viable?
Finally, we have to be honest about what we mean by affordable. A home does not become affordable simply because we put the word “affordable” in front of it. For a family on a low wage, 80% of an inflated market rent can still be completely unaffordable. Social rent has to be different, because it is designed for what people can genuinely afford. We have to invest in council house building and make that a central pillar of our industrial strategy. There has been lots of talk this week about crowding in private investment, but that will happen only if the Government set the strategic direction and put the funding on the table for councils to deliver.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
As someone who grew up in rented accommodation, with all the uncertainty that goes with it, I fully understand the pressures faced by so many families who just want a permanent home of their own. So I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill, notably the reforms to right to buy and the strengthened protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence.
Right to buy transformed the lives of millions of social housing tenants, letting them own a home when that seemed a distant dream. However, its implementation ravaged the social housing stock in this country, with over 2 million homes sold, but only 500,000 new social rent homes built since 1980. That is why I welcome the provisions protecting what remains of that stock by extending the minimum tenancy requirement, curtailing discounts and the number of times a tenant can exercise the right to buy, and giving local authorities first refusal when a social home is resold. These are positive steps towards redressing the balance between social and private rented housing.
The Liberal Democrat-run council in Eastleigh has invested heavily in housing across the borough through partnerships with house builders and housing associations, and by commissioning homes directly. The recent announcement that Eastleigh will be one of three strategic partners in Homes England’s social and affordable homes programme for 2026 to 2036 is testament to its success.
For too long, the victims of domestic abuse have been forced to escape their homes. Clause 14 and schedule 1 begin to correct that, giving survivors a simplified legal mechanism to remove an abuser from a joint social tenancy, so it is the perpetrator who loses the home they use as a weapon of control. Crucially, this Bill closes a loophole that has too often been exploited. Currently, an abuser can end a joint tenancy on a technicality through a notice to quit while possession proceedings against them are ongoing, leaving the survivor with nothing. This Bill stops that, giving housing associations the clear, workable powers they have lacked to help survivors remain safely in their own home or move to suitable alternative social housing without losing tenancy rights.
My constituent Karen and her two children fled domestic abuse. She was refused social housing because she jointly owns a property that her ex-partner deliberately keeps off the market as a form of control. After a year spent living in a single room in a refuge, Karen and her children were served a notice to leave with nowhere secure to go. They have since found a home, but she should never have had to fight this hard to get one. Her case shows that a joint tie to a property can trap a domestic abuse survivor just as surely as a joint tenancy can, and the same is true of housing-related debt caused by an abuser.
Clause 17 removes uncommenced provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies. I strongly support this. It gives tenants housing security and lets a family build a life within a community, not just occupy a home.
The Bill would simplify what never needed complicating, and protect what matters to tenants. I support it, and trust that Members will ask in Committee how it could go further to ensure everyone has a home to call their own.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward. It is a manifesto commitment, and one that will matter enormously to communities such as mine in Southampton by prioritising the building of social homes and better protecting the stocks we already have. Although we are talking a lot about bricks and mortar, these measures speak directly to whether children have a stable place to grow up, whether survivors of abuse can live their lives in safety, and whether places such as Southampton can offer residents decent, affordable housing as a reality, not a pipe dream.
Our city council manages about 18,000 homes, and there are another 2,500 leasehold and shared ownership properties. It is a huge and valuable asset, but it is an asset under strain, with more than 8,000 people on the waiting list. In that time, families live in overcrowded flats and temporary accommodation, and workers who come and contribute enormously to our city cannot afford a home that is genuinely affordable or secure. Those are the kinds of situations that come up in my surgeries and, I am sure, in those of other Members.
Sarah Russell
Does my hon. Friend find, as I do in my patch, that those who are on the social housing waiting list for the longest are often those with a disability who need a fully adaptable home? Does he agree that it is vital, when we spend public money on building new homes, that they should be built to an accessible and adaptable standard from the off?
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very salient point. That is true in my patch as well, where tenants need homes with adaptations either for themselves or for disabled children, so I hope the Minister is able to speak to that.
Those are all reasons why one of the most important and welcome aspects of the Bill is its central measure to protect existing social housing stock by reforming the right to buy. Since 1980, this country has sold more than 2 million social homes through right to buy and replaced only a fraction of them. I remember growing up in three council homes as a child with my family. I have great memories of the secure home that we had, but I often wonder whether they have been lost to the system.
Southampton has felt that loss directly, and at the same time it is facing rising costs for emergency accommodation for homeless families. The measures in the Bill on extending the qualifying period, on tapering the discount and on exempting new social homes are sensible and proportionate changes. They preserve a genuine route into home ownership for long-standing tenants, while removing the perverse incentive that has, for decades, discouraged councils like mine from building. I welcome the new requirement for private registered providers to give notice before selling a home, so that the council or another provider has a chance to keep it in the social sector. That is a small but practical protection, and one that I will strongly encourage Southampton city council to use.
I particularly welcome the provisions in part 3 relating to survivors of domestic abuse. As other Members have said, a home should be a place of safety, yet for many victims, housing insecurity is what stops them from escaping abuse. That is unforgivable and we must remove that barrier. The measures will make it easier for survivors to remain in safe accommodation. I hope Members across the House are able to unite behind that principle.
Can I ask the Minister to address two questions when winding up? First, how will the Government ensure that the protections translate into a genuine long-term increase in social rented stock in high-demand areas such as Southampton, where waiting lists and temporary accommodation costs are already straining local services? Secondly, what support will be available to local authorities and housing associations to implement the Bill successfully? Legislative reform is essential, but councils need the financial and operational capacity to deliver the outcomes that we are all behind. Will the Department match the ambition of the Bill with the capital investment needed to ensure that authorities such as Southampton, which already carry a decent homes backlog on more than half its stock, can genuinely invest?
As others have said, legislation alone will not solve every aspect of the housing crisis that faces Southampton and the rest of the country, but the Bill takes bold and meaningful steps in the right direction: protecting social housing and stopping the leaks in the bucket; protecting survivors of domestic abuse in their own homes; and giving councils the tools and the confidence to build again. For residents in Southampton and across the country who need a safe, affordable, secure home, that progress matters. That is why I will proudly vote for that progress today.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Some £7.9 billion a year: that is how much the Chartered Institute of Housing estimates is spent on housing benefit for tenants renting privately. In my local area, a lot of that will be going to people living on the St Helier estate, one of the largest London council estates built during the interwar period, much of which has been sold under right to buy over the past few decades. That means that instead of our local authority receiving rent from those properties, the national Government are paying market rates to private landlords on homes that we built. That is maddening and it surely makes the scale of right to buy sales, alongside the failure to replenish the stock, one of the single greatest policy failures for a generation.
Deirdre Costigan
I know the St Helier estate well, but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was his party, the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives, that massively increased the discounts for right to buy that caused the very problem he is talking about?
Bobby Dean
I am sure the hon. Member is aware that right-to-buy sales were happening throughout the ’90s and under the last Labour Government as well, so there is a stain on all parties from what has happened over the last few decades.
The loss of stock has an impact not only on the taxpayer but on our constituents. My inbox is full of people struggling in the housing market. It is by far the biggest issue that I face in my patch, and it is the one I end up feeling the most hopeless about. Sure, we can get things fixed when it comes to the condition of people’s housing, and sometimes we are able to get people’s position on the waiting list successfully reviewed, but a lot of the time, the fundamental issue is supply. Thousands of people are waiting, and just a couple of hundred properties become available each year, and for that I have no magic wand.
I have families living in one-bedroom accommodation where teenagers are sharing the only bedroom and parents are sleeping on the sofa. I have hard-working families come up to me all the time who are frustrated by being told that there is no point in them even applying to get on the list. It did not used to be that way. I benefited first hand from growing up in council accommodation. My parents are working class—a scaffolder and a cleaner—and they raised their family well. When my youngest brother was born—the third sibling —we managed to move from a two-bedroom flat into a three-bedroom house. That was considered normal back then, but now that sort of situation feels like a luxury.
We have turned social housing into an emergency provision for the vulnerable, instead of being the foundation of our society. To fix the supply problem is going to require bold reforms to local authority resources and powers. They need greater staffing capacity, relief from the unjustified housing revenue account debts, and to be liberated to build directly. The right-to-buy reforms that form the centrepiece of the Bill are welcome, and will stem the losses, but they must only be the first step if the Prime Minister’s ambition in this area is to be realised. Given how precious legislative time is in this place, I hope that more work will be done as the Bill progresses through the House to also increase the supply of homes.
What has happened to social housing in this country is part of a broader public policy failure, where the Government are forced into throwing good many after bad, and into intervening later rather than investing early. In the future, I hope we can recognise social housing as national infrastructure—part of our national resilience. The Government must invest to save more often. I welcome the Bill as a first step on the journey, and I look forward to the Government going further to reverse the failures of the past.
As I have the time, I will make one more remark. It is notable that the Conservative party has put forward a wrecking amendment today that picks on minorities, but not a single Conservative Back Bencher has come to defend it. What a disgrace! They should have the bravery to make the argument in full, if that is what they want to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will introduce a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I am mindful of time, so I will make just two points. First, no one would dispute that the right-to-buy scheme has helped many families achieve the dream of home ownership, which might otherwise have been beyond their reach, but its ideological implementation has had consequences.
More than 2 million social homes have been sold since the scheme was first introduced, yet far too many of those properties were never replaced. The result has been a significant reduction in the stock of good-quality affordable social housing available to meet today’s demand. The risk that newly built homes could be lost before the investment costs can be recovered has weakened the confidence of providers to invest in new social housing at anywhere near the scale required. We have more than 1.3 million households on social housing waiting lists, while close to 180,000 children are growing up without the security of a stable home.
I welcome the measures that seek to place right to buy on a more sustainable footing, protect existing social housing stock, encourage new house building and ensure that more people can access the decent, safe, secure and affordable homes that every family deserves. However, I would like the Bill to go further in ensuring that homes sold at a discount through right to buy do not immediately end up being let out for private profit. The New Economics Foundation estimates that 41% of homes sold through right to buy are now in the private rented sector—that cannot be justified as a good use of public money. I hope that the Government will consider amendments to prevent this from occurring in future, at least for a period of time after a property is sold. I would be happy to speak to the Minister about how we can bring that forward.
Finally, I turn to the introduction of meaningful safeguards for survivors of domestic abuse. These measures recognise that access to safe and secure housing is often fundamental to a survivor’s ability not only to escape, but to rebuild their lives afterwards. We know that perpetrators can exploit housing insecurity as a means of control, leaving victims facing an impossible choice: remain in an abusive situation and continue to endure harm, or leave and risk homelessness and further insecurity. No survivor should ever be forced to make that choice.
It is therefore a significant step forward that we are giving social landlords stronger tools to respond, particularly in relation to complex cases involving joint tenancies. Giving survivors the ability to seek the removal of an abusive partner from a tenancy, and enabling them to remain in the safety and familiarity of their own home, is extremely positive. However, I would like the Bill go further by introducing specific measures to tackle furniture poverty among survivors.
Escaping an abusive relationship often requires people to leave home at extremely short notice, taking with them little more than a few personal belongings. Worse, many survivors have been subjected to financial abuse, leaving them without savings, access to credit or the means to replace the items needed to create a new, safe and secure home. While it is fundamentally important that victims of domestic abuse are always given priority access to social housing, the reality is that many of the allocated properties are entirely unfurnished. As a result, families who have already experienced trauma can find themselves moving into an empty property without beds, kitchen appliances, flooring, curtains or other basic household items. In those circumstances, the challenge is not simply accessing housing, but being able to live in it. A safe and secure home should be the foundation from which survivors rebuild their lives, not the start of another period of hardship.
The Bill is an important pillar of the Government’s work and commitment to create a social housing system that is fairer and more secure and that works better for the people who depend on it. I am proud to support the Bill and the positive changes it seeks to address across our social housing sector.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I support the Bill. It is the beginning of what the Government should be doing, but they can and should go a great deal further, both to address the need for significant growth in the scale of social housing being built and to support particularly vulnerable groups, including, as the Bill rightly says, victims of domestic violence.
I am surprised that the protections from right to buy have not been extended by preventing sales of the homes held by community land trusts, housing co-ops and not-for-profit housing providers, which have very small stocks that really do need to be protected. I am also surprised that the Government have not brought forward measures to stop the bedroom tax, which Labour campaigned against during the coalition Government. At that time, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Affordable Homes Bill, which Labour supported, but the Government have not included its provisions in this Bill.
I do hope that the Minister will take a second look at the issue of disposals and clause 12, on which I intervened on him earlier. At present, stock is haemorrhaging out into the private sector as a result of understandable requirements from the Government to achieve higher energy performance certificate levels and the decent homes standard. Where it becomes too expensive for housing associations to deliver on those requirements, there should be a presumption in favour of disposal to democratic bodies such as community land trusts at a value consistent with affordable housing. The problem is that housing associations sell those homes at open market value, when in fact they could be taken on by local charitable bodies and still be provided to local people in housing need.
The Minister referred to my private Member’s Bill. There are a number of provisions in it that I hope that he will consider that I do not need to propose myself. We need to strengthen the protection for areas that immediately adjoin communities, and to protect the rural exceptions policies, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). We need to work out how we can deliver more social housing when hope value is being fuelled by counterproductive housing targets. That is undermining so many measures that should be available to communities to help them to deliver what is desperately needed.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Housing remains one of the biggest challenges in my inbox, and I meet weekly with constituents who are stuck on a waiting list for social housing. In fact, almost 5,000 families in Gloucester are waiting for somewhere to call home. I am proud to support this Government, who are committed to the biggest increase in social housing in a generation. That is in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives; rough sleeping went up 165% under their Government, and the number of children living in temporary accommodation more than doubled. Their current plan to add another 100,000 to that list is simply not acceptable—not on our watch.
I welcome the Bill. I agree that it is right that we incentivise the building of social homes. We need to build more in Gloucester, and I stand ready to work on a cross-party basis with Gloucester city council, local housing associations and Homes England to deliver this. It is also important that we improve the quality of existing social homes and follow through on the promises made to local residents in Podsmead and Matson, who have been promised regeneration of their areas for far too long without seeing it delivered.
Finally, I am pleased to see the work that this Department is doing with other Departments to tackle violence against women and girls. No one should be forced to stay in an unsafe situation because they are worried about becoming homeless. I welcome measures to support survivors and victims of domestic abuse, especially new mechanisms to remove perpetrators from their tenancies, not victims.
Alongside our Government’s commitment to offer everyone sleeping rough a roof by Christmas—there is £1.6 million for Gloucester city council to deliver this—we are making a clear argument that everyone deserves a safe, decent place to call home. Those are the foundations that we need to rebuild hope in Gloucester and deliver the better future that my constituents deserve.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor—a district council that erroneously boasts of being debt free because it sold its housing stock many years ago, and that criticises the other district council in my constituency, South Cambridgeshire, and indeed Cambridge city, for having major debts, without mentioning that those councils have retained their council houses, built more, and continue to build more. I agree with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) that we have to address that.
Average house prices in my constituency are about 10 times the average salary, and the average rent is over £1,000 a month, so it is not surprising that a lot of emails in my inbox are about social housing need. I have had people in my surgeries in tears because they cannot get a decent home for their family. We must build more council houses; I support that. I would like the Minister to consider rural areas carefully. In such areas, we might be able to accommodate only two or three units, but we really do need them. It is not just a case of building large quantities in the bigger towns; we need a good mix of council housing, including larger houses for larger families, and bungalows for people who are getting older and want to downsize.
We also need to make sure that the houses that we have are in really good condition. I really welcome the warm homes social housing fund, which is helping many of my constituents to replace their oil-fired boilers with air source heat pumps, but I wonder if there could be a similar sort of grant to bring those houses up to a good standard. Many of them were built in the ’20s and ’30s, and were then very poorly insulated around the ’70s, which added to the damp problems. Addressing those problems is a huge cost for social housing providers. As we have heard, when those houses become empty, because the providers cannot make the figures stack up—the cost of the repairs versus the future income stream from rent—they sell the houses in the private sector. Some of those houses are in my villages, where we already do not have anything like enough social houses. Providers really need financial help to bring that stock up to a decent standard.
People are also worried about shared ownership. They feel trapped into paying very high service charges that they cannot afford, but when they try to sell their property, potential buyers see the charges and pull out of the sale. I am glad that the Government will review that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and the Government’s commitment to a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. I will use my time to speak on behalf of the villages in my Rushcliffe constituency, and to draw the House’s attention to the work of the Labour Rural Research Group.
Affordable housing is too often discussed as if it is purely an urban and metropolitan problem—it is not, as we have just heard. In villages in my constituency and across rural Britain, families are being priced out of the places they grew up, young people are leaving because they cannot find a home, and the social housing stock that once anchored our rural communities is shrinking, not growing. The LRRG’s March 2026 report, on rural poverty in England, sets that out starkly. In 2024-25, just 17,506 affordable homes were delivered in rural local authorities, compared with 47,256 in urban ones. Rural delivery fell by 2% on the year before, while urban delivery rose. In a significant number of rural councils, only 4% of homes are affordable for someone on an average local income, compared with 10% of homes in urban authorities. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill already exempts properties in designated rural areas from the right to buy. That principle reflects exactly what the LRRG called for in its report: recognition that rural housing is structurally different and policy needs to treat it accordingly.
However, I will press the Minister to go further in three specific areas. First, on the disposal of rural social housing stock, we would particularly welcome a local replacement guarantee, so that rural communities are not subsidising urban housing waiting lists at the expense of their own when stock is disposed of. Secondly, rural exception sites deliver important housing opportunities in rural areas, but LRRG has called for them to be placed on a statutory footing, alongside the Bill’s right to buy reforms, and for the policy to be strengthened and simplified, so that planning authorities can accelerate delivery. Thirdly, on measurement and targets, as it stands we do not properly track rural affordable housing delivery as a distinct category. The LRRG has called for a dedicated rural affordable housing delivery target, with separate monitoring by tenure type. Without that data, we cannot know whether the policies are working for rural communities.
Sarah Russell
Might I suggest that producing social housing that includes flooring as standard is a fourth area in which the Minister could go further? That is delivered by the private market, but it is not a requirement for social housing providers at the moment.
James Naish
There are several areas in which we make further interventions to support our rural communities.
The Bill is a good and necessary step. It protects social housing stock, gives greater security to survivors of domestic abuse and reduces unnecessary bureaucracy for providers. However, if we are serious about a decade of renewal that reaches every postcode, rural Britain cannot be an afterthought. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the LRRG’s recommendations as the Bill progresses, so that rural communities are not left behind.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Green MPs welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction—it includes important changes—but it does not match the scale of our housing crisis. It needs to be braver and bolder, and deliver the council homes that our communities desperately need.
Social housing is not just a roof over someone’s head. It is the secure home they come back to after a long day; it is where their kids grow up and their grandkids come round. It means knowing their neighbours and having somewhere safe and secure to put down roots. That is the kind of security that everyone deserves. However, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, and more than 170,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. That statistic alone should shame us into action.
Councils are giving millions of pounds to private landlords, and I see what the lack of council housing means for people in Gorton and Denton every single day. Across Manchester and Tameside, 3,180 households are in temporary accommodation, including 5,368 children. There are parents and four children, including twin babies with additional needs, squeezed into a two-bedroom home; a family of seven, including a child with a rare genetic disorder, are living in an overcrowded three-bedroom home; and a couple who have been on waiting lists for over 10 years, and are now approaching retirement, are terrified that they simply will not be able to afford their rent when they have to stop working.
We need to do three things. The first is to stop selling off the homes that we already have. We need to abolish right to buy. The Bill makes it harder for homes to be sold off, but if more than a million households are waiting for a social home, how can we justify selling off any of them? That is not to criticise anyone who has bought their council home; those people are not to blame —the policy is. Scotland ended right to buy in 2016, and Wales has done the same; it is time for England to join them.
Secondly, we need to build more social homes. After the second world war, councils built more than 120,000 social homes a year on average. We need that ambition again, because today, councils in England are building an average of just 1,320 social rent homes a year, and by my maths, that is an average of about four per constituency. When the Prime Minister was campaigning to be MP for Makerfield, he said that all of the £39 billion affordable housing fund should be dedicated to building council homes, but he has now backtracked on that. Why? We need to get building again, properly and at scale.
Thirdly, we need to buy back the council housing stock. Green MPs are fully behind councils that are buying homes to bring them back into council housing. “Buy the supply” is an idea brilliantly championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We need more of that. My message to the Government is simple: be braver, abolish right to buy, build social homes at scale, and do more of “buy the supply”.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council and social housing. The scale of the housing crisis in our communities today represents, in a crowded field, the most consequential and damaging retreat of the public realm in the UK, and a dereliction of its most basic duties. Everyone deserves a safe, comfortable and stable home where they can put down roots, so it is very welcome that, through this Bill, our national politics begins to recognise that the provision of things that people cannot live without cannot be left to private markets, which respond to demand, not need—and those will never be the same thing in a deeply unequal society like ours.
The consequences of the failure to understand that fundamental economic reality are writ large across our nation. More than 130,000 households are trapped in temporary accommodation; many of them are stuck in bed and breakfasts and hostels, which are no place to raise a family. Frankly, it will remain difficult to talk seriously about national pride while 170,000 kids are homeless in this country, and are left without the space to learn, play, grow and simply enjoy their childhood. The human cost, measured in the futures and happiness of a generation, is proof enough of the urgent need for a change in direction.
The choice before us, then—our new Prime Minister is absolutely right on this—is whether we continue with a model that provides unsuitable accommodation at extortionate prices, or put the public back in the driving seat. I welcome the attention in the Bill to retaining the social housing stock we already have. For far too long, we have lost social homes faster than we have built them. Putting a firm stop to that trend, alongside the Prime Minister’s commitment to a new generation of council homes, puts us in a position finally to get the housing crisis under control.
I remind the House that in six years—at a time of shortages, debt, constraints and even greater competing demands on public expenditure than we face now—the post-war Labour Government oversaw the construction of more than 800,000 council houses, some of the best ever to be built in this country.
Now is the time to recognise once again that the only way to get high-quality homes that those on waiting lists can actually afford is to directly plan and deliver council housing for people on low incomes, and that only the Government on behalf of the people can mobilise the patient capital capable of realising all the wider benefits that decent homes for all will secure for our society. With fresh leadership in the Department, I look forward to supporting this important legislation to ensure that we deliver the quality social homes that our communities need.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In 2021, there were 6,145 social housing units in my constituency, representing just 14.2% of the housing stock, compared with 17.1% across England and Wales. More than 300,000 people are currently on rural social housing waiting lists, and at current build rates, it would take 89 years to clear the backlog. I welcome the Bill’s measures to disapply right to buy in national parks and designated rural areas. In places where social housing is already scarce, we cannot afford to lose more of it. It is therefore right that we protect the limited stock we currently have.
More than anything, though, I welcome the Bill’s protections for the victims of domestic abuse, because this is where the question of housing becomes a question of safety. If someone knows that leaving means homelessness, temporary accommodation or being separated from their children, family and support network, the decision to leave an abusive relationship becomes enormously harder. The Bill rightly proposes protections allowing victims in joint social tenancies to remain in their home while the perpetrator is removed, as well as helping victims secure alternative accommodation.
Stephanie was forced to leave her family home with her four-year-old son, Neo, because of verbal and emotional abuse from her former partner, who was a joint tenant. Neo has cerebral palsy and has recently undergone back surgery. He is learning to walk again using mobility aids. Stephanie is temporarily staying with her mother and urgently needs suitable housing, but because the rent on the family home is not up to date, she has been told that assistance cannot be provided until the arrears are resolved. She is terrified that she will be placed in temporary accommodation away from Bridport, away from her support network that her son relies on.
Cases like hers are precisely why housing-related debt arising from domestic abuse must not become a barrier to accessing social housing. A survivor should not be punished for financial circumstances created or exacerbated by their abuser, and I therefore strongly support strengthening the Bill so that survivors can leave unsafe homes, retain their tenancy rights where appropriate, or secure suitable alternative housing without being trapped by the financial consequences of the abuse.
I also want to raise the point that a home is not necessarily suitable simply because it is technically available. Ruby was offered a first-floor flat in Bridport despite having serious physical disabilities. She was told that she could not refuse the property as she would not be offered alternative housing. I have numerous other cases that time simply will not allow for me to get to, which is a shame. I want to see the Government go further in ensuring that social housing allocation in rural areas reflects local needs, accessibility, disability, age and family circumstances, but otherwise I support the Bill.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I was disappointed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who sounded complacent when he talked about the aspiration to buy a house. Of course, there is that aspiration, but does he not understand the aspiration of people on the waiting list? Millions of people, including 170,000 children in temporary accommodation, aspire just to have a key for a council house. Has he ever seen the gleam in a family’s eyes when they get that key and manage to get a secure home, knowing it is there for the future? It is not good enough to simply say that the aspiration to buy a house is more important than the aspiration to have a home, and one that is warm and secure.
Also, there was no sense of contrition that the right to buy legislation resulted in 2 million council houses being sold, whereas only 250,000 new houses were built in that period. Of those 2 million that were sold, 800,000 now belong to private landlords. That is quite shocking because the rents that private landlords charge are a multiple of what a council or social landlord would charge.
In my constituency, 6,000 homes have gone to private landlords. The council received about £140 million in capital receipts for those 6,000 houses. They are now worth £1.1 billion. This has been a racket; it has been like the gold rush in the Klondike, a race for money. In the meantime, rent levels in the remaining social housing are only 61% of the rents charged by the private landlords.
It is totally anomalous that for two or three houses on the same street in the same estate a higher rent will be charged by a private landlord than that for the people next door who are still renting from a social landlord. The Government need to move fast. We cannot allow so many children and families to be left in that perilous situation—55,000 individuals are struggling in the district of Wakefield.
Let me make one final point. The Treasury’s dead hand of economic orthodoxy prioritises house building by housing associations over house building by councils, which is a mistake. The Bill does not address that, but I wonder whether the Minister could respond on that in some way. A council can borrow money to build an asset worth more than what it has borrowed and receive an income from it through rent, yet that counts towards the national debt; for a housing association, it is different. I think those rules explains councils’ retreat from committing to build more housing rather than social landlords.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome much of what is in the Bill—the reforms to right to buy are overdue and the new protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse are an important step—but it lacks the ambition needed to address the wider social housing crisis and does little to address a problem hollowing out village after village across South Devon: the disposal of social housing by registered providers. Since 2018-19, housing associations have sold over 25,000 social and affordable homes on the open market. In 2024-25 alone, they sold 5,250, which was the highest figure on record. In the South Hams, one housing association has sold 49 homes since 2022, with the heaviest losses in Salcombe and Dartmouth, where property is extremely expensive. In Kingswear, 36% of social housing stock has been lost in just three years. The primary school has since closed due to a lack of pupils. With so little affordable housing left, there is little prospect of new families moving in.
Over the last five years, 3,600 new homes have been built across my constituency, yet more than 2,500 families remain in housing need. Most of those homes are at full market price, way beyond the reach of local people. I absolutely reject what was said by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—the answer is not to build more open market homes that cost £1 million. When a single social rented home became available in Malborough, 119 households bid for it, and in Brixham 190 people bid for one social home, yet councils have no power to stop housing associations disposing of the few affordable homes that remain.
I am really proud that council housing was introduced by the Liberal party under Lloyd George. I am furious that the Conservatives enabled so much of it to be lost. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent whose disabled son was offered a bungalow perfectly suited to his needs, allowing him to live independently while remaining close to his family. The family were then told that the housing association intended to dispose of it. A home that could have transformed someone’s life is being sold—it is heartbreaking.
I will also address the need for smaller developments of affordable—including social rented—homes in villages. We must build small amounts of social housing around villages so that young people who have grown up in the village can afford to stay there and older people can downsize, yet social housing providers are fixated on large developments on the side of towns. The future of rural communities depends on homes that local people can afford. Without real powers for councils to protect social housing and hold developers to their affordable housing commitments, we will keep watching schools shrink, shops close and villages empty out, one sale and one broken promise at a time. It is not good enough.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The housing crisis is the single biggest issue facing my constituents. Every single year since I was first elected as a local councillor on the same day that the coalition Government came into power in 2010, I have watched the housing crisis deepen and become more entrenched in my constituency. Our local council had vital grant funding for new social homes withdrawn; subsequent Conservative Governments froze and cut council rents, leaving gaping holes in the housing revenue account and hamstringing our councils on repairs and investment; and right-to-buy changes have haemorrhaged council homes out of the system and into the private sector, sometimes only for them to be let back to our councils as temporary accommodation at extortionate rents.
After 14 years of harmful policies, the impacts are clear: tens of thousands of families living in temporary accommodation and in unsafe, damp, mouldy conditions that harm health and undermine the essential stability and security that every one of us needs to thrive. This is not only a housing crisis, but a public health crisis, a cost of living crisis and a basic human decency crisis.
I rise to speak in particular to the campaign that I have been running since 2022: a reform to social housing regulations called Georgia’s law. Georgia is a former constituent who had been a social housing tenant for five years when her eldest son, having done nothing wrong, was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that his life was at risk and that she needed to move. The move into temporary accommodation was catastrophic for Georgia and her family, ultimately resulting in the murder of her second son—a horrific act that would never have happened had that family’s life not been destabilised in that way. What we discovered was that Georgia had no security of tenure as a social housing tenant in those circumstances; her family had to move through no fault of their own, because they were the victims of a threat of serious violence.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment and engagement on this issue, and I particularly thank the noble Lord Best for picking up this issue in the Lords and for the debate and discussion that happened there. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister on the amendments that might be tabled to secure in law the protection for social housing tenants who have to move because of a threat of violence, where police deem that move necessary, so that they do not suffer the compounding trauma of the destabilisation of their lives in temporary accommodation. I will table an amendment on Report if necessary, but I look forward to further engagement with the Minister on the issue in the meantime.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Of course we need more council homes and social homes, and it is welcome that the Bill makes provision for just that. But for the lack of social housing, we would not see the growth in houses in multiple occupation, which are blighting communities up and down the country. That indicates a clear need for council homes and social homes of the right kind and in the right place.
It is also essential that we take action now because it is anticipated that, by 2024, an additional 1.3 million pensioners will be living in rented accommodation. Whether they are just state pensioners or have some private pension as well, as their earnings start to level out and become more restricted, the private rented sector will not necessarily be the kindest place for them. Social homes will be the places that provide them with security and comfort in their older years.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me move on to the issue of empty homes—this is not the first time that I have mentioned it to him. There are nearly 2,000 in my constituency. While we talk about building new social homes, we have an opportunity not just to look at building new social homes, but to look at houses in the private sector that have been empty for a long time. We could make it easier for local authorities and third sector voluntary organisations to get access to those homes and use them. That could include apprenticeships to help in bringing them back into use for local communities.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about empty homes. When I was shadow Housing Minister 20 years ago, the Empty Homes Agency estimated that there were 700,000 empty homes in England and Wales alone. That number has barely shifted, and no Government have brought forward appropriate policies to alter it, so I do hope that this Minister will look at that closely.
Melanie Onn
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for supporting me on that point; this is an issue that affects many constituencies across the country.
Housing associations are purveyors of social homes, so there needs to be a review of their accountability and the expectations of how well they work with local authorities. We often see disputes over land management and trees, about who looks after the land, but the people living in that area should not have to worry about who has responsibility. It is a real sticking point that I see all the time in my area.
Housing associations often hold on to empty land. In my constituency, about 700 people were accommodated in high-rise flats that the housing association decided to tear down. That space has been an eyesore since 2016, and another housing association, the council or the charitable sector could easily access it and build much-needed new homes in the town centre, to prevent the doughnut effect of town centres being hollowed out.
Despite the Government not really wanting the measure in the Bill—the other place voted it in—the shared ownership rules, I am pleased to say, will be looked at again. When shared ownership properties are owned by housing associations, they are often the last consideration in their portfolios. People who buy those properties to get on the first rung of a bit of the housing ladder often suddenly find themselves trapped, taking up a home that would be somebody else’s first step on the ladder, and there is no requirement for housing associations to take that more seriously.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
One major driver of the housing crisis has been the selling off of our council homes under Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme. Not only has that greatly reduced the supply of social housing, exposing more people to higher rents and the insecurity of private renting, but we now know that it has indirectly inflated private rents by shifting low-income households into market-rate renting. That is why I welcome the Bill’s aims of protecting existing social housing stock and incentivising the building of more social rented homes. I also commend its commitment to provide greater social security and stability for social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
However, while the Bill turns over a new leaf in our housing policy, I am concerned that it does not go far enough on right to buy. New social homes will only be protected for 35 years, and existing tenants will wait seven more years to buy their homes at a discount, so we will still lose our social housing stock, just at a slower pace. The argument we often hear against removing right to buy from existing social housing is that it would be unfair to those hoping to buy their homes at a discount, but selling public assets to private individuals at a loss to the state is accelerating the housing crisis for all.
Since council homes began being sold off at a discount, the state has effectively given away an estimated £194 billion, and to add insult to injury, 41% of those homes are now in the hands of private landlords. The Government rightly recognise that we need to replenish our social housing stock, so as well as a mass programme of council house building, we must help local authorities to recover former council homes through grants and a stronger right of first refusal policy. These measures will, in the long term, pay for themselves.
A typical private tenant spends over a third of their income on rent today, compared with only 10% in 1980, so we need more drastic measures to tackle the housing crisis, and that includes stabilising our social housing stock. We should be ending right to buy completely, as Wales and Scotland have, because every year delayed is another year that we fail the hundreds of thousands of people without a secure home, the over 170,000 children in England who are in temporary accommodation and, of course, the millions paying extortionate rents to their landlords.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and all it will do to support the very Labour promise that everyone should have access to a safe and secure place to call their home. While the Leader of the Opposition apparently believes that if nurses, teaching assistants and tradies cannot afford to live in Bracknell Forest, with its high rents and house prices, they should be forced to move out, I believe the answer is more social and council housing to support people from Bracknell Forest to stay in Bracknell Forest. That is why I support the push by the leader of Bracknell Forest council, Helen Purnell, to make the council a leading force in delivering new council housing.
I welcome the measures in the Bill on the disposal of social houses by registered providers, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think we need to go further. Since 2018, housing associations have permanently sold 28,585 social homes to private and other non-social purchasers, with 5,806 sold in 2024-25 alone, the highest annual figure on record. Some 87% of those went at open market value, far beyond the reach of a local authority’s purchasing power. Unlike right to buy, these homes are not being sold to the families living in them—they are being sold out of the sector entirely into private ownership. In my constituency, 154 homes have been sold since 2018, including bungalows and several three and four-bedroom properties, which are the very homes Bracknell Forest families most need.
As it stands, the Bill asks housing providers to give local authorities notification of any disposals that they are planning, but the measures are not sufficiently strong. On Third Reading in the other place, the Minister confirmed that the Government are planning a Commons amendment on the notification period, so may I press the Housing Minister for more information on that and on what we can do to strengthen that measure?
Will he also consider two further changes to the Bill? First, Homes England should develop a code of responsible disposal practice, with the regulator and the sector more widely, to which housing providers can be held as a condition of holding long-term partner status under the social and affordable homes programme. That is a very simple principle: if they are receiving Government money, they should not be disposing of homes, wherever possible. Secondly, when a social home is disposed of, the Government should do more to ensure that the income is reinvested in replacement social rent homes in the same local authority area.
I know my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister shares my concerns about this issue and I am committed to working with him and the Government to ensure the Bill addresses disposals properly. I look forward to constructive conversations with the Minister as the Bill progresses.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, and as a survivor of domestic abuse with direct experience of how that issue relates to social housing, I hope that the Bill can truly ensure that it leaves no survivor behind. Indeed, survivors and survivor-led organisations that have been campaigning for decades welcome many provisions in the Bill, but they have also expressed concern that some of the proposed protections would apply to too small a proportion of survivors.
With criminal justice outcomes for domestic abuse so poor, it is clear that civil outcomes should be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for eviction. I am glad to have heard today that the issuing of a protective order will be introduced to schedule 1. I also believe that we should consider enhancing these grounds to include victims and survivors of rape and other sexual offences, including where a perpetrator is not an intimate partner, for instance a flatmate. Will the Minister clarify how the Bill will incentivise or ensure that these powers are actually used by landlords, rather than leaving them as wholly discretionary?
On joint tenancies, there are grounds to say that the proposals exclude many survivors who are not listed as tenants, disproportionately affecting younger survivors and survivors of familial abuse. Will the Minister clarify if the Government have considered or are considering expanding these protections by accepting established evidence of residency in place of named tenancy? Furthermore, when a perpetrator has been removed from a joint tenancy, an unsustainable financial burden might arise for a survivor holding sole custody. With the benefits system likely too slow to respond, Women’s Aid, Refuge and others have called for consideration to be given by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister’s own Department as to how to incorporate affordability assessments at the point of transfer.
Provisions on alternative accommodation raise the issue of furniture poverty, which is faced by far too many survivors. There are calls from experts to introduce a statutory duty for social housing provided to survivors to come furnished, and I hope the Government will pick up on that.
Although I have raised many different points for consideration, there should be no doubt that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls in a decade will require painstaking efforts across all Departments and the examination of all frameworks. On housing, there is still far more to be done, and that mean listening to the VAWG sector and to survivors when they point out shortfalls in these proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to these concerns and offer to meet members of the APPG to discuss our concerns and the implementation of the measures.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I had a much longer speech prepared for this debate, but with the constraints on time I do not think I will be able to make it. Let me reflect on the fact that for the majority of this debate, the Conservative Benches have been next to empty, with almost no contributions from Conservative Members other than those on the Front Bench. I posit that that may be because of an element of shame on the part of Conservative Back Benchers regarding the contribution that we heard from those on their Front Bench. This is a Tory party—that, not too long ago, was led by somebody born on the upper east side of New York—deciding that it will start defining the value of people as British citizens based on whether they were born here. For shame! I am more than happy to get fully behind this legislation.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Cornwall’s social housing shortage is not only a major contributor to our severe housing crisis, but one of the greatest blockers of economic regeneration. In the Conservative years, the construction of new social housing in Cornwall plummeted—for example, in 2015-16, just six new homes were built for social rent across the entire duchy. Combine that with 14,000 second homes and nearly 24,000 Airbnb listings, which further reduce the overall housing stock, and it comes as no shock that our social housing waiting list stands at a staggering 25,000. That incurs vast costs for emergency and temporary accommodation. The size of that register will only grow in coming years unless urgent action is taken.
In the light of our acute housing crisis, I warmly welcome measures in the Bill to protect our existing social housing stock, particularly the right to buy exemptions for new social homes and for those in designated rural areas. However, the scope of the Bill addresses just one element of Cornwall’s housing crisis. I welcomed the former Chancellor’s stamp duty increase for second homes from 3% to 5%, and I also welcomed the confirmation last week by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that a new registration scheme for short-term lets will be live by March, but we must go further. To that end, I have three quick asks of the Government.
First, I urge the Government to review Cornwall council’s £90 million housing revenue account debt associated with the 2012 self-financing settlement. Servicing that inherited debt settlement diverts key resources away from repairs to existing homes and delivering additional affordable housing. Secondly, the Government have already recognised the value of low-cost development finance through 0.1% loans to housing associations. Extending those opportunities to councils would unlock significant additional housing delivery. Thirdly, Cornwall must not be locked out of further powers and funding for social housing simply because we will not be joining a mayoral strategic authority. A strategic place partnership with Homes England would give us not only the framework to deliver social housing for Cornwall, but the funding, which so far has gone only to mayoral strategic authorities.
Cornwall cannot build a stronger economy on a foundation of housing insecurity. The only sustainable answer is to increase our stock of genuinely affordable social homes and to do that at scale. To that end, I strongly welcome this Bill.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I welcome this Bill, particularly the very important measures to support victims of domestic violence and the sensible measures to reform the right to buy. In the limited time available to me, I will point out how valuable that is to my constituents in Reading and other similar parts of the country where there is growing demand on public services, a growing population and a shortage of housing. Both as an MP and as a councillor, I have been very aware of the housing shortage in our town.
Let me describe some of the issues that residents face; they are quite severe. The cost of housing is high—where I live, a two-bedroom terraced house can cost up to £370,000. That means that for many people, it is extremely difficult to become an owner-occupier, and social, affordable and council housing is extremely important in our community. I have seen terraced houses split up and subdivided into HMOs or two flats for residents, who are under extreme pressure. I have also seen families having to live in emergency housing, so I am very much in favour of more social and council housing, in particular, and I believe that the Bill will help and support that. We are lucky that our local authority is already taking steps, but I believe that the Bill will help it and other local authorities to go much, much further.
One of the great pleasures I have had recently as an MP was visiting the opening of new council houses in Coley in Reading and seeing wonderful modern homes that are being built by Reading borough council next to existing council properties—it is using land more efficiently, finding more space for houses and improving local facilities, such as a children’s play park. I would like to see more of that, and I believe the sensible reforms in the Bill will help and support it. I look forward to working with Ministers on exactly that.
I should commend my local authority, because it has a number of other sites where building is under way. Other local authorities are doing the same, but I would like to see a broader movement across the country with more councils taking up these sensible policy options, investing in council housing and providing more council homes to residents who unfortunately are unable to buy a home of their own.
I would like to flag to the Minister that, as part of that, he has announced the excellent policy of liberalising development near stations. That will help hugely with the supply of housing, particularly in my area—only about 10% of the land near Reading station has been regenerated. I hope the Minister will be able to link up those two policies, and I look forward to talking to him more about that, or perhaps hearing some more about it this afternoon.
I also look forward to further action to crack down on irresponsible landlords and support tenants. I know that the Minister is working very hard on a number of measures in that regard, including on management companies. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in the debate.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill that the Government have laid before us today. I want to use my time to talk about community-led housing and its role in delivering on the Government’s social housing ambitions. I have supported such projects in my constituency for many years, because they embody exactly the sort of innovation and local empowerment that we should be encouraging.
I would like to acknowledge the work of Eddy Morton, the chair of Stourbridge Community Development Trust and the development manager of West Midlands Urban Community Homes. Through its engagement with Birmingham city council, West Midlands Urban Community Homes has successfully helped to secure the adoption of community-led housing policy, creating a valuable precedent for how local authorities can work positively with community-led organisations. Too often, that process highlights the structural barriers that continue to hold back community-led housing.
The reality is that many community land trusts face years of delays before a single home can be built, and every one of those delays has a consequence. Money that could have been used to reduce rents locally or improve environmental standards is instead absorbed by additional development costs, and for small organisations those pressures are especially acute. One of the most consistent concerns I hear is not about a lack of ambition, but about a lack of understanding within parts of local government. Officers may support affordable housing in principle, yet lack the knowledge, guidance or confidence needed to engage constructively with community-led organisations. The result is delay, inconsistency and missed opportunities. If the Government are serious about unlocking the full potential of community-led housing, financial support must be matched by practical support for local authorities and housing associations.
There is also a broader point about trust and confidence. Partnerships between housing associations and community organisations must remain true to the principles upon which the projects are founded, and—as has recently been highlighted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—these agreements do not always play out as planned. Could the Minister provide some assurance and guidance to ensure that housing associations honour their commitments to communities and work constructively to deliver genuinely community-led schemes? Will he also set out what steps the Government will take to ensure that local authorities have the knowledge, training and guidance necessary to support community land trusts and other community-led housing? Will the Government consider encouraging councils to identify dedicated officers or champions for these issues to give greater consideration to community organisations when disposing of public land? Finally, what mechanisms do the Government believe are necessary to ensure that community-led housing partnerships remain financially viable and community ownership remains at the heart of the movement?
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
As someone for whom a council house was a lifeline out of the cycle of homelessness, I strongly welcome this Bill and the Government’s actions outlined in it. I was homeless not because of someone born abroad, but because of decades of Government inaction, the mass sell-off of council homes without them being replaced, and the housing crisis that has developed in this country over decades. The comments made today by the Conservative party and by its spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), were absolutely shameful—people in temporary accommodation in my constituency will not be served better by the actions the Conservatives are proposing. They will be served better by the measures in this Bill.
I strongly welcome the Government’s action to support victims of domestic violence. Many of us will have seen victims having to leave their accommodation instead of the perpetrators and the awful situations that result. I strongly welcome the measures on that in the Bill. As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope for action on rent arrears. Only about one fifth of local authorities specifically exclude the rent arrears provisions for victims of domestic violence. I welcome the guidance, but I encourage the Minister to outline the timeline for that guidance and how its effectiveness will be assessed.
I support the measures to review shared ownership. I have been contacted by Fiona and David and so many other constituents who were sold a dream that turned into a nightmare. They have a percentage of ownership, but all the responsibility when things go wrong. I encourage the Government to make that review comprehensive and thorough.
Finally, we have heard from a number of other Members about the trap of furniture poverty. I heard from Shannon, who was a victim of domestic abuse. She said:
“At times, I considered returning to the abusive relationship so my daughter would have a bed to sleep in.”
We have to end furniture poverty. It is not a luxury to have a bed or white goods; they are essential, and not having them traps people in a debt cycle and pushes them towards rent arrears and future homelessness. I encourage the Minister to meet me and other colleagues who are interested in ending furniture poverty to explore how the Bill could genuinely do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There is now a two-minute time limit.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
The housing crisis is urgently felt by local people in South East Cornwall, and I warmly welcome the fact that this Government are taking action. In Cornwall, we need first homes, not just second homes. We need genuinely affordable homes for local people that allow them to stay in the communities where they have built their lives. This Bill is good news for our rural communities, because when a social home is lost, replacing it can be exceptionally difficult in areas like mine. Our land is constrained, development costs are high and the pressure from second homes and holiday lets can make it harder for local people to compete in the housing market.
I am working with local people to support greater financial literacy and women’s financial independence, because I believe that everyone needs that knowledge to be secure. I welcome the focus in the Bill on protecting victims of domestic abuse, because for a woman who is living with an abusive partner, the question of whether she can leave is often tied to the question of where she can go.
In South East Cornwall, I have been encouraging key businesses and developers to build genuinely affordable homes and to consider how they do so. I want to see my community benefit from Government investment. Each year, Cornwall’s infrastructure is put under strain by the influx of tourists. While that seasonal increase helps our economy, it puts pressure on our services. Cornwall council is ready to work strategically with Homes England to make sure that development strengthens communities and does not put them under greater strain. Will the Minister work with Cornwall to secure that strategic partnership and give them more power to make our communities resilient?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on growth in every postcode. It might interest the House to know that in South East Cornwall, we have many Plymouth area postcodes. We must see our PL postcodes included in a Homes England deal in Plymouth. I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to see how much that investment could matter for our area.
I know that the Minister wants to see lots of progress, and I am glad to support the Bill. I want to see urgent implementation with Cornwall. I want to see that partnership, and the same applies to Plymouth.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the measures in the Bill on right to buy, including those on exempting properties in designated rural areas and council homes for market rent from the scheme. I welcome Baroness Taylor’s commitment to look at introducing a power for those rural areas to be designated in regulations, and potentially with local authorities. Between 1979 and 2025, Cornwall council sold off nearly 11,000 council houses, which is more than the current remaining HRA council housing stock. Meanwhile, we have nearly 25,000 households on the housing register and more than 800 people in temporary and emergency accommodation.
Too often, homes that were once part of the social housing stock have been converted into holiday lets or student accommodation, which places huge pressure on an already stretched housing market. The covenants and deeds of ex-council houses, which are intended to prevent them from being used for profit, could and should be properly enforced. I recently found a former council home on the Beacon in Falmouth being advertised on a website for £2,500 a week. That is not right.
Our ambition for council homes must reach every corner of the country, including rural and coastal communities such as those in Cornwall, where the need is so acute. One of the barriers to delivering more council housing locally is the level of HRA debt, which is an important factor alongside repairs, the state of the construction market and council expertise in building. Will the Government please look at options to help councils build when they are faced with such barriers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak opposite the new Minister, with whom I very much enjoyed working on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Now that she is on the Government Front Bench, I suppose it is left to me to ask the tough questions.
The Government have said that the Bill has been designed to encourage social housing providers to invest in the building of new socially rented homes. They want to encourage councils to build by restricting right to buy. That is the wrong approach. Yes, waiting lists for councils homes are far too high, but making it harder for tenants to get on in life and escape the clutches of the public sector is not the right solution. Instead, Ministers should look at what their policies are doing. Despite their promises, Labour is going backwards on house building.
As our reasoned amendment states, last year there were
“12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year”.
Why are the Government not pledging to take on the developers, who are sitting on thousands of unbuilt planning applications? The Institute for Public Policy Research—Labour’s favourite think-tank—has found that 1.4 million homes have been left unbuilt since 2007, despite planning permission being granted. The figure of 1.4 million homes sounds rather close to the Government’s challenging target of 1.5 million new homes.
People are fed up with the eyesores in their neighbourhood—levelled ground left abandoned, surrounded by hoardings. I can show the Minister many examples in my Broxbourne constituency, and I am sure that hon. Members from right across the House can do the same. Taking on the land-banking developers would have widespread public support, but this Government only seem interested in making it easier to build on the green belt. We are still waiting for them to reveal what action they are taking to speed up building following the consultations held more than 12 months ago, so there is clearly no urgency.
The Government should also consider who should be eligible for the help of a social home. People who come to this country and wish to live here should not rely on the generosity of taxpayers. Making Britain your home should be earned by working hard and integrating; it should not come with a free ride on the benefits system. That is why the Conservative party will end social housing tenancies for foreign nationals. Ensuring that only UK nationals can access social housing would free up 230,000 homes for British families. That change would make an immediate and significant difference to those stuck on council house waiting lists, but the Government would prefer that they sit around waiting for the Bill.
Sadly, this Government, and especially their Back Benchers, are blinded by their ideological dislike of right to buy. It is clearly—[Interruption.] A number of Members have asked where Conservative Members were today. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, Members of Parliament have a lot to deal with. When we do surgeries in our constituencies and people say, “When I turn on the TV, I see hardly anyone in the Chamber,” we all explain why that is. I suspect there will be times when all hon. Members cannot make it to important debates that their constituents want them to attend.
It is clearly the view of Labour Members that if we had no right to buy, social housing waiting lists would disappear, but where do they think the 2 million families that have utilised the scheme would be without it? Well, I can tell them: they would probably be in the same home, but it would be subsidised by the taxpayer rather than privately owned. Abolishing right to buy is not the silver bullet that they think it is.
The Government are placing huge burdens on social housing providers to help Ministers meet their own net zero targets. The cost of complying with new energy regulations is causing significant pressure, and getting 713,000 homes up to minimum energy efficiency standards is estimated to cost £4.5 billion. The Chartered Institute of Housing told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that housing associations do not want to buy properties with gas boilers because they know that it will cost them more money to strip them out and make properties energy efficient. That is pushing up council house waiting lists.
The National Housing Federation is clear about what that means: spending billions to comply with net zero regulations will make it harder to build new homes. Ministers already know this, as they reduced energy efficiency targets for social housing in January on the basis that providers could not build new homes because of the financial burden of upgrading their existing stock. If Ministers want councils to be incentivised to build, entirely getting rid of those expensive regulations would be a good place to start.
What is positive in the Bill is the review of the shared ownership scheme, and I hope the Minister, when she gets to her feet, can confirm that the Government intend to keep that review in the Bill. This obligation was added by the Government only due to the diligent work of the Conservative team in the other place. I have lived in a shared ownership property, and I know that—as for other forms of ownership, such as leasehold—reforms are desperately needed to fix the many problems residents face. The Opposition agree that the provisions to protect victims of domestic violence are needed, but a separate legislative measure would have been the right way to bring those forward.
I gently say to the many hon. Members who have made impassioned speeches that, when I was a council leader, I had a number of meetings with housing providers and housing associations, and not once in the hundreds of hours of meetings I had with social housing providers did they say to me that they could not build new social homes in Broxbourne, or in fact across the country, because of the right to buy. It was never mentioned as a reason why housing associations are not building social homes.
Luke Murphy
Providers did, however, when the Conservatives were in government, point to the 60% cut in the affordable housing budget, which nearly led to the abolition of social rent under the Conservative Government. There was a 97% reduction in builds between 2010 and 2016; that is the record that the hon. Member’s party stands on.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Member has intervened on me quite a lot, and we have had quite a ding-dong in this Chamber. I say gently to him that when I speak to housing providers, they tell me that one of the reasons why they cannot build new social homes is the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions, which means that they spend more money on taxes, rather than on building new social homes.
In summary, this Bill is the wrong approach, and it is fundamentally built on the wrong beliefs. It will not build a single new social home, but it will deny many families the opportunity of ever owning a home of their own. The Conservative party will always be on the side of aspiration and opportunity, and that is why we will vote for our reasoned amendment.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for bringing their experience and expertise to today’s debate. Like many of them, I was fortunate enough to live in social housing, which my family secured following a period of homelessness in my childhood. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned the relief, and that light in your eyes when you get a set of keys and know that you and your family do not have to move yet again with plastic bags and a suitcase. The relief that social housing brought us, the safety and security of having a roof over our heads, was priceless. I share the disappointment and anger expressed by Members from across this House about the fact that this is not available to many families today. Many Members highlighted the importance of social housing to communities up and down the country.
I turn first to the reasoned amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Opposition. While I am happy to see the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), a fellow former member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I am worried to hear Opposition Front Benchers contradicting themselves. They welcome our support for protections for victims of domestic abuse, but I am disappointed with their contradictory response to our wider reforms. They both want to permit homes to be sold under the right to buy at the unsustainable rate that is discouraging our local councils from building more of them, and say that we should support more councils in building and increasing the supply of social homes, but it cannot work like that.
I am mindful of time—we do need to finish—but I want to reflect on some remarks made. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke about protecting tenants who are fleeing violence. I am sad to say that I have had to help three families in my constituency who, tragically, have lost young people due to knife crime. It is important that we look at this issue and highlight some of the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister.
Many Members raised the issue of shared ownership. As the Housing Minister outlined, we have taken positive steps to look at the shared ownership model, including the expectations on landlords who bid for shared ownership funding. As the Minister highlighted, we do not believe that a review is necessary, but we are already considering specific issues that have been raised, including about data and long-term affordability for customers. We will report back on that at a later date.
Andrew Cooper
Is my hon. Friend aware of how difficult it is to sell a shared ownership home when the previous owner is deceased? The estate can end up paying service charges and rent for quite a long period. Will she consider whether there is further action that the Government could take on that?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I think that will be one of the areas that we consider when my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister looks at shared ownership.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned domestic abuse and debt. It is really important to know that this is a key area for survivors of domestic abuse. The Government are committed to addressing this issue in their national plan to end homelessness. We believe that the best route for doing so is to ensure that the regulations are amended and the relevant legislation is looked at. My understanding is that the Housing Minister will look at that. I am due to meet the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I would welcome other hon. Members attending that meeting.
A number of hon. Members mentioned council disposals. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue very seriously. We want local authorities and housing associations to, where possible, retain homes in the social housing sector. We believe the new disposals notification requirements in the Bill will help to maximise opportunities for social housing providers to retain homes. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister highlighted: housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. However, we will continue to explore what further steps we can take to stop social housing stock being sold.
Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, whereas there would be a loss of 26,000 homes if we retained the current system. The right to buy remains a crucial route into home ownership, but we must also confront the reality: social house building has struggled to keep pace with sales under the right to buy, and that has resulted in an increase in the number of families in costly temporary accommodation and expanded social housing waiting lists across the country. Our right to buy reforms, notably the new build exemption, will give councils the confidence to get building again.
We refute the accusation that we are doing nothing to ensure that social housing is being used effectively. The Government expect social housing landlords to maximise the use of existing homes, as well as to build more. We have launched a review of how effectively social housing providers use their properties. We will report on its findings later this year.
On the Opposition’s concerns about the allocation of social housing to non-UK nationals, the Government do not support restricting social housing solely to British citizens. Such an approach would be unworkable and would cut across legal obligations, including obligations relating to EU citizens with settled status and the Equality Act 2010. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled by local councils. If a person’s immigration status does not allow them recourse to public funds, they are not eligible for social homes. The racist rhetoric and the demonising of people who want to work has to stop. The vast majority of those allocated social homes in the UK are UK nationals. That is a fact, so I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment on the issue.
When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10, he put building more council homes at the heart of this Government’s agenda. For far too long successive Governments have failed to deliver the homes that we need up and down the country, while simultaneously failing to protect our housing stock. We know we can and must go further.
The Bill is about bringing an end to the era of failure on social housing; it is about protecting the homes that we have and supporting the building of the new homes we need; it is about ensuring that the system works fairly for those who need it the most; and it is about reducing the overreliance on temporary accommodation that is crippling so many councils, up and down the country. Collectively, London councils are spending £5.5 million a day on temporary accommodation. That is unsustainable.
We need to turbocharge social housing, up and down the country. Social housing is not just about a roof over people’s heads; it creates strong connected communities, enables families to live happily, enables healthy lives and provides long-term sustainable housing. The Government are making progress to reverse the decline of social housebuilding, as represented by the latest figures from Homes England showing a 65% increase in social rent completions.
Across the country, almost 180,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. As many hon. Members have mentioned, over 1.3 million people are on the housing waiting list. That has a devastating impact on the wellbeing of our children and families, who are facing poor conditions, lacking the space to grow. How can we expect those young children to contribute to society in later life when they do not have a safe place to call their home? The Bill brings an end to that failure.
The Bill provides the crucial step that many families want to see—the same step my family was given many years ago. It ensures that when families face homelessness and women are fleeing domestic abuse with their children, they are not the ones who are evicted—the perpetrator is. The Bill ensures that we restrict right-to-buy sales, and that 100% of the receipts go back to councils so that they can reinvest in their local areas.
The Bill will ensure that we turbocharge and bring a new lease of life to local council building across the country, working with our councils, providers, housing associations and private developers to get the housing right. It is important that we continue to progress the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I put the question, I need to inform the House that in the event of a Division—I pass no comment on whether there will be one—some of the pass readers in both Lobbies are currently not in operation. I ask all Members to follow the directions of Doorkeepers and Division Clerks and use the working pass readers, which have notices on them. The Parliamentary Digital Service are working hard to restore the remaining pass readers for any Divisions tomorrow.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Social Housing Bill [Lords] (Programme)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Point of Order
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of July, the Prime Minister announced that he was holding cross-party talks on social care. He did not invite the Green party, despite our involvement in the Casey commission cross-party talks for the past 18 months. When I expressed my concern about that in business questions this morning, the Leader of the House suggested that smaller parties had not taken up an invitation. No doubt inadvertently, that is misleading because no such invitation was ever issued to the Green party. Will you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I might go about getting the record corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and indeed for giving notice of it. Did she raise the matter with the Leader of the House prior to making the point of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker
She did. As she will know, the content of ministerial answers to questions and contributions on the Floor of the House is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted her remarks. If any correction to the record is necessary because of an inadvertent error, I am sure it will be forthcoming.
Water Management
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
After a summer of drought in England, including in my constituency, we are bracing ourselves for flooding and storm overflows, and then more drought and more flooding, and then more storm overflows, and then more drought, more flooding and more storm overflows. On the levels around Stathe, Helland, Burrowbridge, Stoke St Mary and North Curry, my constituents must get used to the risk of their land being underwater almost every year, sewage being surcharged into the River Tone, and hosepipe bans and drought, if not at the same time, then in very quick succession.
We are looking at a future of water scarcity—too little water—and too much water. The proposed solutions sound familiar: more reservoirs, more underground stormwater tanks, thicker concrete, bigger pipes, more pumping, more energy and more chemicals. Yes, we are going to need some of that, but that alone would amount to one of the most carbon-intensive infrastructure investment programmes this country has ever seen. In treating the symptoms, not the causes, those measures risk failure. Instead, it is time to tackle the problem where it begins: in the way that our homes, streets and buildings have been designed for decades and in the way that they will be designed in the future.
The truth is that England does not lack water. I will be able to point to an awful lot of it this autumn across my constituency. Rather, it lacks the ability or perhaps the political will to manage it sustainably where it lands.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. Is it not time to ensure that developers with a number of projects—many of them building hundreds of houses—start paying towards the upgrading of waste and water management? They often have big profit margins on their houses and such a policy would take the onus off Government and off the Minister.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that developers should pay their way. There is much to do, as I will come to.
On average, each house roof in England receives enough free rainwater to meet all its household’s non-potable—non-drinking—water needs, including flushing toilets, washing clothes and watering gardens. Instead of that, we send it, often at high speed, into the sewerage network where it discharges into our rivers. At the same time, we spend millions of pounds making pure drinking water, pumping it into our homes and flushing that down the toilet.
Around a quarter to a third of drinking water in our homes gets nowhere near being drunk. In fact, it is all flushed down the drain without a single drop quenching anybody’s thirst. It is an appalling and pointless waste of drinking water and energy. It means that we respond by investing tens of billions of pounds in reservoirs to hold a bit more rain, so we can treat more of it, pump more of it into our homes and—yes—flush more of it down the toilet unnecessarily. That is not environmental progress; that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.
The water from our homes and highways—vast volumes of rainwater—continue to go straight down the drain as well, mixing with sewage, pointlessly being pumped and treated and pumped and treated, and far too often creating a backwash that sends sewage tumbling into the River Tone in my constituency and into rivers and beaches across the country.
Our waste water treatment plants can cope with the sewage that is produced. What they cannot cope with is the millions of litres of rainwater we add to the sewage before we send it to the waste water treatment plants. Too often we respond by investing huge amounts into storage tanks to hold stormwater, so we can pump and treat more of it. that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.
The climate is making the problems worse and, ironically, our addition of rainwater into the mix is making the climate worse—a classic doom loop. As the atmosphere warms, England’s winters become wetter and our summers drier with more intensive thunderstorms. Meanwhile, housing delivery continues at scale, covering land with more impermeable surfaces while we continue to legally entitle developers to collect new rainwater and add that to the sewerage systems as well, which cannot cope. We are building the problem into existence before our eyes.
Contrast this with how we look and deal with energy. We no longer assume that all power has to be generated centrally. Instead, we actively encourage decentralised generation, such as solar panels on roofs which, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will now be required on every roof of every new home. We have batteries in homes and heat pumps replacing distant combustion, and we offer grants to make it happen. On water, we remain stubbornly stuck in—well, I was going to say the 20th century, but it feels like the 19th century.
Other countries have progressed. In parts of Belgium, new homes must capture rainwater for beneficial use. No wonder it has achieved the lowest per capita water consumption in Europe, and no doubt the lowest water bills with it. Australia, Germany and Singapore have embedded rainwater harvesting and source-controlled drainage into mainstream development. In England, by contrast, we continue to ignore rainwater’s massive asset value. Even the amendment I proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that new homes should capture rainwater to use it and lower residents’ bills was rejected, I am sorry to say, by the Government.
This issue will not go away, and the alternative approach is really not that radical. It is all remarkably simple. The simple principle is what is called source control: capture rain where it falls, use it wisely and return the excess rain to the ground where it fell. Why use it to top up our sewage? Do we love sewage so much that we actually want to make more of it by adding more water and creating an even greater volume? For all those homes built in earlier centuries where rainwater is directed into the sewer already, why not offer grants to retro-split two drains from the one drain they have at the moment? It would mean lower costs for the consumer, lower water bills, less sewerage for water companies, less sewage going into our rivers and lower costs for the Government, the public and the agencies to cope with.
It could cut water bills by roughly a third, meaning £225 off the average household bill. A household in Taunton and Wellington that catches its own rainwater and takes it out of the sewer would cut its water bill by a quarter to a third. That is around £225 a year off a £695 bill. Nationally, that is 28% to 35% of the total bill. If we gross that up, that is £6.5 billion off bills across 29 million households. Imagine what that could do if it was freed up to be spent in the economy in other ways.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I confess that I am a little confused. There are plenty of places in the country, including in my region, where we already have a separate system for sewage and rainwater runoff that should keep them separate. Yet, over many years, we have seen that that has not had the desired effect, and I am sorry to say that we are still seeing far too much sewage going into our rivers. While I recognise the point he is trying to make, I do not think that it is the silver bullet he suggests. Does he not accept that if we are to capture more rainwater, the way to do that is to build the reservoirs we need?
Gideon Amos
As I said at the beginning, we certainly need some reservoirs; I completely accept that. However, as I have explained, we do not assume that the only solution with energy is massive, centralised power stations. In the same way, collecting water on our roofs and in our homes can make a massive contribution. That contribution —some £6.5 billion back into people’s pockets—is not to be sneezed at.
Done at scale, the approach simultaneously tackles water scarcity, water excesses and carbon emissions. Toilets flushed with rainwater reduce demand for new reservoirs and enable more new development. Soakaways, green roofs and property-level sustainable drainage systems help to slow run-off and reduce flood risk and storm overflows. Less pumping and treatment means lower operational carbon. Less concrete and excavation means lower embodied carbon. Crucially, decentralised rainwater management delivers the benefits exactly where people experience them.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend is showing his usual erudition on these topics. He mentions SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—which can be an important part of the solutions he outlines. However, many homeowners in my constituency find that those sustainable drainage systems do not work as intended because they are not properly designed and maintained. We have unenacted legislation that means developers are not being held to account. Does he agree that we need to do more to make sustainable drainage systems work effectively?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is characteristically right, and I will come on to schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which he and I tried on several occasions to have enacted during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Crucially, decentralised water management delivers the benefits I have listed: homes that are more resilient, bills that are lower, streets that flood less and rivers that have less sewage being discharged into them. Before I was elected as an MP, my campaign was to get the River Tone designated as a bathing water at French Weir. Working with the friends’ group, we succeeded, but unless we take action to reduce sewage volumes in the Tone catchment and around the country, we will not be able to meaningfully reduce sewage discharges into those rivers and beaches.
Crucially, none of this requires an AI data centre to make it happen; what is required is a shift in mindset: managing rain before it becomes a problem rather than using it to make a problem and then trying to manage that problem we have created. We can personally do our bit. My son thinks that the enormous water butt I am trying to make in my back garden is a Heath Robinson creation—well, he would if he knew what Heath Robinson was, but he is far too young. Following all the regulations is challenging, but I am working on it. However, what is really needed is the Government to take action on regulation.
Three key changes are needed from the Government. First, we need to stop designing homes that treat rain as an inconvenience to be sent elsewhere. Rather, it should be sent into people’s homes and harnessed as the asset and essential natural resource that it is and require rainwater harvesting in all new homes. Secondly, the Government needs to bring schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act into law, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), so that we start to drain more of our rainwater into the ground where it falls and have a properly regulated system for doing so. Thirdly, the Government need to grant the retro-splitting of household drains so that people can save on their bills and at the same time save our rivers—like our precious Tone—which can be spared the sewage these drains create, add to and augment.
England is about to spend unprecedented sums on water sewerage and infrastructure. We cannot solely rely on carbon-heavy centralised systems. We should finally change our relationship with the rain that falls right on the top of us all. If we want cleaner rivers, secure water supplies, lower emissions and homes fit for a changing climate, the answer is learning to value rain and use it to save us all money where it lands.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate. I really enjoyed listening to his speech. There was so much agreement from the Government side of the House on pretty much everything he said. He described what I would refer to as “pre-pipe”, which I am really interested in. It is about, exactly as he described, looking at how we stop rainwater ending up in our sewerage system and often contributing to pollution incidents—the system becomes overwhelmed —when, as it is rainwater, it could be elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman touches on one of my favourite things to talk about: nature-based solutions—how we can use nature more, create soakaway areas and create sustainable urban drainage. That is absolutely correct. I am passionate about thinking about how we manage water. We often talk about how to solve problems around pollution, but if we better manage rainwater that falls from the sky, we can help to deal with pollution, as well as many other things. Reservoirs are hugely important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) pointed out, and we should absolutely be using them, but they are part of the wider system—collecting the rainfall and putting it where we want it, rather than it ending up where we do not.
It is obviously for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to talk about building standards, but I can tell the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I asked MHCLG ahead of this debate, that it is reviewing water efficiency standards in the building regulations for new homes, and considering how to enable water reuse systems, including rainwater and grey-water systems, where those are safe, practical and cost effective.
I have mentioned this issue a few times, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern—“astonishment” may be going a bit too far—that we use drinking water to flush our toilets. To give the other side of the argument, which I have had played back to me, the rules mean that the water supplied to domestic properties has to be drinking water quality. I hope that I am not telling the House things I should not, but we are exploring how we can guarantee that we do not mix up the water pipes that go into homes and therefore cause problems that way. This always has to be safety first. That is why the only water that can enter a property—unless a private individual has set up their own system—has to be drinking water quality.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that much progress has been made in regard to rainwater harvesting, not just by MHCLG but by the Minister’s Department—not least the landmark report, published this March, by the Drinking Water Inspectorate? The report exactly explored a potential governance framework that sets out standards for non-potable water in domestic settings, and talks about accreditation and standards, to ensure that these systems, when we are ready to bring them in, are safe and will be properly maintained.
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend; I was trying remember what the report was, so I very much appreciate the intervention. She is absolutely right. We have some of the best drinking water in the whole world; we have incredibly high standards for the health of our drinking water. The report by the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks at how we can do this in a safe way, and I am keen to explore that. We are going to be short of drinking water if we continue at this scale in the future. Thinking about where we are using it, rather than using it to flush our toilets, feels like a way forward. There is a huge amount of cross-party thinking on how we can do that. This comes back to the topic of how we manage water. How do we think about water? Where is it falling?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Minister is obviously aware of the work of the Labour rural research group. One thing we have been talking about is whether environmental land management schemes need longer-term certainty. Farmers are trying to invest in proper water management, as she is describing, but they often need more than three years to do so. Does she agree that her Department may need to look at how we can arrange for ELM schemes to be longer term, specifically when it comes to water?
Emma Hardy
I am hesitant to agree to something that is not in my brief, but I will certainly mention that to the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan).
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that when we think about water management, we often talk about reservoirs; those are very much needed, and do matter, but so does managing water where it falls—thinking about roofs, streets, gardens, farms and developments. That is why we want a more practical, prevention-focused approach to water management that captures more water, wastes less of it and plans developments in a way that looks at local catchments.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
One thing that will benefit farmers in my constituency is the £50 million through the sustainable farming incentive to allow farms to build more water storage on their land. That is going to be of huge benefit, because their food stocks are down going into winter after the hot summer. We also have an issue with flooding. Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act has not been enacted, meaning that every development has a right to be connected to the drainage system, which increases the amount of flooding. If the Minister could take that forward with colleagues at MHCLG, I would be very grateful indeed.
Emma Hardy
On the point about farm reservoirs, my hon. Friend is correct. Today I held a meeting of the national drought group, and we had a focus on agriculture and the impact that drought has had on farmers. We are talking now about potential rain, El Niño and flooding, but drought is still here in this country. One of the conversations we had was, how can we support farmers to hold more of the water that comes down from the sky? We are focusing a lot on funding farm reservoirs, but we also need to think about filling farm reservoirs. How can farmers get them full for the summer, which we need, given our changing climate, with more rain in winter and drier summers?
I love SUDS—I get very geekily excited about sustainable drainage systems. I know I am shocking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to convince you that they can be really nice, and they can be spaces for nature as well. I am not winning, am I?
Peter Swallow
I completely agree with the Minister. There are many SUDS in Bracknell Forest that have been delivered as part of alternative natural green spaces, and they create lovely nature corridors in our community. I just wanted to put that on the record.
Emma Hardy
This is like geeks united—we love our SUDS! They are brilliant.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right: the point about the maintenance of SUDS has been raised a few times. It is okay to build them—I actually think most are built and designed in a very effective way—but there is also the question of how we ensure they are maintained and who is responsible for that.
Gideon Amos
I just want to make an observation. When I trained as an architect, I had to follow a whole series of regulations on drains about what the diameters are, what the gradients are—everything has to be followed. For SUDS, there are no such regulations. One is regulated; the other is all down to policy. As many Members have said, we need proper regulation for SUDS, because things will go wrong if we do not get schedule 3 or similar legislation on to the statute book.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the expertise he brings to this House from his previous occupation. That is one of the things we are trying to work through with industry and MHCLG. We all agree that SUDS are a really good thing. Where they may not be as effective is the maintenance issue: who is responsible for maintaining them, and who pays for it? That is the kind of thing we are thinking about.
This goes back to the point I made earlier. When it comes to planning, are we thinking about the management of water in an area? With our changing climate going from drought to flood, are we thinking about where we want the water? It is a slightly different, nuanced conversation to say, “When it floods, where do we want the water to go? When there is a drought, where are we going to get the water from?” That means thinking about it more holistically in a way that we have not done previously, when we thought about each point in isolation.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In January last year, Storm Chandra caused devastation in East Devon, and there was significant flooding in Ottery St Mary. Does the Minister think that, as well as attenuation ponds and SUDS, people should be encouraged to store water in their own gardens using such things as water butts?
Emma Hardy
Absolutely; the more we can all do collectively, the better. We are coming up to Flood Action Week, beginning on 12 October, when I will be calling on every single Member in this House to do what they can to get the message out to their constituents about being prepared and how we can all collectively play our part in what could be quite a challenging winter.
The national planning policy framework requires all new developments to incorporate SUDS designed and maintained in accordance with national standards. There are some new national standards, and the hierarchy within those standards prioritises collecting rainwater for non-potable uses. We are also committed to better joined-up water planning, with decisions on housing, drainage, water supply and waste water taken together, so that growth is supported in the right places and communities are better protected.
In conclusion, I have really enjoyed this debate and talking about some of my favourite things: natural flood management, SUDS, rainwater and water management in a catchment—it has ticked all my favourite boxes. Managing rainwater where it falls is practical, local and important. It can help households to use less mains water, reduce pressure on sewerage, improve drainage, support flood resilience and make new developments more sustainable. That is why this Government continue to support better management of rainwater. Our water system faces significant challenges, but this Government are taking action, cleaning up rivers, tackling pollution at source, holding water companies to account, improving resilience to flood and droughts, and securing investment needed for the future. Through reform, investment and stronger regulation, we are rebuilding public trust and creating a water system that works for people, the environment and our economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Vascular Sector Reform
(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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of reform of the vascular sector.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Last night, you were in the Adjournment debate, and today you are chairing a Westminster Hall debate. Your talents are incredible—well done to you. We appreciate all the efforts that you make for us in this House in all ways.
It is, too, a pleasure to introduce this debate on something I am particularly interested in. A number of people in the Public Gallery have much more medical talent than I have—I am interested in the subject, but in the Gallery are some of those who carry out some of the operations and so have a deep interest. I pay a special thanks to Roger Greer, who is the administrator for the all-party parliamentary group for vascular and venous disease, which I chair—I declare that interest. That gentleman and others with him make the effort on this subject matter, which I am interested in.
Back home, I have had the opportunity to visit the Royal Victoria hospital. On vascular health, unfortunately some of the statistics for Northern Ireland, which I will mention, are worrying. I suspect that they will illustrate where we are in Northern Ireland, and that what is happening there will be mirrored here on the mainland.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. We had a wee chat beforehand, and I think—although I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet—we will all agree on the subject matter of this debate. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, and to his encouragement in some of the responses that we need as we move forward.
I am speaking on an issue vital to thousands of families across our great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and yet one that too often remains hidden in the shadows of our health service. I just said that to the Minister before—this is one of the issues that is slightly hidden. We might not always know everything about it, unless we have a particular interest. I know that other Members present—I thank them for coming—will have a particular interest in the pressing need for comprehensive reform of lower limb vascular care.
This debate gives this Westminster Hall Chamber the opportunity to highlight an often forgotten health issue. Vascular disease affects the very network of life within us, the arteries and veins that carry blood around our bodies, and encompasses peripheral arterial disease, chronic limb-threatening ischaemia, venous disease and devastating diabetes-related foot complications. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic, although I Richard in the Gallery might say, “Well, after that cake you had the other day, perhaps you’re not as careful as you should be with your diabetes”—but I do try to be careful and look after it.
Those are not mere clinical terms; they represent real human suffering, unbearable pain, non-healing wounds, severe loss of mobility and, in far too many cases, major limb amputation and premature death. I will put a bit of focus on that for us in Northern Ireland, because some of the figures for amputations in Northern Ireland are scary. I think they are probably scary here on the mainland as well. We have seen inspiring progress in cardiac and stroke care, which is very much welcome, but outcomes for vascular patients have simply failed to keep pace. That is the issue I want to highlight, if I can.
The risk of developing PAD is four times higher among smokers than non-smokers, and two to four times higher among people with diabetes than people without diabetes. That is another reason for this debate and the importance of where we are. One in five people over the age of 60 is affected by PAD, and more than 80% of amputations among people with diabetes are preceded by a foot ulcer. People might say, “A foot ulcer? That is not too bad”, but it can well be. Often, it is the precipitation of a disorder in your blood, which ultimately could lead to amputation. That statistic clearly demonstrates the enormous opportunity we have in prevention and early intervention.
One of the main thrusts of my comments today will be about early intervention and how we do that. We have experts in the Chamber who will speak, and I thank all hon. Members for coming along to make their contributions.
Approximately 4,200 major lower-limb amputations are performed every single year due to PAD, each representing, I believe, a personal tragedy, and an average cost of £28,000 to the NHS. We have to consider the costs, because they are part of what the NHS has to look at. Managing CLTI alone costs our health service an estimated £244 million annually, while the overall bill for NHS wound care reached a staggering £8.3 billion in 2017-18. That included some £5.6 billion spent on wounds that failed to heal. That perhaps gives a clinical look at where we are.
The human toll, of course, is tragic. Patients suffering from CLTI with rest pain or tissue loss face a 60% risk of death within five years, a prognosis that is worse than for many end-stage cancers. Following an above-knee amputation, a quarter of patients die within 90 days, and median survival among diabetic patients is just 1.68 years. Those stats illustrate the extent of the problem and, I believe, confirm the importance of where we are.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The statistics that the hon. Gentleman highlights should shock us all. If those were the statistics for dealing with any cancer, we would simply find them unacceptable. Does he agree that vascular disease, because it is not treated in the same way as cancer, in some cases ends up being treated as a “second-class” disease, and that we should be mindful of that?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has rightly said that, when it comes to vascular disease, while it is equal with cancer in its severity and in the numbers who lose their lives, it is not treated the same. Today’s debate perhaps gives us a chance to illustrate that, and I am hopeful that the Minister responsible for answering can give us some encouragement in relation to it.
Furthermore, this crisis starkly reinforces health inequalities. Just as an example, among individuals aged 45 to 54, those in our most deprived communities face above-knee amputation rates nearly five times higher than those in the least deprived areas.
I thank the Library, as always, for the information that it made available to us. It said that
“gaps in vascular care are resulting in avoidable harm for patients. In particular, the report highlighted ‘delayed diagnosis, inconsistent referral pathways and variable access to specialist care’ for people with PAD, venous disease and diabetes-related foot complications. It said these problems are resulting in ‘thousands of avoidable lower-limb amputations each year.’”
If we were to achieve something from today’s debate, it would be first to ensure an improvement in vascular health, but secondly for the issue of amputations to be addressed through early diagnosis and looked at much more significantly and strongly than it has been.
As the Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland, I feel a particular responsibility to shine a light on how this national crisis presents itself in Northern Ireland. I do that because I think it will help add to the debate; I am ever mindful that the Minister here today has responsibility for the United Kingdom but not directly for Northern Ireland—I understand that—but I use the figures, stats and information from Northern Ireland as an illustration of the issue. What I want to see, and what I think the Minister will want to see as well, is an improvement in this across the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
My job is to shine a light on how the national crisis presents itself in Northern Ireland. While the briefing outlines the systemic challenges across the UK, the reality on the ground in our region underscores an even more acute urgency. Across Northern Ireland, hundreds of patients undergo limb amputations each year due to vascular complications and diabetes-related foot ulcers. In fact, diabetes prevalence in Northern Ireland continues to rise steadily, with local health trusts treating thousands of individuals at high risk of developing severe foot complications.
People sometimes think that diabetes is not that serious. I used to be almost 17 stone. I realised, when the doctor confirmed that I had diabetes some 18 years ago, that I had to lose weight. I lost 4 stone and I have kept it off, but I have to work hard to ensure I do not develop any other complications, which can quite often happen.
The stats in Northern Ireland reflect stark and unacceptable regional inequalities, and they are mirrored by the stats and figures from the mainland. On healthcare inequality, patients from the most socio-economically deprived communities in Northern Ireland face significantly higher amputation rates, nearing the alarming national trend here on the mainland, where deprivation increases the likelihood of a major amputation nearly fivefold.
Hopefully, when the Minister responds, he will tell us how the issue of higher levels of deprivation can be addressed, because it must be done. The lack of hospital bed capacity, dedicated wrapping access and community foot protection services forces vascular patients into prolonged, acute hospital stays. Managing severe vascular conditions and non-healing wounds accounts for millions of pounds annually across our health and social care costs. Those resources could be saved through early preventative community intervention. Again, that means early diagnosis, early community intervention and savings to the NHS, which can then be used in other parts of the health service.
Turning to survival rates, a patient in Northern Ireland who undergoes a major lower limb amputation faces a staggering mortality risk within their first year post surgery. It is the same across the UK. Preventative care is quite literally a matter of life and death. I could not express that any better than the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who underlined that in his intervention.
If we are to relieve pressure on local hospitals in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and, ultimately, in Northern Ireland and protect our most vulnerable citizens, we must ensure that any national reform framework, including the national foot attack pathway, and standardised waiting times are fully integrated across all HSC trusts, and we cannot allow postcode lotteries to dictate whether a patient keeps or loses her limb depending on where she lives.
I hope the Minister can address the issue of postcode lotteries, which seem to happen with unfortunate regularity. I know he will be keen to change that, and this House is keen to hear what he says. The cardiovascular disease modern service framework rightly focuses on shared risk factors and acknowledges PAD, but its immediate priorities lack the explicit, detailed pathways, treatment standards and outcome measures urgently required for lower limb vascular care.
To close that gap—because that is what we are trying to do—clinicians, patient representatives, professional bodies and NHS leaders across the vascular sector are coming together to publish a definitive best-practice document this autumn. I am sure that document will be made available to the Minister, hopefully in advance. I think that will be helpful for the Minister and others in this debate who want to make changes.
The APPG on vascular and venous disease has highlighted a practical programme for reform, which I endorse. Obviously, I would endorse it because I am its chairman, but it is a positive, focused vision for the future that, if delivered, could make a difference. It includes the national foot attack pathway, backed by public awareness; same day or next day triage for urgent foot issues; and a multidisciplinary foot protection service in every integrated care system linked directly to specialist arterial centres.
When I go for my diabetes test once or twice a year—I have one next Wednesday—they make me close my eyes and do that wee prick of my foot to see if I react and if I can feel it. I am glad to say that I always do. The point is that if someone cannot, that is a serious problem. That is an issue for diabetics, in particular, and it is really important that they are checked regularly, especially their feet.
Thirdly, there should be national maximum waiting times enforcing urgent vascular assessment within five days for in-patients and two weeks for out-patients. Setting a standard to be achieved and having a clear focus on outcomes that reward early diagnosis, fast healing and reduced amputations, are ultimately about patients having a better quality of life—a more normal life—without their health deteriorating. There should also be faster adoption of innovation, including community diagnostics, compression therapies and digital wound monitoring.
When it comes to research and development, the Minister is always very keen to know about advancements in vascular health and how the Government are helping. One of the people involved from one of the hospitals back home in Northern Ireland is with us today in the Public Gallery. She is clearly very aware of these issues and I thank her for her work. There is some great work being done in our hospitals, particularly in the Royal Victoria hospital back home, and in the rest of the Northern Ireland health service.
Will the Government ensure that the cardiovascular disease modern service framework includes distinct pathways and outcome measures for vascular conditions? Will the Minister support a national foot attack pathway and clear waiting time standards? With respect, standard rhetoric and warm words will not heal a failing wound; nor will they save a limb. Thousands of our fellow citizens face devastating, life-altering amputations—tragedies that are, in so many cases, entirely preventable if they are caught early enough.
As a type 2 diabetic myself, I know the personal anxiety that comes with those risks. I also know about early intervention. For me, that was losing 4 stone, taking the medication and being careful about what I eat. Cake became a once-a-week treat—my doctor told me we are allowed to have a wee treat now and again—and I am allowed to have a fry on Saturday morning, but the rest of the week it is best to abstain and not have any of those things. I know that early intervention, proper community pathways and timely care can work. They have worked for me and I know that they have worked for many others.
The Government have rightly pledged to shift the focus of the NHS from sickness to prevention and from treatment to early intervention. Today, I am asking the Government and the Minister to produce a clear and actionable blueprint to do precisely that. The vascular sector is coming forward this autumn with clear solutions, and I am very impressed by the sector’s ideas and suggestions about how to improve the strategy, including a national foot attack pathway, dedicated foot protection services and enforceable maximum waiting times, because we need to make sure that waiting times reflect the needs of those seeking help. The real test for the Minister is whether the Department can step up, grab this opportunity with both hands and deliver the system-wide reform that our patients deserve.
I thank all hon. Members for coming along to participate in the debate. I also thank those in the Public Gallery for being part of this work and for their expertise and input into the strategy. I think that the Minister will see that it can bring about the change that he and we all want.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate.
The publication of the 2026 cardiovascular disease modern service framework is a welcome step towards realising our commitment to a more preventative, community-focused health service. It rightly seeks to move care away from expensive and reactive hospital treatment towards earlier diagnosis and joined-up cardiovascular care in our communities. As we consider the future of vascular services, we should take this opportunity to go further and give attention to heart failure, where many of these conditions end. Heart failure places a significant burden on patients, families and the NHS. It affects more than 1 million people in the UK, and is the most common cause of hospital admissions among those over 65. The number of people living with heart failure is set to double by 2040.
Early intervention on a cardiovascular journey can do more than treat established diseases and the associated life-changing impacts that the hon. Member spoke about; it can also prevent more people from reaching heart failure. Evidence-based treatment can relieve symptoms, extend life and reduce hospital admissions, but patients can benefit only if the condition is recognised, diagnosed and treated without delay.
In my constituency, in towns such as Eastwood and areas such as Inham Nook, rates of heart failure are more than double the national average. People there are four times more likely to die from heart failure than those elsewhere. Access to diagnosis and specialist care varies from area to area, but no one’s postcode should determine how quickly they are diagnosed, when they see a specialist or when they receive treatment that could keep them well and out of hospital. The modern service framework must establish consistent national standards, with targeted support for deprived, rural and high-risk communities.
More than 1 million people are living with heart failure in the UK, with around 200,000 diagnosed each year. In England, 80% of diagnoses are made in hospital, despite 40% of the patients having previously experienced symptoms. That clearly demonstrates the urgent need to move from crisis-driven care to early diagnosis and planned treatment.
The modern service framework acknowledges that NHS health checks do not include the NT-proBNP blood test, which identifies whether the walls of the heart are stretched or there is a pressure overload on the heart. Although the framework proposes new testing models, valuable opportunities for early diagnosis such as that test can be missed. Heart failure must be explicitly mentioned in the modern service framework, and supporting measures must be clear, funded and measurable.
We also need stronger links between primary care, community services, hospitals and specialist centres. Those pathways need to be supported by a specialist workforce, as reform cannot simply mean reorganising structures. We need diagnostic capacity, specialist staff and community services; otherwise, pressure will just move from one part of the NHS to another.
I ask the Minister to make heart failure an explicit and measurable national priority within the modern service framework. That should include guaranteed access to testing, diagnosis, evidence-based treatment and multidisciplinary heart failure care, supported by investment in specialist staff, increased diagnostic capacity and community services. I hope the Minister will ensure that he goes further than considering reform of the vascular services and makes heart failure a national priority.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), to his place—he knows that I was in his place not too long ago, and I will be kind to him in my asks. I also welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who is a former orthopaedic surgeon, so he knows a thing or two about the blood vessels that run around the bones of the body. It feels like a unique privilege for me to stand here today as the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West—where we have one of the largest hospitals in the country—a trained vascular surgeon, and a former Minister who was partly involved in bringing forward the cardiovascular modern service framework when I was in post.
Vascular surgery was my bread and butter when I was a surgeon. There is no greater feeling for a surgeon and their team than returning blood flow to the limb—usually a lower limb—of a patient with critical limb ischemia, preventing them from undergoing a near-certain amputation, and watching them walk out of hospital. That is usually the culmination of many years of surgical training. I shall take this opportunity, because I may never get it again as a parliamentarian, to thank those who trained me and many like me in the west of Scotland and enabled us to acquire and practise those skills: people like George Welch, Wesley Stuart, Keith Hussey, David Kingsmore, David Wallace and Steven Boom, and colleagues in the Public Gallery such as my good friend Tamim Siddiqui, a consultant vascular surgeon in the west of Scotland. I am biased, but I believe that the west of Scotland vascular surgery is a cut above the rest, although other vascular surgeons are available in the Public Gallery.
One of the reasons I think the west of Scotland vascular surgeons are a cut above the rest is that, unfortunately, our area suffers from some of the highest burdens of vascular disease in the country. That is reflected in the statistics more widely. In Scotland, life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are going down, having steadily increased from 1980 until about 2012. We now have some of the lowest life expectancy rates anywhere in western Europe. We have to reflect on why that is.
Scotland spends more on its NHS and has more staff and resource relative to the rest of the country, yet productivity is lower. Scottish hospitals are treating fewer patients now than before the pandemic, unlike English hospitals, which have surpassed pre-pandemic activity levels under the Labour Government. We have to reflect on where the political failure lies. On behalf of my constituents in Glasgow South West, it is only responsible to reference the fact that the SNP Government have proposed a massive restructuring of Scotland’s NHS, seemingly without any detailed consultation with anyone. It is not clear who that structural change serves, how much it will cost, or how we can judge its success or failure.
I urge the Minister, who also has responsibility for four-nation engagement, to ask the Scottish Government how we can help to reverse the trend by imparting our wisdom and what we have learned over the last couple of years about turning around waiting lists and optimising clinical pathways. We have become habituated to the idea that there is a physical border between Scotland and England that cannot be transcended, whereas I believe that we can co-operate and problem solve instead of point scoring. I urge the Minister to lend the weight of his office so that patients near the border can benefit from services each way and do not have to travel 80 or 100 miles to receive services simply for lack of political will. I shall be grateful if he does that and writes to me about the outcome.
Will the Minister consider the asks from the Circulation Foundation and the APPG, with which I have done some work in the recent past? As we all know, diabetes is unfortunately on the rise. Synonymous with diabetes is diabetic foot, which is now the primary cause of limb loss in this country. A concerted effort is required because early intervention on a diabetic foot can prevent major limb amputation. I ask the Minister that we think about the national foot attack pathway, with a same-day or next-day triage service for urgent cases that enables much quicker treatment of diabetic feet and diabetic foot sepsis.
The model of stroke care that we have established, particularly in England with thrombectomy services, which I understand will become near-universal in only a few months—it is far from universal in Scotland—is a good model to follow for diabetic foot care and the national foot attack pathway. We need community foot protection services in every single integrated care board, with multidisciplinary hubs linked to specialist centres, so that we can offer more care not in hospital, but in the community, which is a linchpin of our 10- year health plan in England; and the implementation of national waiting time standards of five days for in-patients and two weeks for out-patients with transparent reporting. If we do that, we will save not only money, but limbs and lives.
On commissioning, we have all become too habituated to paying for activity and inputs. It is time to shift the dial and pay for an outcome. In many ways, vascular disease and diabetic foot disease offer an early win—an early exemplar—of how we can shift the dial on commissioning services from input to output.
Alongside that, it is important to think about how we support innovation, which is in the Minister’s title. I know at first hand that there are so many innovative vascular scientists and specialist surgeons doing things very differently from what we were doing only five years ago. They need the Government’s support. The Government will be pushing at an open door if they come forward with new ideas for how to innovate so that patients benefit directly from effective technologies and digital technologies. We can even optimise the NHS app to produce end-to-end digital pathways for these patients. I know that the Minister takes these matters very seriously and will consider them in his response.
I end where I began, by thanking everyone who has attended today, particularly the colleagues from the vascular community in the Public Gallery. I reiterate that it has been an honour and a privilege to be part of this debate, as a parliamentarian serving a constituency with a diverse community that suffers from diabetes and vascular disease, but also as a proud member of the vascular surgical community.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to their places. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He outlined the issues comprehensively in his opening speech, as we would expect.
According to the Circulation Foundation, vascular disease is as common as cancer and heart disease, accounting for 40% of deaths in the UK. That represents a huge disease burden on individuals and the NHS, yet we rarely discuss it in Parliament. It is a leading cause of preventable disability, with associated complications being worsened by the fragmented care available to patients.
Living with vascular disease means living with chronic pain, reduced mobility and often an isolating loss of independence. Many patients are left with a sense of powerlessness, which has a huge impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Sadly, we are all too familiar with the issues in the vascular sector: inconsistent standards and access to care; the dreaded postcode lottery in services; pathways and referral routes that disproportionately impact deprived communities; and under-investment in prevention. It seems to be yet another area of the NHS where, as we have been arguing this week on the Health Bill, too much time and money is spent responding to failure rather than improving the quality of services for patients and preventing and delaying deterioration in the first place. We must do better for people with vascular disease and for their families.
Having dealt with the harrowing case of a constituent, I know that a lack of care and the medical risks and implications of vascular disease can spiral out of control, leading, in the worst cases, to the premature death of a family member. It is incredibly upsetting when that happens. I cannot begin to imagine how devastating that experience must be.
A report from the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease highlighted the avoidable harm that gaps in vascular care can cause to patients. It confirmed that gaps in vascular care are resulting in avoidable harm, highlighting:
“Delayed diagnosis, inconsistent referral pathways and variable access to specialist care”
for people with peripheral artery disease, venous disease and diabetes-related foot complications. It said that those problems are resulting in
“thousands of avoidable lower-limb amputations each year.”
Discussions with the primary care network in my North Shropshire constituency have revealed that our county has one of the highest rates of lower-limb amputations because of these gaps in care. I cannot imagine the trauma caused to those who have lost a limb, knowing that it might have been avoided. It is time we aspired to ensuring a consistent level of care across the country.
I have been contacted by companies in the pharmaceutical sector that have highlighted the disconnect between acknowledgment and action. PAD is named as a “neglected” CVD risk factor, but it lacks the priority status, funding mechanisms and performance standards given to other conditions. They have also highlighted that the need for new surgical and interventional techniques is acknowledged but not operationalised with delivery timelines or resource allocation, and that there are no metrics for PAD. The absence of PAD standards or metrics in the main performance monitoring tables means that progress cannot be tracked and local ICBs cannot be held to account if they are falling behind.
The modern service framework is obviously a welcome step forward, but the Government should also take a look at the all-party parliamentary group’s calls for a national foot attack pathway, a community foot protection service, national maximum waiting times for patients, the reform of commissioning to reward outcomes and the acceleration of proven innovation, which must be rolled out more widely.
Beyond that, the care that the NHS provides at its front door must be strengthened so that symptoms are caught and treated early. The APPG’s report highlights how prevention-led, community-first care is needed to transform the vascular sector, diagnose conditions earlier and relieve pressure on acute services. Liberal Democrats want everyone with vascular disease to have a named GP to ensure continuity of care, which has been shown to improve outcomes and quality of life for those with long-term conditions.
Fixing the back door of the NHS is just as crucial for us. We have long been pressing for better social care, including free personal care and more support for family carers. Obviously, we welcome the steps that the Prime Minister took over the summer recess to ensure movement on the social care issue.
Our proposed package would make it easier for people with long-term conditions and disabilities to access flexible working. It would support those suffering from vascular disease to access the world of work wherever possible, and hopefully transform their mental health and independence, too.
Given the prevalence and severity of these conditions, I urge the Government to develop a strategy to transform the vascular sector to give patients the timely support and treatment they need. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister will be taking to address this issue.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Huq. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed)—I call him my hon. Friend—pointed out, I have a particular interest in this subject. It is a number of years since I held a licence to practise, but the debate has taken me back to clinical days. Even worse, it took me back to vivas for Royal College examinations—I am still a member and am proud to support that community.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I congratulate him and the APPG on vascular and venous disease on their work. As has been noted, vascular disease perhaps does not attract quite the same attention as cancer or heart disease. However, that does not make it any less serious. The consequences for patients can be extreme. We have heard about pain, loss of mobility, prolonged hospital stays and, in the worst cases, amputation.
What makes this particularly frustrating is that a great deal of this harm is avoidable. The problems identified by the APPG are not especially complicated. There are delayed diagnosis and treatment, inconsistent referral pathways, variable access to specialist care and fragmented services. The result is that patients who might have retained their limb and their independence do not always do so.
The APPG’s report therefore makes five fairly practical recommendations: the national foot attack pathway, with same-day or next-day triage; community-based foot protection services in every integrated care system; maximum waiting times for vascular assessment and revascularisation, with national reporting; commissioning that rewards outcomes rather than simply activity; and faster adoption of proven innovation. None of those propositions strikes me as particularly revolutionary. Indeed, much of the thinking behind them is not new.
The “Getting it right first time” programme established under the previous Conservative Government produced a vascular surgery report in 2018, which recommended a hub-and-spoke model to improve early diagnosis, specialist decision making and timely intervention. The NHS long-term plan subsequently committed to universal access to multidisciplinary foot care teams. In 2022, NHS England introduced a two-year commissioning for quality and innovation scheme intended to encourage timely revascularisation for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.
The Government have said that they welcome the APPG’s report. They have said that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England have engaged with stakeholders, and that recommendations will be considered as part of the cardiovascular disease modern service framework. That sounds encouraging, but there is a rather obvious difficulty: although it is welcome that the modern service framework, which was published in July, contains considerable material on cardiovascular disease, it contains no specific reference to vascular or venous disease.
If the Government accept that vascular disease is an important part of the cardiovascular picture, why does their new modern service framework not specifically address it? If the answer is that the framework is intended to cover vascular disease through its wider approach to cardiovascular risk, that poses a second question: where precisely are the specific standards against which vascular services are to be judged? The APPG has given the Government some specific proposals, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us which of the five recommendations the Government accept and, perhaps more importantly, which they reject.
The question then is who will deliver the services? The Government have embarked on a major reorganisation of the NHS, including the abolition of NHS England, and a substantial reduction in the size and cost of integrated care boards, with the Government saying that ICB budgets are to be reduced by 50%. How does the Minister expect ICBs to deliver these additional responsibilities at precisely the point when their budgets and staffing levels are being substantially reduced? Has his Department assessed the effect of those reductions on the commissioning of vascular care and foot protection services? I am far from opposed to reducing bureaucracy in the health service, but the test of any NHS reform has to come down to patient outcomes.
I hope the Minister will also address the question of clinical leadership in this area. Currently, although there are clinicians with huge experience and expertise in the field, including vascular clinical leads for GIRFT, there is no national clinical director specifically responsible for vascular and venous disease. The Government have previously said that national clinical directors play an important role in policy development and implementation, which is right, but we know that the future role and responsibilities of national clinical directors are being reconsidered as part of NHS reorganisation. Could the Minister set out the Government’s position on future clinical leadership for vascular and venous disease after NHS England has been abolished? Will a clearly identified senior clinical voice continue to be responsible for that important area, and if not, who will have responsibility for ensuring that the specific recommendations on vascular care are implemented?
It is helpful that the national vascular registry already collects data on major vascular procedures, including bypass surgery and major lower-limb amputations, and there has been some improvement in the proportion of vascular providers meeting the relevant CQUIN framework, but we need to be careful not to confuse the mere collection of data with improvements in care. Will the Government therefore introduce national maximum waiting times for vascular assessment and revascularisation? If they do not propose to do so, why not, and if they do, when will it take place?
Returning to the national foot attack pathway proposal, the principle behind it seems difficult to argue with. Where a patient presents with a potentially serious foot problem, particularly in the context of diabetes or vascular disease, as we have heard, they should have a clear route to an appropriate specialist assessment. Will the Government commit to establishing such a pathway nationally? Will the Minister ensure that data on performance against that is published?
The same principle applies to innovation. The NHS has no shortage of good ideas, but it has traditionally lacked a reliable mechanism for taking an idea that works in one hospital and making it available elsewhere. Therefore, the APPG’s recommendation to make greater use of mechanisms such as the NHS innovator passport is sensible. However, what happens at the other end? If a technology is demonstrated to be clinically effective and cost-effective, does an NHS organisation have an obligation to consider adopting it? How will the Government prevent another postcode lottery, where an effective treatment is available to patients in one part of the country but not in another?
In this debate, there is not much disagreement on the broad objectives: we all want to see earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and fewer amputations, as well as better use of NHS resources. Any disagreement is about whether the Government have set out a sufficiently specific plan for achieving those objectives. It is easy to welcome a report or publish a framework; it is much harder to deliver it. The Government have a genuine opportunity to take the practical recommendations of the APPG and turn them into measurable outcomes. That is the test: will they do that, or will they just allow vascular services and vascular disease to remain a subsidiary issue within the much broader context of cardiovascular disease and hope that local services are simply able to deal with it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and to join you again in Parliament. We worked together before and it is an honour to be here today.
As is customary, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate and for his insights. Some of us were wondering if he would write one of his famous letters of congratulations and courtesy to himself; we hope that somebody else will step up and show him the same courtesy that he affords us all by being so generous in his support of colleagues across the House.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who spoke so well and with such insight, for the leadership and expertise that he showed in pulling together the Government’s ambitions for not just the 10-year plan but, as has been mentioned, the cardiovascular framework. I am of course minded to listen to anything further that he says. On his point about Scotland, he is right that I also have responsibility for the devolved nations in a seemingly ever-growing brief—he will have sympathy with me over that. I am happy to have those conversations to ensure that we learn from the Scots and that the successes here can be transported north of the non-border to which he rightly referred.
The report published by the APPG earlier this year sets out suggested actions for improving vascular care. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), is right that there is much in this debate on which we agree. The calls to action include reducing waiting times, reforming commissioning, accelerating innovation, and establishing a national foot care pathway and community-based foot protection services in every local system. I commend the APPG for focusing their challenges on structural reforms and system changes, and not on simply making a new request for funding.
We can all agree with the improvements the actions intend to deliver, which are,
“earlier diagnosis, reduced travel and access barriers for patients, and relieving pressure on acute services by preventing deterioration and avoidable hospital admissions.”
That is crucial. At the election, I was pleased to stand for a party that wanted, when in government, to bring its power and might to bear on the biggest killers. The Government very much intend to deliver those improvements through the core shifts set out in the 10-year plan for the NHS.
For patients with vascular disease, that will mean fewer trips to hospital as we shift care closer to home and into the community. It will mean better use of digital technology—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West referred to the innovation part of my title, and there is more to come on that—to identify vascular disease, monitor its progression and, finally, stop it from developing or worsening.
In preparation for this debate, I have been encouraged—mercifully, I am pleased to say—to use my remarks reflect the call to action from the APPG.
Dr Ahmed
The Minister is making a powerful case that to govern is to make decisions. Does he agree that when it comes to the NHS, while we talk a lot about money, input and investment, today we are ultimately talking about reform, taking different decisions and showing leadership? Does he agree that, given the situation in Scotland and my constituency of Glasgow South West, where there is more money and more staff, it is quite obvious that it is political will that ultimately makes the difference?
Mr Frith
I concur fully with my hon. Friend’s point. I noted his earlier remark about the commissioning of outcomes, and I think that one of the developing themes adjoining my own thinking and my brief is the need to get better at commissioning outcomes, considering whole populations, communities and places, and determining how we spend our money based on outcomes, not just activity. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point with his question.
The hon. Member for Strangford and other members of the APPG feel strongly about the establishment of a national foot attack pathway. The Government’s ambition for integrated care boards to act as strategic commissioners focused on the needs of local populations is very much determined to assist that. The prevalence of vascular disease is not evenly distributed, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned. ICBs are expected to use their nationally supported local commissioning power and their local data and intelligence, which includes user feedback and outcomes data, to develop a deep understanding of local need as well as local plans to develop and deliver.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister very much for that response; it is incredibly helpful. There seems to be a postcode lottery, where those who need care get it in some places but not in others. Does the Minister feel that his policy will ensure deliverability across all postcodes, not just in single places?
Mr Frith
That is a very fair and right challenge. This is not about endorsing patchwork provision; it is about understanding that, whether because of the physiological, social, environmental or behavioural differences that exist, care is not evenly distributed. We should have standards that we expect nationally, but we should also commission and empower local ICBs to commission, and we should hold them accountable through the frameworks and the work that we do in the Department.
Helen Morgan
I agree with the Minister that services should be locally commissioned, particularly where there is a high prevalence of a certain type of disease or condition, because it allows for the shaping of those services to local circumstances. There is evidence, is there not, that local commissioning has not given us a consistent level of service across the country. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that does not become more entrenched as we empower ICBs even more through the Health Bill?
Mr Frith
I hope that my further remarks will address that very point; I am happy to pick it up with the hon. Member in due course if they do not satisfy.
ICBs will use national modern service frameworks set by the Government and guidance to create the right services for their areas. That means local systems coming together to create neighbourhood services that reform the health and care system and are rooted in the needs of people and communities.
On the issue of maximum waiting times for vascular disease, this Government recognise that it is imperative that any patient requiring a vascular assessment receives that in a timeframe that reflects their condition and enables the best possible health outcome. The Government are committed to making progress on NHS waiting times, including returning by March ’29 to the NHS constitutional standard of 92% of elective care patients’ waiting times from referral to treatment being within 18 weeks. Of course, that includes those patients waiting for vascular services.
The NHS met the first interim target of 65% in March ’26, and we are now focused on driving improvements to achieve our second interim target of 70% by 2027. To help support the commitment to reduce waiting times, the podiatry workforce pipeline is currently being strengthened through NHS England’s focus programme for small and vulnerable professions, with the NHS workforce plan to be published shortly.
The health service also has clear guidance on what is required in delivering services for people with vascular disease or at risk of developing it. In March ’26, NHS England published guidance on standardising community health services. That guidance identifies podiatry, diabetes and tissue viability, and wound care as core components of ICB-funded community provision. People who need urgent wound assessment—for example, those with suspected infection, rapid deterioration, or diabetic foot ulcer—should be seen within 24 hours. The guidance also makes it clear that routine assessments should occur within five to seven working days, with data collected on healing and complications. The purpose and goal of community health services must be to support people as well as to avoid their needing to be admitted to hospital and, critically, the need for amputations.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving us a chance to ask questions. One of the areas that the APPG and we elected representatives have identified is that there are areas of deprivation where levels of vascular ill health and amputations are higher. What can be done to reduce that in areas of deprivation? I know I have them in my area. I am sure the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) and others have them in theirs. I would like a focus on that, please, if the Minister does not mind.
Mr Frith
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We have to keep ICBs and their commissioning powers accountable to local jurisdictions. I will say a bit more on that in due course, but we are on the same page.
To facilitate faster assessments we also need to speed up and make earlier diagnoses, which is why the Government plan to open four new community diagnostic centres during ’26-27. That expanding capacity will help meet our March ’29 target that no more than 1% of patients should wait over six weeks for a diagnostic test.
On reforming commissioning to reward outcomes, as set out in the 10-year health plan, we want to develop new ways to pay healthcare providers based on clinical practice that maximises productivity and outcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West mentioned. Under the best practice tariffs, providers receive payment when they follow agreed standards of care. On the adoption of proven innovation, the APPG report rightly identifies the importance of the NHS being able to quickly adopt new innovations.
As part of my responsibility to oversee further development and enhancement of the use and usability of the NHS app, one development coming through the House at the moment is the creation of the single patient record. The future exciting development of NHS online, or digital doctor, as I might yet call it, is about the digitisation of our NHS service—embracing innovation, personalising healthcare and responsive to individual need—as well as the innovator passport, delivered through a phased approach to accelerate access to and adoption of technologies.
The APPG’s report says that preventing vascular disease and its deterioration should be at the centre of the system, and I agree. Identifying people with vascular diseases and providing care centred on their needs is critical to ensuring vascular disease does not progress to the point where somebody needs incredibly serious interventions, such as a leg needing to be amputated. In this modern era, such amputations are wholly avoidable and should be prevented.
The distinction between the APPG’s report and the Government’s most recent announcement of the MSF has been mentioned. I was delighted to join the British Heart Foundation yesterday at the celebration event for the MSF ahead of the delivery plan later in the year. It is a reasonable challenge to ensure that we distinguish between conditions, a point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. It was a point made to me—and a point I thought was likely to be raised with me—by stroke and diabetes charities at the event yesterday. We are on the same page on that. He made an excellent point and challenge on the distinction that is needed.
As hon. Members will know, prevention is at the heart of the Government’s health agenda—the prevention of health conditions and the prevention of them worsening. The cardiovascular disease modern service framework, which was published in July, sets a clear direction for how health and care systems should accelerate progress on the Government’s ambition to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within a decade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) talked about irregularity and different areas having different levels of heart failure, which she said was four times more likely in the area she represents. I would be very happy to have conversations about how we can embrace that insight and intervene. Prevention is fundamental to the Government’s efforts around an annual heart failure review, improving access to rapid diagnosis and embedding heart failure support in cardiac rehabilitation, as well as the wider Government goal to reduce premature mortality by a quarter within the next decade.
Central to the cardiovascular disease modern service framework is a holistic approach with a strong focus on reducing inequalities. The principles apply here, too: the missing millions; the need for healthy intervention and to understand the difference between the physiological, behavioural, environmental and social; an appreciation that living standards and the cost of living have as much impact as any knowledge of what to eat and when; and looking after each other. It is about commissioning for outputs, not just diktat, which means recognising that several conditions and risk factors share common causes and contribute to most heart attacks and strokes. Members have described them in their speeches: high blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol, unhealthy diet and lack of exercise.
At its core, the framework is about a fundamental shift towards proactive, whole-person, preventive care that is located in communities and neighbourhoods and makes better use of hybrid, traditional, in-person and digital models to increase uptake and treatment. Podiatry and related foot-health services align with the shift towards local community hub delivery. The framework’s approach is backed by wider Government, including the creation of the first smoke-free generation, which began under the Conservative Government.
Dr Ahmed
I will be quick, because I know the Minister wants to wind up and I am sure he has plenty of things to do. He is talking powerfully about the digital offering that the Labour Government are providing to patients today in England and, more importantly, our ambitions for the digital offer in the future. This will seem like science fiction to many of my constituents in Glasgow South West, where we have no NHS app and very little digital connectivity in the healthcare system. Will the Minister please take the learning and markers of quality—particularly the digital quality markers—that he is describing in the modern service framework to our friends and colleagues in the Scottish Government? My constituents cannot wait any longer.
Mr Frith
In the humblest of terms, I would be very happy to visit and speak to my Scottish counterparts to ensure that they take that opportunity, and that any development, whether on compatibility, operability, the learnings from the NHS app in how we then develop NHS Online—that sounds a bit too much like building a website; we have to be more ambitious and describe it as what it is, which is the digitalisation of our NHS—helps to ensure that our brothers and sisters in Scotland get the same level of digital access that we expect to deliver across the NHS in England.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) has nabbed my request—it is not about green cheese, by the way, Minister. My request is that the kindness the Minister has extended in respect of the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish health service is also extended to us in Northern Ireland, because expertise gained here can be shared so that we can all benefit.
Mr Frith
I will take any excuse I can to come to Northern Ireland, and I hope my private office has noted that.
In closing, our approach to improving the treatment of vascular diseases is closely aligned with the reforms in the APPG report and the APPG’s ambitions. I know that, of course, there will be other areas in which the APPG, and the hon. Member for Strangford, will rightly continue to push for further progress. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I thank the APPG for its important work and report. I look forward to continued dialogue on this issue to improve the NHS, especially services for vascular disease.
Jim Shannon
I thank everyone for their contributions, including the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell). It is perhaps disquieting to understand that the hon. Lady has four times the number of people with vascular health issues in her constituency compared with elsewhere. That indicates a level of deprivation that is seen in certain areas of my constituency, across Northern Ireland, and in Glasgow South West. I thank her for outlining those issues. The hon. Lady also said that investment needs to go further, and was very kind to share the experiences of her constituency.
We are pleased to have the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) here. He brings vast knowledge. The great thing about these debates is that everybody brings their expertise. The hon. Gentleman has done that, and we are very pleased that he shared some of his lifetime of knowledge, which resonated with some of those in the Public Gallery. The hon. Gentleman learned the business, so to speak, and is now able to contribute to others along life’s way. That is incredibly helpful.
Glasgow has one of the largest hospitals in the country, and there is a need to ensure that some of the highest stats in Scotland are addressed, such as those relating to lower life expectancy, the diabetic foot protection service, vascular community waiting times and improvements, and pay for output and outcome. There was an incredible focus on all those things in the debate, and we thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
Over the past few days in the Chamber, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), has made valuable contributions and proven herself be an expert on all health subjects when it comes to the Health Bill. Today, she referred to vascular disease as being as “common as cancer” and a “preventable disability”, and spoke about a “postcode lottery” of care, the issue of “delayed diagnosis” and how her county has one of the highest rates of lower-limb amputations. She also mentioned the issues of waiting times and care for those with long-term diseases.
We do not always think about the mental health impact of this issue—its impact on someone’s anxiety, depression or ability to cope with life. If someone is able to walk about and do things and then suddenly something happens and they lose a limb, their mental health will be affected.
The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), also brings his interest to this place. We spoke about this in the morning and the other day. He referred to the treatment and the access for services. He referred to the five recommendations from the APPG—getting it right first time, the foot care teams and all those things. If ICBs’ budgets are to be reduced, how will the vascular and venous strategy be delivered? The Minister gave us some indication of how that was going to happen, and there is certainly a commitment to it. We appreciate that.
When will national waiting times be addressed? When will the needed national foot attack pathway be in place? Again, it is about better use of NHS resources.
I am very pleased to have a Minister who responds to us, takes the subject matter on board and gives us the reassurance that we seek. He focused on the APPG report and committed to a national foot attack pathway, with ICBs and neighbourhood services having accountability. The Government are on the same page. The Minister talked about deprivation of access, and we all see that it is harder for people in some areas to get the treatment that they need.
I welcome the four new diagnostic centres that the Minister referred to. There will be further development and enhancement. “Digital doctor” is becoming a common phrase. I suspect we will hear it very often—I might even use it the odd time myself. The Minister is embracing innovation, as we all have to do. He spoke about prevention policy, accelerating the progress, targets set by the Government, a holistic approach, sorting out the outputs, and ensuring that we have facts about risk factors.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about the reform of systems and leadership. It is really important that the APPG focuses on that.
The APPG would be very pleased to have a meeting with the Minister—I think he will agree to that, although I will not judge him—and other Members here who have brought their expertise. That would be a beneficial meeting, because we are all on the same page, trying to achieve the same goals. If we can help the Minister to do that, we would be very pleased to take that forward.
I again thank everyone for taking part. Thank you, Dr Huq, for having patience with a fella who was supposed to have only two minutes—I think you have given me five.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of reform of the vascular sector.
Fathers and Positive Male Role Models
(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
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank Members from across the House for supporting this debate. As I prepared for it, I had in my mind’s eye the children and young people I represent across the Bishop Auckland constituency, who need active fathers and male role models in their lives, as well as the men who do their best to nurture, guide, teach, protect, provide, entertain and love as they raise children, often while juggling multiple other responsibilities and worries.
I want to make three points: first, that fathers and positive male role models are essential for addressing the challenges we face as a nation; secondly, that active fatherhood is good for men’s mental health and wellbeing; and, thirdly, that good public policy should support active fatherhood and the presence of positive male role models in young people’s lives. The importance of fathers and positive male role models cannot be overstated.
In 2015, Pope Francis observed that we are living through not an era of change, but the change of an era. Today’s children and youth are growing up in an uncertain world that is very different from the one I grew up in during the ’80s and ’90s. Our country faces profound challenges that have increased people’s sense of insecurity and worry. Tomorrow marks 25 years since 9/11 and the start of the war on terror, which has never really ended. Next came a global financial crash and a fall in living standards from which households in our communities have not recovered. We face a new cold war with Russia, economic uncertainty, extreme weather, and AI accelerating at such a pace that we do not know what the world will look like in five years from now. Our rising generation—the first to grow up in the era of social media—are experiencing a mental health crisis, a youth unemployment crisis and even an identity crisis.
What is consistent in this world of uncertainty? It is the love and security offered by familial bonds—the unique, deep connections of love, trust and mutual support that tie family members together—and the role of fathers is important in that. I must add a caveat: implicit in my definition of fatherhood is a positive, supportive and loving individual. I know that, sadly, there are children who suffer under the scrutiny and abuse of the men in their family unit. If I may be so bold, those men are not fathers, hence I also speak of positive male role models from whom young people can receive care and mentorship outside of the home.
The evidence is compelling: having an active father and positive male role models is strongly associated with positive outcomes in young people, while their absence is linked to bad outcomes and distress. A 2021 literature review by the University of Kent, commissioned by the previous Government, found that fathers’ increased involvement with their children positively affected their emotional, psychological and educational development, their future careers, and the future division of housework. In 2017, Klemera et al found that greater adolescent-father closeness was linked to a lower likelihood of a person self-harming. In 2008, Flouri found that higher levels of involvement by fathers and father figures correlated with higher levels of prosocial behaviour, self-esteem and happiness in adolescence for both sexes.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I should declare that I speak as the dad of two young boys with a third on the way in November, so I have a vested interest when I say: what better way to make sure fathers are as involved as possible, as early on as possible, than to extend paternity and maternity leave? That is why it is so important that when the Government respond to their review into both those things, they extend paternity leave, in particular, to six weeks.
Sam Rushworth
I fully agree, and I am setting out the evidence base for that.
In 2018, Tracy et al found that higher levels of father involvement in children aged nine to 10 were associated with lower self-reported “violent perpetration” by both boys and girls when they reach 18 to 20. In 2010, Keung and Rees found that the frequency with which young people talked to their father about the things that mattered to them was positively associated with higher wellbeing and self-esteem. On the other hand, the Centre for Social Justice has warned:
“The disappearance of male role models is creating a generation of unhappy young boys.”
Its report “Lost Boys” found that fatherlessness and a lack of mentorship is deeply harming young men’s mental health, education and life paths.
Those are all things that I know from my own personal experience. We have this culture in politics—particularly those of us in the Labour party—of everyone needing a backstory to prove how working class they are, but while there are probably not many Members in this place whose family struggled financially like mine did, I want to be honest about how absolutely privileged I am. I grew up in a stable, loving home with a mum and dad who made raising us children their world.
Early memories of my dad include being taken on hikes through the countryside, and being dragged around old cathedrals and art galleries, if they were free—he was from Yorkshire—and taught to appreciate history and culture. We did not have a car in my early childhood, but mum and dad insisted I was a member of the “strong legs brigade” as I learned to walk everywhere. Rain was no problem; we had cagoules. Most of my clothes were hand-me-downs, but dad insisted on buying me Clarks shoes because he thought they were better for my growing feet, even though I noticed that his own shoes were often falling apart—he always gave us the best. As a lay church leader, dad would take me to visit older people and do acts of service for them. At Christmas we would spend our pocket money on gifts from B&M Bargains for kids less fortunate than us and drop them off on their doorsteps on Christmas eve.
Dad taught me to think of others. Sometimes that was explicit. We had a programme encouraged by our church, which we called family home evening, where one night a week was set aside for family time. It would include some sort of instruction—I remember being taught words like “integrity” and “kindness”—some fun game or activity, and always a home-made dessert.
As a junior civil servant in the auditing department, dad used to travel away from home, and when others were at the bar, he would always phone home to talk to us all. Wherever he went, he would get us a postcard with information about the place, expressions of love and some bad attempt at humour. I have kept them in a folder to this day. Another thing my dad taught me, and still teaches me today, is that the kindest thing I can do for my children is to love their mother. He taught me respect for women and womanhood.
Active fatherhood is not only good for children and youth; it is good for dads too. The Fatherhood Institute found that more active and involved fathers report lower levels of depression and higher relationship satisfaction than less involved fathers. That is certainly true for me; I am never happier than when spending time with Siobhain and the kids at home. Whenever I have faced disappointments or setbacks in my career, financial setbacks or times of stress and anxiety, and whenever I have questioned my worth, I have always known that I can walk through my front door and find my biggest fan club to welcome me back. They put my life in perspective.
I think my dad jokes are rubbing off on them, too. The other day, my 16-year-old daughter Jesse said to me, “Dad, you know you shouldn’t brush your teeth with your right hand?” I said, “No? Why’s that?” She said, “You’re supposed to use a toothbrush.”
But we have to be honest and recognise, too, that fatherhood is tough. The men’s health report commissioned by the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), notes that
“the transition to fatherhood can be a stressful and isolating experience. Men may turn towards unhealthy coping mechanisms, such as alcohol and drugs, or neglect their own health and wellbeing by prioritising supporting their family…
Estimates suggest 5 to 15% of fathers experience anxiety during the perinatal period and 5 to 10% of fathers experience depression. The mental health of fathers during this period is not routinely assessed, which can result in fathers missing out on opportunities for diagnosis, support and interventions. Fathers frequently report feeling ignored or considered unimportant by healthcare professionals during the perinatal period. Additionally, fathers often question the legitimacy of their own mental health challenges and entitlement to support, emphasising their partner’s needs over their own.”
That brings me to my final point: good public policy can be pivotal in making fatherhood a positive experience for dads and children, while bad policy or the absence of support can limit fathers’ potential positive impacts. I will quickly highlight two ways in which I think that matters. I will not go into great detail, because I imagine that other people will do so in their speeches.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic. Although he and I are in different parties, we have long been on the same page about how important it is to have male role models and about the role of men and boys. Under the previous leadership, we were making progress, with a men and boys summit due to take place this summer. Unfortunately, it did not happen, but I am keen to see the Government bring it forward again. I hope he shares my ambition for it to happen, because for all the reasons he has talked about, it is imperative that the new leadership—the new Administration—keep grasping the nettle and take this forward. Does he agree?
Sam Rushworth
As I suspected I would, I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I think that there will be cross-party consensus in much of this debate, and I am sure that the Minister was listening to his intervention and may want to comment on it.
The first weeks of a newborn child’s life can be not only stressful, but a beautiful bonding experience. But while mothers, typically, are full-time nurturing and feeding the newborn baby, fathers are often immediately back to work. I therefore support the Dad Shift campaign for six weeks’ paternity leave at 90% of pay. The dads who miss out tend to be working class men—people who are self-employed, people who work on the tools. Paternity leave should not be a preserve of the middle classes, and yet that is too often the case. The evidence for its benefits in terms of early bonding with a child is immense.
This is not just about the early years. It is also about rewarding employers that introduce flexible and family-friendly working practices. That is one of the reasons why I supported the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers campaign to Keep Sunday Special and limit the extension of Sunday trading hours. It is important to have at least a day when parents know they can be with their children. It is also why I will not shop late on Christmas eve. I do not think that shops should be open on Christmas eve; parents should be with their families and able to enjoy that time.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that it can be particularly difficult for men in the armed forces, who are often away? Even were there a willingness to provide paternity leave at 90% of pay, sometimes they simply cannot get the time. That is another thing that we need to consider when we are talking about male role models—men who work away.
Sam Rushworth
I do recognise that, and it is an important thing for the armed forces to consider. We need to ensure that all careers are as family friendly as possible. Let me take a moment, too, to pay respect to the people who make that sacrifice for us.
The final point that I want to put on the record is about family hubs and even parenting classes, which are slightly taboo. People get easily offended by the suggestion that they may need support with being a parent, as though somehow we are all born knowing these things. I know that if I could wind back the clock 19 years, I would be a better parent to my firstborn, because of the things that I have learned not only on the journey of being a parent, but through academic study of childhood.
The Government are rolling out Best Start family hubs, but not at the rate that we really need them. It should be a statutory provision. I remember attending antenatal classes with my wife. I learned about what those first few weeks of having a baby would be like, but after that you are on your own. There are so many important things about childhood development that parents want to learn and to do better.
Let me finish where I started. A Government who support fatherhood are a Government who support fathers to join mothers in doing just about the most important thing we can do: raising the next generation, during times of trouble and uncertainty, and building the resilience we need in that generation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers just before 4 o’clock and there are 10 people who wish to speak in the debate, if I am counting correctly. An informal speech limit of about four and a half or five minutes should allow us to get everyone in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for leading the debate and sharing some of his childhood experiences. I think he has turned out all right, by the way; I think we probably all think that, and we congratulate him.
I deeply value the opportunity to be a positive role model myself, in my role as a father and a grandfather. I have six grandchildren, three girls and three boys. It is different being a grandfather. A dad has a stronger role, but a grandfather enjoys all the good times. The great thing about being a grandfather is that at 7 o’clock at night, I can give them back, just at the stage when they are getting stroppy and want things that maybe their grandfather cannot give them.
I am very pleased and privileged to have a good relationship with my three sons. I am also very thankful for my good wife, who has stuck with me over 39 years of married life. I am also very thankful for our godly father, who believed in loving his son and expecting good things, but also giving grace and love. My dad is dead some 11 years, but not a day passes that I do not miss him. I can only hope to have a similar relationship with my three sons and indeed with my grandchildren.
One of the headings in the House of Commons Library briefing is “Lads Need Dads”. They do. Many young men today find themselves facing what can only be described as a real crisis of value and purpose. While personal testimony alone is powerful, the research backs it up. Fatherlessness has been proven to have profound consequences for young men’s mental health, educational achievements and futures. This is an issue that is aptly termed not as lads need dads, but as a lost boys crisis.
In Northern Ireland, there are specific education and employment challenges facing working-class men, with male working-class pupils continuing to experience some of the poorest educational outcomes. That, combined with the decline of traditionally male-dominated, skills-based manufacturing industries, has removed many of the employment opportunities that were once accessible to those young men, and especially to their dads. That has led to concerning levels of economic inactivity among young men, creating a worrying cycle in which young men are left without a clear sense of purpose or belonging. The “Lost Boys” report of 2025 highlighted that, shockingly, boys in the United Kingdom are more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their father.
What difference does this make to young boys growing up today? As the presence of a positive role model is increasingly removed, boys turn, lost, to other things or people—people like controversial social media influencer Andrew Tate, who promotes harmful ideologies and reinforces damaging attitudes towards women. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to that. I was brought up to be respectful towards women, and that is what we should do.
We should certainly not underestimate the devastating consequences. Northern Ireland’s male suicide rates remain consistently higher than those of England and Wales. That is in my constituency, among the people I represent—it is real and it is happening. It should make every one of us stop and think about what we can do to ensure that these young men have the support that they need. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. Does he agree that more needs to be done to support positive male role models, perhaps through mentorship programmes, which will ensure the wellbeing of our young men for the future?
This is not about suggesting that a child must grow up in a certain type of family. A positive role model can be a father, a teacher, a youth worker, a sports coach or an employer. In a world where children have access to so many voices, what matters is that they see men who demonstrate responsibility, integrity, kindness and respect for others. If we can demonstrate those four things, we can inspire young people for tomorrow. There are those whose mums take on both roles. These women are to be admired, and we are so thankful for all that they do, but there is a place for men. We need to encourage men to understand that while their relationship with others may sour, their children are theirs to help guide and love for life. That is an honour we should all cherish.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for leading this debate so brilliantly, and of course for securing it. I am sure every dad in this room has at some point been asked, “Are you so-and-so’s dad?” I have, and it is one of my favourite things to hear. I am immensely proud when I am asked whether I am the father of my daughter or son—it even beats being asked, “Are you the MP?”
There are two core aspects of this conversation: the practical side, which is about supporting fathers to be active parents; and the cultural side, which is about the role models and the pride that we instil in young men. Starting with the practical, we recently welcomed a new member of my team who is just coming back from maternity leave. Her partner, who is self-employed, had to work six or even seven-day weeks for months before the birth of their daughter to build up enough of a financial buffer to simply be able to spend time with his partner and their newborn. She told me that, in situations like that, resentment can creep in as you begin to feel almost like a single parent. That is awful for both parents; the lack of support that others take for granted throws up so many financial and emotional challenges.
It is hardly surprising that many fathers feel that they do not have a choice. Currently, as we have heard, we have two weeks of paternity leave on less than £200 a week for employees. Meanwhile, Spanish dads get 16 weeks’ leave on full pay. Rights for employed British parents are miles behind our European neighbours, and self-employed dads do not even get those two weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, the Dad Shift campaign for six weeks of paternity leave for all dads makes sense not only for families but for our economy.
That takes me on to what happens when families separate. The fathers I have spoken to want to support their children. Most want more time with their kids, but feel that the system still views them, first and foremost, as a financial provider, rather than as an equal parent. Take my constituent Matthew, who had heart surgery in June and was signed off sick for a month. When sending over his child maintenance, he underpaid by 5p due to a typo. That resulted in him being moved on to collect and pay, where a 20% collection charge is added to his payments.
Matthew is not alone; many constituents have described stress and anxiety linked to Child Maintenance Service disputes and separation from their children. Fathers have a responsibility to provide, but the current system seems out of step with where we are now at as a society. We have rightly moved on from the outdated concept that mothers’ contributions are confined to childcare and homemaking. Our systems must therefore dare to imagine that fathers are capable of more than just breadwinning.
That brings me to my second point: role models for boys and young men. In decades gone by, our role models were often fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, uncles, teachers, coaches and scout leaders. Those influences mattered, but the world is now a much larger place. The number of voices reaching or even targeting young men has exploded. The stories we tell about men matter. They shape how young people see themselves. In a world bristling with thousands of narratives, young men are all too often bombarded with negativity, whether it is about their role in society or about the whole concept of masculinity.
We hear a lot about so-called “toxic masculinity”. I do not think any of us doubt that there are behaviours that must be challenged, but rather than leaving a void, we need positivity—around what it means to be a man and a dad—to rush in. I want my son to grow up knowing that being a man means looking after the people you love, being a dependable friend, showing courage and treating others with respect. The answer, of course is not to abandon masculinity, but to reclaim the best parts of it. That means giving boys somewhere to go and something to work towards. If a teenager sees no apprenticeship, no sports provision and no trusted adult—if, like in Staffordshire, there is a total lack of youth provision—we should not be surprised if young men look elsewhere for belonging.
I am short for time, so I will finish where I started: one day my children will be old enough that people will not stop me in the street and say, “Are you so-and-so’s dad?” That is something I will profoundly miss when I get to that point. I want more fathers to have the chance to feel the immense pride of being at the centre of their children’s world, and more men and boys to feel proud of their masculinity in all its complexity. Let us make sure that that is the message that radiates out from this House.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Please do not feel rushed, because this is an important debate. I have put an informal time limit on the annunciator. If Members stick to it roughly, we should get everybody in.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am chuffed that we are having this debate, as, reportedly, I am the youngest parent in Parliament. I was the first dad to take extended parental leave as an MP by appointing an MP representative, but we want a similar opportunity for all dads across the country.
Post-war Britain was built by working-class families, who frankly deserved more time with their kids. The fact is, they never really got it, and that continued into the ’60s and ’70s—my dad’s generation. My dad came from a council house to become a joiner, but it was his dad who went down the pit, and it was my mum’s dad who worked on the floor of a bacon factory—one powered the nation, one fed it, and my dad helped to build it. I will never shy away from telling their stories, because I am proud of them. For their generation, work came first, because they felt it had to. The role of a dad in society has shifted and continues to evolve. Fathers rightly taught important lessons about graft, grit and hard work, but the role is changing, and now, as society shifts, the greatest contribution a man can make to society is by being a present father.
The biggest barrier to that is the fact that Britain’s paternity leave remains among the weakest in western Europe, and I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to ending that injustice. We have been lagging behind, because Sweden began normalising hands-on fatherhood in the ’70s. The image was simple: the latte papas—a dad with a toddler, a pram and a coffee, spending time with his children alongside his friends. Norway went further in 1993, introducing four paid weeks reserved for fathers with full-wage compensation. Yes, it was a Labour Government who introduced statutory sick pay in the noughties, but the fact of the matter is, right here, right now, in Britain, we are 40 years behind Norway and Demark. Research from the University of Copenhagen links longer parental leave with better wellbeing, better emotional stability and behaviour later in life.
Swap Stockholm’s pastries for Yorkshire puddings, swap Copenhagen’s Lego and follow the shared Viking heritage, and we can see that York is leading on advocacy for greater parental rights today. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is headquartered in my constituency, has published research that shows that six weeks of statutory paternity leave at 90% of earnings could deliver a net economic gain of £2.7 billion a year to the UK economy. Whether it is the University of York’s equal parenting project, or my constituent Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, York is putting parental rights firmly on the national agenda.
I try to balance my job with being a present father, including bringing my boys here to Parliament. That might mean explosive nappies before votes, running around in the family room, or even sneaking them into the Tea Room for jelly and toast. My boys have become two little mascots who have joined me every step of the way in my campaign for better paternity leave for dads. I remember being at the Movember head office, where I was talking to the legendary Dad Shift and Mother Pukka. I will never forget the kindness of Amy O’Connor at Movember, who made Robin, my son, some slices of toast.
Putting my kids first does not make me a worse MP; it makes me a better, more grounded one. When my boys are here with me in Parliament, we make happy memories together as a family, but when they are not here, we miss each other. This week, we all cried at the end of a FaceTime call. Even at three, Robin understands that when his daddy is away, he is out there maybe fighting for other families. I really believe that a world powered by a parent’s love of their children is just a world that is better for all of us.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
That speech has brought tears to my eyes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for that insight, and I wish him and his family the very best. He really is a champion for dads across the country, including our constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this debate.
When I ask young people what springs to mind when they hear the term “masculinity”, they quickly respond with words that we have already heard today: “toxic”, “manosphere” and the names of influencers that I choose not to mention in this place. I then dig a little deeper and ask them what they think makes a good dad, a good son, a good brother, a good cousin or a good mate, and I hear very different words—words such as “kindness”, “caring”, “protective”, “loyal”, “supportive”, “hard-working”, “loving”, “respectful” and “someone you can rely on”.
That contrast is incredibly important, because masculinity is not the problem; the problem is the version of masculinity that young men are being sold and who is selling it to them. I use those terms “sold” and “selling”, because monetary value is indeed driving this situation. Alarmingly, young people are encountering online characters who tell them that being a man is about dominance; we see the aggression, money, status and control of others. But such messages should not define what masculinity is.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, we are here to debate the contribution that positive male role models make in everyday society. I took a moment to consider my constituency of Wolverhampton North East, and specifically what has taken place during the recent summer holidays. There are so many men in Wolverhampton North East who might not even realise how important they are to so many boys and young men in our communities.
I am proud of the role models that we have in Wolverhampton North East, such as the guys from Wednesfield’s Men Walking and Talking group; Joe Jackson and the coaches from Newpark Village Football Academy; Raj and the team from Wolverhampton Wrestling Club; Mac and the coaches from Wolverhampton Judo Club; Nigel at Willenhall Lock Stock, who has long supported local talent; Ben and Ryan, who run a truly community-centred pub called The Milestone in New Invention; and James at The Hub at Ashmore Park. We have so many wonderful teachers and pastoral staff who regularly go above and beyond—including those involved in cadets and scouts groups, and so many others—that I just do not have time to mention all of them, but they all give their time to mentor young people, and they also spend time helping other people’s families, sometimes at the cost of their own. I want to put on the record my thanks to them all.
Not one of those people is selling a lifestyle and or telling young men how to behave. They are simply showing what they believe—their values—through their actions and what it means to be a good man: to be there, to listen, to encourage others, to take responsibility, but also to give something back.
We have to challenge the harmful messages around masculinity. We all— Government, MPs and all responsible people who are part of the community—must take responsibility for giving young men positive examples of what they can be. I ask the Minister to look at what more the Government can do to support the mentors, youth services, sports clubs and community organisations that are already doing this work, and to make sure that they have the funding and support they need to reach as many young people as possible, in order to give them positive role models and something better to listen to than the toxic voices that we hear online.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this debate; it has been fascinating so far.
The Centre for Social Justice’s recent report, which a number of people have talked about, revealed that 76% of people surveyed believed that teenagers today lack proper role models in popular culture. The opportunity for young men to find positive male role models is limited. We have talked about there being 1,000 fewer youth clubs today than there were 15 years ago, and the number of youth workers has fallen by over a third. When young men feel disconnected and lack representations of positive masculinity, an empty space can open up, and unfortunately some of the loudest and most harmful voices are all too keen to fill it.
That disconnection can carry real-world consequences. Between April and June 2026, 530,000 young men aged 16 to 24—13.7%—were not in education, employment or training, compared with 12.3% of young women. The CSJ highlights that the proportion of young men who are NEET is climbing. That can snowball into strain on health and relationships or tip over into the criminal justice system; when it gets really bad, we see very high suicide rates, as we have in Cornwall, particularly for men.
However, there are examples of community-led interventions that help young men to find positive male role models. I see them across my constituency. We have a Men Walking and Talking Group, which brings men together to walk, talk openly and support each other. It is often much easier to talk walking side by side than face to face. That group has been meeting for over 75 weeks, with good turnout. We also have ABandOfBrothers, which mentors young men aged 18 to 25 who are caught up in or at risk of getting into the criminal justice system. They are paired with older men who volunteer to act as mentors. They get outside, talk to each other and offer a community-based opportunity to strengthen cohesion and support young men who have often had chaotic lives and are trying to navigate the complexities of growing up.
Having a supportive foundation is really important when young men become dads themselves. That was the goal of DadPad, created in 2012 by Julian Bose from Truro. Having personal experience of the lack of guidance for expectant fathers, he developed a guide himself to support men navigating that transition. We need to reach boys far earlier to avoid the formation of the empty space in the first place. Across Cornwall, we have holiday and sports programmes, such as football camps run by Plymouth Argyle’s community trust, that give young people healthy environments and men to look up to outside of home and school.
Those community-led initiatives are important, but they cannot fill the gap on their own. The men’s health strategy published by the Government last November provides a policy framework to tackle the empty space. By addressing early on the physical and mental health inequalities that boys and men face, we create the structural conditions whereby young men can succeed.
For the last three years, I have tried to be both dad and mum. Obviously, I cannot, but I am very lucky that there are uncles, teachers, sportspeople, godparents, grandparents and cousins who can all provide effective examples for my son and other young men. In Cornwall, we have great examples of groups providing those opportunities. When the national policy and local initiatives align, we can ensure that young men have many positive examples so that they can build their aspirations, grow into their masculinity and benefit themselves, their future families and society as a whole.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. There are so many positive male role models in my constituency and across the country that I could talk about, but I want to focus on one hugely important group: dads.
I was lucky with my first child that the job I had then allowed me to be present—not just to lend a hand or spend time with my baby, but to co-parent. In this job, I have noticed the difference. I am often back too late for school and nursery pick-ups; indeed, I will be today. When I get home, I find myself asking, “What do they like to eat? What is the toy that they should be playing with in the bath? What bedtime story are they into at the moment?” Little things—but parenthood is all about the little things. Miss those moments, and we risk missing the bigger picture.
For most children, their first, most important male role model is not an influencer or a celebrity; it is dad. The alternative—the toxic masculinity offered by the likes of the brothers Tate—is not worth thinking about. That is not the society I want my girls to grow up in. Real strength is having the character to step up for those who need us—not standing alone, flexing our muscles in front of the mirror. Real resilience is getting up, tired, night after night, rocking a baby with no end in sight; I can tell Members that it does more for the biceps than going to the gym.
We should do everything we can to support dads to be there, but we have a real socioeconomic divide in Britain. Some 90% of claimed paternity leave goes to the highest earners. A right that people cannot afford is no right at all. If people are self-employed—our farmers, plumbers and delivery drivers—they have no right to paternity leave at all. What message are we sending to the dads who keep Britain working?
That matters particularly in rural constituencies such as mine in High Peak. After a caesarean section, which my wife had, mothers are advised not to drive for six weeks. In rural constituencies, not being able to drive can mean isolation. If dad goes back to work after two weeks, who picks the other children up from school? Who takes them to nursery? Who nips to the supermarket to get nappies when they run out? In those first few weeks, just being there is priceless.
The economic evidence is compelling. New research from the King’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership shows that six weeks of paternity leave, paid at 90% of earnings, could deliver a £2.6 billion net boost to the UK economy every year. That is because, when fathers have proper paid leave, mothers are better able to remain in work and increase their hours. There is also good evidence that better paternity leave reduces relationship breakdowns, keeping more male role models in the home, which means huge savings for the state in housing and benefits.
Extending paternity leave should not be seen as a cost. It is an investment in Britain. We have the worst paternity leave in Europe, and it is time we called time on it, by offering six weeks at 90% of earnings reserved for fathers and second parents, with the equivalent entitlement for self-employed and insecure workers. If we want boys to see caring, responsibility and kindness as strengths, we need to help the men in their lives to be there. I have been the father who was there for the little things, but I have also been the father who has missed them. I can tell you, Mrs Hobhouse, that a little change to paternity leave can make a big difference to the lives of men and women and their children.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Massive congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this very timely debate on a topic that lights up the attention of many Members of this House. For me, the discussion about fatherhood and paternity leave has brought recollections—well, not really recollections, because I do not remember the first few weeks of my life, but my father died last year, and his death has put me in a particularly reflective cast of mind. He was so important in getting me through those first few weeks.
I was born with a cleft palate, as about 700 children a year are in the United Kingdom. That was a big shock to my father and my mother, and it put additional strain on my parents, because I was unable to swallow and feeding was very difficult. I failed to thrive in the first couple of weeks as a baby. I was losing weight quite rapidly. The medical team was insisting on one particular mode of feeding implement to get me to take food in. My mum and dad knew that it was not working, but they could not get the help they needed. Thankfully, in the end, one of the nurses in the hospital sidled up to my dad and said, “Look, the doctors won’t tell you this, but this old-fashioned device works so much better.” It was just an implement that went on the top of the bottle, and my dad put his feet right to the floor to try to find it somewhere. He went all over London, all the way from Kent to the south-east London border, and eventually wound up at a pharmacist’s in Camden Town that had it in stock. That was a huge amount of support that he had to put in. It took him away from his work. We are talking about 1974; it is not like paternity leave was a thing back then, and the expectations on men were so different.
That is just an example of how much so many fathers have to put in to support their families through those first few precious days of a child’s life. That is replicated across the country: dads are doing so much for their children and their partners—their wives and girlfriends and the mothers of their children—and it is something we have to facilitate. Not everyone will have that kind of situation, but every father, mother and parent of a new-born child will face big challenges. Particularly with the first child, it always feels like the biggest challenge you have faced in your life up to that point.
That all really matters, because the inspiration and caring that my father showed then, which were reflected through his whole life, gave me the confidence to move into a caring profession as a nurse and to have a take on masculinity that is not so bound by the conventions of society and the manosphere problems we are talking about.
I see versions of that all over. In my constituency, there is an inspirational boxing club, the Apex Boxing Academy in Sheerness. Absolutely, it is a boxing club; it is about young people learning how to channel their aggressive impulses into discipline. There are the dads who support it as volunteers, and it has also built in not just practical support around the boxing, but counselling and mental health support for the boys and girls learning to box. The club is really showing how masculinity, fatherhood or just being a man in the world do not have to fit into any preconceived box—whether that is this aggro, toxic masculinity or, indeed, some other form of masculinity that people may not feel so confident buying into—because it is a very complicated world that we live in.
All of that is inspirational to me. It is why I strongly support this push for six fully paid weeks of paternity leave for fathers. The Women and Equalities Committee published a report pushing for that last year. I was lucky to go to Spain with the Committee this year to see how the policy is working in Spain. It is brilliant; from talking to people, it is clear that it has been transformational. If we followed the Spanish example in my constituency, 880 dads a year would absolutely take the offer up. That would be an incredible change for people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. I strongly commend it to the Minister.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I want to start by asking all of us to think of a positive male role model from our youth. If you are lucky, you now have a face in your mind and a smile in your heart. If you do not, we as a society owe you our apologies and a promise to do better for those who will come next.
I have been very lucky in the positive male role models I have had throughout my life. My dad was the first; he ran his own electrical business in Stirling. Back then, he was not—and he still is not—particularly good at talking about emotional connection. He taught mainly by example: work hard, treat people properly and earn their trust. I helped out in his shop from a young age, alongside characters such as Colin, Keith, Andy and Bill. I doubt any of them ever went to work thinking that they were going to be positive male role models, but I was watching.
Of course, when we talk about positive male role models, there is one relationship at the heart of this debate: fathers and their children. When my wife and I brought our daughter home from the hospital, we unclipped the car seat and carried it into the house. We sat on the couch, with the car seat on the carpet in front of us, and we stared at this tiny baby. I looked at my wife and said, “What the hell do we do now?” We both burst out laughing—well, I think it was laughter; it may have been hyperventilating. But we worked it out, as parents do.
I can look back now and admit that I was not as supportive in those first weeks as Anne would have wanted. I felt huge pressure to get back to work—I was self-employed at the time—so when I read that financial pressure is the biggest barrier that fathers identify to taking more leave, I recognise something of my own experience.
When our children were young, I presented a radio show from Monday to Friday, and Anne worked as a radio journalist on Saturday and Sunday. That is how we kept two careers going while raising a family and paying the bills. For my parents’ generation, many families could be supported by one salary. For my generation, that could perhaps be managed at a stretch. For my children’s generation, two salaries are not a choice but a necessity. If we are content with this economic model, we have to make it easier for fathers to take their share of the parenting responsibility. That means looking seriously at paternity leave, including the financial barriers to taking it and the position of self-employed fathers.
This is not simply about fathers. If we want mothers and fathers to have equal opportunities in the workplace, we need to make it possible for them to take a more equal share at home. The two go together. The connection between fathers taking on more care and us tackling the motherhood penalty is important.
I would go further: we need to look at the wider economics of family life, and that means housing. Building more council houses and reducing the cost of putting a roof over a family’s head is a key family policy. The less pressure there is on the family budget, the more choices parents have about work, childcare and that most precious commodity: their time.
There is something else we should say in this debate to those thinking about not just positive role models but doing something a little more formal, such as volunteering with a charity of a group: it is hugely rewarding. We all want a sense of belonging, and to feel that we are getting something from and giving something to our families and communities. There is something profoundly rewarding about watching a child develop, find their confidence, form their own views and gradually become the next generation. Perhaps we should get better at asking men to step forward, and make it easier for them to do so.
I hope my children would say that I have been a present, approachable and loving dad—I have not asked them today, just in case—although I do know my place in the family hierarchy. When my daughter was about four, she asked me who my favourite child was—her or her younger brother. I said, “I love you both equally. That is like me asking who your favourite parent is.” She went very quiet, and I asked what was wrong. She said, “I can’t tell you, Dad. I don’t want to make you sad.”
If I could give my 30-year-old self, starting out as a father, one piece of advice about fatherhood, it would be this. Do your best. Accept that you are human—I am going to start crying here—and that you will get things wrong. Try again, and try to do better. That approach in itself is a valuable lesson to show all children.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate, and I thank those who have given such meaningful and touching speeches.
The role of fathers and positive role models is more important than ever in our society. Our country has so many things better than it used to years ago. We have better housing, physical healthcare and quality of life than previous generations. However, it is also a country in which old certainties are being eroded. The challenges include, of course, social media and the toxic constant of online harms, and there is also the challenge to young people of finding secure, meaningful work and somewhere to live and maintaining good mental health. The way societal developments impact our children clearly demonstrates the need for positive male role models and parenting provision in Britain and around the world.
So what can we do to help make fathers more present and engaged in the lives of our children? Better paternity pay would undoubtedly feature. The report “Economic and Social Benefits of Enhanced Paternity Leave” was published this week. As we have heard, the UK’s statutory paternity leave is the worst in Europe, with two weeks’ leave paid at less than half the minimum wage. That is truly shocking. The evidence is mounting that substantial, well-paid paternity leave is the key to unlocking better outcomes in the UK. Better paternity leave reduces postpartum depression rates and the gender pay gap in the workplace, improves children’s performance at school and enhances fathers’ wellbeing.
British parents deserve to be accommodated and supported in the workplace and have the opportunity to equally share parenthood between them, leading to a more prosperous country for us all. We cannot discuss the importance of male role models and present fathers if we do not discuss the measures we can take to facilitate that. Improving paternity leave is the first step towards recognising fathers as equally important parents.
The challenge to our young people and the risk of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—has become ever more worrying for young fathers and those they parent. Alan Milburn has recently published a report diagnosing the problem, and it makes for very concerning reading. The Centre for Social Justice reported back in April that a lack of male role models is partly responsible for teenage boys’ collapsing happiness and wellbeing. The report found that the number of male volunteers in sports and leisure clubs is falling, and that there are now 1,000 fewer youth clubs than there were 15 years ago—something I have seen in my constituency of Watford.
The report also found that, tragically, more young boys in the UK today grow up with a smartphone than with a father figure in the home. Is it any wonder that young boys are turning to alternative male role models online and falling down the toxic manosphere rabbit hole? We cannot rescue this generation from online extreme hate and declining school performance without filling the gaps that have been created in their lives. We must invest in more clubs, sports teams and youth centres so that our boys get the same socialisation and learning opportunities as previous generations. Fathers and positive role models have a vital part to play in ensuring the physical and mental health of our children and their ability to experience high-quality education and find meaningful work.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Thank you all for sticking so beautifully to the voluntary time limit. Everybody got in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Alex Brewer.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on introducing this really important debate.
There is a contradiction between the widely shared agreement, certainly in this Chamber, about the vital importance of a positive male role model in shaping young lives and the lack of support, services and policy to support that. But let me say something equally important at the outset: a child does not need a father in the house to flourish. Children raised by single mothers, two mothers, grandmothers or kinship carers are not children with something missing. I represent many such families, and we have heard powerful testimony about them today. They do an extraordinary job, often with less support than they deserve.
Children benefit from care, stability and good examples of how to be in the world. It matters whether every child has adults around them modelling something worth copying, but a good role model must first be a present one, and presence is a question not simply of character but of how we structure our society. If we want fathers to be there in the earliest weeks and years, we have to build a society that fosters that through policies, including paternity leave.
The evidence on why this matters is strong. Research led by the University of Leeds found that children whose fathers regularly drew, played and read with them at age three did better at school by age five, and that fathers’ involvement at five improved key stage assessment scores at age seven. That effect held regardless of the child’s gender, ethnicity, age in the school year or household income.
We know that couples separate. For separating couples, we can reduce conflict with better early support, perhaps via family hubs. On the Women and Equalities Committee, we have examined the impact of paternity and shared parental leave. We recommended raising paternity pay to the level of maternity pay for the first six weeks—90% of average earnings—and setting out a pathway to six weeks of paid statutory paternity leave over this Parliament. Unfortunately, the Government did not commit to taking up that recommendation.
Last year, the Committee visited Iceland, where we had the opportunity to learn from and hear about one of the most progressive parental leave policies in the world. Iceland’s parental leave is framed explicitly around ensuring that children can receive care from both parents—or carers—and enabling women and men to combine family life with work. It is grounded in gender equality and children’s rights. Countries that provide fathers and co-parents with substantial, well-paid leave generally have better gender pay gaps—around four percentage points smaller than those that offer less than six weeks of leave. Increasing women’s workforce participation and earnings while reducing pay inequality should be a long-term priority, and it goes hand in hand with providing good male role models. I wonder whether, if that phrase was less awkward to say, we would talk about it more.
Role modelling does not stop at the front door. Only around 24% of teachers in England are men; in primary schools it is 14%, while in early years it is only 3%. Those are professions built around care, patience and emotional literacy, and we have allowed them to become, in practice, “women’s work”. That says something to every child at school: it teaches boys that caring is not for them, and it means that the children who most need a steady male adult in their lives are even less likely to find one. Patriarchal values upheld by society have taught boys that care is weakness, that what is associated with women or femininity is worth less, and that asking for help is failure.
Before I came to this place, I worked in a domestic abuse refuge. I saw what happens when the male role model in a child’s life is a violent one. Many children in the refuge had witnessed violence at home, usually directed by a father or partner against their mother. That is role modelling, too. To prevent the trauma from those circumstances affecting the next generation, we need to ensure that young boys in particular have at least one stable, secure, positive male role model in their life, and we need to enable a system that keeps children safe from violence in the home.
As a society, we have spent over a century examining what it means to be a woman. We have barely begun the equivalent conversation about being a man, so others have stepped in with a much uglier answer. We tell girls that feelings are okay and that it is good to talk, but we tell boys the opposite: that strength is silence and the only acceptable emotion is anger. Talking is “what girls do”, and what girls do is weak, so when a boy has a question he is too embarrassed to ask his dad, he does not ask anyone; instead, he types it into a search bar. Movember’s research, which surveyed more than 3,000 young men, found that nearly two thirds of them regularly engaged with men and masculinity influencers, and those who did reported worse mental health, less willingness to prioritise their mental health, and higher rates of risk-taking behaviour such as steroid use.
We have also, as a society, grown accustomed to male violence—in pornography, on television, in the street. That content, which is a feature of the manosphere, is landing because it offers men and boys a story about themselves. One in 10 girls aged 11 to 16 have missed or avoided school to escape sexual harassment, and that is more likely still for girls who are neurodivergent, disabled or LGBTQ+. The manosphere results in worse outcomes for everyone. When we build a country where men can be present, caring and visible in the home, nursery, classroom and youth club, we give boys something better to become, and as a result, we all gain.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Like other Members before me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this Backbench Business debate. I was pleased to support the application several months ago, and I am glad to be able to respond to it from the Front Bench today.
We need to be honest about what the evidence tells us: good fathers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution to their children’s lives, yet around 2.5 million children in this country have no father figure at home, and by the age of 17, 47% of young people are no longer living with both parents at the same address. The relationship between a child and their father matters. For sons, a father can demonstrate how to be a man, how to behave around women and how to raise a family of their own one day. For daughters, a father can embody the positive attributes that she looks for in a man when she is older, making her less vulnerable to those who would exploit or mistreat her. Children with secure relationships with their fathers are less likely to experience depression, anxiety, low self-esteem or self-harm.
I was fortunate to grow up with a strong father figure—my dad, Mike. I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) about Christmas eve. Since I was four years old, my dad and I have gone shopping together on Christmas eve to buy presents for my mum. He bought them; I, like a bit of a silly girl, went home and wrapped them for him—something I have to admit I still do at the age of 45. It is part of the story and bond I share with my dad, knowing that each Christmas eve, whether it includes lunch and, as we have got older, an alcoholic drink or two, we will go out together, do our shopping and then head home. My little sister never gets to do it, so it is definitely part of my relationship with my dad.
Unfortunately, not everybody gets to have that experience. One UK study found that 14-year-old girls who did not have a close relationship with their father or a father figure were at significantly greater risk of mental health difficulties. Researchers also link secure father-daughter relationships with better educational and career outcomes, stronger social skills and better mental health. For sons, close relationships with fathers are associated with a reduced risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour, along with other risky behaviours. Those outcomes affect a child’s life long after they turn 18.
When we look at the wider challenges facing boys and men, this topic becomes even harder to ignore. The “Missing Men” report tells us that in the final quarter of 2025, more than 450,000 young men aged 16 to 24 in England—nearly one in seven—were not in education, employment or training. At school just 61% of boys reached a good level of development by the age of five in 2024-25 compared with 75% of girls. Three quarters of children in custody report having an absent father. We must stress that none of that means that an absent father automatically causes poor outcomes. There are many factors involved, but it should make us ask a straightforward question: are we doing enough to support fathers to be involved in their children’s lives? Too often, fathers seem to be an afterthought; that needs to change.
We need to look at what happens when relationships break down. There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children. There is a presumption that it will aways be the mother who takes custody of the children, with the father permitted to see them once a fortnight if he is fortunate enough. Meanwhile, that same child has easy access to content from harmful male online influencers, starting as soon as they get their first smartphone, if not before. We are replacing a positive male role model with an inherently negative one and then claiming to be shocked by the results.
Where there are safeguarding concerns, the child’s welfare must come first, but where there is a safe, loving and willing father, the starting point should be meaningful involvement and as much contact as possible. The Government’s position, laid out in clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, is to repeal the statutory presumption that a child’s welfare is generally furthered by the involvement of both parents. Existing law already allows courts to restrict unsafe contact; repealing the presumption without a suitable replacement, such as a child-centred parental relationship test, could lead to greater inconsistency and conflict. It may also weaken children’s relationships with safe parents.
A child should have real men in their lives: fathers, grandfathers, teachers, coaches and mentors can show them what responsibility and good character look like. That brings me to the language we use. We need to ditch the worst excesses of identity politics when it comes to boys and men. For too long, the phrase “toxic masculinity” has been used in a way that blurs the distinction between masculinity and genuinely harmful behaviour. Let me be clear: violence, abuse, cruelty and misogyny are wrong, but masculinity is not. Masculinity should be an extremely positive force for good. There is nothing toxic about being strong, courageous, ambitious, competitive, protective or determined. When combined with responsibility, self-control and respect, they are the exact attributes that enable society to flourish.
In Plymouth, where I am a MP, there is a great network call Man Culture, which puts those principles into practice. Man Culture organises workshops for men right across the city, tackling issues such as toxic masculinity and preventing male violence against women and girls. It seeks to address issues identified by the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which I chaired a few years ago. That work was a direct response to two tragedies in the city: the incel-inspired Keyham shooting, where five people and the shooter died, and the abduction from a bus stop and brutal murder of a young woman a few months later. The report also recommended working with young boys, because to challenge harmful behaviours, we need to have honest conversations, and those have to start young.
We should teach boys how to use strength responsibly and not to be ashamed of having strength in the first place. We should teach boys how they can use their strength to build things rather than to tear things down. The approach must be not to tell boys that masculinity is the problem, but to give them examples of men worth becoming. Fathers are some of the most important examples of that. A good father can show his son that strength does not mean aggression, confidence does not mean arrogance, and responsibility means keeping your word and looking after the people you love. Positive male role models are also needed beyond the home. As has been mentioned, only 14% of nursery and primary schoolteachers in England are men, and although I am proud that my brother is one such teacher, that figure is not high enough. We need men as teachers in early years and primary settings.
The problems will not be solved by another strategy document alone. Prevention starts earlier, with families, fathers and communities, and with giving boys a sense of purpose, responsibility and belonging. I pay tribute to the men who volunteer in scouting and uniformed groups across my constituency; we should recognise and be grateful for such men. However, that is not enough. We need to do even more. Having this conversation does not mean turning the issue into a competition between men and women. It must be about supporting mothers and fathers who are working together to create something greater than the sum of their individual parts, ensuring that family services properly involve fathers, where they can safely contribute, and making sure that, where it is safe and appropriate, children can maintain meaningful relationships with both parents.
This debate is not about pretending that fathers are the answer to every problem, but they are an important part of the answer whose absence makes everything else more difficult, and Government policy should recognise that. If we want stronger families, better outcomes for children and boys who grow into responsible men, we need to stop treating fathers as an optional extra. Fathers matter, masculinity matters and male role models matter; it is time that our politics treat them as such.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, the former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, asked the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), to take on a national summit on men and boys. My hon. Friend and I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what has happened since then. Is that summit still going ahead, and when will we hear more information about it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for introducing this debate. I am cheered by the fact that since the general election, when I and most hon. Members at this debate—at least those on the Labour Benches—entered Parliament, the issue has been raised repeatedly in both Chambers. Members from all parties should be heartened that we are talking about such matters and making sure that they have the prominence they deserve.
We have heard a number of thoughtful and important contributions, but I was particularly moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) said about being a father and parent, and sometimes feeling like you are failing in that. That is an incredibly important emotion for us public servants to consider when we think about public policy. Often, fathers may feel unable to provide for their children, materially or emotionally, and we have to think about how we, as a society and as a Government, can support men and parents through that difficult period. That important point is not often made, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so.
To answer the questions of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) directly, when I was reappointed to my role, the Prime Minister made it explicitly clear that the cross-Government men and boys agenda would be right at the heart of his Government. The conversations I have had with him, both prior to and post him entering Downing Street, have only cemented that. We will undertake a summit in due course and at the right moment, and the change of Prime Minister and Government gives us an opportunity to work out the best mechanism for doing that.
It is one thing to hold a summit in Downing Street, but could we be more interactive across the country? We are looking at different mechanisms to make that a real moment for the country to talk about these issues and would be genuinely open to suggestions on a cross-party basis about how we can get that conversation going, out of this building and around the country, not just in Westminster. That is an ongoing discussion, and no doubt we will be able to update the House.
It is a great personal honour to be speaking in this debate. I am the father of a three-year-old girl—she turned three just yesterday. I think I speak for all parents when I say that from the moment you find out you are going to become one, your life is never quite the same again—that feeling is correct, because it never is. On a professional level, every day since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have been struck by the incredible work that organisations and groups do to support men. In my constituency, that includes Better Today in Kiveton Park, Andy’s Man Club in Maltby, Bramley and Kiveton Park—it operates across the country; I know we have a lot of Andy’s Man Club supporters in the Chamber today—and Dinnington boxing club. Sport is such a big part of this conversation about reaching and supporting men, and there is brilliant work in my constituency, too.
As all Members have said, fathers clearly matter, and where a father is not present, another male role model can also make an extraordinary difference—a granddad, a stepdad, an uncle, a teacher, a youth worker, a football or rugby coach, or a mentor. Indeed, the hon. Member for South West Devon raised the issue of teaching. I am always struck by the fact one in three primary schools does not have a male teacher. That is a massive problem, which I know colleagues in the Department for Education are trying to change. However, we all have a role, as parliamentarians and indeed as society, to perhaps try to change attitudes to teaching, particularly in early years, because this issue is vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) talked about the importance of mentors. Absolutely, and there is a lot of good work happening already, including in her constituency, which she touched upon. Gareth Southgate is working on a mentorship scheme—many of us will have seen the documentaries—and there are other great organisations, such as Football Beyond Borders. I am also looking at what is happening internationally—some brilliant work is being done in California to recruit 10,000 new mentors to mentor young men and boys. There is a big opportunity here because there is already good work happening. What can we do as a Government to turbocharge that and make sure it is happening across the country? Watch this space on that one, because I am looking forward to developing this further.
We know, as has been touched on in the debate, that men are sometimes bombarded with competing ideas about what it means to be a man. The Government recently issued new guidance, which schools are following from this month, that rightly talks about young people developing positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity and learning from positive male role models. We will not counter the kind of toxic masculinity that we have spoken about in this debate by simply wagging our fingers at teenage boys, telling them just to get off their phone, or suggesting that all men are evil or that all masculine traits are wrong. We have to offer something positive—something better, something in the real world—to get them away from that narrow online space and back to participating again in society. If we cannot give boys a convincing idea of masculinity, built on confidence and kindness, responsibility and respect, and a sense of purpose, the algorithm will be only too eager to provide another one instead.
There is also a wider challenge, which is fuelled by a really difficult backdrop for men and boys in our country, and public policy must be made through that lens. We know that boys fall behind girls at every stage of education, from early years through to GCSE and beyond. Boys are more than twice as likely to be excluded from school and make up a far larger proportion of the NEET population, which is of course an issue that this Government are prioritising—my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) spoke about that. Indeed, the gender pay gap, which is a huge systemic issue in our country—the Treasury is doing good work to try to narrow it more generally—is in reverse for those aged 18 to 24. That does not mean that we take our foot off the pedal in trying to get equality for women, but it does mean that we have to consider that age group and what is happening for young men in our labour market, and I know that this Government will.
We know that men continue to have a lower life expectancy than women, and we know that suicide is still one of the leading causes of death for men under 50—a fact that is particularly poignant today, on World Suicide Prevention Day. Again, that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We lose so many men to suicide—75% of suicides are men. That does not mean that we ignore women by any means, but when we think about mental health provision, we need to look at the facts and the data. What we are being told is that this is a particular issue, and it should inform policy.
Across a lot of areas—health, education, employment, family life—men and boys experience poorer outcomes. That is all part of a broader pattern that requires a broader cross-Government response, which is why my role as the Minister with responsibility for men and boys is a cross-Government one. Many of the industries that once provided generations of men with secure work and an identity have declined. Work and working-class communities were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). I see the decline in my own constituency. I am hugely proud to represent former mining towns built on the graft of working-class communities and often working- class men.
We should not of course romanticise the past. Many of the gender expectations of previous generations were highly restrictive, particularly for women, and nobody would want to turn the clock back completely. But we do have to understand what disappeared when those industries went and that post-industrial period occurred. What went were the routes into skilled work and institutions with social connection and status, and for many men a sense that they had an almost automatic, useful role to play in society and our economy. Where do boys and young men find that purpose today? When I speak to men and organisations working with them, three things come up: a need for purpose, belonging and connection. The decline of our industrial base in this country has greatly challenged that. We have to look for new mechanisms. We cannot just turn back the clock. Again, that is partly economic policy, but no doubt social policy as well. And it all goes back to the theme of this debate and why fathers and role models are so important, not as a social ideal, but as people who are present in young men’s lives to set an example, provide stability and help anchor them when life becomes difficult.
Supporting fathers is preventative: by strengthening relationships early on we can stop problems taking root. We can keep an eye on the longer term prize, because the boys we support today will become the fathers, partners and role models of tomorrow. The Government are doing that in several ways. I am proud to be part of a pro-family Government, something that I am very pleased to say explicitly. We are supporting families from the very beginning. We want family services to be accessible and welcoming to all parents, and for fathers to feel that support is for them, too. That includes recognising that the transition to fatherhood itself can be really challenging and making sure fathers are supported during those critical months around birth.
I mentioned Best Start family hubs and our wider family support services. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland will push us to go further and faster. He mentioned parenting courses—I am a big fan. There is good evidence in Australia on the use of online parenting courses. It is less about telling parents how to parent, and more about giving them the opportunity to take stock, have a moment and consider how they are parenting and whether their routine and their life is building a healthy family environment. I think we could all do with that every now and again. “Parenting courses” is sometimes the wrong term, but it is a moment for families to consider how they are raising their children. The Best Start family hubs agenda is reaching men in ways that hopefully work for them and includes flexible weekend provision, dedicated groups and outreach through trusted community settings.
Government Members will no doubt be pleased to hear that we are reviewing parental leave and looking carefully at how the system can better support working families and allow parents to play an active role during those crucial months. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Jon Pearce) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) about how important that is. Again, there was powerful advocacy for that change. They know that the Government are reviewing it and will return to Parliament with an update early next year. No doubt the Chancellor will hear their cries. Even if he is not here today, it will be noted.
We are also actively recognising the importance of positive role models and strong support networks more generally. Just yesterday I held a roundtable in Downing Street with a number of men’s mental health charities on the issue of suicide prevention to try to look at how we as a Government can work with partners in the communities as part of our developing agenda on devolution in place. There is no point in us in Whitehall just saying things. We have to work with the organisations that actually deliver. Too often public policy does not work for them.
Jim Shannon
On the issue of suicide, in my contribution I referred to the stats. It is unfortunately true that the level of male suicides in Northern Ireland is the highest in the whole of the United Kingdom—higher than in Scotland and Wales and higher than in England. Will the Minister share his thoughts with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—Robbie Butler, the Health Minister —to ensure that the good things that the Minister and the Government are doing here can be shared and we can take advantage of what they have learned?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. This agenda has to include our devolved nations as well, and I will make sure that we do that. The disparities in suicide rates across the country are really striking. The north-east in particular has far higher suicide rates than London. More generally, the areas that are more isolated are where people become more isolated. There is also a link to economic factors, deprivation and unemployment, with unemployment being the metric that aligns most. We know that work is not just about financial support, but about purpose, routine, structure and connection, which are so important.
All of this feeds into our wider agenda. That includes tackling health inequalities, and we have launched England’s first men’s health strategy. It is focused on opportunity, which means ensuring that boys and young men can succeed in education. We have heard about the Milburn report, and all the work happening now and in the coming weeks and months. It is also focused on connection and belonging, which are fundamental. That means supporting healthy relationships, positive understandings of masculinity and strong community ties.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this debate. I reassure him and all Members that, as we develop the Government’s work on men and boys, fatherhood, mentoring and positive male role models, they will absolutely remain at the heart of this conversation. I want this to be a collaborative process across Government and with parliamentarians from both sides of the House, because this issue is clearly vital to all the communities we represent.
Mr Charters
I welcome the Minister back to his post. Will he commit to working with the new class unit set up by the Minister for Women and Equalities as part of her work?
Jake Richards
Yes. We are working very closely with the Department for Women and Equalities, and I was heartened by that announcement earlier this week, because there is a particular issue with working-class boys. The educational statistics are even more pronounced and acute for working-class boys in communities like my hon. Friend’s and mine.
We know that giving a young man opportunity means giving him a stake in his future. If we give him strong relationships, we give him people to turn to if the future does not go to plan. If we give him purpose and belonging, we give him reasons to look after himself and look out for others. That is how we can assure that boys and young men thrive. It is how we can build a better society for everyone, and that is what this Government are determined to do.
Sam Rushworth
It was important to me to speak from the heart in my remarks today, but that meant taking time from being able to address various points. I trusted in my colleagues across the House to make those points for me in their speeches. That trust was not misplaced, and I thank everybody for that.
I particularly thank the people who spoke about paternity leave. We heard several comparisons of the UK and the much more generous offers in Europe. People mentioned the social inequality about who gets it, the importance of supporting mothers when they are recovering and the wellbeing benefits. People also brought in the family courts, CMS, social housing, and the importance of increasing the numbers of male teachers and caregivers. I appreciate the Opposition bringing up the men and boys summit and the response the Minister gave to that, and I really hope that there can be some cross-party work on how we address it.
It was wonderful to hear the Minister proudly confirm that this is a pro-family Government and set out those ideas of purpose, belonging and connection. I feel that we too often look just to Government, and teachers sometimes say that we look to them for all the answers to the problems in the rising generation, but a lot of it starts in the home. Fathers play such an important role. We cannot keep overlooking it, because it is vital for the future of that generation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society.
Written Statements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Remedies Authority Recommendation Rejection: Bicycles
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
On 23 August 2024, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority initiated a transition review of the anti-dumping measure applied on bicycles and certain bicycle parts of Chinese origin—including bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. The review assessed whether dumping and injury to UK producers would likely recur if the measure was revoked.
During the review, the TRA invited evidence to be submitted by both domestic and international industry and organisations. After careful consideration of the facts, it recommended to me that the measure should be extended for a further five years from its original date of expiry—to 29 August 2029—at the same duty rates of 0% to 48.5%.
I have considered the evidence contained within the recommendation made by the TRA and wider matters in the public interest, including the UK’s obligations under the relevant World Trade Organisation agreement. As a result of these deliberations, I have decided to reject the TRA’s recommendation and take a different decision.
My decision is still to extend the measure for a further five years, from the original expiration date, and at the same duties of 0% to 48.5%—as the TRA has recommended—but I would amend the description of category 2 goods to bring the measure back into alignment with how the measure was applied prior to our exit from the European Union. I believe this to be in the public interest. The reason for this is that those trade remedy measures applied by the EU on behalf of its 28 member states prior to Brexit were applied on behalf of the UK. The Government at the time determined that all those trade remedy measures were applied by all 28 EU member states, including the UK. Consequently, the UK should continue to apply all 43 transitioned trade remedy measures in the same way until such a time as each measure is individually reviewed. This anti-dumping measure was one of those 43 measures.
My decision therefore corrects the definition of category 2 goods and brings the application of the anti-dumping measure back into alignment with how the measure was applied prior to our exit. This ensures that the anti-dumping measure continues to be applied consistently with how it was prior to our exit from the EU. It will also necessitate His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs considering whether any UK importers of certain bicycle parts should be refunded where they otherwise should not have paid a duty.
The decision on this measure came into effect on 23 July 2026. The Government published a public notice on 22 July 2026 to give effect to this decision.
[HCWS328]
Trade Remedies Authority Recommendation Rejection: US-origin HVO Biodiesel
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
On 22 July 2026, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority concluded a subsidy investigation on imports of US hydrotreated vegetable oil biodiesel, submitting to me its final determination. The TRA recommended that a definitive anti-subsidy measure be imposed, with fixed duties of between £257.80 and £266.68 per tonne, dependent on the US exporter. This recommendation was made on the basis that, in the period of investigation, UK domestic industry was being injured by subsidised US imports of HVO biodiesel.
In all investigations, the TRA is required to conduct the economic interest test. This assessment considers whether the imposition of a measure would be in the economic interests of the UK. In an investigation, this test is presumed to be met, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In this investigation, the TRA considered that a definitive measure would not be in the UK’s economic interests.
I recognise that the relevant World Trade Organisation evidentiary criteria for imposing a definitive anti-subsidy measure have been met. However, on balance, I judge that it would not be in the public interest to do so. I took this decision due to the significant scale by which the economic interest test was assessed by the TRA to have not been met. The TRA assessed that while a measure could provide some benefits to UK producers and upstream businesses, these would be significantly outweighed by the costs imposed on downstream businesses, importers and consumers. As a result, and on balance, I judge that the prospective injury case for UK producers and the benefits of imposing a measure are outweighed by the benefits of not imposing one for the UK’s wider economy.
The Government published a public notice on 10 September 2026 to give effect to this decision to not impose a definitive anti-subsidy measure on imports of US HVO biodiesel.
[HCWS329]
Temporary Event Notices
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Today I am laying before Parliament the Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026. This instrument will increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in respect of a single premises from 15 to 20 per calendar year, and the total number of days on which a premises may be used for licensable activities under temporary event notices from 21 to 26 days per calendar year.
This measure forms part of the Government’s wider approach to supporting vibrant high streets and communities. By enabling businesses, community groups and individuals to host more local events, it recognises the contribution that well-run events can make to community cohesion, local economies and the prevention of crime and disorder.
These higher limits applied temporarily in 2022 and 2023 to support the hospitality sector in dealing with the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and help communities come together during that difficult time. The benefits were clear for all to see, so we intend to reintroduce this additional flexibility on a permanent basis.
This is a targeted and proportionate change to the existing licensing framework. The important safeguards already in place to protect communities will remain, including the licensing objectives, local authority oversight, and the ability of responsible authorities to object to TENs where appropriate.
The instrument extends to and applies in England and Wales. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government intend for the new limits to come into force on 1 January 2027. An economic note will be published alongside the instrument on legislation. gov.uk
[HCWS326]
Fiscal Devolution in England
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
England is an international outlier in the extent to which decisions are taken centrally, and at the same time has experienced some of the highest levels of regional inequality in the developed world. We believe the two are linked. Too many decisions have been made in Whitehall, far away from the reality of life across the country, and disconnected from the impact of those decisions. These have often not reflected the needs of places and communities across the country.
To change this, the Government have embarked on an ambitious agenda of devolving powers to local leaders with a new assumption of devolution by default. The Government devolution agenda will shift power closer to local communities, with decisions taken by democratically elected mayors and local leaders who understand their areas best.
The landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 introduced reforms to give local leaders clearer powers, greater responsibility and stronger accountability so that decisions affecting places can be taken closer to the communities they affect. These reforms support the Government's wider rewiring the state programme, which seeks to shift power, funding and accountability away from Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders. The Act’s aim is to reverse the centralisation of decision-making which has held our country back for too long and to boost economic growth, strengthen public services, and restore public trust in politics.
For mayors and other local leaders to take greater responsibility for driving growth and improving life in their areas, they must also have greater control over local investment. Giving mayors and other local leaders greater power over tax revenue is a vital step in helping them drive investment and good growth in their areas.
That is why today, MHCLG and HMT have published the Government response to the overnight visitor levy in England consultation. The consultation closed earlier this year, and since then we have continued to engage with mayors, local leaders and stakeholders from the visitor economy to strike the balance between a simple deliverable levy for industry and one which empowers mayors and local leaders to raise revenue for investment in their area.
England is home to some of the world's most iconic visitor destinations, from its vibrant cities, breathtaking countryside and national parks, to historic seaside towns along its spectacular coastline. The visitor economy supports millions of jobs, enriches communities, and enhances the quality of life for millions of people. Yet there are few local levers available to help destinations invest in and sustain this vital industry.
A visitor levy will enable mayors and other local leaders in England to choose to use a proportionate contribution from visitors to the region to reinvest in the local area. It is a major step in giving local leaders greater control over the decisions and funding that affect their areas, putting new powers over locally raised revenue into their hands for the first time in decades. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify the projects and infrastructure that drive growth and make a place attractive for visitors and residents. Local leaders know their local history, local culture, the unique attributes of their places that draw visitors in, and what challenges local areas face. Along with our plans to devolve a portion of income tax and enable mayors to retain some of the business rates generated in their areas, the visitor levy represents our commitment to creating a more accountable state, responsible to local people. This is about giving places the tools they need to drive good growth, in every part of the country.
Giving local leaders in England the power to introduce a visitor levy in their area will bring them in line with Scotland and Wales, as well as local authorities across France and international cities like New York and Amsterdam. We want to provide mayors and other local leaders with a fiscal tool that they can choose to use. We understand that a visitor levy on overnight stays will not necessarily be right for every place, and so the choice of whether to introduce it will be for mayors and other local leaders to take. That ultimately is at the heart of this devolution programme.
To develop the details of the visitor levy we have engaged extensively with the public, accommodation providers, charities and local leaders. In our consultation we tested views on the levy supporting local economic growth, including through strengthening the visitor economy. Our decisions reflect this wide-ranging engagement.
The visitor levy will be set as a percentage of the accommodation cost, ensuring that charges are proportionate to the price of the stay. A percentage rate model helps ensure that the levy is affordable and will mean a stay at a budget friendly hotel or guest house would attract a lower visitor levy than a luxury five-star hotel in London.
All mayoral strategic authorities and foundation strategic authorities will have overnight visitor levy powers. This recognises their role in driving local growth and ensures this fiscal power is available across England, to be used for unlocking stalled investment, improving infrastructure and delivering good growth across the country. The levy will enable mayors and other local leaders to invest revenues in support of the visitor economy, experience and important local priorities.
It will be for mayors and other local leaders to decide if the visitor levy is the right decision for their areas, following a consultation. The Government will provide non-statutory guidance to support those leaders who are considering introducing a visitor levy. Mayors will be able to set out their spending plans by March 2028.
[HCWS330]
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2: Progress Report
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
My noble Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Resilience (Baroness Blake of Leeds CBE) has today made the following statement:
The Grenfell Tower fire was a preventable tragedy that claimed 72 lives and exposed deep-rooted weaknesses in the systems designed to keep people safe. It remains a profound failure of oversight and accountability which should never have happened and the bereaved, survivors and local community remain at the heart of our response.
This Government accepted the inquiry’s findings and are today publishing the September 2026 Grenfell Tower inquiry Government progress report to update on work under way to implement the recommendations. Since May 2026, we have completed a further nine recommendations, bringing the total of closed recommendations to 30 since February 2025. We remain on track to deliver all recommendations by the end of 2029.
Alongside the September progress report, we are publishing the interim chief construction adviser’s final report.
Together, the progress report and the interim chief construction adviser’s final report demonstrate continued progress in implementing the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s recommendations and reforming the wider building safety system. They represent important steps towards sustained system-wide change by reducing fragmentation, strengthening accountability and ensuring that those responsible for building and fire safety have the support and oversight needed to keep people safe in their homes.
The Government recognise that lasting change requires sustained transparency and oversight. We have delivered the inquiry’s recommendation on transparency through our new dashboards which publicly track progress to deliver accepted recommendations across inquiries, alongside our regular progress reports on Grenfell implementation. Parliament also has an important role to play in overseeing how Government implement recommendations and I await the outcome of PACAC's work in early 2027.
[HCWS331]
Chief Coroner’s Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am pleased to lay and publish the chief coroner’s 12th annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the operation of coroner services under section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The report provides a comprehensive overview of the work taken forward across the coroner service in England and Wales in the calendar year 2025, under the leadership of the chief coroner. It provides valuable insights into the service’s operations and future direction.
In particular, the chief coroner’s report sets out:
The continuing work to promote consistency in the in the coronial jurisdiction across England and Wales, including the publishing of the “chief coroner’ guidance for coroners on the bench” and
The reconstitution of the chief coroner’s national cadres, including the cadre of coroners for major incidents and the cadre of coroners for service deaths.
I am very grateful to her honour Judge Alexia Durran for her work in preparing the report. I am also grateful to all coroners and their officers and other staff for their continued dedication to improving services for bereaved people through their invaluable frontline work.
The report will be available online, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-coroners-annual-report-2025
[HCWS327]
Cabinet Committees
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
Today I am publishing a Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Library of each House.
[HCWS332]
Church Appointments
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention steps that the Government are taking regarding Church appointments.
Restrictions set out in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 prevent persons professing the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths only from advising the sovereign on appointments to the Church of England and Church of Scotland. I have therefore transferred my constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor.
It is, however, unacceptable for there to be a legislative bar against people of any faith performing all the functions of my office. The Government will therefore introduce a Bill at the earliest possible opportunity to correct this antiquated and archaic anomaly.
[HCWS325]
Grand Committee
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Railways Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, had hoped to be here today but found himself with other commitments, and therefore asked me to move his Amendment 22A, which I also support. This is a probing amendment on whether the provision in the Bill which enables Great British Railways to enter into partnerships with mayors—we will debate whether it should be mayors or others later—could be strengthened. I would be keen to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
The Bill sets out a partnership structure that enables collaborative working, local funding commissioning and other benefits, but this wording change from “may” to “must” would really strengthen the requirement for a partnership with mayors. I hope the Minister agrees that Great British Railways must treat mayors—and others, as we will come to—as genuine partners, and that the Government will consider this amendment seriously.
I take this opportunity to speak to the other amendments in this group. I think it is a very important group and that is not just because my background, like many noble Lords’, is in local and regional government. I am very aware that, for example, Transport for Greater Manchester, Transport for London and others are concerned about the Bill as drafted because it does not treat them as real partners at the table; it feels like a consultation or tick-box exercise rather than a genuinely equal partnership.
I just remind noble Lords that, when responding to my amendment on rail devolution on Report of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, on 6 November 2024, the Minister said:
“I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved governments and mayoral combined authorities. They will be involved in governing, managing, planning and developing the railways”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]
Yet I believe—as do others here, hence all the amendments—that the Bill as drafted does not provide the statutory powers that mayoral and strategic authorities and others require. Since the Bill was introduced to Parliament, we have of course seen a new Prime Minister, one committed to devolution to mayoral and strategic authorities, so I really hope that some things will change.
I have already talked about the amendment that I am moving on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I hugely support as it strengthens the Bill. I hope the Government accept that. It would be useful if the Minister could set out how the Government see Clause 5 enabling Great British Railways and these authorities to develop local commissioning partnerships. I stress that this clause is particularly important for Greater Manchester, because the city region wants to take on a more meaningful role, similar to London’s, in shaping and commissioning rail services.
Many of the amendments in this group, which we will hear about, are trying in different ways to ensure that strong role for local and regional government. They include the sensible amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which seek to bring in the term “strategic authorities” from recent devolution legislation. I hope the Government will be sympathetic to many of those amendments. In many ways, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is the simplest way to strengthen regional and local government’s hands.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has Amendment 147, which allows for an authority to declare a service wholly within its area as a mayoral concession service, so it can be run rather like Transport for London is. I think that is interesting, as it feels like, to date, Transport for London and others have had to go with a begging bowl to government to take over metro railway services for their area. This would shift the balance, so I think it is an interesting proposal to discuss.
Amendment 159 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would expressly forbid the transfer of TfL services to Great British Railways. This again highlights the tension between national and regional services, and concerns about the powers of Great British Railways.
I look forward to the rest of the debate on this group and the Minister’s response. Given this new Government’s agenda around devolution, I hope that we start to see a shift and, potentially, some government amendments in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think it might fall to me to speak next, if my noble friend does not want to speak to his amendments at this stage.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have four amendments in this group: Amendments 26, 64, 304 and 333. They are all on the same point, which is that, in the Bill, the definition of a “relevant local government body” is expressed as mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities and passenger transport executives. Those first two—mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities—are, I think, based on the proposition from some months back that, over time, all the strategic authorities would move towards being mayoral strategic authorities.
Since the original drafting of this legislation, we have completed the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Those of us who worked on that legislation will recall that Section 1 defines strategic authorities, and it does not do so by reference to whether or not they have a mayor; they are, basically, single-foundation strategic authorities, combined-foundation strategic authorities or county combined strategic authorities. It seems to me that, for the purposes of this legislation, the relevant local government bodies with which Great British Railways, in particular, and the Secretary of State should work would be all the strategic authorities. Why would we exclude those that do not have mayors?
I say this because, whether it takes a year or two—or three or four—there will be some strategic authorities that may not have a mayor for a very long time. I do not say this because I want them not to have mayors; I am in favour of them having mayors. It is just that we are quite a long way from that happening. From my quick survey, looking across England, we probably have two long-term single-foundation strategic authorities: Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. By my reckoning, at the moment, we have at least four, perhaps five, combined county authorities—Lancashire, Cornwall, Surrey, Devon and Torbay, and Norfolk and Suffolk—with no intention of having mayors. Interestingly, that includes Cornwall. The Minister will remember that, last week, when the Prime Minister was answering questions in the other place for a very long time, he referenced devolution in Cornwall and said
“with or without a mayor”.
Therefore, we are in a very simple position: we want devolution. We want GBR to have regard to the transport plans of strategic authorities. We want GBR to consult with strategic authorities, with the responsibilities that they have. We want statutory information sharing between GBR and strategic authorities. If we put “mayoral” in this legislation, we will restrict the availability of all the statutory consultation, information-sharing and advisory relationships between GBR and non-mayoral strategic authorities. I am sure that that is not anybody’s intention. The simplest thing to do would be to reference the definition of strategic authorities in Section 1 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act; that would be altogether simpler and better in the long run.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said on his Amendment 26. I had some dealings on this when the Prime Minister was the Mayor of the Greater Manchester and when Andy Street was Mayor of the West Midlands. Both of them engaged with the department on their desire to integrate the national rail network into their plans locally. They wanted to have those conversations, which worked well. In those cases, obviously, they were both mayors.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley. Given the announcement this week that local government reform and the bringing together of unitary authorities, which is, in many cases, a precursor to having mayors, have been held up and there have been legal challenges, it would be much more sensible, as my noble friend says, if we made sure that GBR could have those sensible conversations and had the powers to do that with all appropriate local authorities with a strategic transport function. We should not limit that to those authorities with a mayor.
As my noble friend said, although it was at least the preference of the Government led by Keir Starmer that there should be limits to what you could devolve if you did not have a mayor, it sounds like, from what the Prime Minister said in his answers to Cornish MPs, that he is open-minded about that. Therefore, we could have some significant local authorities with transport powers without a mayor. I know from my own experience that there are a number of proposals in the Cornish area, for example, for some rail infrastructure that would bring significant benefits to the Cornish economy. It would be perverse if the Cornish council could not have those conversations with GBR or if people had to work out weird ways of having to facilitate those conversations because we had not provided for that in this legislation.
I agree with my noble friend. The Minister would be wise either to accept his amendment or, if it needs to be worded differently or other changes need to be made, at least to take it away and come back on Report with a government amendment, or suite of amendments, to achieve the same function. That would improve the position and, in fact, get to a position that I think is the Government’s intention—certainly the current Government’s intention. It may not have been when the legislation was drafted but I think that it would more accurately reflect the position now.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to the amendments in my name, Amendments 298, 299 and 300, which follow on from the amendments about which noble Lords have spoken. I want to double-check that there will be consultation with the relevant authorities—whether it is Scotland, Wales or other authorities—before any change is made to access charges, timetables or anything else.
Several noble Lords have spoken about Cornwall, where I live. It may be down as a mayoral authority but, knowing the politics of Cornwall, I think that it is highly unlikely that anything credible will come out of that. Whether that is good or bad, we can debate.
There is also the question of what improvement—or lack of improvement—is needed to the railway in Cornwall and, to some extent, in Devon. We have been debating for many years whether the line at Dawlish is at risk and by how much. I know that my noble friend the Minister has said that it is all going to be fine. Rock bolts are being put into the hillside to stop it falling down, which I am sure is a good solution, but we still only have one rail line going to most of south Devon and the whole of Cornwall. It would be nice to think that the local authorities—the south-west regional authority is already doing some work on this—are able to take some of that forward with a budget to look at the alternatives and make sure that the various authorities, whoever they may be at the time, are properly consulted, especially on access, charges and things like that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of this group, I would like to say that I received this morning from the Minister, as I imagine other noble Lords have, a letter setting out certain corrections to statements that he made on Tuesday. I have not had the opportunity to study that, but I hope that there will be an opportunity at a later stage in Committee, if necessary, to come back and question the noble Lord on the points made in that letter.
However, I also yesterday received an email from a group calling itself the Association of British Commuters. It referred to the debate that we had on Tuesday concerning what constituted in this context a wholly owned subsidiary of GBR and whether that was consistent with some sort of public/private partnership for the purpose, for example, of developing land. This was not a strange email; it was very coherent, sensible and well written. The thrust of it was that not only did noble Lords on these Benches get it all wrong—if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Lansley; if he has not received the email, I will send it to him—but so did the Minister.
I have two questions before I start on this section. First, has the Minister received this email? If not, I am very happy to send it to him. Secondly, does he expect to return to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to make corrective statements? Clearly, if he has not seen the email, he will not be able to answer the second question, because his officials will not have had the chance to advise him, but he is under an obligation to return at the earliest opportunity if he has something to correct, as he has today—I am giving him that opportunity. When I sit down, I will send him the email. If he tells me at the end that he has not received it, I will very happily send it to him, as I will to my noble friend Lord Lansley.
I turn to the group of amendments that we have been debating. I shall speak to—I shall not read out the numbers—all the amendments that I have tabled in this group, which are quite a lot. I shall also speak briefly on Amendment 27 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grayling.
These amendments go to the heart of the devolution agenda. None of us is satisfied with what the Bill contains on devolution to local authorities, strategic authorities, regional authorities—whatever they are called. I have been thinking about why none of us is satisfied and what the fundamental flaw of the Bill is in this regard. The answer is that there is no devolution in it. What the Bill does is give those authorities the right to request things from Great British Railways—as I said on Tuesday, I find the phrase “right to request” quite objectionable in a free country, because we all have a right to request things of Ministers as part of our democracy. In other words, they have the right to ask to become customers. If those things are granted to them, they will have those services provided by Great British Railways and they will make payments towards them, if necessary, to justify the carriage of passengers on that particular route. All they have, therefore, is the right to request to become customers. There are no devolved powers in any of this. There is no devolved running of railways, because that would be inconsistent, I suspect, in the Minister’s mind with the single directing brain that is going to be controlling the railways. So there is very little.
The amendments that I have tabled fall into two groups. Two of them relate to devolution in general, and the second group relates to TfL in particular. To start with TfL, I need to start by saying that although it is not a current interest, as many noble Lords in the Room will know, I used to be deputy chairman of TfL and indeed worked closely with the Minister during that time. The Mayor of London has made it clear that he wants further devolution of rail services to TfL. In fact, this is a process that started when I was deputy chairman of TfL and the Minister was commissioner, and very successful it has been. Lines that were, in effect, abandoned became busy commuter routes, with very little investment—just through good management, making the stations attractive and having some new trains. It has been a huge success. The London Overground is one of the huge rail successes that this country has achieved in the past few years—all of it run on a concession model, incidentally, involving the private sector or external train companies of one sort or another.
The Mayor of London wants more of that—that is understandable. I think Londoners want more of that. The Mayor of London now has a high-powered friend in Downing Street. The Prime Minister has said that power has been hoarded in SW1 for too long. He wants power carried to every postcode in the land—et cetera—and the Government will be redistributing power. This Bill does not redistribute power to anybody in local government. So I would hope that the Minister would have changed his mind in recent weeks and would be extremely sympathetic to these amendments.
Amendments 28 to 30 seek to ensure that the Secretary of State remains properly involved in arrangements between GBR and TfL, rather than allowing those relations to be determined solely within GBR. This is the bear in the room again. GBR is going to be so huge. It will make all the decisions. Everybody else is just a taker of decisions by GBR, they are not participating in them.
Amendment 159 seeks to protect existing TfL and London Underground arrangements and would ensure that they could not simply be displaced without proper process and consultation.
Amendment 301 makes the principle even simpler: where GBR is making a decision affecting TfL, it should inform TfL and allow TfL itself to determine whether the decision is sufficiently significant to require consultation. That seems entirely consistent with the Prime Minister’s philosophy. The same principle lies behind Amendments 23 to 25, 156 and 297 in relation to mayors and local government more widely, to which I now turn.
Amendments 23 and 24 would give greater flexibility for railway functions to be exercised locally and for the necessary financial arrangements to flow in either direction. At the moment the Bill allows GBR to collect money from local authorities. Why should it not be the other way round? What if GBR makes a profit on a line? Why should it not pay money to the local authority? Why is everything so one-sided in the Bill?
Amendment 25 would provide an independent route to the ORR where agreement cannot be reached. There is no way in the Bill of resolving disagreements. So let us provide one. Let us have an appeal to an independent ORR. It is not that I think the ORR is tremendous, but it is currently the only available appeal body. If the Minister says he is happy to have an appeal but would like a different structure, we would be open to discussing that, but let us have an appeal route so that disagreements can be resolved independently.
Amendment 156 would allow mayoral and combined authorities to procure local passenger services through concession agreements, including using private operators where that offers the best solution. Currently they are limited to using GBR to provide the services. What if GBR is no good? I know that GBR is going to be managed beautifully and nothing will ever go wrong in the utopian vision we are looking forward to, but what if it is not actually very good? What if people are constantly on strike? What if the management is sloppy? Why should you not be able to turn to a private train operator to manage your local service? This is not a question of track access or timetables, because they have been agreed, but why would you have to use GBR to provide these services if you are genuinely enjoying devolution?
Amendment 297 would require GBR to notify a mayoral combined authority before taking a relevant decision. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley that that terminology might be improved, but I am not entering into that issue at the moment. That would allow the authority itself to judge whether the decision is sufficiently significant to require consultation. Why should GBR be the body to decide whether something should be consulted on, when it is the local authority that has the knowledge of how sensitive it might be with the local communities that could benefit from consultation?
These amendments test how far the Government intend to follow through on the Prime Minister’s policies. Do they genuinely trust mayors and local authorities to shape local services? Do they support further rail devolution to London where TfL can demonstrate that it would improve services? Will they ensure that GBR becomes a partner in genuine devolution—not simply acquiring local authority customers—rather than just a national body through which decisions are centralised? Given the new Prime Minister’s stated agenda, I hope we will see a different approach from the Minister for the first time.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Berkeley, and my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Grayling are at the heart of many of the issues that I have raised in this group. They also sit squarely with what the Prime Minister himself advocated when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester—a song that he has continued to sing, on the whole, since he became Prime Minister, about the importance of devolving power, giving local leaders greater control over transport and allowing places to shape growth around their own priorities. It is time for the Minister to step up, get real and get with the swing of where, we are told, Burnham’s Britain is going.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on, I return briefly to a point raised in Committee on Tuesday on Amendment 146, regarding the long-term rail strategy and its relationship with devolved railway responsibilities. I was less than clear on this issue when we discussed it previously and thought it would be helpful to make a point of order to provide clarity and correct the record.
For clarity, the Government consider that Clause 15 is correctly drafted and accurately reflects the devolution settlement. The Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy will cover Great Britain. It will cover all of England and Wales and will address the railway in Scotland with regard to reserved matters only. Reserved matters include issues such as cross-border services, technical standards and railway safety and security. Scottish Ministers have devolved responsibility for matters such as Scottish passenger services and Scottish funded infrastructure. Accordingly, Clause 15(3) prevents the long-term rail strategy making provisions about functions of the Scottish Ministers, who will cover those matters in their own strategy.
I hope that explanation is helpful. The key point is that there is no inconsistency between describing the strategy as Great Britain-wide and providing an appropriate carve-out for devolved Scottish functions. I also reassure noble Lords—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have a quick question. Why, then, is there not a similar provision saying that the rail strategy may not make provision about the functions of Welsh Ministers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer is that the infrastructure arrangements in Wales are significantly different and Wales does not have its own settlement in that respect. I reassure noble Lords that engagement between the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers on both strategies is productive and will continue until their publication. I am grateful to noble Lords who raised this issue, providing an opportunity to place my clarification on the record.
In respect of the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about an email from—
Lord Harper (Con)
Before the Minister concludes, may I respond, since I was one of the Members who raised this issue? I thank him for what he has just said and for the very helpful letter that he sent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred. I took the time to study it this morning, since I was the one who raised the issue, and I am grateful to him for making it clear that “strategy” means something slightly different north of the border, in Scotland, because of the role of Scottish Ministers. Again, it is an asymmetrical position with Wales, as my noble friend Lord Lansley, has just highlighted, because in Wales Welsh Ministers do not have the responsibility. That is very helpful, and I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the Government do not have to come back with amendments to fix the Bill.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. We thought that we had been saved by the bell, but we were not, so I thought that it was right to put it right.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that to my knowledge I do not have an email from the Association of British Commuters, although I do get several emails a day. If he sends it to me, I shall talk to officials about what it suggests. I think that is the most I can say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
On group 1, of course this matter is of significance to this Government, with a new Prime Minister, and I firmly believe that the Bill already empowers mayors in local areas. I am clear that Great British Railways will not work unless it works for and with mayors and local communities.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who quoted me, I stand by what is said. This is absolutely not a tick-box exercise.
I turn to Amendment 22A in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has kindly spoken today. I absolutely agree with him and with the noble Baroness that the partnership approach that the Bill sets out must be effective. GBR must engage with partnership offers seriously, and the bar for GBR to reject a partnership must be exceptionally high. As we are aligned on the intent behind the amendment, which she described as the principal amendment in this group as it covers all circumstances, I commit to taking it away and I shall see what can be done after this debate.
I turn to Amendments 147 and 156. The Government absolutely support further rail devolution where it is in the interests of passengers and the wider rail network. That is why the Bill already provides a route for passenger rail services to be devolved through exemption from designation by the Secretary of State in Clause 28. Where services are devolved, mayors already have flexibility to choose their approach to securing passenger services and may secure them via a concession contract, including to the private sector, if they so wish. The Bill does not change that. TFL, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, describes, operates on precisely this basis. There is therefore no need to duplicate the existing devolution provision in the Bill, which already achieves that intent in full.
On Amendments 23 and 24, Clause 5 is already intended to support local commissioning arrangements: it enables mayors to contribute funding where they wish to secure services or improvements that reflect local priorities and go beyond the national railway offer. This gives local leaders a mechanism to invest in additional rail outcomes for their area where they choose to do so, providing the local input that we know is so important for enhancing our communities. The details of these arrangements, including revenue-sharing options, will be agreed separately from legislation via collaborative partnerships between GBR and mayors. Work on developing this model has already begun, using Greater Manchester as a pathfinder—I am going to meet the new mayor of Greater Manchester tomorrow.
The Government absolutely support greater local influence over rail services, but allowing mayors to run rail services is a financially significant decision, with safety and public interest impacts; that is why it is right that the current process in the Bill for devolving services to local leaders remains the route that is used for this. That route is well understood, familiar to industry and proven effective. Allowing mayors to run GBR services outside of the usual process is not necessary and does not better serve local communities.
I turn to Amendments 26, 64, 304 and 333. The Bill is focused on mayoral strategic authorities to reflect their growth across England and the role that mayors can play to convene local partners and tackle regional challenges. Mayors have the most far-reaching and flexible powers; therefore, this level of authority is of the appropriate scale and capability to integrate rail with wider public transport, enabling them to engage effectively with Great British Railways.
Furthermore, as outlined in the Cabinet statement Rewiring the State, published in July, the Government consider that mayors who are directly accountable to the residents who elect them can provide the best governance for their communities. As a result, the suite of powers available to areas with mayors will be commensurately greater, recognising the role that they play as leaders in their regions. However, this is not to say that other levels of local government will be excluded from engagement with Great British Railways, and I take the point that it is important that no local authority is left out, as indeed the Prime Minister said a few days ago. The plan is for all tiers of local government to benefit from local GBR business units, and some existing authorities have collaborated well with the existing structure, including Devon, with several new stations, and, recently, Cornwall, with the Mid Cornwall Metro.
Our approach does not intend to exclude anyone from working with the railway, but we think it is sensible to use mayors as a focal point for powers, responsibilities and representation in their local areas. That said, I am happy to see if there is anything we can do outside the Bill to reassure foundation authorities that their views will be properly considered, and I will reflect on that further.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments. To avoid us further returning to this issue, I should say that there are other amendments to exactly the same purpose that I did not notice had not been grouped together, in Clauses 16 and 83 and elsewhere in the Bill, so I hope we will treat this as the one debate about that issue.
The route ahead, if I may say so to the Minister, is a very straightforward one: relevant local government bodies—for the purpose of information sharing, taking advice and co-ordinating with transport strategies—should be England wide, and therefore it should be all strategic authorities. If the Minister and the Government, understandably, want to go further and have a category of strategic authorities with mayors which have the ability to go further in terms of working with GBR and taking responsibilities, the route would be to put in something for that purpose in relation to established mayoral strategic authorities, which clearly have the financial basis on which to do that. Distinguishing between those two would make this work much more effectively.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am particularly grateful for his suggestion that we debate this only once. I have listened carefully to what he has just said and I will reflect on it, as I said I would do on the rest of the subject. I am grateful to him for that, and indeed the Hansard record is useful in being able to cross-reference it further to this Committee session.
I turn to the proposals on Transport for London. Amendment 27 seeks to provide all mayoral authorities with the same powers as TfL. Of course, the Government support rail devolution where it can deliver better outcomes for passengers and local communities, but those arrangements should reflect the circumstances, capabilities and aspirations of individual areas rather than applying a single model everywhere. The TfL model has a distinct legislative and governance framework developed over many years, and it would not be appropriate to automatically confer all existing or future TfL powers on every mayoral combined authority. The other point worth noting is that the geography of London includes several complete railway services, unlike much of the geography of the rest of the combined authorities in England.
The Government have already published guidance on applications for rail devolution and, as I have already said, the Bill includes a route to devolved rail services for those seeking that in Clause 28. Therefore, should mayoral authorities want to pursue full devolution of certain services, as TfL has, they are welcome to use those established routes to seek it. Devolution arrangements should be considered on their merits, taking account of local circumstances and the outcome sought for passengers. A one-size-fits-all approach will not serve all local communities.
On Amendments 28 to 30, Clause 6 of the Bill requires GBR and TfL to co-operate on railway matters, including co-ordinating passenger services and sharing relevant information to help to integrate rail with the wider London network. As the directing mind for the railway, GBR will be responsible for those operational matters and how they will be discharged when collaborating with TfL. I do not believe that expanding the Secretary of State’s role further would reflect that clear division of responsibilities, but I can reassure the noble Lord that, via amendments that the Government brought in on Report in the Commons, the Secretary of State is still enabled to enter into arrangements with TfL to support the future devolution of rail services where that is needed. The Government believe that this approach is sufficient to support TfL to integrate and co-operate with the wider rail network.
On Amendment 159, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are supportive of the success TfL has made of rail devolution, and existing devolved arrangements will continue. To that end, existing exemption orders in relation to TfL concession services do not have an expiry date. The Bill also contains safeguards governing access decisions, including duties on GBR, a requirement to have regard to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy, a requirement for GBR and TfL to co-operate in relation to all services, and an independent route of appeal to the ORR.
Likewise, Amendment 25 seeks to enable mayors to appeal access decisions if they affect services in their area. Clauses 83 to 86 already allow GBR to request advice from mayoral authorities about services in their area, require it to consult them if a decision will significantly affect their area and, if a decision will affect the local area, GBR will work with local partners weighing up trade-offs between local and national network priorities. This enables issues to be resolved through collaboration rather than requiring relevant local government bodies to challenge GBR through the access appeals regime. Despite this, all local authorities are able to appeal an access decision they are aggrieved by, under provisions already in the Bill.
On Amendments 297 to 301, Clause 83 already requires GBR to consult mayoral authorities where a relevant decision would significantly affect their local area, including the interests of the local economy or of people living in, working in or visiting the area. The amendments would therefore add little practical benefit beyond further bureaucracy, slowing down decision-making, while mayors would have to review hundreds of decisions, often irrelevant to them, before any progress can be made.
On Amendments 298 to 301, I reassure my noble friend that the Bill is already clear, through Clause 83, that GBR will have to consult mayoral authorities on its access and charging decisions where these relate to a GBR railway passenger service in the area and would significantly affect the local region.
Alongside these legislative commitments, it is the Government’s clear intention for GBR to work in partnership with mayoral authorities. I am determined that GBR will absolutely be a proactive partner of those authorities, maximising the benefits that the Bill can bring to local areas. As a result, I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government share their ambitions on local devolution and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am very grateful for his response to my amendments, but on the relationships between local authorities and central government, we already have an example in the south-west—and, I think, in south Wales—where the train operators and the local authorities have come together and developed a new wifi system so that you can get wifi on the trains, which is quite important these days. They installed it in one train and it worked beautifully, and many of us have tried it. They asked the Department for Transport whether they, as the regional authority, could take over the procurement of improved wifi on all the trains on the GWR network and have it done more quickly. This was refused by the Department for Transport, which said that only it is capable of doing a procurement exercise on something as important as wifi on trains. Now, I hope that is just a one-off—my noble friend is aware of it—and that in the new GBR set-up, there will be more flexibility as to who does what.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In quick answer to my noble friend, the only reason it should be procured centrally is because improved wifi is needed on every railway service in Britain. Therefore, the department is determined to deliver it on all those services, and fragmenting the procurement would lead only to increased cost and probably significant delay elsewhere. I have absolutely no intention of getting in the way of wifi for the south-west, I would just like it to be delivered in other parts of Britain at the same time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think that illustrates a point. The Minister talks of devolution, but everything is flowing one way, so I will come back to this point. It arose in relation to Scotland—and, I think, also Wales—on Tuesday. GBR will be obliged to consult with local authorities on matters of significance. Significant is the word. But GBR will decide what is significant. Amendments I tabled that would allow the local area, or, in the case of Scotland, Scottish Ministers, to decide what is significant for them were brushed aside on the grounds that it would be far too difficult, they would have to review hundreds of decisions and could not possibly do that.
Of course, GBR has to review hundreds of decisions to decide whether they are significant. In local authority terms, one picks out very quickly what the significant decisions are because one has the local knowledge of what will cause a terrible fuss, which GBR does not have. Does the Minister see that the Bill cannot survive claiming a devolution mandate on the basis of this mentality, which keeps coming back? The Minister wants to be a proactive partner but, given GBR, I find that a rather terrifying thing, because it suggests that the other partner will be managed the whole time by GBR; then, at the end of the process, it will think it had a successful partnership. It is the wrong mentality, and it has to change.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is in a different place in his imagination of this. These proposals will generally originate with GBR. Its structure, which I described on the first day in Committee, will be organised locally and regionally and so it will know how those proposals are going to affect local communities.
There will be timetable changes, station improvements and infrastructure improvements. It is much easier for GBR to identify those in relation to the local and combined authorities that it deals with than it would be for them to sift through what, sadly in many cases, is railwayese in describing what is going on. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe this will work and that it will be a genuine partnership with those authorities.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I was really pleased to hear the Minister say how devolution is of such importance to the Government. We have had an interesting debate. I am glad he has committed to take this away and see what can be done with the proposal in Amendment 22A and reflect on the point about strategic authorities; I think they are both really relevant and will strengthen the Bill. On that basis, I agree to withdraw Amendment 22A.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment in the name of Lord Lansley to Clause 7, page 5, line 36, would remove the exclusion of issues including access to infrastructure, the infrastructure capacity plan, the working timetable, the charging scheme and performance scheme from the requirement to consult the Scottish or Welsh Ministers insofar as they have delegated their functions to GBR.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, there are two sets of issues in this group. Mine is terribly simple and it is by way of a question to the Minister, just to be clear.
I do not understand why, in Clause 7, at the point the Secretary of State may give directions to Great British Railways about the activities in Scotland and Wales, in each case the requirement to obtain consent from Scottish and Welsh Ministers is disapplied if those directions relate to what is in Chapter 1 of Part 3, which is access, charging and timetable capacity.
Timetabling and so on seem, on the face of it, to be tricky things where if these are directions to GBR which impact in Scotland and Wales, they should certainly require the consent of the Scottish Ministers—for reasons that we touched on earlier, a different requirement may rest in relation to Welsh Ministers. But I am surprised to see that the implication of Clause 7 is that the Secretary of State can issue directions to GBR impacting on, for example, the timetable in Scotland but does not require the consent of Scottish Ministers. Amendments 32 and 33 in my name are to probe why that seems to be the case. I beg to move Amendment 32.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 35 and 36, which are in the names of my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Moylan. Respectively, they deal with amending Clause 7, on the power to give directions, and Clause 9, on the power to give guidance to GBR. They specifically refer to some extra duties that would fall on Ministers if they were giving specific directions around fares and the fare structure. They set out that if Ministers are giving directions or guidance
“about the level or structure of fares”
they would have to set out
“the assumptions, criteria and objectives used … so decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability”.
I support both these amendments, for the following reasons.
One of the important decisions that Ministers have to take about the railways is to balance the cost of running them and how that cost is split between the fare payer—and of course not just that person who actually uses the railways but, when it comes to track access charges, the other users of the railway network—and the taxpayer. It is a very important decision, given that most people in the country either never use the railways or do not use them very often. A relatively small number of people use railways frequently, and it is important to get the balance of costs split correctly.
Ministers also have to make an important decision in their negotiations with the Treasury around the cost that falls on the department—the taxpayer subsidy piece. I think Ministers signed up to some quite challenging targets in the last spending review to reduce the taxpayer subsidy. There are two ways you can do that: either you cut services significantly or you have to grow passenger numbers. If Ministers are making directions or guidance about fares, it is important to understand which model they are using. What are their assumptions and what is the evidence base for the fare structure? What will that do to passenger numbers and, ultimately, to revenue? Then there is any knock-on impact on costs, what it effectively does to the GBR profit and loss account, and therefore the balance of costs that lands on fare payers versus the taxpayer. Having that level of transparency is helpful for the fare-paying public and for taxpayers.
It is also helpful for Ministers, because it would force a level of rigour in the modelling that is undertaken and, importantly, the assumptions that are made about how passenger numbers respond to fares. It will also enable us to have a grown-up conversation about how we grow passenger numbers, given some of the innovations and service changes that I suspect will be required, particularly in offering better services for leisure travellers, because that is where there is the potential for significant growth in passenger numbers and revenue and therefore for reducing the overall cost of the railway.
These two amendments have a very sensible underpinning. They are not just helpful for taxpayers and fare payers; in the end, they will be helpful for the department, because they would force, as I said, a level of rigour and transparency in its financial modelling. They should therefore also commend themselves to our friends in the Treasury, who I think like rigour and robustness in financial modelling, because this just gets it all above board. Everyone has to be clear about their assumptions.
The amendments would also allow us to challenge the assumptions and enable us to have a much better conversation publicly about how we can drive up the usage of our railways and the flexibilities that we will require to do so. That will then, perhaps, provoke some helpful conversations with the trade unions and about the flexibilities that will be necessary to making sure that we have a financially sustainable railway for the long term, which is, in effect, what we need to guarantee secure jobs on the railway. That is the only way in which we are going to do this in the long term, because I do not think that taxpayers are going to continue wanting to subsidise the railway to the level they do now for the foreseeable future, given that many of them do not use railways frequently. I commend these two amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments cover directions and guidance from the Secretary of State. They push for greater transparency around those, which is something that we really support. Information that has supported key decisions and directions should be placed in the public domain. It is really important that Great British Railways develops an open culture right from the start and that it is clear where and how decisions have been made and on the basis of what evidence. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, focus in particular on any Secretary of State directions relating to the level and structure of fares, which are, I think, of great interest to everyone. Clarity on these points from the Minister would be helpful as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37 in my name, which is a probing amendment. It would limit the power of the Scottish Ministers to issue directions to GBR to circumstances where a KPI has been missed or performance has not been up to snuff.
I do not advance that because I think it is an appropriate thing to put in the Bill; it is a question of probing when the Government think the powers should be used, because it is not clear. We are meant to have a single directing mind—GBR is meant to be the single directing mind—but, as I said on Tuesday, we have several other directing minds here, too. One of them is the Secretary of State, who can issue directions—after all, directions are exactly what a directing mind would be expected to produce—but, now, we also have the Scottish Ministers issuing directions, and it is not absolutely clear that they cannot overturn the directions of the Secretary of State. I want to know what the powers can be used for, how clashes and contradictions can be avoided, and how all this is coherent with the Minister’s claim that he is creating a single directing mind in the shape of Great British Railways.
I wish to comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Grayling has tabled Amendments 34 to 36, to which I have added my name. It is an important constitutional principle that directions issued by the Secretary of State are not only published but laid before Parliament. The Minister will say, “You can’t possibly expect MPs to read these things. They haven’t got time. They might be full of railwayese. What is the possible advantage of putting them in front of MPs?”, but I think that MPs and Peers would value having these important directions put before them so that the Secretary of State can be held accountable for his or her actions in the management of the railways.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 32 and 33 are also entirely reasonable. Where relevant functions have been delegated and the Secretary of State proposes to give GBR directions affecting infrastructure, capacity, timetables, charging or performance in Scotland or Wales, surely it is right that the Scottish or Welsh Ministers are consulted.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this group.
On Amendments 32 and 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, access to railway infrastructure is a reserved matter. It is important that access and timetabling decisions make sense across the entire rail network; therefore, there must be one central decision-maker, to avoid fragmented and disparate decision-making, which increases delays, cancellations and disruption. However, GBR must consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers before issuing, revising or replacing its access and use policy. It must consult them on other decisions if those decisions may affect their interests, and must take into account their transport plans when making access decisions. There are therefore already adequate safeguards for devolved Governments in relation to the access regime.
Lord Moylan (Con)
On my Amendment 37, if the Minister insists on responding solely in the literal sense to explicitly probing amendments—seeking in this case to work out how a conflict in directions between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State, for example, might be addressed—all he does is encourage further amendments to be tabled to the Bill to bring the subject back so that it can be debated. One has to keep finding wording that will make that happen. I genuinely would like to know how he sees these multiple direct laws, producing directions, operating together. Do they collaborate, what happens in the case of contradictions, and so forth? These are questions to which Parliament is entitled to an answer.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I believe I did answer the noble Lord: the memoranda of understanding between Scottish Ministers and this Government, and between Welsh Ministers and this Government, set out the processes by which these things will be co-ordinated. Were there to be any real difficulty in the circumstances he is describing, we would not have been able to get as far as we did in drafting the MoUs, which we have done, and in the agreement of Scottish and Welsh Ministers to the provisions of it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
We are grateful to the Minister for his explanations—for my part, on Amendments 32 and 33. The Minister explained why the Bill says that, for reason of reserve powers, the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers is not required. This is an opportunity to make it clear that, if we were in the exceptional situation of the Secretary of State issuing directions that impacted in Scotland or Wales, it might be reasonable that the Secretary of State would consult Scottish or Welsh Ministers. I did not hear the Minister say that such a consultation would not take place so, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 32.
Lord Evans of Guisborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain a formal recommendation from the Office of Rail and Road in relation to safety and standards before granting Great British Railways’ licence, and to consult the Passengers’ Council.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 38 I will speak briefly to my Amendments 39, 41, 42 and 44 in this group. This group concerns Schedule 1, on the granting of the licence to Great British Railways, and the possible granting of licences to persons other than Great British Railways, to operate railway assets.
The purpose of my amendments is to strengthen the roles of the Office of Rail and Road and the Passengers’ Council, which are mentioned in this list of procedures but are regarded largely as consultees rather than having any larger role. They are supposed to be, and have been sold to us by the Government as, bodies which have significant powers to represent passengers and to work to assist with the regulation of the licence. I am afraid that the legislation amounts to an invitation to consult rather than anything stronger. Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State obtains a formal recommendation rather than just a consultation from the Office of Rail and Road, in relation particularly to safety and standards, before granting Great British Railways’ licence. It would also ensure that there is consultation with the Passengers’ Council as part of that process.
I will speak briefly to the other amendments. Amendment 39 addresses the same part of the process and would require an agreement rather than a consultation. Again, “consultation” is a rather weak term in legal circles; “agreement” would require much greater input from the ORR and the Passengers’ Council. It would require the Minister to listen to and work with them to a greater extent than just with a consultation.
Amendments 41, 42 and 44 concern the
“Grant of licence to persons other than Great British Railways”.
They, too, seek to replace the consultation with a process of agreement and to strengthen input from the Passengers’ Council. They concern mainly new Section 8(4) of the 1993 Act, to be introduced by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, and the two earlier amendments are consequential on that change in subsection (4).
I urge the Committee to support these amendments and the other amendments in the names of my noble friends. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 39 or 40 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The purpose of Amendments 43 and 45 is to explore the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or the Office of Rail and Road grants a licence to a person other than Great British Railways to operate railway assets in Scotland or Wales. As the Bill is structured, under those circumstances there would be a requirement to undertake consultation with the Passengers’ Council if the licence is a passenger licence or a station licence. There is no other requirement for consultation.
Let us think of a practical example. I know that licensing is not about operating the railway; it gives one the licence to operate but it does not bestow any ownership over these things. Core Valley Lines in south Wales is a significant set of 57 stations. It is not owned by Network Rail or operated by Great British Railways. Presumably, it is therefore the subject of a licence. If such a licence were to be issued, or changed, in Wales, it seems to me inherent that one would want the granting of that licence to be subject to a consultation requirement with Welsh Ministers. At the moment, there is nothing in the legislation that would require that to happen. Amendment 45 would introduce such a requirement for consultation before those assets in Scotland or Wales were the subject of the granting of a licence to someone other than GBR.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 46 in the names of my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Moylan, which I think is a probing amendment. It would remove proposed new Section 8(6) in Schedule 1, which says:
“The Office of Rail and Road may not grant a licence … unless the Secretary of State consents to the grant, or … the licence is granted in accordance with a general authority”.
I want to probe the circumstances in which the Minister envisages the Secretary of State to have, in effect, a block. My preference would be that the Office of Rail and Road can issue those licences. The new section envisages a general authority having been given by the Secretary of State to the Office of Rail and Road to issue those licences. The only circumstance in which the Secretary of State is required to grant something is if the ORR is trying to do something outside that general authority. Given that it is a general authority, that rather suggests it will give the Office of Rail and Road some broad powers to issue licences, but what are the circumstances in which the Minister envisages that the general authority that the Office of Rail and Road has would not empower it to issue a licence, and therefore when is the Secretary of State’s veto going to be effective?
The whole point, I think, is that we are trying to have GBR operating, as I think the Minister said in his answer to the previous group, without excessive micromanagement by Ministers. Again, if the Office of Rail and Road has been given a general authority to grant operating licences, it would seem to me not helpful if it had to be second-guessed a lot by the Secretary of State. What are the circumstances when the general authority would not run and when the Secretary of State would have to, in effect, give permission? If it turns out that the general authority is very broad and there are not really any circumstances, that power may be otiose and therefore really should not be in the Bill.
I am just trying to understand the limits on that general authority that is given to the Office of Rail and Road, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out when he responds to this group.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are about strengthening the requirements for Great British Railways before it is able to grant a licence and to strengthen the Passengers’ Council in areas such as safety and standards. They would also strengthen the role of the Office of Rail and Road, which is something I believe is on this Government’s agenda.
The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, about consultation-only powers, rather than real teeth, for the Passengers’ Council, and the query from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about ensuring that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are consulted on a licence, are both very relevant, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on these issues.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Evans of Guisborough, Lord Lansley and Lord Grayling for their amendments in this group. I will address Amendments 41, 42 and 44 first.
The Government have repeatedly emphasised the importance of independent regulation under the new system. They tell us that the ORR will remain an independent and expert regulator, while describing the new Passengers’ Council as a powerful new voice for passengers. These amendments ask how much power these bodies will actually have. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State may modify GBR’s licence after consulting the ORR and, where the changes concern its functions, the Passengers’ Council.
However, consultation is not agreement. The licence is fundamental to how GBR operates and to the conditions against which the ORR will ultimately regulate and enforce its performance. If the ORR is to be the robust and independent regulator that the Government say it will be, why can the Secretary of State alter that licence without its agreement?
The same question applies to the Passengers’ Council. The Government describe it as a powerful new voice, but the Bill requires only consultation. There is no express requirement in this provision for the Secretary of State to have regard to the council’s consultation response. The Secretary of State must subsequently consider representations or objections made during the formal notice period, but that is not the same as giving the passenger watchdog a meaningful role in agreeing changes that may directly affect passenger interests.
I turn to Amendment 46, tabled by my noble friend Lord Grayling. Under the Bill, the ORR may grant a licence to a non-GBR operator only if the Secretary of State consents or if the licence falls within a general authority previously given by the Secretary of State. As my noble friend Lord Harper asks, why is that ministerial veto necessary? If the ORR—the independent regulator that the Government repeatedly tell us will remain robust and expert—has considered an application and concluded that a non-GBR operator satisfies the relevant requirements, why should the Secretary of State have the final trump card?
If the Government genuinely want an independent regulator and less day-to-day political interference in the operation of the railway, surely licensing decisions of this kind should rest with the regulator. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the Government envisage the Secretary of State refusing consent to a licence that the ORR considers should be granted and why that power remains necessary.
Amendment 45, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, seems entirely reasonable. Where a GBR licence concerns railway assets located in Scotland or Wales, I see no good reason why the relevant Scottish or Welsh Ministers should not be consulted.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to hear from noble Lords on this group, and it is a special pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reay.
Amendments 38 and 39 would undermine one of the fundamental principles that the Bill seeks to establish. The Secretary of State will set the overall strategic direction for GBR, and the Bill provides her with the sole ability to issue GBR’s licence. This reflects that it is the Secretary of State, not the ORR or the passenger watchdog, who is ultimately accountable for GBR both to Parliament and to the wider public. This aligns with the wider programme of regulatory reform that this Government are undertaking, where Ministers set the strategic direction and regulators are empowered to enforce against that. Regulators should not be making key strategic or political decisions for fundamentally important sectors.
However, regardless of who issues the licence, the ORR will enforce GBR’s compliance with it exactly as it does today. It has strong enforcement powers to ensure that GBR does not contravene the terms of its licence, including mandatory, legally binding directions requiring GBR to change its behaviour. It would not be appropriate to provide the ORR or the passenger watchdog with the power to veto the licence. The Secretary of State will, however, consult both those bodies and consider their views before issuing the licence.
On Amendment 38 specifically, I reassure noble Lords that safety remains fundamental to the operation of our railways and that the Bill does not weaken or alter the existing railway safety regime, nor the ORR’s role within it. No licence will be issued that is not fully compliant with safety regulations and safety law. Furthermore, we expect that GBR will have a licence condition to support the continuity of the current industry safety and standards framework to preserve our world-leading culture of rail safety. The Secretary of State will consult the ORR on the licence precisely to ensure that these kinds of conditions are fit for purpose.
I turn to Amendments 41 to 46. Currently, the Secretary of State is the ultimate licensing authority for the railways under the Railways Act 1993, and the current Bill does not change that. As it does now, the ORR will continue to issue all non-GBR licences under the general authority given to it by the Secretary of State. Not only would removing the Secretary of State from the process or requiring the ORR to consent undermine continuity and stability for the industry but it would be superfluous in practice, as the ORR already issues these licences on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Let me also clarify that railway licensing is, and will remain, a reserved matter. Scottish and Welsh Ministers are not licensing authorities under the current system, and the Bill will not change this. However, that does not mean that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are prevented from making their views known. The ORR is required under the Bill to provide notice prior to any licence being issued and to consider any representations, including any by Scottish and Welsh Ministers. We therefore do not consider it necessary to create an additional consultation requirement specifically for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.
I also note that the Government have spent long and productive hours discussing the provisions of the Bill with Scottish and Welsh Ministers and, in both cases, they are content with the licensing provisions as drafted. In fact, Scotland has already published its legislative consent Motion. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can I ask the Minister why, if it is not necessary to create a statutory consultation requirement, it is necessary to have a consultation requirement in relation to the Passengers’ Council? Can it not respond to the consultation on a licence in the same way as Scottish or Welsh Ministers could?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sure it could, but it is desirable to mention the Passengers’ Council, since we are setting it up and it is an important body. The distinction I am seeking to draw is leaving the Passengers’ Council as a consultee, rather than requiring its permission.
Lord Harper (Con)
Can I press the Minister on the question I asked? As he said, the Secretary of State is the holder of the licensing power, but the Office of Rail and Road is given a general authority to issue licences for non-GBR operators, but I still do not understand what the purpose is, in new Section 8(6)(a) inserted by Schedule 1, of the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to the grant. In what circumstances would the Office of Rail and Road be operating outside its general authority? It would be helpful if the Minister could give an example of where that Secretary of State veto would kick in, because I do not quite understand the point of it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think we are leaving things as they are, but if the noble Lord would like a specific example, I will have to write to him because I do not have such an example immediately in my mind.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The broad principle is that we are leaving licensing in the position it is in at the moment.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which have been very helpful and largely supportive across parties. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has dealt with questions from some of my noble friends to their satisfaction. I am not sure he has dealt with the issue which I originally raised to my satisfaction, but for now I am happy to withdraw Amendment 38.
Baroness Pidgeon
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Pidgeon, seek to include the London Transport Users’ Committee in consultation requirements.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to move Amendment 40 and speak to the other amendments in this group, which are about London TravelWatch. For those of your Lordships who do not know—although, as we have joked before, I feel this Room is a reunion of those of us who were involved in London government—London TravelWatch, officially known as the London Transport Users’ Committee, is the independent transport watchdog set up under statute speaking up for the travelling public in and around London.
It was established in its current form under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, although its roots go back to the Transport Act 1947 and beyond. Its remit covers national rail issues within the London railway area. Those boundaries are defined under the Railways Act 2005 and go beyond what most of us think of as London. It also covers transport services under the responsibility of Transport for London, such as buses and the Tube, and Eurostar services, which is a service not just for those in London.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when I was deputy chairman of Transport for London, I found London TravelWatch a rather annoying body. I suspect that when the Minister was the transport commissioner he found it even more annoying than I did, because of course it was there to complain as well as to make suggestions for improvements, so I can understand that there may well be a level of resistance to the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. However, I have added my name to her amendments because, objectively speaking, she is absolutely right: this is a very important statutory body. It should be treated on a level footing with other transport users’ committees. I can see no possible grounds for objection that the Minister may have. I suspect this will be one of the concessions he makes on Report and, if he does not, it will be inserted in the Bill whether he likes it or not. I look forward to hearing him say that the noble Baroness is spot on about this and that he willing be able to accept, if not her amendments as drafted today, at least amendments in lieu to the same effect that he might produce in the near future.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for these amendments. I should directly contradict the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: as the commissioner of transport for Transport for London, I found London TravelWatch a very constructive body. I enjoyed dealing with it; there were other people we dealt with who were far more difficult.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Some of the board.
As the noble Baroness says, London TravelWatch plays a vital role as the statutory watchdog for London, championing the interests of people who travel across all modes of the city’s integrated transport network. That is precisely why the Bill will strengthen its rail powers to ensure there is consistent passenger advocacy across Great Britain.
However, the passenger watchdog will have a new role in the reformed railways which will be different to the role of London TravelWatch. It will go beyond being solely a watchdog and passenger champion. It will have a central role in holding rail operators, including GBR, to account by setting consumer standards for the industry and monitoring operator compliance with them. It would not be appropriate to have two different bodies setting standards, which is why the watchdog will work closely with London TravelWatch to ensure that standards applied across all operators reflect its expertise. That is why London TravelWatch is treated differently in the Bill and why GBR, the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road must consult only the watchdog on certain matters such as the licence, the long-term rail strategy and GBR’s business plan. London TravelWatch is not expected, for example, to have any role on the licence.
That said, I can reassure the noble Baroness that I absolutely agree that London TravelWatch must continue to have a voice on matters that impact the London transport network, and indeed the wider scope of London TravelWatch that she referred to. I understand that Transport Focus, the future passenger watchdog and London TravelWatch will update their existing collaboration agreement to reflect changes in roles. I expect this will include additional expectations around consultation and engagement where matters will affect London and the other services which London TravelWatch oversees. For these reasons, I urge her now to withdraw her amendment, though I am happy to discuss this with her further after Committee.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Committee for this debate; I would say “short debate”, but I spoke quite extensively and maybe comprehensively on this matter. I understand what the Minister is saying, but it would be helpful, even if he has to define it differently, to put London TravelWatch, where appropriate, on the same footing as the Passengers’ Council for certain areas of consultation. A collaboration agreement between two organisations would be between them, but I would like to see something on the statute that makes it clear in which areas we would expect London TravelWatch to have a role. I would be happy to meet the Minister outside to see whether the Government can come up with some wording that would deliver that and ensure London’s voice is not lost in this. On that basis, I am happy at this moment to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
“Protection of rail funding settlements(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State proposes to make a material change affecting an agreed multi-year funding settlement for the railway (“the settlement”), whether by—(a) reducing the funding provided under the settlement,(b) altering the outputs, or the scope of works, specified under the settlement, or(c) making any other decision, whether or not framed as a change to the settlement, which materially affects the cost or deliverability of the outputs agreed under it.(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the Secretary of State must refer the proposed change to the Office of Rail and Road before it takes effect.(3) Where the proposed change would reduce funding available under the settlement, Great British Railways must set out how the reduction would be accommodated, including which works would be deferred, which activities reduced, and in what sequence.(4) The Office of Rail and Road must assess and publish a report on the proposed change. The report must include— (a) an assessment of the effect on—(i) delivery of the outputs agreed under the settlement,(ii) the supply chain and the skills required to deliver the programme, and(iii) whole-life cost and asset condition,(b) any statement provided by Great British Railways under subsection (3).(5) Where Great British Railways has given the Secretary of State advice on the proposed change, that advice must be published alongside the report under subsection (4).(6) A proposed change to which subsection (1) applies may not take effect until the report under subsection (4) has been published.(7) The function of the Office of Rail and Road under this section is limited to assessment and publication; it does not include determining where reductions should fall, directing the activities of Great British Railways, or the structure or content of the timetable.(8) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from making a change to a settlement; this section requires only that the change be assessed and published before it takes effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to refer any material change to an agreed rail funding settlement to the Office of Rail and Road for independent assessment, and to publish that assessment, together with any advice given by Great British Railways, before the change takes effect.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
The amendment that I am moving is almost self-explanatory. I think that most people in the Room will have witnessed arbitrary cuts in expenditure on the railway. These cuts probably emanate from the Treasury but come through the Department for Transport, which says that it must cut 10% of rail services or cut certain staff—or maybe have a recruitment ban. I am seeking to ameliorate that process somewhat so that if a Government—not necessarily the Minister’s—propose to make an arbitrary cut in the money available to the railway, whether that is the money available now or at some time in future, instead of leaving the railway to make the best of a bad job, a proposal can be made to the regulator. It would give the regulator a real job.
The regulator would have already approved the business plan of the railway at some time previously. If an arbitrary cut was made in future, that cut should be referred to the rail regulator and, as it were, deferred for three months, during which time the regulator would have the opportunity, together with the industry, to come forward with better solutions than have been proposed under the arbitrary cuts. For example, it could seek to postpone some work or alter the scope of the work. Instead of having a crude ban on recruitment, it could ensure that it applies only to staff who are not absolutely essential to running the railway. In this amendment, I seek to make a change to the way in which the Treasury and the Department for Transport handle their relations with the industry.
That would be a good thing that would give the rail and road regulator a chance to propose an alternative. As its remit also includes roads, it might also consider the terrible amount of money that has been wasted on smart motorways. It might propose that some form of taxation is levied on heavy goods vehicles, which I am sure most people would agree do enormous damage to our roads. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 65 and 73. Rather than the broader issues of funding, mine are much more nitty-gritty questions about the transparency of the business plan and how the funding processes for Great British Railways are to work.
Amendment 65 is to Schedule 2, which is that part of the Bill where Great British Railways shows us in its business plan how its money is received and allocated towards activities. If I remember correctly, we are in that bit where it has to set out various things. We are at line 27 on page 71:
“The plan must set out … the activities Great British Railways proposes … the costs of carrying on those activities, and how Great British Railways proposes to meet those costs”.
Strictly speaking, all the things that I am asking for in Amendment 65 might be comprised within that.
This is an opportunity for us to be clear about what Great British Railways should do. In a separate group I will come to another issue related to the relationship with local government bodies. In this particular instance, there would be important transparency in Great British Railways being required, when setting out its business plan, to show what contributions are received by GBR itself from GBR companies, presumably by way of profits or revenue remitted to GBR for this purpose, and vice versa: how much is being paid out through GBR companies and how much is being received. Amendment 65 is for that purpose: where the activity is carried out by a GBR company, the contributions received from or provided to GBR in relation to those activities. I hope that is a straightforward transparency issue when the business plan is being presented. A good plan would do that anyway; it is just a case of trying to be clear about that now.
This affords me the opportunity to say something to my noble friend Lord Moylan. We discussed on Tuesday the question of GBR companies, and he returned to this issue and chastised me, saying that I was inaccurate. I do not think I was as inaccurate as he might imagine.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I would never dream of doing that. It is inconceivable that I should do that. I drew to my noble friend’s attention an email that I had received that said that he had made a mistake and that the Minister had also made a mistake. I gave no opinion myself on that. It was very well argued, and I shared it with the Minister and the noble Lord. In writing to the noble Lord—I hope he has received that by now—I explicitly said that I did not know whether it was right or wrong, but I wondered whether he wished to make a comment. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, may wish to make a comment at any time he chooses, but not a comment, I hope, that is intended to be a rebuttal of any chastisement, or even a mild criticism, suggested by me.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that correction. He has shared the email with me. I think it is worth putting on the record the point, made in that email, that it is important to distinguish between joint ventures on the one hand and corporate activities of companies on the other. However, the point of the debate on Tuesday was that I was seeking to establish under the legislation that GBR companies do not have to be wholly owned. Hansard will show that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was seeking to establish that GBR companies are required to be wholly owned. That was the simple debate.
As I understand it, Clause 99 of the Bill makes it clear that GBR companies are a subsidiary of GBR, and a subsidiary under the Companies Act does not require to be wholly owned. If the Government had wanted GBR companies to be wholly-owned subsidiaries, they would have said so. So, as far as I am concerned, it is a subsidiary and, as we know, under the Companies Act, a subsidiary is a matter of control, not of complete ownership. As far as I am concerned, I got what I wanted out of that debate, which was my assurance that GBR companies are not required to be wholly owned.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we are now redebating what was debated the other day. However, since there was an element of confusion, the noble Lord has accurately characterised the difference in position between himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but it was in the context of an important debate about whether GBR would be able to carry out partnership—I use the word loosely—arrangements with private sector developers for the development of land in which GBR had a stake, with a view to achieving things like more housing or whatever it might be. Of course a subsidiary does not have to be wholly owned, since it is a question of control, so there can easily come a point where a joint venture company might not be controlled by GBR, and the question then is whether those arrangements would still apply.
The fundamental issue in the debate as I saw it—I entirely understand what the noble Lord is saying—is whether the structure proposed by the Government in the Bill inhibits what we would all agree are desirable developments that could take place using GBR assets working with the private sector. I heard the Minister give assurance on that, and of course I accept that, but I was merely advancing this to him because the suggestion was that confusion had arisen about joint ventures, subsidiaries and wholly-owned control in the course of debate, and that the Minister had fallen into that confusion, along with others. Therefore, I was giving him the opportunity to say whether that was in fact the case, although I do not expect him to do so today because he has only just had the email.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think that was an intervention. I can only speak for myself, but I do not think I am confused now. The Bill does not inhibit this from happening in future and that is a satisfactory position for us to have reached. That is relevant to this debate in that my Amendment 65 is about the relationship between GBR and its companies, and financial transactions—the resources provided to or the resources received from GBR companies—ought to be explicit in the business plan.
I turn to Amendment 73. Now we really are in a happy position. It is many years since I was responsible for the public expenditure of a government department. I do not mean as Secretary of State; I mean as the official responsible. Knowing what powers one is using in relation to spending money is important. Amendment 73 is a probing amendment but I have used the structure of saying that the same activity should not be funded out of both the powers in the Bill, where financial assistance can be provided by the Secretary of State to GBR, and Section 6 of the Railways Act 2005, which noble Lords who know these things better than I do will remember is a broad-ranging power to provide financial assistance to GBR. I want to establish at this point—we might return to it at a later stage to see whether it is a satisfactory position—which GBR activities will be in receipt of financial assistance from the Government under the Section 6 power that exists now under the 2005 Act, or the financial assistance to be provided under this legislation. We need to avoid the confusion of two different powers providing financial assistance to the same activity.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. Obviously, I have not heard my noble friend’s exposition of the purpose of his amendment, which I look forward to listening to shortly, but I understand why these amendments have been tabled. I think that they are both intended to make it more difficult to change funding for railways, as opposed to other areas of public expenditure, but I am not sure that that is entirely a good thing. I completely understand why that would be a good thing if you were looking at it through the railway end of the telescope, but if you look at it from the point of view of a taxpayer or a citizen, I am not sure that tying the hands of Ministers in that way is entirely helpful.
I will take the two amendments in turn. In terms of background, it is worth saying that, if I have understood the Bill correctly, in part 1 of Schedule 2,
“Funding by the Secretary of State”,
the structure for setting the budgets in the first place is broadly the position now. The Government set out a plan for funding over a multiyear period, they notify various people of that funding and the funding is set out, as are the things that are expected to be delivered by the funding, so that it is all transparent for us to see what is going on. As far as I understand it, the Bill as drafted requires the Secretary of State purely to notify the ORR if they propose to vary the financial assistance—the Secretary of State has to tell the ORR in various circumstances. It is very clear that only notification is required; there is no requirement for the Minister to await the ORR doing anything before the Minister is able to proceed with the funding change. I am content with that set of circumstances, if I have understood them correctly.
My noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which I understand is a probing amendment to test this, would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to change that funding settlement, except in two cases: if the things they required GBR to do had changed and therefore the funding was different; or there was an emergency in the country at the level of what is set out in the Civil Contingencies Act. We do not have those very often, but there are lots of circumstances in which the Government have to make changes to public expenditure, for all sorts of reasons, without the country being in an emergency situation at the level defined in the Civil Contingencies Act. It is the proper role of Ministers to have that flexibility and the ability to set budgets, make funding decisions and even to choose within the departmental allocation that they have. Even if the Treasury is not changing anything in terms of the money that the department has, it is the job of Ministers to decide how that money is allocated between the different parts of the department’s expenditure, whether it is a—
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
May I just say that three months’ notice is not a long time and any arbitrary cut cannot possibly take place in three months because timetables, trains and rosters have to be altered? Three months is a very short amount of time to give the rail regulator to make decisions.
I am not talking about giving the rail regulator lots of extra powers to alter the timetable. I am quite satisfied with where we have got to on that. I am saying that, if any future Government wish to reduce the money, they should have the grace to have the matter properly considered by people who are professionally competent. That does not always include Ministers.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. I had not yet started dealing with his amendment in detail—I was dealing with my noble friend Lord Moylan’s—but I listened carefully to what he said and will deal with it when I get to his amendment.
I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan, although I understand that his amendment is probing. I would not want to tie the hands of Ministers in the way that he set out. I understand that it is of course desirable not to change funding for any public service once it has been set—one does not do that if one can avoid it—but there are occasions when that is necessary. If we are looking for the appropriate people to make those decisions, they should be Ministers.
The problem with ring-fencing certain parts of expenditure to make it more difficult to make changes is that, in effect, you are deciding that any changes to public expenditure have to fall in other areas. Those decisions should properly be taken by Ministers at the time that those changes are made, because they have to balance the consequences of making those expenditure changes and the changes that they will necessitate to public services, and they have to make the case about why they are doing that. Those decisions are properly for Ministers, rather than expenditure being arbitrarily ring-fenced in legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tabled Amendment 54. I am concerned about this amendment, but I would be very happy if, when I finish my remarks, he comes back to say that I have misunderstood it. He referred to arbitrary changes. “Arbitrary” is a word that people usually use when they do not agree with the changes proposed by somebody else. Ministers may well bring forward changes, and they may be because the overall amount of money available to the Government has had to be changed for some reason or because of some event. It may be that Ministers have decided that expenditure needs to be spent in another area or that the Transport Secretary has decided that there is a higher priority elsewhere. Those are perfectly reasonable decisions that will have to be explained to Parliament, and Ministers will be subject to questioning by Members of both Houses in making those decisions, which are properly for Ministers.
I have a slight problem with this because it involves the Office of Rail and Road. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, when he was setting it out and he, I think, suggested that that the Office of Rail and Road could come back with alternative propositions. It could come back by suggesting funding decisions balanced between rail and road, starting from his proposition that rail funding is better than road funding. I think the noble Lord was also talking about decisions on taxation or heavy goods vehicles. I humbly suggest that all those decisions are properly for Ministers.
I accept that the noble Lord was not suggesting that those decisions should be taken by the Office of Rail and Road, but he was suggesting that that office should take some time, produce a report and then make suggestions to Ministers. However, it is not the role of a regulator to get involved in making qualitative opinions about where public money should be spent. Those are not decisions for regulators; they are properly decisions for Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament. Unless I have misunderstood the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not think that getting regulators to come back, second-guess the decisions of Ministers and make alternative public spending propositions is good for the conduct of public policy.
The Bill is currently structured such that Ministers have to notify the ORR if they are going to make funding decisions, so that there are right and proper levels of transparency and people know what is going on. There is quite an important principle to maintain, which is that there are certain things that regulators should do and certain decisions that are properly for Ministers. I do not like to criticise the noble Lord, who I know takes a great interest in this area of policy, but I cannot support his amendment because it has those effects, which I think would be deleterious to public policy-making.
In the spirit of balance, the noble Lord will have noticed that I was also not entirely enthusiastic about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, which I know is a probing amendment. So I think that I have been quite even-handed in my non-approval of both amendments, which have a similar fault: tying the hands of Ministers in making public spending prioritisation decisions.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what an absolute pleasure it is to hear from my railway expert noble friend Lord Bradshaw. It is such a delight that he has been able to join us in Committee in person today and to contribute to our debate, particularly after he had a significant birthday yesterday.
Funding certainty is absolutely crucial for the railway going forward. Being able to plan investment and work properly, and deliver it in a timely manner, is essential. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s amendments try to show the seriousness of changing mid-programme railway investment and putting in additional steps for any material change to an agreed funding settlement by involving the ORR for an independent assessment, which should be published. This would ensure transparency and expert assessment if funding for the railway is changed, particularly mid-year.
Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require more transparency. That is welcome, as was the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. In fact, it is notable that he has spoken on every group apart from the one with solely my amendments on London TravelWatch. I will not take that personally, but I say, “Once a Secretary of State, always a Secretary of State”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 55, 56, 70, 78 and 86. I start with Amendment 78. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 states:
“Financial assistance given to Great British Railways or a GBR company”
primarily to enable it to carry out its infrastructure functions under Clause 3(1)(a)—this is one of the general functions that we discussed on Tuesday—is not to be treated as
“a subsidy for the purposes of the Subsidy Control Act 2022”.
This is a probing amendment to find out the justification for that. I suspect that the justification is that it is not treated as a subsidy currently and, therefore, the Bill simply carries forward the existing situation. I wonder whether that is appropriate.
The Subsidy Control Act 2022 exists for a purpose and requires that public authorities should consider whether subsidies are proportionate and necessary, whether they distort competition or investment, and whether their benefits outweigh their adverse effects. I wonder why the management, renewal and operation of infrastructure on railways should be specifically exempt from those requirements. This exemption does not apply to the other general functions listed in Clause 3, but it applies to this one. I do not want to be hypercritical, because I know that these things are very difficult and there are often excuses, but why should this condition not apply to these functions—particularly when there is a general lack of confidence in these functions being carried out with great efficiency at the moment and when they always seem to be very expensive? Is there a reason other than simple inertia? I do not think that inertia is enough.
The Act also requires safeguards on transparency, the scrutiny of particularly significant subsidies by the Competition and Markets Authority, and ultimately the ability to challenge subsidies decisions via the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Noble Lords may say, “All of this is going to happen. It’ll be GBR doing stuff for GBR rail, so how does competition come into this?” But, as noble Lords know, a great deal of maintenance activity on the track is carried out by private companies contracted for that purpose; that may upset the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but there we are.
As far as I know, there is no indication in the Bill that that will change, and so I understand why the provision of subsidies might raise competition concerns. There is an appropriate authority here that can address them. That is my first question. It is a probing amendment, but I would like to know why these potentially very substantial sums should be outside the regular framework.
In Amendment 70 I am simply asking for the business plan to be published. I think it is important that people should be able to see it. It is possible the Minister will say that he has every intention of publishing the business plan; TfL publishes its business plan, and most other similar organisations publish their business plans. As far as I can see, there is no statutory obligation in the Bill—I may have missed it—to publish the business plan each year or period to which a new business plan would apply.
Amendments 55, 56 and 86 are about building financial discipline, both in the Government and elsewhere. Here, perhaps, I contest the comments made by my noble friend Lord Harper and will say something about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is a serious issue here and I do not think that the noble Lord has got it right. I do not actually think that my amendments have got it right, but this is the right place for us to talk about the general question of how the Government treat the railways in terms of funding and the provision of funds—not how much they give, but how they do it and what the process is.
The reason for that is as follows. I used to be in a local authority and very often we had to set a budget in March but did not know until Christmas—even after Christmas—what the subsidy from government would be. It is extremely difficult to put budgets together at short notice. With the railways, it is even more difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has already said that significant changes require a great lead-time and planning to be delivered and just as long for them to be reversed.
Most of my amendments are trying not to fetter Ministers—I accept the comments from my noble friend Lord Harper that Ministers have to be accountable for public expenditure and that they have to make difficult decisions sometimes—but to build in a notice period. I have suggested two years so that, if changes are to be made, they would be lagged by that period, so that Great British Railways knew where they were going to be.
When the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about timetables and so forth, he was discussing the operational side of the railway, but there is also the infrastructure investment side of the railway, which may extend to building a completely new railway. One of the problems we have—we all acknowledge this—is that it is impossible to build new infrastructure on a one-year settlement. We give long-term settlements to railway developers so that they know that they will have the money to carry the project through to the end. Should that change in funding not also be subject, if it is necessary, to some sort of notice period?
Further down the line from that, we have the supply chain. A colleague of mine recently visited a British train manufacturer. I will not say which one because I cannot remember. Maybe I can, but what I was going to say might be adverse—not about the manufacturer but about its situation—because it is down to using one manufacturing line at the moment, as the orders have effectively dried up.
We all know that the ideal situation is that British train manufacturers have access to a steady supply and a steady stream of demand, so that they maintain jobs and do not go from famine to feast. Where is the discipline going to come from, as a result of all these changes, to address that? What sort of lags and notice are necessary? As I said, I do not think I necessarily have the answer in these amendments, although they all point to this debate. We may not get further on this today, but the Government will have to talk seriously about this. When they create a wholly new structure to operate the railways—Great British Railways—funding has to be mentioned. An understanding of the approach to funding, not just for the operations but for the infrastructure, has to be addressed.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on producing a business plan are absolutely essential because, as he noted, the railways need long-term investment. It is not just trains which need to somehow be ordered 10 or 20 years before they are needed but things such as HS2, which we have no budget for at the moment. We have no real knowledge of how much is going to be spent each year and when it is going to open, so there needs to be much greater discipline on this. I fully support these probing amendments to see what my noble friend is able to tell us.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this debate on group 5 and will echo the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon: it is a delight to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his place this afternoon. I am sure that the rest of the Grand Committee wishes him, as I do, a very happy significant birthday for yesterday. I have also read and heard what he has argued carefully and, as he is a man of huge experience in the railway, I will reflect on what he said.
The Committee will be relieved to know that I am not going to redebate the status of GBR companies and subsidiaries. I thought I would leave it to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moylan, to fight that out. I think I had the same clarity as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, at the end of that debate.
I think noble Lords’ amendments are, collectively seeking, first, that the Secretary of State considers GBR’s duties, her long-term rail strategy and the wider planning considerations when determining GBR’s funding settlement; secondly, that that funding settlement is transparent; and thirdly, that it is protected. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to ensure that it is in place two years before the next financial period.
I start by providing some explanation of the provisions. The Bill already establishes a comprehensive funding framework. Schedule 2 sets out that the Secretary of State must publish a statement of objectives for the railway. In doing so, she is absolutely bound to consider her duties and her own strategy, and she will, of course, consider wider planning and the impact of the network. Following the statement of objectives, the Secretary of State must then publish a statement of funds available, so that GBR can understand its funding parameters and produce a high-quality business plan.
Schedule 2 then provides that GBR must produce, publish and keep up to date the five-year integrated business plan across both infrastructure and passenger services. The Office of Rail and Road will advise the Secretary of State on the effectiveness of the business plan, including whether it represents good value for money. If it does, the Secretary of State will then approve the plan and issue a five-year settlement.
Under paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, as in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Secretary of State is required to publish details of the five-year funding settlement she gives to GBR, including the funds agreed. She will absolutely ensure that that these published details are clear enough to allow stakeholders to understand the settlement, meeting the noble Lord’s request for transparency, while protecting key commercially sensitive information.
GBR’s business plan will also contain all its planned activities, costs and how it plans to meet those costs. This plan will be updated and published annually after the initial settlement. A clear summary of ORR’s advice through the funding process will also be published, as set out in paragraph 4(6), which means that the desires of the noble Lord for an annual report on GBR’s financial performance will be delivered. Other further reporting requirements are duplicative and unnecessary, and all this amendment would do is increase the time GBR spends on bureaucracy instead of getting on with its job of delivering.
On protecting the funding settlement, which the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Moylan, spoke about, I agree that when maintaining and renewing long-term railway assets, certainty of funding is critical. It provides a stable basis of planning, supports efficient delivery and helps build investor confidence throughout the supply chain. I repeat that the intention behind setting a five-year settlement is that it should endure for the full five-year period.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I can assure him that the Secretary of State must publish any updates to the settlement that are likely to have a material impact. If she wishes to make a material change to the settlement, she must also notify the ORR, which will advise on the likely impact on the railway, and that is one of its important and critical roles. This will ensure that there is transparency around any funding changes and that there will be scrutiny if material changes are proposed that will not support an effective railway.
On Amendment 55 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do not agree that the Secretary of State should be restricted to changing the funding settlement only in emergencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, says, the Government have a lot of priorities to deliver across healthcare, housing, transport and public safety, which all require funding. While, of course, in my mind, the railway is absolutely the most important of those priorities, I recognise that the Government and Ministers need to be able to move money in response to changing circumstances, because choices about funding priorities are ultimately for the Government of the day.
On the details of Amendments 74 to 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the first key point is the question of which funding changes the ORR should get involved in. The Bill already requires that the ORR is notified when changes to the funding settlement are material enough to affect delivery, but not in every circumstance. This approach is proportionate. There may well be some smaller accounting-type changes to funding needed, which will not affect delivery and do not require a true statutory formal change process. This could, for example, include GBR offering to return small underspends back to the Government where efficiencies have been found but, of course, material changes, as I have said, should be notified to the ORR. This process ensures that they will be.
The Bill currently requires that the Secretary of State notifies ORR before a material funding reduction is made to the five-year infrastructure settlement. This allows ORR to exercise its independent and expert judgement when it receives notice of a potential change. I can reassure noble Lords that the ORR would absolutely act if significant funding were taken out of the railways, including by advising the Secretary of State and publishing that advice. This approach is most practical, rather than requiring ORR to respond to each change in funding in a set way. To summarise this point, certainty is crucial for the railways, the Government and the wider supply chain, but it must be proportionate and balanced against the ability of Ministers to allocate public resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised the question of rolling stock manufacturers and the Government’s answer to this is to construct and publish in due course a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, the first for more than 30 years, in order to give that part of this market the long-term certainty it craves and which will keep the production facilities and jobs going.
Finally, I agree that, given the amount of investment on the line, it is important that funding is in place in good time to allow GBR and industry to prepare for the next settlement. Although I do not think this should be in primary legislation, because requiring funding levels to be confirmed two years before the start of a funding period would reduce flexibility and risk settlements becoming outdated before they can even take effect, I reassure the noble Lord that details of the timing will be managed by the ORR, as they have been in successive control periods, to ensure that the financial settlement is never at risk.
Schedule 2 sets out that the statement of funds available must be published early in the process and created to timelines determined by the ORR. I can confirm that in practice, as seen under the periodic review process, this information will be published significantly in advance and has to be more than a year ahead of the final settlement to work. I understand that the ORR will ensure that the process concludes fully with time for industry to prepare. I hope this is a reassurance.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the Bill leaves flexibility to fund more of GBR’s activity through the five-year settlement, once this becomes once this becomes practical and Ministers are more comfortable funding an integrated entity. If Ministers fund passenger services through the five-year settlement using the route in the Bill, all the protections we just discussed would already apply.
Turning to a related issue, on Amendment 65, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that we are in agreement, and the outcome of Amendment 65 is already achieved by the Bill’s provisions. Under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2, GBR will be required through its business plan to set out its activities, the costs of those activities, and how it proposes that those costs are met. In practice, this means that the business plan must cover everything that GBR does, through its subsidiaries as well as the parent company, and must cover its revenue sources across all its subsidiaries.
I turn to Amendment 70—and once again I confirm for the Committee that the Bill already requires the full business plan to be published and kept up to date, in paragraph 4(7), and there is a commitment to update it in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 2. However, the Bill contains slightly more discretion for GBR to redact sections of the business plan than this amendment proposes. This is because it is important that all types of sensitive data, not just commercially sensitive, are able to be protected. Personal data, security-sensitive information about stations and public places, or anything legally privileged are all examples of content which may need redaction from the final plan, and a flexible requirement can be better used to navigate these nuances. That flexibility is important, but I should be clear that GBR cannot withhold information simply to avoid scrutiny. The ORR will assess and advise the Secretary of State on the unredacted version of the business plan, and GBR’s public law duties and wider accountabilities framework will ensure that GBR will not be able to hide important information relevant to public scrutiny.
I understand that the intention of Amendment 73 is to prevent the Secretary of State circumventing the process as set out through the Bill, by restricting access to the broader funding powers in the Railways Act 2005. The purpose of paragraph 6(7) is to make it clear to Parliament that the Secretary of State can use her other funding power in the 2005 Act. This will be necessary when funding activity outside the five-year settlement, such as individual enhancement projects or one-off funding packages, are needed following a natural disaster, for example. I assure the noble Lord that this does not reduce transparency over GBR’s funded activities. GBR’s business plan, covering all GBR’s activity, will be costed, updated and published as GBR’s outputs change. The business plan will include enhancement projects and will show clearly where the funding for them has come from, therefore transparently identifying the use of the 2005 power for Parliament and others to scrutinise. I therefore hope that the noble Lord can see that the inclusion of paragraph 6(7), to allow the Secretary of State to use other funding powers, is purely practical.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 78. For clarity, relevant subsidy control law does not apply to infrastructure funding. However, it applies in full to passenger services funding, as we discussed in the ticket retailing debate on Tuesday. Railway infrastructure being exempted from subsidy control rules is something that happens on the current railway; railway infrastructure funding provided to Network Rail today is not subject to subsidy control law. The Bill does not change this principle but simply enshrines it for clarity and transparency.
Over many years, funding provided for the operation and management of the main national railway infrastructure has not been treated as subsidy as this market has been effectively closed for competition, because there are not multiple infrastructure managers operating on the same infrastructure. That position has underpinned the funding arrangements for Network Rail and continues to be appropriate for GBR as its successor. Removing this provision would not change the way that the railway is subsidised; it would just mean continuing to rely on previous legal interpretations, rather than the additional transparency provided by this clause.
Part 3 in Schedule 2 therefore provides clarity and legal certainty, and it makes sense for this stance to continue as there is no competitive market for the railway infrastructure that GBR will be responsible for, so there is no need to waste resources administering this funding as if there is. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I start by saying how much I disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. His idea that parliamentary scrutiny is carried out properly in the House of Commons is absolutely false, because the whipping system there does not permit a full and frank discussion such as we are having now. He is yesterday’s man in respect of his remarks.
I am quite content to leave my amendment in the hands of the Minister. I reiterate that I am not asking for much. I know that the ORR will be consulted about a lot of things but, in the event of what I call an arbitrary cut, I believe that three months’ notice would not affect the eventual savings and that better savings would result from further scrutiny by the ORR together with the players in the industry. With that, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, and I look forward to it appearing on Report.
Baroness Pidgeon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and two others to Schedule 2 in the name of Baroness Pidgeon would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Amendments 57, 58 and 61 are about aligning the funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure. There is absolutely no point in bringing track and train together if their funding cycles are over different periods of time. For this new organisation to succeed and run the joined-up railway that we are seeking, funding—both capital and revenue—the investment side and passenger services must be provided for in a five-year funding cycle.
Critical elements of the running of the railway are included in passenger services funding—for example, staffing at stations and rolling stock maintenance depots, and of course train crew, such as drivers, guards and conductors, as well as driver and staff training, which we know is a huge issue. If you do not get this bit right alongside the infrastructure, you will not benefit from what Great British Railways is supposed to deliver. So I hope the Minister can explain how this can be addressed, and I look forward to his response to my amendments.
Other amendments in this group probe aspects of the business plan, but most striking are the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about ending or reducing taxpayer funding for the railway. As I said on day one of Committee, the railway will continue to need investment and subsidy, and I just do not think it is right for such clauses to be in the Bill. We heard about political direction, and it is for the Government of the day to deal with the budget as they see fit. But I hope we can look forward to having joined-up funding in five-year periods to make sure that Great British Railways is a success. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on my two amendments in this group, Amendments 67 and 72. Amendment 67 is simply another opportunity, as there was in the last group, to explore and, I hope, again extract assurance from the Minister that the business plan and GBR’s statements in it will be sufficiently transparent such that we can see the financial relationship not only—as we said in the last group— between GBR and its companies but between GBR and any arrangement that it enters into with any local government bodies. So we should see what money is being paid to GBR for these purposes and how it is attributed to those activities.
I hope the Minister will say that that will definitely form part of the business plan. If he does, I would accept it, as it does not all need to be specified. In an earlier debate, my noble friend Lord Harper quite correctly referred to the dangers of specificity, which can come whenever one gets any kind of list. If there is no list at all, we all agitate as we do not know what will be in the business plan; if we try to specify too much, we start to create a statutory prohibition—or “inhibition” may be the more correct word—on what is put into the business plan. I have explained that amendment.
Amendment 72 is more interesting, in the sense that—in parentheses—I think the Minister slightly missed the point of my amendment in the last group. I was not saying that there should not be flexibility to provide for activities to be funded from different powers, in reference to Section 6 of the 2005 Act. My point is that the same activity should not be funded from two different statutory powers. There would be a particular problem if that were to occur.
Section 6 of the 2005 Act is very broad:
“The Secretary of State may provide, or agree to provide, financial assistance to any person … for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development of railway services or railway assets; or … for any other purpose relating to a railway or to railway services”.
While removing part of Section 6, the Government have kept the wider meaning of railway from this section, which is a pretty broad-based power.
It is interesting to contrast that power in the 2005 Act with paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to this Bill. The power to provide financial assistance is
“for the purpose of activities … carried on in exercise of Great British Railways’ function under section 3(1)(a)”.
We recall that Clause 3(1)(a) is on the provision of infrastructure. Paragraph (b) is on the provision of railway passenger services and (c) is on determining fares, but I think we can probably ignore that, since the financial assistance is not to provide the fares but to determine them. However, I was quite interested because paragraph (f), on research and development and innovation, was also excluded.
This is a probing amendment, but I want to be clear: is it the Government’s intention with this Bill to provide financial assistance only for infrastructure and that there will be no financial assistance for the provision of passenger railway services and no money for research, development and innovation? Will all that be funded by the fare structure? The Government have given themselves a power in the Bill, through regulation, to add additional purposes for which financial assistance could be provided but, at the moment, it is just for infrastructure. If, at the moment, money needs to be provided to GBR for the provision of railway passenger services, that would have to come from the 2005 Act. I am just trying to follow the money. Where will it come from? If the Minister can tell us that it is only for infrastructure, I will stand down. At the very least, a specific power for the Government to support GBR for research, development and innovation is a power that we ought to retain.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the subsidy, the consequence of what he is suggesting could happen is that GBR could subsidise a passenger service that was on the same route as, and in competition with, a private sector operator. To me, that would be quite difficult.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am not sure if that is a question to me, but let us assume it is. I am not sure that I am saying that. I am saying that, as things stand under this Bill, the Secretary of State is not providing money to GBR for the purpose of providing railway passenger services. The Secretary of State has the power to do it under the 2005 Act. Nothing I am saying determines how that money is to be used.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 314 in my name, supported by my noble friend Lord Moylan, enters the arcane world of Treasury theology—what is and what is not public expenditure. It would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Bill on public finances. This is important because the Government constantly emphasise, rightly, their commitment to the fiscal rules to contain borrowing, build market confidence and reduce upward pressure on interest rates and taxes.
One of the fiscal rules is the investment rule: public sector net financial liabilities— sometimes known as PSNFL—which is a broad measure of national debt, must be falling as a share of the total economy by 2029-30. Another is the stability rule: the Government must forecast a surplus on day-to-day spending by 2029-30, meaning that regular public services are funded entirely through tax revenues rather than borrowing.
Clearly what GBR spends is public expenditure, but expenditure or borrowing by private companies can be classified as public expenditure if certain qualifications are met. Decisions on that are taken not by the Government but by the Office for National Statistics, and it operates according to international definitions. It does not allow for consideration of political or commercial significance when making its classification decisions; they are essentially statisticians.
The Minister may not have read “UK Economic Statistics Sector and Transaction Classifications: The Classification Process”—he may not even have heard of it—but it is relevant to Amendment 314. I shall summarise: the difference between the public and private sectors is determined by where control over the organisation lies rather than by “ownership” or whether the entity is financed from public funds. Control is the ability to determine general corporate policy. I will come on in a moment to the relevance of this to the rolling stock companies where, under the new scenario, GBR will be the principal customer, but there are two relevant instances where attempts by government to circumvent these rules have come unstuck, with consequences for the balance sheet.
One that will be familiar to the Minister was Network Rail. Network Rail was set up in 2002 as a private company limited by guarantee, primarily to keep its massive debt off the Government’s balance sheet. By structuring Network Rail as a private company limited by guarantee without shareholders, the Government could then borrow large sums of money for infrastructure upgrades without adding those billions to the official national public debt.
However, in 2014, ONS reclassified Network Rail as a central government body in the public sector, and this resulted in roughly £30 billion of debt moving on to the Government’s balance sheet. The Minister will have had direct experience of the consequences of that at Network Rail. We know because we have the Hendy report, which sets out the consequences for Network Rail of this reclassification. Debt was controlled, capital was rationed, assets were sold off and upgrades were postponed. I think the last thing the Minister wants to do is to write another Hendy report, mark 2, when rolling stock is classified as Network Rail is.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham because his expositions of difficult issues are always so clear and compelling. There is a movement on the left wing of the Labour Party—which is well represented in your Lordships’ House—to nationalise the roscos so that we can have a full sweep of nationalisation. To date, nationalisation of the railways has cost the Government nothing because, of course, they already owned nearly everything. All it has done is allowed certain franchises to expire at no cost to the taxpayer.
But the cost to the taxpayer of nationalising the roscos would be absolutely enormous, which is one of the reasons why the Government have resisted pressure from the more Corbynite wing of their party to proceed on that basis. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is suggesting that, at the stroke of some scribal pen in the Office for National Statistics, at least the financial consequences, if not the legal consequences, of nationalising the roscos would land on the Government’s plate as a result of the Bill—in other words, as a result of eliminating the relative multiplicity of buyers of rolling stock that exists at the moment and replacing it with a single buyer: a state-owned entity. As I understand it, that is the gravamen of what my noble friend is saying.
The amendment is almost too gentle for the circumstances because this is something that we would need to know in advance of the passage of the Bill. It is dilatory of the Office for National Statistics to say that it would review this matter only after the Bill has passed because it is of such consequence that legislators should know before they pass the Bill whether it will ensue as a consequence of their doing so. This is a matter of considerable importance. I do not know whether the officials advising the Minister perceived the full complexity of the noble Lord’s amendment in advance. They may not have given him a full response to the points made by my noble friend—although they may have done so, of course—so he may wish to follow up in writing. That may be acceptable to my noble friend—I do not know—but this is an extremely important matter that we really need to know about.
I do not propose to comment on the other amendments in this group so I turn to my own amendments, which were slightly mocked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We have been told—I accept that this is probably the case—that, should the Bill pass into law, it is likely to set a framework that will last for many years. People say that it is often 20 or 30 years before you get round to restructuring the railways; that is roughly the cycle on which it happens. I think, therefore, that it is very disappointing that the Government are seeking to restrict the debate to very narrow issues around the structure of the railway, which is the main basis of the Bill, when noble Lords want to debate other matters.
For example, in our debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is sadly not in his place any more, wanted to discuss the whole structure of funding the railways—not the amounts of funding but the mechanism by which it is done—in order to avoid crashing from one decision to another and to make it possible for both the railway and suppliers to plan what they will do with some knowledge that the funding will continue for at least a period into the future. Essentially, the Government want to escape having that debate and say, “Everything’s fine as it is so we’ll carry on as before”.
Through my amendments here, I want to have what I think is a very important political discussion about the Government’s vision for the level of subsidy that should go to the railway and for the balance between fares and taxpayer funding to support it. We have in this country a particular balance that is different from what exists in many European countries, and we have held on to it, but where do we want to go with it? The noble Baroness says that the railways will always require funding but, for their first 100 years, they did not require any public subsidy at all, and they provided the most comprehensive, intense and innovative transport system you could imagine, reaching to nearly all parts of the country. Further, they did so at a time when there were practically no roads, and there was certainly no air travel. Yet they did this without subsidy. We really only talk of subsidies to the railways when you get to the 1920s and 1930s, when money started leaking out of government and into the railways. That was before we had the full subsidy regime that came in with the Second World War and what followed. So it is possible to think about it.
I am not saying that it is particularly realistic to think about it, because I accept what the noble Baroness says: there is likely to be an element of subsidy all the way through. But what is the Government’s plan and what is the direction of travel on this? Would the Government not like to set out their policy and vision? If they do not want to do so today, then where in this process is it going to appear? Is the noble Lord going to tell us that it will all be in the long-term rail strategy, so that we can have a debate then about what is the appropriate level between taxpayer and fare payer? Remember that only 10% of the population makes regular use of the railways; the rest of the population is expected to subsidise it through their taxes, but only 10% actually use it. Is that a fair and sensible balance in an allocation of subsidies? These are important issues.
Amendment 112 is closely related but not quite the same. It asks for the railways to publish annual savings targets. Why should they not have such targets? There are great inefficiencies in every organisation. I do not say “in every public sector organisation”, although that is true, because there are inefficiencies in private sector organisations as well. When I was deputy chairman of Transport for London, we had a process for trying to reduce, with an annual savings target of 3% per annum. We took out that amount of cost year after year, bringing it down because we could find those efficiencies. I had learned from local government officers that they could do exactly that, because they knew where the inefficiencies were. In fact, they built them in a little, to give themselves some fat, but if they were required to reduce them under pressure, they could do it. Why should Great British Railways not have a similar discipline imposed on it? Where is the sense of financial discipline that we are looking for?
These are times when the Government have very little money; I think we know that. The tax burden is higher than ever, yet public expenditure is under huge pressure. Choices about defence and so forth cannot be made sensibly because of commitments elsewhere. I am not disagreeing with or criticising the noble Baroness. It is all very well to say that railways will always require subsidies, but the fact of the matter is—I believe this firmly, and I am a believer in the railways—that a railway that relies consistently and heavily on subsidy, in the current and foreseeable fiscal circumstances of this country, is a railway that will come under huge pressure and will be cut. It is not sustainable unless it can show that it is contributing from its own efficiencies and through generating higher fare income, which does not necessarily mean through higher fares but can be a combination of fares and passenger numbers. It needs a plan to show that it is doing that. These amendments ask the Government to set out that plan or tell us when they are going to do so, in the interests of Great British Railways itself.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 61 are about the funding of passenger services. In principle, I support the intentions of these amendments and acknowledge the benefits to business planning that aligning the funding cycles could bring. However, the reality of passenger services funding is that it is inextricably tied to passenger revenue, which changes in response to a number of factors that are difficult to predict, particularly over longer time spans.
Certain factors, such as wider economic conditions and the weather, are outside both GBR and government’s control, so it is quite difficult for any Government to commit passenger services funding in fixed five-year periods, given the revenue-forecasting challenges. It will, however, be a goal to work towards, and in particular it cannot be achieved before GBR’s funding settlement processes have bedded in and Ministers have confidence in how the settlements operate.
I recognise how important it is that GBR has the confidence to plan across track and train to make the most of integration. That is why it will be required to produce and publish a business plan covering all its activity, including on passenger services, and this plan will span the duration of the five-year funding period, regardless of changes to passenger funding. In addition, once Ministers have more experience of funding an integrated body and GBR has demonstrated that it is fiscally responsible, the Bill will provide a route to include passenger services in the five-year funding settlement in future, via statutory instrument. That will allow passenger services funding to join the five-year settlement. I hope the noble Baroness sees that we are as aligned as we can be on this amendment and that she can therefore support the Bill as drafted.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Is the noble Lord’s position that one of the consequences of this Bill, if enacted—we will not know for some months until after it is enacted—is that roughly £25 billion-worth of rolling stock could be added to government debt? I do not want to argue about the figure, but I believe that is roughly right. We are going into this in the dark, not knowing whether that will be the case. What soundings has the Minister taken with Treasury colleagues about this interesting possibility?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Since it is independent, nobody can predict the consequences of an Office for National Statistics examination until it concludes one. I said that the Secretary of State will work with it, because it will also need to consider the recent past. The Bill is in Parliament because it has cross-government agreement from all the departments of government. We cannot contemplate what the future might hold in respect of the decisions of the ONS.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am sorry to press the noble Lord. I agree that if the ONS is independent he cannot say what its decision will be, but he could secure that decision before the passage of the legislation. That cannot be too difficult. Given the consequence, it must be possible to secure the decision first. Nobody, I think, is suggesting that you would try to manipulate the decision; that is not my objective. Could the Government not take that approach? These are very significant sums, and to hold one’s nose and just jump into the dark seems reckless.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I already said that one thing the Secretary of State will do is to help the ONS with its understanding of both the recent past and what will happen as a consequence of the Bill. In the recent past, the Government have specified, to the most extraordinarily detailed degree, all the rolling stock used in all franchises for probably the past 10 or 12 years. They have also determined how long it runs for and how long it lasts. In those circumstances, we are very content to wait for the ONS to do its work when it chooses to do it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have a question pursuant to the debate about the powers to fund the GBR business plan. I understand from the Minister’s reply, and it is a reasonable proposition, that the Secretary of State should provide financial assistance in relation to activities set out by GBR in its business plan. Indeed, paragraph 3 says that the Secretary of State should do exactly that and say what financial assistance is expected to be provided. But would it not be logical, therefore, that the powers to provide financial assistance that are specified subsequently should extend to those activities within the business plan, rather than having only infrastructure being capable of being funded by the Secretary of State using the powers? We would end up with something much more visible: specific powers to provide financial assistance in relation to the business plan over this funding period.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Since I managed in the end to have to correct myself after the last session on Tuesday, I would rather take some advice and write to him about this. I understand his point, but I am not sure I am capable of expressing an answer in language that will be clear enough for him, so I will drop him a line, if I may.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the fact that, in principle, he supports my amendments in this group as a goal to work towards. It is reassuring that he pointed out—if I understood him—that, within this legislation, there is the potential for a statutory instrument to include passenger services in the future within the five-year settlement. I welcome that and, on that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State’s statement of objectives to include objectives as to the standards to be achieved in relation to railway services.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 59 looks at the statement of objectives that the Secretary of State sets out for GBR and what is intended to be achieved over the funding period. The objectives, as we can see in paragraph 2(2),
“may include objectives as to standards to be achieved when carrying on activities”
that are to be set out in the business plan. It is a simple proposition and one of those happy subjects that we always discuss in Committee: should the word be “may” or should it be “must”? The implication of “may” is that it may not be, and we are considering whether it would be acceptable for the statement of objectives not to include reference to the standards that are to be achieved in relation to these activities. One of these lists about which we are not supposed to be too specific follows, but standards to be achieved are not set out as such in that subsequent list. They tend to be objectives relating to other things.
However, my other amendment is intended to see how these things interact. Separately, in Clause 65, Great British Railways has the responsibility to consider whether it should have a performance scheme, which, as I understand it, is essentially about minimising disruption to the network and to passengers. The question is: where are the objectives in relation to minimising disruption to passengers? I do not see them in paragraph 2(3). You could argue that they arise from the carriage of passengers and goods, but I do not think it is sufficiently explicit. I am not sure whether it is included in objectives as to standards. Are those the same standards as in a performance scheme?
I see the two amendments being linked. We are looking to ensure that the objectives set out standards and are clear about what is required in terms of avoiding disruption and enabling passengers to be confident about the availability of services according to the timetable. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it may be helpful to the Committee, since I have such a large number of amendments in the group and no one else who is present has any, if I speak now, and then it will be easier for the noble Baroness to comment on the amendments I have moved.
I shall start with Amendment 63A. I have tabled it because in the last 24 hours I have been contemplating the wipe-out of 10% of the global population by artificial intelligence, which a whistleblower at Anthropic has said is a very likely prospect some time in the next 10 years. It is possible that these claims are somewhat overblown—I do not know—but it is astonishing that we have a Bill whose measures in all likelihood, as I say, will stay in place for 30 years but we are not having any debate about digital, artificial intelligence or the innovative future of the railway.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I just interrupt my noble friend? I think he has moved on to the next group. We are on the group led by Amendment 59, to which I just spoke.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
And today’s Committee is due to conclude with Amendment 63.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I will speak to my Amendment 82 in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has added his name. It would create a new board of Great British Railways, and it provides detail of the composition of this board. The board would increase the transparency and accountability of the Secretary of State’s decisions, as it would create a vehicle for these to be properly discussed and would ensure that a wide range of expertise were at the table. If the Secretary of State decided to make a decision that was against the advice of the board, the reasons for that would need to be set out clearly and publicly.
The membership of the board would represent Great British Railways and other key stakeholders in the running of the railway, such as open access operators, freight operators, the Office of Rail and Road, the Passengers’ Council and organisations that represent passengers with accessibility requirements. It would comprise of at least six members. To make sure that there is a voice for other stakeholders, no more than half of the board’s membership would be employed by or otherwise represent Great British Railways.
This amendment would allow for any decision or direction from the Secretary of State concerning Great British Railways to be notified to the board prior to its being made. The board would then need to publish any decision or direction it had considered and whether it had approved it. If the board did not agree with the Secretary of State, it would still be free to go ahead with the decision, but it would need to publish a statement setting out its reasons for that. For us, this is a way to ensure that the Secretary of State uses the powers in this Bill wisely, with a proper sounding board for feedback from experts with different viewpoints in the field. I hope that the Minister will consider this proposal seriously.
The other amendments in this group are around clear objectives for Great British Railways. Amendment 64A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require consultation with the supply chain and railway service providers when preparing objectives for a funding period. That would appear to be a sensible way to ensure industry buy-in and prioritisation. Other amendments seek different ways to try to measure and assess the performance of Great British Railways. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide details of how the Secretary of State and Parliament will assess this going forward, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg the Committee’s pardon: I got slightly muddled because of changes to the groupings.
I come to my Amendments 60, 64A, 83, 84, 87, 94, 124, 125 and 291. The central issue running through these amendments is accountability. We are creating an enormous, new, publicly owned organisation that will, in all likelihood, receive billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and exercise extraordinary control over the railway. It therefore needs clear objectives, measurable performance indicators and consequences for when it fails to deliver.
Amendment 60 addresses the funding objectives. As drafted, the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may include” the specified objectives. My amendment would change that to “must include”.
Amendment 64A would require consultation with railway service providers and the rail supply chain when those funding objectives are prepared. GBR will continue to rely enormously on the private rail supply chain. These businesses invest in skills, equipment and capacity on the basis of decisions taken by the Government and GBR, so it is sensible that those decisions are informed by their expertise and knowledge, as well as the consequences for employment and profits in the private sector that would arise from those decisions being made. They should be consulted.
The remainder of my amendments address what might be called the problem of the missing key performance indicators. We have repeatedly been told that GBR will be held to robust performance measures, but what does “robust” actually mean? Amendment 124 would answer that question by establishing a proper, statutory KPI framework covering the things that passengers and taxpayers actually care about: reliability, safety, passenger experience, affordability and value for money, passenger growth, financial sustainability, productivity and efficiency, and freight performance. Of course, one can argue about what should be on the list; I would be willing to enter into discussions with the Minister about putting in something else or maybe adjusting something that I have proposed. However, we need to know what performance indicators are in the Bill—otherwise, we will be allowing GBR far too much unconstrained power and latitude, with little accountability.
Amendment 94 would ensure that the long-term rail strategy is geared towards enabling GBR to meet these KPIs. The Government may say that a long-term rail strategy should not be dictated by short-term measures, but we have to get from the short term to the long term. A 30-year aspiration is of little value if there is no way of measuring whether GBR is moving towards it year by year.
Amendment 125 would, therefore, require annual reporting and quarterly updates against those KPIs. Even I admit that quarterly updates might be a little onerous so, if the Minister objects, I will meet him half way and say, “Let’s have semi-annual updates”—I am a reasonable person and am open to suggestions—but something is needed if we are going to succeed. It is no good saying, as we did the other day, that the target is to achieve 75% growth in freight by 2050. Only the day before yesterday, the Government produced a statement saying that they have set an interim target. So they appreciate what I am saying, which is that there should be interim targets. However, the interim target is that freight should achieve 40% growth by 2040. None of us will be here. Nobody is asking, “What is the 2030 target?” There is no 2030 target; there is merely a 2040 target. That is not good enough. It is playing with achieving targets and would be simply laughable in the private sector. We need these targets; as I say, quarterly updates may be too onerous, but an update every decade or 15 years is just not good enough.
Amendment 291 would give the ORR the important, independent job of assessing whether GBR is actually achieving its targets. Surely GBR cannot be allowed to mark its own homework.
Amendment 84 would apply the same principle during the transition. This is a generational restructuring of the railways, involving employees, operators, freight, open access, local authorities, the supply chain and millions of passengers. A quarterly ministerial Statement—or even one once every six months—on progress towards GBR becoming fully operational would increase transparency, maintain focus and, importantly, prevent drift.
Lastly, Amendment 87 concerns consequences. When I have asked the Minister privately how the Secretary of State will exercise control over GBR, he has said—he said this in a meeting for all Peers the other day, so I think I can repeat it—“Of course, she can always sack the chairman”. I suppose she can, because she is the sole shareholder in the business, but there was nothing about sacking the chief executive. Of course, it is not the Secretary of State’s job, as I understand it—we are not vouchsafed of these arrangements—to appoint or sack the chief executive; that would be a decision for the board. I am trying to introduce some accountability for the chief executive. We are giving the Secretary of State the power—not a duty, obviously—to dismiss the executive head of GBR when the organisation is failing against the KPIs and has also failed to act on guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It is not enough just to sack the chairman. You will not get anybody of any quality applying for the job if they are the only person whose head can roll; the chief executive needs to have their neck on the block as well.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 59 is obviously sound. The Secretary of State may
“include objectives as to the standards to be achieved in relation to railway services”,
but that “may” ought to be a “must”.
My noble friend Lord Grayling’s Amendment 66, to which I have added my name, would require GBR’s business plan to contain measurable performance indicators for its statutory duties. This is simply basic accountability. If Parliament gives GBR duties, its business plan should explain how its performance against them will actually be measured.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, let me turn to Amendments 94, 124, 125 and 291. I am pleased to say that I agree with many of the performance indicators set out in the noble Lord’s amendments, which will be important in GBR delivering the service the public expect. I also agree with the concept of an annual report. I reassure the Committee that, on both counts, such a thing already exists.
The Bill requires GBR to produce an annual business plan and we have already confirmed that this will include meaningful KPIs around performance. For example, the business plan will clearly have to include GBR’s progress towards reaching its statutory freight growth target and I happily confirm today that it will. The 2050 target is a long way out, but progress against it should be measured in the business plan in 2040 and in 2050. By keeping these KPIs in the business plan, we ensure that a reflection of GBR’s activities, the cost of those activities and its performance against those activities and costs are always transparent and available for scrutiny.
GBR will publish annual updates to this plan which can, and should be, scrutinised by Parliament in the usual way. GBR will need to consult with the ORR and the passenger watchdog when creating these updates, ensuring expert and independent advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes, the ORR will monitor GBR’s performance against the KPIs in its business plan as part of its monitoring function. An important distinction, however, is that the ORR’s role under the Bill as drafted is not confined to looking backwards at whether a target has been met. The ORR can also recommend to the Secretary of State whether GBR’s commitment and performance measures are realistic and measurable—something not factored in to the amendment.
Linking KPIs to the long-term rail strategy, rather than the business plan, would undermine the purpose of the strategy. The rail strategy is designed to provide ministerial direction on the long-term trends that will affect the railways and, at a high level, what they expect GBR to do about them. But GBR must be independent enough to respond to the rail strategy with a self-developed, proactive and detailed activity plan covering the next five—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me for interrupting. I cannot find where it is required that there be an annual business plan. I can see there is a provision for the business plan to be kept up to date, but nothing that says this has to be done at any specific time or on an annual basis.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Let me come to that point. I believe that there is a provision, but before I say so, let me check.
The long-term rail strategy is designed to provide ministerial direction on the long-term trends that will affect the railways and, at a high level, what they expect GBR to do about them. The business plan is clearly the right place for short and medium-term targets to be included, which GBR should set for itself and which the ORR should review and comment on.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Can I be absolutely clear about that? The Minister is saying that GBR should set its own KPIs. The ORR may look at them and comment but, having heard the comments, GBR will set its own KPIs and amend them, or not, as it sees fit. That is the plan.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The long-term rail strategy will set out the Secretary of State’s expectations. The business plan will set out what GBR believes it can achieve to move towards the long-term rail strategy. The business plan has to be agreed with the Secretary of State, who might well disagree with some of its targets. In the end, GBR has to satisfy the Secretary of State about the progress that it proposes to make. I do not think that is much different, as the noble Lord will recall, to the Transport for London business plan, which translated the mayor’s transport strategy into targets related to the budget of the organisation and which were agreed by the mayor.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Surely there is, between the long-term rail strategy and the business plan, the statement of objectives. Surely the question, which I think my noble friend through his amendments has explored quite positively, is that the statement of objectives needs to be quite specific. Some of them need to be performance indicators in themselves, because the business plan is GBR explaining how it is proposing, through its activities and funding, to meet, or to contribute to meeting, what is set out in the statement of objectives.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have to say to the noble Lord that I do not see the difference, in the sense that the long-term rail strategy must express the Secretary of State’s desire, for example, for a reliable railway in terms that enable the business plan to set out the measures that would be used to decide whether it is reliable. Indeed, in the recent past, one of the things that has had to be done since this Government took office was to agree, for the first time, what the measurements are and what the target should be for expressing the performance of the railway. I do not see that conflict in the way that the noble Lord does.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me, but I do not see it as a conflict at all. I am expressing, as I think the Minister has done on a previous occasion, that there is a difference between what is long term and what needs to happen this year, next year and indeed, for the purposes of the funding period, in the next five years. The statement of objectives is specifically about the next five years. The long-term rail strategy is on a different timeframe.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, actually: I am beginning to confuse myself about this. There is a danger of getting into too great a specificity. He is right that the statement of objectives will include specific standards, but that translates into the business plan.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, referring to the discussion we have had on KPIs, it occurs to me that there needs to be some differentiation between the list—whether it is the list produced by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the list in the Bill or another one—of issues which are basically in the total control of Great British Railways and those which are not. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned freight. Freight is not in the control of GBR, in respect of how many trains run and how much money GBR makes from them directly. Of course it can fiddle around with the access, the signalling and everything else, but it is dependent upon many other people delivering the KPI, which I think is supposed to be the KPI of Great British Railways. It would be interesting to hear from my noble friend how the two different criteria are set when coming up with the calculation of who does the KPI and what it covers.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right that some of these KPIs relate to wider economic circumstances than the railway currently has, but we discussed on the first day in Committee the fact that the need for a long-term freight target is so that GBR focuses on its own part in growing freight. Clearly, it is much subject to what shippers want to send, how they want to send it, where they want to send it and so forth, but I do not see any conflict in GBR having a long-term freight target. It may have to take different action if the economy or the things which are transported by rail change over time. There has been no greater case of that than the case of coal and steel, which were once a significant part of railway freight but which today are virtually nothing. On the other hand, intermodal traffic and construction materials have vastly increased, and there is no doubt in my mind that the railway could contribute more than perhaps it has done in the recent past to growing those particular categories if it were minded to do so, and the freight target is designed to make it think about how it could do it.
I do not see any contradiction in that; it will be like running any other business. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to his experience at Transport for London and it is, of course, exactly the same. It is a large organisation which is contributing to, but to some extent dependent on, the economy of London; that will be true of the railways as a whole. I agree with noble Lords that there should be KPIs for GBR, and it should be held to account for meeting them. The reason we are discussing these now is because there is no doubt that, in the end, they should be in its business plan, set next to the costs that they incur and the revenue it will derive from them.
I should go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 says that GBR must keep the business plan up to date. We are pretty clear that that means annually; it could be more often if circumstances change. It is not unknown for businesses of this scale to have to change their business plan if the economic circumstances dictate, but I think annual is reasonable. I would not expect the Secretary of State or the board of GBR to tolerate any circumstances where it did not propose an annual business plan.
If I may, I will try to find my place regarding Amendment 66. I am glad that the noble Lord agrees that GBR’s business plan is where its KPIs should sit. However, these need to evolve over time while, by contrast, GBR’s duties are unchanging—a core list of ambitions guiding GBR over the next decades. While GBR’s business plan is where it will show both how it will discharge its duties and set out its KPIs, there is an important distinction between them. Duties and KPIs are not the same thing. KPIs need to be driven by the specific, often numerical, outcomes sought by the Government, whereas duties are behavioural expectations. Some of the duties would be impractical to even turn into measurable KPIs. How would GBR measure whether it has provided businesses with certainty or acted in the public interest? I believe it is right that the two should not be statutorily linked.
Amendment 87 proposes action about the chief executive. I hope the noble Lord understands that, primarily, the powers of the Secretary of State rest with the right, in the end, to dismiss the chair if that chair fails to do the job that the Secretary of State expects of the chair and the board. That might well be the case if the Secretary of State believed that the chair failed to challenge the executive and chief executive effectively. The Secretary of State will also have the right, as we discussed this afternoon, to issue legally binding directions to GBR, and those could be where remedial action is required. The Secretary of State could also remove accounting officer status from the CEO, effectively taking financial management of the company into the department.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
What I would say to the noble Lord about all these things is that we are setting this organisation up and, conventionally, it is the chair and the board that support, hire and fire the chief executive. I do not believe that his amendment is the right way of doing this. It should be done through the chair and the board, and the expectations of the Secretary of State should be conveyed to them. Whatever action might be necessary regarding the chief executive should be taken as a consequence of that relationship.
On Amendment 83, the Bill already does what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. Much of the substance of this amendment is already enabled by the process created by Schedule 2. GBR is already required to produce a business plan containing all its activity and how its costs will be met, which will be reviewed annually, as we have discussed, to ensure it is up to date. The plan will be published, which will allow Parliament and the public to hold GBR to account. The ORR will monitor GBR’s delivery of its business plan. I agree with the noble Lord that transparency is important, but we do not need to hardwire in excessive bureaucracy, as this amendment would.
On Amendments 59, 60, 62 and 64A, I can understand the desire to codify the contents of the statement of objectives, but this legislation needs to be drafted to last as long as the last Railways Act has and therefore needs to be open to future Governments to suggest their own objectives for the funding period. The Bill provides a suggested list of what could be included, setting a strong precedent for future government but leaving options open for Secretaries of State. This is a tried and tested method, being the same approach that underpins the periodic review of funding today. The periodic review is widely considered one of the most successful parts of the current regime, which is why the Bill replicates the five-year length of it. Similarly, the statement has to be capable of accommodating different approaches based on wider environmental and socioeconomic circumstances. That is why the current list of potential topics to be covered by the statement serves as a guide for future drafters but does not constrain the Government.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Bill should be amended to say that the business plan is annual, especially as that is the Government’s clear intention. The Minister has just said the business plan is going to be annual and it was precisely to get stakeholder engagement with business away from the annual cycle that the amendment was tabled. Can the Minister take account of that? It is not good enough to turn up once a year and have a word with the industry about what your plans are. That is what we are trying to get away from.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I am expecting an organisation, as GBR will be, to be constantly in discussion with the wider railway industry and the supply industry, and indeed its customers, simply because, as we have discussed, the market will change over time. I do not see that there is any confusion between an annual exercise of producing a business plan and the sort of engagement over a prolonged period that will confirm and vary industry’s advice over time about what should be in it. That is a perfectly natural way of doing business. If I refer, as I probably do too often, to Transport for London, that is precisely the way in which Transport for London did it. The business planning cycle was an annual cycle, but the engagement with those parties who had an interest in both the inputs and results was an activity throughout the year.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister has just changed the story. A moment ago, he was saying that engagement with business stakeholders would be through the business plan. Now he is saying that it is not actually through the business plan once a year—because anyway, we do not know it is going to be once a year, but it is likely to be once a year—but it will be a continuous process. Of course, it can in a sense be both, and other things, but that is not giving us the level of assurance and precision that I think noble Lords are looking for. This is one of our big opportunities to speak up in Committee for the interests of the supply chain—there may be other opportunities coming in later groups. This is the chance for the Government to nail down our interests. We are interested in passengers and freight, but we are also interested in the supply chain, and trying to secure for it a degree of visibility about the future is important. What we are getting is not very clear, I am afraid.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that the supply chain is crucial. Actually, for much of the supply chain, what really makes a difference is the five-year periodic settlement. That highlights the need for this engagement to go on, both at the time when the five-year plan is formed and the rest of the time. I do not see any contradiction in those two things happening. The five-year settlement for infrastructure could not possibly be done properly without the involvement of the supply chain, but they do not go away for the next four years until the next one. The dialogue with them is constant—and so it should be. I had better make progress, if I may.
I turn to Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I do not often completely disagree with the noble Baroness, but I do here, I am afraid, because her amendment would fundamentally blur accountability for the railway system and undermine the clear responsibilities in the Bill. I do not think that interposing another board between the Secretary of State and the board of GBR would be right. However, the Bill contains a number of provisions such that both the Office of Rail and Road and the passenger watchdog will have many opportunities to provide the Secretary of State with advice before she takes decisions. The reality is that she will most likely have taken advice from either, or both, of them before any performance matters should escalate to the point of requiring a direction.
On Amendment 84, as we discussed in earlier groups, the Government are dedicated to providing a steady drum beat of publications that will inform the House—and, indeed, this Committee—on progress in establishing GBR. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to look at the Government’s policy publication timetable on GOV.UK; indeed, I have just written to noble Lords about the publication of the draft access and use policy by Network Rail. Given the ambitious timeline that we are working to on this, it would not seem to make much sense to divert resources away from the business of establishing GBR in order to write progress reports that would largely duplicate existing information that the Government are already making available.
Given what I have said, I encourage noble Lords and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate. To my mind, we established one or two rather important propositions.
The first is that, when the Government are setting out their statement of objectives, in relation to which GBR writes its business plan, it would be helpful if it were as specific as possible about the performance indicators that are to be included in that; my noble friend made a lot of good points where that is concerned. I made, in effect, only one point: I accept that, on Amendment 62, relating it directly to the performance scheme may not be the way to do this, but, as with the question of how many trains arrive within 15 minutes of the timetable, there are standards that need to be included, and it is important that we have those standards in the statement of objectives.
The other thing that we have established is an interesting reflection on the relationship between the business plan and the funding arrangements. I draw noble Lords’ attention to paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 on funding. The ORR is setting a timetable, and we have four components to this. I do not envy the Office of Rail and Road’s process of trying to establish in precisely what relationship these four dates are, because it has to say to the Secretary of State, “You’ve got to tell us what your statement of objectives is”. Then it has to say to the Secretary of State, “You have to tell us what funding is available”, which is an interesting question because the answer might be “not much”. Thirdly, Great British Railways has to go off on a third element and give us the business plan. Lastly, the Secretary of State tells GBR and the ORR how much financial assistance is going to be provided.
I have two points to make. I am not at all sure why the fourth of those components is there in that form. There is nothing in the schedule saying that there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to provide such a notice. There is no notification requirement; it is simply that the power to provide financial assistance is there. So I would have thought that the Secretary of State might give notification of how much financial assistance there is, but looking across the whole funding period and having to notify them of what financial assistance is available seems a curious requirement to me.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If I may intervene on the noble Lord, for once, I say to him: welcome to the five-year funding periods. We are now in control period 7, I think. The process that was described is complex, but it works remarkably well, which is why the industry and the Government are wholly aligned in wanting to carry on with it. I could discuss with him in more detail how it works, but it has generally been very effective. It relies on a lot of collaboration between the parties, which is why it has been successful.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I take that point, but, of course, that is if the financial assistance under this is restricted to infrastructure, which we debated a short while ago. If there is a requirement to notify of the financial assistance, I do not see it at the moment. The Minister might have a look at whether such a notification is required. That being the case, I have made my points.
Finally, I apologise in advance that I will not be here on Wednesday for the next day in Committee. I will endeavour to leave notes with colleagues about any amendments that are my responsibility; I will have the benefit of reading what is said. We might have the benefit of the presence of my noble friend Lord Grayling to speak to his amendments. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 59.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Jabbar
Introduction: Lord Davey of Chalk Farm
Jobcentre Plus and National Careers Service: Merger
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on merging Job Centre Plus and the National Careers Service and what the costs will be.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, we are on track to merge the National Careers Service and Jobcentre Plus in England from 1 October 2026. The current annual cost to outsource the National Careers Service community-based contracts is £40 million. The cost of delivering the new service will depend on the number of employees who join the DWP in October and on decisions about transforming the service as part of the wider jobs and careers service programme.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, Sense has released a report this morning which states that 68% of disabled people say that the welfare system does not have high aspirations for them. Two-thirds said that Jobcentre Plus did not help them overcome the barriers they face and 72% found it difficult to look for work because there were few jobs that met their needs as disabled people. Can the Minister tell the House how the merger of Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service will ensure that disabled people get the help that they need to move to meaningful employment?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I can indeed. I am very glad that the noble Baroness has asked this question, because it is really important. The whole point of merging the jobs and careers service is to bring these together in one place to make it easier for individuals who come in to get the help they need. The jobs and careers service will provide more personalised support and help people overcome their barriers, whatever they are. We have launched a jobs and careers service pilot in the north-east which is testing how people with health or disability problems can be helped into work. If they are in the same place, rather than people having to go somewhere else or to a different organisation, this will have to make a difference.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I take what the Minister has said about the trials they are doing, but will the merger result in any closure or consolidation of offices? What assessment has been made of the impact of this on rural and disadvantaged communities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, one of the great things about making sure that these services come into the jobcentres is that jobcentre services are right across the country. At the moment, the Department for Education contracts this careers service support out to prime contractors, which then contract regionally to community contractors. We are merging them, so they will be working alongside their colleagues in the jobcentre. Alongside jobcentres, we have increased the number of vans that go out into the community. Some of these careers services will be asked to locate themselves in youth hubs or community settings such as libraries. The aim of this is to get the support to where people need it, not just to make them come to us.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister remember when the Conservative Government closed all the Remploy sites? When they closed them, they told the people they would find them alternative jobs. That did not happen. Should they not apologise before they ask a Question on this subject?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will leave the Opposition to account for their own record. Let me talk about what this Government are doing. Our Connect to Work programme is one of the most exciting things we have seen. We are working with people who face real challenges in getting into work, often because of a particularly strong health condition or complex disabilities. Our individual advisers will work with them, find out what their skills and ambitions are, and then find an employer with an opportunity to match them with. They can help them work together. It is about getting people into jobs but also supporting them to stay in them once they are there. It is that kind of personalised support that people need. Everybody has an opportunity and everybody has potential; our job is to find it and help them fulfil it.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
This is very encouraging. Has the Minister had any conversations with organisations such as Feeding Britain, which I have been the chair of for a long time? We have almost 300 outlets and we supply all sorts of information. Maybe there is a way we could link up, as well as linking up with food banks, where a lot of people go who do not have jobs.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that suggestion. I now lead on poverty in my department, so it would be useful for me to have a conversation with her about some of these questions. When the new service is up and running from 1 October, we want to make sure that everybody knows what help is out there, so any ways in which we can get information out are very much welcome.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility produced a report in which we looked at the careers service. In the words of our report, we found it very patchy across the country. We also looked at the careers service in schools and found it to be enormously varied and fragmented. To what extent will this new structure deal with those issues of uneven quality of service across the country?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The merger does not affect provision in schools—that remains the responsibility of the Department for Education—but I will make sure my colleagues have seen the report from the House of Lords committee and are addressing it. The merged service will be in a single place, so, for example, a work coach who meets somebody coming into a jobcentre who needs help then has the capacity to refer them directly, if that is what they most need, because the colleagues providing those services will also be working for DWP. That will make a difference. We will also be in a position to set clear performance standards and expectations across the whole of our network, so I hope that will address some of the issues the noble Lord has described.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, regardless of whether the two services merge, evidence shows that people who are providing the service for people with learning disabilities lack knowledge and training. What specific requirements will be in the new contract and service to ensure that staff are fully aware of the requirements of people with learning disabilities and are trained to meet individual needs?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. I think there are two different questions. The careers advisers will continue to be careers advisers, who are appropriately qualified, and they will work closely with work coaches. The DWP has a range of support and learning for our staff to make sure they understand the range of customers and disabilities, including learning disabilities. I am quite confident that the relationship between the two will address those points, but I will look specifically at this and make sure we embed it in the guidance and training.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will understand why I ask her this question, because we have discussed it many times before. When this new regime comes in, will there be any restriction or criteria at all that would prevent any disabled person of working age walking into a Jobcentre Plus and not being turned away at the door because they do not meet the criteria? Can they just walk in and get help?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I hope people would not just be turned away. We will always prioritise resources for those who need them most. One of the great things about the new service is that there are lots of different ways to get help. For example, those who are already in touch with the DWP because they are on benefits will have a work coach, but the work coach will now find it easier and more seamless in the journey for them to be referred on to help. We have also created the work hub, a brilliant new set of digital tools which allows people to use all kind of things—not only CV builders but AI tools to enable them to find a job, putting in their particular skills and challenges. But there are categories of people who at the moment are not covered by any of these things, and we will make sure they get the support they need. The aim is to make sure you can phone up a helpline or get help online. If you need particular kinds of help, you will get the help you need.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister address the part of the Question relating to the costs of completing this merger?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I said in opening that the outsourced part of the current service, which is merging into the DWP, costs £40 million. As I explained, the final cost of that will depend on two things. We are in the middle of the process, where the staff who work for the various contractors at the moment are going through the TUPE process to work out whether they come over to us. The final cost will depend on how many of them do. It will also ultimately depend on how we choose to shape that service; we are not simply going to replicate what is there now. At the moment, for example, some careers advisers spend a lot of time helping customers to build up a CV. We have lots of tools available now which can do the CV building for you, so we really want people to use those skills to work more directly with people to find out what they need and what their aspirations and skills are, and to develop them. There should be savings in some aspects of efficiencies, but the aim in the end is a better service. What we need now is to get people into work, whatever their challenges are. This is part of that enterprise and we are going to do it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has made very clear his desire that more and more services should be focused regionally, on mayoral areas and so on, and in particular that the educational offer should be linked clearly to what is needed in those areas. To what extent are the DWP, jobcentres and all of this area working together with mayoral authorities to ensure that the opportunities made available to people are entirely geared into local and regional priorities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
That is a really important question. We have already been working very closely with them. For example, at a simple level, we reshaped Jobcentre Plus boundaries to align with mayoral authority boundaries. We are also working very closely with local authority and mayoral authority partners and with local community groups. In the end, labour markets are intrinsically local or regional and we need to find ways of making sure the service reflects that. We will carry on doing that. In broader terms, there will be a White Paper in the autumn on broader devolution, which will include our areas, and more information will come out then.
Defence Spending
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of their progress towards spending three per cent of GDP on defence by 2030.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the defence investment plan published in the summer increased defence spending by £15 billion over what was agreed at last year’s spending review. This means that MoD spending over the next four years will total almost £300 billion. Under current plans, defence spending will reach 2.7% of GDP from 2027. By the end of the decade, the MoD budget will be 27% higher in real terms than in 2023-24. The Chancellor has said that at the spending review the Government will set out a clear path towards the NATO commitment to reach 3.5% of GDP on core defence spending by 2035. This will include a target date for increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, in July, ahead of visiting the Trident build at Barrow-in-Furness, the Prime Minister said:
“Keeping this country safe is the first responsibility of any government”.
Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s Questions, he said
“national security … cannot come at the expense of social security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/26; col. 1036.]
The Benches behind me, particularly at this critical time, are resolute that the first responsibility of any Government is keeping this country safe. Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister has reneged on his priority?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me first say something that I have always said from the Dispatch Box: I do not believe that there is anybody in this House or the other place who does not want to keep this country safe—I just do not believe that. On the noble Baroness’s question, presumably about cutting welfare spending in order to put it into defence, this Government’s position is very clear. Of course we all want to reduce the welfare bill, but we will do it in a planned, methodical way that gets people into work, and we will act on what the Timms review and the Milburn review say. What I do not think is helpful for a debate on spending is to pitch welfare against defence spending; that is a really unfortunate way to frame the debate. Of course we want to reduce the welfare bill and to spend more on defence, and this Government will do both.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the cost of working towards achieving the objectives set out in the Defence Diplomacy Strategy, published in March, are part of the 3% or whether there is a separate budget for the strategy?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In the overall MoD budget, there is funding for the defence diplomacy strategy. For example—I know this will be of keen interest to the noble Baroness—the strategy seeks to professionalise the integrated global defence network with better language training and professional training, and that will be funded in the normal way through the MoD budgets. It is an important part of what we do.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, there is understandable frustration that the Government set out a target but have delayed how they will implement it. Can the Minister address two specific and urgent questions? With the phasing out of our destroyers and their current lack of readiness, what action are the Government taking now to develop advanced layered ballistic missile defence for our country? What action are they taking now to replace depleted stockpiles of munitions and to scale up an always-on munitions supply chain?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will take the last point first on what the Government are doing now. The noble Lord will know that, in the DIP, there was £11 billion-worth of investment announced, to be invested in six munition sites, to give us the stockpiles that we need. What we cannot do is magic them out of nowhere, but we are investing to deliver the very thing that the noble Lord rightly suggested. He will also see that in the DIP there is a whole range of ways in which we are building ships. To be fair, as I said, everyone wants to defend our country, and the previous Government started to rebuild and to replace the ship capacity that we need; we see examples of that on the Clyde. We are also looking at different ways to do the same thing through an increased use of drones and using a mother ship concept.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that, in this debate on the level of defence expenditure, we should look at how we got to where we are today? Between 2010 and 2017, from the Tory-led coalition Government onwards, the then Government cut the defence budget by 16% and made people compulsorily redundant, leading to the smallest standing Army since Napoleonic times. Because of the Liberal Democrat veto, the then Government delayed the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent, leading to extra costs today. Does my noble friend agree with me that, in this debate, the Opposition should be a little humbler in their approach by taking some responsibility for why we have got to where we are today?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I accept the points that my noble friend has made. As the Defence Minister, I always lay out what the Government are trying to do to deal with the situation as it currently exists. One or two years on from the last spending review, the Government took really difficult decisions, within a spending review cycle, to increase the defence budget by £15 billion. Some of that has led to very difficult decisions. I will give him one example relevant to anybody who lives in and around the East Midlands, but I could cite examples from other areas. As a result of those decisions, the A38 and A46 road projects, which were about to start, were delayed to fund defence. Those are some of the tough decisions that the Government have taken, and there are other examples from across the UK about how we are seeking to deal with this. At the next spending review, watch how the Government will set out a path to 3.5% by 2035.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, next and then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at the RAF town show in Enniskillen at the weekend, which the Minister was very kind to attend, there was a very welcome acknowledgement of the importance of our Armed Forces, not just to the safety and security of our nation but to local communities. How can we have that conversation with local communities right across the United Kingdom about the importance of increasing the defence budget spend?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for remarks about me attending the Royal Air Force show in Enniskillen last Saturday and for hosting me. Something the Government need to accelerate is the national conversation and the ability to explain to people why changes may be needed for welfare and other budgets right the way across government to fund defence. We need to set that out clearly, by saying that this is the threat that the country faces and these are the things that we need to do, and therefore difficult priorities will need to be made, including moving some things from areas where we would like to spend to defence. We need to make those tough decisions in a calm way, without referring to cheap headlines.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I have a straightforward question for the Minister. Will the damaging, dangerous and wholly unnecessary Chagos deal be funded by mainstream defence expenditure?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have seen various figures around the Chagos deal and where the funding may go. The previous Government sought to ensure that the Diego Garcia base was maintained; they were in negotiations about that. This Government are determined that ,whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate—this debate will continue whatever the Government go forward with—the fundamental principle, accepted by both the previous Government and this one, is that we have to make sure that one of the most strategically important bases to our nation, and to the defence of democracy and freedom, is maintained at Diego Garcia. That is the intent of this Government.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what proportion of the money spent on defence is recovered by our selling arms to other countries?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not have the exact answer at my fingertips, but the defence industry is an important part of this country’s defence and what we do. There are thousands upon thousands of jobs right across the nation which depend on a legitimate defence industry contract, and that is also part of the defence of our country. I go to Select Committees where I defend those exports against the very strict criteria that we have. This country has a proud record of ensuring that, as far as we can, the defence industries comply with all the various international rules to which they should do. It is a legitimate business, and we seek to encourage it.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, given the pace of change in the nature of defence and warfare, does my noble friend the Minister agree that expenditure on defence research is increasingly important and that the establishment of the Defence Universities Alliance is a major step forward?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Yes, I do. My noble friend makes an important point, because research and development is a battleground as well. If we can get in front of our adversaries in terms of the technological battle, that will make a real difference. I will lay this out to your Lordships’ House: the drone technology space is a competing space. If you can block your adversaries from communicating with their drones, ships or warplanes, you are halfway towards defeating them. Therefore, the technological space is crucially important. That is backed by the world-class research that we have in our country.
Jodrell Bank Observatory: Funding
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of UK Research and Innovation withdrawing funding for the Jodrell Bank Observatory.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise Jodrell Bank’s historic and continuing importance to UK science. Science and Technology Facilities Council—STFC—funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope network remains in place until March 2028 but will not continue beyond the current agreement, following an evidence-based prioritisation process in response to rising cost pressures. We firmly support decisions that protect world-leading scientific research and ensure the long-term sustainability of the UK’s research portfolio. This is not a withdrawal from radio astronomy. The UK is investing £327 million in the Square Kilometre Array observatory to 2030, headquartered at Jodrell Bank.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Since I first tabled the Question in July, I have been struck by the amount of public support there has been for Jodrell Bank, which is an iconic symbol of our contribution not just to radio astronomy but to world-class science. I am heartened by reports that the Prime Minister wants to find a way to preserve Jodrell Bank—which is, after all, on the doorstep of No. 10 North—but respected bodies such as the Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute of Physics have expressed great concerns about the extent of potentially devastating cuts to international partnerships, projects and UK astronomy that will do great damage. Is it true that the STFC has to find a cut of £162 million? Is that figure correct? Finally, does my noble friend agree that public support for science is vital if we are to utilise our science and technology expertise for economic growth and that projects such as this are part of a vital ecosystem that we cannot afford to put at risk?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I recognise the strong public support for Jodrell Bank. It is not closing and will remain a vital UK science asset. As part of the STFC’s prioritisation exercise, to put the council on a sustainable footing, UKRI has protected discovery-led research in particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics, including the grant for post-doctoral researchers, which ensures that the UK leadership in those disciplines can be sustained in a more focused way.
My noble friend mentioned a figure of around £160 million. That is indeed the case by 2029-30, but UKRI is providing £135 million of transitional support between now and then. On the third point, I agree.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in UK astrophysics, which I support through the Hintze Centre for Astrophysical Surveys. Embedded in this decision is the prioritisation of the SKA over e-MERLIN. What worries me is that there is no public data on why the SKA has been prioritised over e-MERLIN. Can the Minister please supply that data? I underscore that both are important.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
UKRI and the STFC made a strategic decision to focus resources on the next generation of radio astronomy capability. That decision was taken as part of an evidence-informed process and prioritisation exercise across our research portfolio.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we too welcome the statement made in the other place by the Prime Minister. However, the details of how that support will be provided are not clear at this time, and the industry is concerned. Physics-powered business generated over £303 billion in GVA in 2023 and supports 2.6 million jobs, with over half those jobs outside the south-east. Does the Minister agree that protecting facilities such as this is not simply a science policy question but essential to UK economic and regional growth? What assessment has been made of the wider economic contribution?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I assure the noble Earl that the Government have put a record £86 billion into research and development between this year and 2029-30, with £38.6 billion allocated to UKRI, supporting curiosity-driven research in universities through to business innovation and commercialisation, including the creation of many jobs.
On jobs, the SKAO will return £225 million of foreign direct investment and £280 million of additional UK economic value. We continue to invest significantly in the north of England, including over £5 billion over the previous spending review and £7.4 billion over the current one, running to 2029-30.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, when we heard the Prime Minister say on 1 September that Jodrell Bank was safe, I am sure that many people breathed a sigh of relief. But as we saw, the Written Answer from the Government on 7 September said that Jodrell Bank would remain as a heritage and education centre, with alternative funding sources. I just want to be clear: when the Prime Minister says it is safe, is he really saying that it is not safe as a government-funded scientific research centre and more that it will be kept as some tourist theme park?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I repeat that Jodrell Bank is not closing, and nor is scientific research on it closing. UKRI is focusing resources on the future with the SKAO and its global HQ at Jodrell, investing over £300 million from 2021 to 2030. Jodrell Bank, including the Lovell telescope, which is owned and operated by the University of Manchester, is exploring alternative funding arrangements for delivering on that. Finally, on that point, I emphasise that the SKAO will have a vastly more powerful and broader science range than e-MERLIN when it becomes fully operational.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests and the fact that I received my physics degree at the University of Manchester, partly facilitated at Jodrell Bank. Can the Minister give an assurance that these changes will affect neither the teaching capacity associated with Jodrell Bank nor the use of the inspirational sky dome there, which is an essential part of the UNESCO world heritage site designation?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Understandably, there is great public support for the UNESCO world heritage centre that is Jodrell Bank, which has 150,000 visitors a year. That will not change, and nor will the engagement and education programme on those decisions.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, I simply ask why the Government have stopped funding a national programme in order to invest in a global programme. Should we not be prioritising national infrastructure?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I would not characterise this as replacing a national programme with a global one. UKRI worked closely with the astronomy community to make difficult but evidence-based decisions and choices that maintain a strong, balanced and sustainable astronomy portfolio overall. The UK has invested in the SKAO for many years as part of a range of astronomy investments. As a world-leading observatory headquartered in the UK, it helps to maintain British leadership in radio astronomy and delivers significant benefits to UK science and industry.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I declare the interest that Jodrell Bank is in my diocese, and we are rightly proud of the work done there, not least in releasing young scientists. What principles are His Majesty’s Government using in reviewing these projects, particularly in the communication of those reviews, in order that long-term stability might be prioritised?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
On communications, I think it has been recognised that communication can always be better and improved, and there is certainly a commitment from the Government to deliver that. I am so sorry—I know I should not say this—but I have momentarily forgotten the beginning of the right reverend Prelate’s question.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
It was about the principles used to review the decision.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The principles are using an evidence-based approach and a prioritisation programme to look to the future, not only to our excellent and important heritage in our world-leading role in radio astronomy.
Lord Redwood (Con)
When these cuts are finally made, how many jobs will be lost and how many people will no longer be able to get grants or contracts?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The global headquarters of the SKAO, which will be based in Jodrell Bank, will account for about 200 jobs. My understanding is that Jodrell Bank, including the Lovell telescope, which is owned by the University of Manchester, is exploring alternative funding arrangements. We do not have details of any particular job changes at this moment.
Australia: Social Media Algorithms
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Australia’s proposed legislation that would permit individuals to disable algorithms on social media.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, Australia’s draft legislation was published only on Monday. The Government have therefore not made a full assessment, but as I am sure my noble friend would expect, we are following developments closely. The UK’s Online Safety Act already requires platforms to address algorithmic risks, including the promotion of illegal content and content harmful to children. Building on that, we have announced measures to switch personalised recommendation algorithms off by default for 16 and 17 year-olds. We also committed earlier this year to giving users greater control over their feeds, including through algorithmic reset.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, there is now a clear international shift towards giving users a genuine choice over their algorithmic feeds on social media. The recent Meta settlement and connected structural remedies in the United States, Australia’s proposed legislation that came out this week and the EU’s Digital Services Act, under which this option has already been live for three years, all reflect a growing consensus. Yet our Online Safety Act currently stops short. It does not give any adult or child the ability to turn off their algorithm. I listened very closely to my noble friend’s response, but I ask what more steps the Government are considering in order for us to catch up.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government completely agree with my noble friend that users should have greater control over their online experiences. We have committed to taking steps for 16 and 17 year-olds that go further than Australia’s proposal and Meta’s commitments by switching off teenagers’ personalised feeds by default. Services will also have to use highly effective age assurance to enforce this. The Online Safety Act’s user-empowerment duties will come into force next year and will allow users of the largest platforms to control what content they see in their feeds. Ofcom is currently consulting on this measure. In addition, we committed earlier this year to building on these duties to give users greater control over their algorithms.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the burden for safety should be with the platform rather than the user? She made reference to the Online Safety Act in terms of tackling algorithms in this way. Why has not Ofcom used those powers?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have been really clear that the Online Safety Act is not the end of the road for online safety, and we had the Secretary of State’s announcement earlier this week. The Secretary of State has met the new chair of Ofcom to reinforce the importance of robust enforcement of the Online Safety Act. The Government have also asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy and report to Parliament on progress. As the noble Baroness will be aware, it has significant enforcement powers and launches investigations, but we are trying to work with it to make sure that these are used as effectively as possible.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, the Expert Panel for Growing Up in an Online World was convened by DSIT earlier this year to provide independent, evidence-based advice supporting the growing up in the online world national consultation. It met three times in May and June this year, and the panel’s views informed the Government’s response to the consultation in July. Does the Minister agree that DCMS should reconvene this expert panel and ask it to work at pace to make recommendations on how best to give individuals greater control over what social media content is presented to them?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank everyone involved in the panel. It is really important that we address such issues collectively. I will speak to my colleague, Minister Murray, about the future of the panel and come back to the noble Lord as soon as possible.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of this issue is surely whether the Online Safety Act is capable of dealing with the issues that are arising through technological change and the way in which users are experiencing difficulties. Can my noble friend explain to us whether the Government plan to look again at some of the underlying structure of the Act in order to address these issues, which I think would respond better to these questions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This whole area is clearly developing on an ongoing basis. We will always keep under review whether the measures we have in place are adequate; we will always make sure that we take steps to do that. It is an absolute priority of this Government to keep people safe online, and we want to work across party divides to make sure this happens and that we both harness the benefits of this sector and everything that the online world can contribute and make sure that we keep everyone safe online.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Australian proposals are are all about allowing users to have the choice about what sources they see on their feeds, as are the tools and user empowerment in the Online Safety Act. Does the Minister see a tension here with the approach outlined in the Government’s media Green Paper, which is about giving the Government the power to decide which news sources are trustworthy? If we are giving people choice to switch off algorithms, will they have the opportunity to opt out of government-sanctioned trustworthy news in due course?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point, and I would be very keen to discuss it further with him. We are working with different and conflicting issues. We are really keen that it is a priority to make sure that people have trusted sources of news and they know that those news sources that come to the top of their feeds are the most trustworthy. I would be surprised if there was a huge number of people who wanted to turn off an option to get trusted news at the top of their feed, but I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, alongside the Question my noble friend rightly asked about how we might ban or prevent people accessing harmful content and poorer models, can my noble friend the Minister say what we are doing to help generate good role models, and therefore algorithms that do not get banned? If I think about my own sport, boxing, which I have been involved in since I was 15 years old, it is awash with really good male role models, rather than the toxic kind we often see. How is her department helping to support grass-roots youth, sports, community hubs and interventions in a way that might generate better content that people do not need to ban?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend must be commended for being the first person to bring a boxing ring into the Houses of Parliament. It was a remarkable event and full of energy. The young people who came along were a credit to themselves, their families and the very trusted adults who brought them along. We are keen to counter the impact that online content can have, particularly on boys and young men. We think about the exposure to misogynistic, abusive and extremist content in this field. We co-produced the Government’s youth strategy with young people. As well as ensuring that more young people have access to trusted adults, we will have a £500 million investment in youth services over the next few years. We are also working with departments across government to increase the investment in this space. I commend all those who are involved in getting positive role models.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that her response to my noble friend Lord Parkinson on trusted news is precisely what is concerning about the Government’s proposals and their media Green Paper when it comes to giving prominence to what the Government define as trusted news?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Where we talk about trusted news, there is a difference between that and the misinformation and disinformation that has fuelled hate in this society. It is not about what I think that people should read but about getting a factual basis for the news sources that people have access to. We have a huge amount of misinformation and disinformation circulating. We see this spill out on to our streets with the extremist views that should be countered with this.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the earlier points, particularly the point about Ofcom and its use of enforcement powers, the Communications and Digital Committee is just starting an inquiry into the Online Safety Act—in effect, post-legislative scrutiny. We will be looking at that issue, but it is heartening to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the Secretary of State is already raising this with the chair of Ofcom. We want to see Ofcom using those powers. There is a very strong public feeling that it has not done so. It is a case of “Watch this space”. I would be interested to talk to the Minister about that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would be very happy to meet my noble friend regarding this issue. We find with all legislation that the Bill becoming law is not the end of the road. We are determined that it is enforced and that people are as protected and as safe online as possible. I look forward to hearing more about the committee’s inquiry.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on my appointment as Government Chief Whip and Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms in July 2024, I wanted to ensure that noble Lords and the staff of the House are given as much notice as possible of recess dates. Today is a good time to update the House on the planned dates for the Whitsun and Summer Recesses in 2027. There is no need to write these dates down as my office has arranged for notices to be placed in the Royal Gallery and the Printed Paper Office. Your Lordships will also shortly receive an email from me direct to your parliamentary email accounts.
Subject to the usual caveat of the progress of business of the House, the current plan for the adjournment of the House is as follows. For the Whitsun Recess, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June. For the Summer Recess, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 28 July and return on Monday 6 September. I have included several additional sitting Fridays in the early parts of next year which are also set out in the notice. I hope that noble Lords find this helpful when planning summer holidays with family and friends.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to the staff across the House for their continued professionalism, dedication and support in all the different roles that they undertake for us. I know that this view is shared by all Members across the House.
Fiscal Outlook
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That this House takes note of the UK’s fiscal outlook.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, one word hovers like a spectre over this debate on the fiscal outlook: debt. Two years ago to this very day, your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, which I then chaired, published a report on our national debt, It’s Time for Tough Decisions. It concluded that the UK’s national debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament to address the major challenges that the UK faces and put debt on a gradual downward path. We found that sustainability depended not just on the level of debt but on having sufficient fiscal buffers to absorb future shocks and on avoiding a trajectory of rising debt service costs.
Two years on, our debt stands at nearly £3 trillion, over 94% of GDP, almost £96 billion higher than a year ago and, relative to the size of our economy, at levels last seen in the early 1960s. My argument today is that our debt remains on an unsustainable path. Our fiscal buffer is dangerously small. The risks facing our public finances have grown and are growing still. All this is thanks in very large part to the actions that this Government have taken.
Some may point to the fact that the debt accumulated during the last Administration, which is correct. I have argued that the last Government made mistakes, but however critical one is of that Government, one must accept that they faced Covid and the energy shock. Others may argue that Britain has carried far higher debts before—notably after the Second World War. That too is correct. However, after 1945, the baby boom, the peace dividend and the opening of world trade all boosted growth, which helped to lower our debts.
Today, Governments here and worldwide face the challenges of the Ds: higher defence spending, the demographic challenge of ageing populations, dependency—large welfare states—and decarbonisation, with the green transition. All these Ds increase demands for higher government spending at a time when Governments are already drowning in debt.
Across the advanced economies, government debt rose from around 70% of GDP on the eve of the financial crisis to around 110% today. That debt explosion took place during an era of low inflation, ultra-low interest rates and unprecedented quantitative easing, and in a world that is largely at peace. That world has gone, but government debt remains at record levels and is growing. The OECD expects Governments to borrow around $18 trillion this year. Almost four-fifths of that is simply to refinance debt coming due. Advanced economies spent more than $2 trillion on debt servicing alone last year. Dozens of nations, including the USA, now spend more on debt servicing than defence. In this rising tide of red ink, the price that each Government pays on their debt—ours included—is ultimately determined by investors, by their judgment on the health of a nation’s economy. To coin the Prime Minister’s phrase, it is that thing of being in hock to the bond market.
That brings us to the question that bond traders and all of us here today are asking: just how resilient are the UK’s finances? On Monday, the Chancellor told us that Britain is turning a corner. If so, surely debt should be on a steady downward path—but no, it is not. Debt will be higher at the end of this Parliament than at the start, before falling only slightly to around 95% of GDP by 2030-31. Even that fall is questionable. As the OBR notes:
“Plans to reduce borrowing and stabilise debt have been a common feature of forecasts since the pandemic, but have not yet materialised in outturn”,
or, as St Augustine might have put it, “Lord, make me fiscally responsible, just not yet”.
Indeed, the OBR concluded in July that Britain’s public finances were
“in a challenging position relative to history and to other similar countries, with … debt having increased by one of the largest shares of GDP of any advanced economy over the past two decades”.
It is the structure of our debt that makes us unusually vulnerable. QE shortens its effective maturity, while Britain has a particularly large stock of index-linked debt, so when borrowing costs rise, we feel the effects very quickly. Even before the economic impact of the Gulf war, the OBR was forecasting that debt servicing would cost us £110 billion in 2025-26. That is 3.5% of our national income, which is more than we have spent on education and approaching twice what we spend on defence. By 2030-31, that figure is expected to hit £137 billion.
The bond market is beginning to reflect investors’ anxiety about all this. Britain may not be an outlier in the amount it owes, but it is becoming an outlier in what it costs us to borrow. Our 10-year borrowing costs are now the highest in the G7 and the fourth highest in the advanced world. On Tuesday, Britain paid the highest borrowing cost on a sale of 30-year debt in almost three decades, and that rising interest bill is eating into the Government’s fiscal buffer. At the spring forecast, that buffer was around £24 billion. Against £3 trillion of national debt and £1 trillion of annual spending, that is not a buffer; that is a wafer, and some estimates suggest it has already shrunk to just £5 billion.
The Chancellor’s optimism cannot camouflage the facts: debt is high and still rising, its structure leaves us unusually exposed to shocks, our fiscal buffer is wafer thin and shrinking, and investors are demanding an increasingly high price to lend to us. In that sense, though, the Chancellor may be correct: we are turning a corner. Ken Rogoff, the former chief economist of the IMF, now puts the chances of a major UK debt crisis by 2030 at more than 50:50.
This brings us to a central question: what would convince investors that Britain has a credible plan to stabilise its debt? The answer, I would argue, lies not so much in economic theory as in political choices. A central conclusion of the Economic Affairs Committee two years ago was:
“If we wish to maintain the level and quality of public services and benefits that we have come to expect, we face a choice: taxes will need to rise or the state will need to do less. Addressing this will demand clarity as to the responsibilities and the role of the individual versus that of the state. Muddling through is not an option. If this choice is ducked in this Parliament, the UK risks being on a path to unsustainable debt”.
Two years on, my argument is not that the Government have failed to take tough decisions: it has, but it has taken the wrong tough decisions. Labour decisions have weakened growth, dug us deeper into the debt hole and increased our fiscal vulnerability. What is needed is a plan to control spending and strengthen the underlying budget so we live within our means, bear down on inflation and the cost of our debt, and, above all, get the economy growing faster. But the Government’s actions have produced the reverse of all that.
Let us look at spending. I was intrigued to hear the Chancellor say on Monday:
“Staying true to our values means being honest about the need to control government spending”.
For a moment, I thought I was listening to fake news. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will be spending around £260 billion more a year than at the start. Public spending will absorb more than 44% of national income. That is a level we have not seen on a sustained basis, outside shocks and their aftermath, since the 1970s. Let us look where that increase is going. Welfare spending is set to rise by some £75 billion a year over this Parliament, to £390 billion. Within that, spending on health and disability benefits is forecast to hit £104 billion, an increase of more than a third.
Instead of taking the tough decisions needed to control spending, the Government have chosen higher spending, financed by higher taxes. Working hard, investing, setting up a business, employing more people—the very activities that drive growth and generate the revenue needed to stabilise our debt—are being taxed more heavily. To give one example, the rise in employers’ national insurance alone means an employer now pays around £900 more a year for every worker on median earnings, and the tax burden is set to rise still further, to the highest level on record.
Then there is inflation. I fully concede that the war in the Gulf has made the fight against inflation more difficult, but that is all the more reason for the Government to double down on measures to cut costs on business. I welcome the Government’s promise to take an axe to the bureaucracy holding back private investment, but why are they stopping there? If regulation is holding back investment and growth, the Government should take an axe to the burdens they have themselves imposed on business and employers, such as their energy policies and the Employment Rights Act—an Act that will impose direct costs on business of around £1 billion a year.
These policies have undermined growth, which is the all-important ingredient to bring down our debt. The Government will rightly point out that there was stronger growth in the first half of this year, but two good quarters do not solve the structural problem. The OBR still puts our potential growth rate at only 1.5% and forecasts GDP per head to grow by just 1.1% a year over the rest of the decade. That is roughly half its pre-financial crisis rate. For debt sustainability, it is that underlying rate of growth—year on year, not a couple of strong quarters—that matters.
Let us put this together. What lies around the corner? A higher-spending Government, extracting ever more tax from a weak, debt-laden economy. There is clearly a debate to be had about the role that the fiscal rules play in all this. My view is that today’s fiscal rules, like their predecessors, can be too easily gamed, and we can debate how to address that, but let us not lose sight of the main point. What matters is whether the underlying fiscal trajectory is credible, and that trajectory is shaped by political choices and political belief. Do you believe the state should be the driving force of growth, or do you trust people and the markets? Should the state encourage people to take greater control of and more responsibility for their lives, or should the state assume ever more responsibility for itself? The answers to these questions will shape our fiscal trajectory and the decisions in next month’s Budget.
The Minister obviously cannot prejudge that Budget, but, that said, there are some simple questions he should be able to answer. First, does he think British business can afford to pay still higher taxes without damaging growth—yes or no? Secondly, the Prime Minister has said he will use “flexibility” within the existing fiscal rules. Can the Minister define what “flexibility” means? Thirdly, what did the Prime Minister mean exactly when he said:
“We’ve got to get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”?
Finally, what does the Minister think about the current trajectory of our national debt? Is it sustainable—yes or no?
My answer to that question is a firm no. We may not face a debt crisis today, but the horizon is darkening, with weak growth, a record tax burden, sticky inflation, rising welfare dependency and more of our national income consumed by servicing the debts of the past. I do not see this as turning a corner. I see it as proof that, after two years of Labour, with its massive majority, we are on the wrong path and going in a very dangerous direction. We need to change course now, before that thing called the bond market forces us to change, and in a way that will be more painful and more costly.
Let me end by taking us back 50 years to September 1976. Britain had just turned to the IMF for a loan. A few days later, standing at that Dispatch Box, Lord Carrington said something which echoes down the generations. He said that
“you cannot go on spending vast sums of money which you have not got. You cannot go on improving your own standard of life on other people’s money because, sooner or later, they will not lend you any more. … Whether we like it or not—and we do not—and the sooner the better, we are going to have to cut our public expenditure. Of course, it is not going to be nice. Of course, we are all going to be hurt by it, and of course, we shall all have to cut the things we would much rather not cut. Of course, we will dislike it very much. But what other alternatives are there?”—[Official Report, 4/10/1976; col. 953.]
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. The challenges facing this country and many others globally because of the current fiscal outlook have been a consistent focus for him, both during his distinguished stint as Chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and since. I welcome my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson to the Front Bench, as this is the first time I have spoken in a debate to which he will be responding. I should declare interests, as in the register, as a trustee of LAMDA, an adviser to the family office WFO and a director of Digbeth Loc. Studios.
The survey of the fiscal outlook by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, could be described, perhaps by Sir Humphrey Appleby, as very grounded, verging on the bleak. There is no denying that globally the challenges are formidable, with economies in a more vulnerable position to future new shocks, by some measures, than before the global financial crisis of 2008. As the noble Lord described, the UK is, unfortunately, not a positive outlier relative to the global picture and in too many respects is at the wrong end of the spectrum.
Before I make my observations on these challenges and some of the responses to them, I begin on a positive note by welcoming the encouraging trend in productivity growth that has emerged in recent weeks. Output per job increased by 1.4% in the 12 months to 30 June and has been consistently above average since late 2024. It is premature to call victory or attribute the improvement to the effects of AI, but productivity is so central to the turnaround of the economy and the balancing of the fiscal books that there seem to be grounds for cautious, tentative optimism. It perhaps supports the argument that my noble friend Lord Eatwell made after the Government’s first Budget: that the increase in employers’ national insurance would drive productivity growth more than hit employment.
But for all that, there are powerful headwinds to contend with. The Financial Times this week described the issue of national debt service globally as “a $2tn monster”. The US, France and the UK are all having to pay more debt interest than they spend on defence. This not only poses real challenges in setting steady state spending plans but, as I have already noted, gives less leeway to respond to future financial crises. The OBR, in its long-term forecasting, assumes a financial crisis every nine years. In this week’s announcement by the Dutch central bank that it was moving the physical custody of 14% of its gold from New York and Ottawa to London—an eloquent demonstration, perhaps, of the damage that the Trump Administration are doing to international confidence—it made a strikingly blunt assertion:
“This ensures that DNB is … prepared for severe crises”.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor prepares his Budget, he is undoubtedly constrained by the commitment in the Labour manifesto not to increase the three most significant personal tax rates. Taxation policy has always been part of the political debate, but perhaps most acutely since the Conservative Party’s campaign—fake news—“Labour’s Tax Bombshell”, which can credibly be seen as having swung the 1992 general election result. It is understandable why the party, scarred by that, has sought to avoid a repeat. But, to be frank, it is not conducive to the best management of the economy in inevitably changing circumstances.
Those changing circumstances include, most importantly, the effects of the war in Iran. The NIESR has estimated that every 10% increase in the oil price reduces GDP by 0.12%. So the rise of 40% or more since the US’s misconceived attack on Iran is likely to have reduced GDP by 0.5%, with the IMF having concluded that prior to this the UK economy was on a positive, improving trend.
I will end on one or two more positive notes. The fiscal devolution started by the last Chancellor and turbocharged by the new Prime Minister has the potential to have disproportionately beneficial effects on growth, employment and housing, as I am already seeing in the work I am doing in the West Midlands. My right honourable friend Gordon Brown made a compelling analysis in the Financial Times of the role of innovation in driving growth and the UK’s world-leading strength in science and technology. I hope my noble friend the Minister can reassure the House of the Government’s understanding of the need to address the fragile state of the higher education sector.
The scale and severity of the challenges that we face are formidable. These are global challenges, faced by multiple countries and exacerbated overwhelmingly by the policies of the US Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is wrong to attribute the causes of that challenge to this Government. In fact, in contrast, I am totally confident that the Labour Government—governing, unlike its predecessors, in the national interest—are best placed to find a successful path through these challenging times.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has outlined the challenges facing fiscal policy very well. I was a member of the Economic Affairs Committee that he chaired so ably, and he has summarised the conclusions of the report of that committee two years ago. Since then, the OBR too has set out the significant risk that UK debt could become unsustainable unless offsetting action is taken. While the previous Chancellor was successful in stabilising the debt ratio, we now need to make significant progress in reducing it, not just in the forecast but in practice. The need for early action is not removed because the debt ratio of other countries is similar or even worse than that of the UK. Having a shared problem might make it feel less urgent, but the UK debt ratio can be brought on to a sustainable downward path only by our own actions.
The noble Lord also set out the initial source of the problem very clearly. Since 2007 we have engaged in three rounds of exceptional expenditure in response to events. There were good reasons in each case why that was undertaken, even if in some cases it was overdone. In one case, the financial crisis, we were trying to protect savings and maintain a functioning financial system; the Covid crisis required support for people who were suffering in lockdown; and there was a sharp rise in energy prices after the invasion of Ukraine. So some of that was right in principle, but I cannot recall any Government giving much warning that these rounds of fiscal support would eventually have to be paid for, even if not immediately. Nor did Governments warn that the longer the delay, the greater the cost in terms of higher debt interest. Taxes were cut when the opportunities arose, and expenditure control proved to be too difficult politically.
While there is general support for changing the fiscal rules to accommodate public sector investment, less has been said about the debt service costs involved in that, at a time of rising and very high global interest rates. Taking out a mortgage means starting your monthly payments immediately. The same applies to government borrowing and we are, of course, experiencing that.
Both the Economic Affairs Committee and the OBR have set out the significant headwinds we are facing, and they are very tough. They include an ageing society, increased defence spending and rebuilding our energy grid to make the best use of renewable energy.
Dealing with these matters will not be easy. In my view, it means a combination of increased taxes, restraint on increases to benefits and improved public sector productivity. As far as possible, this should involve reducing the array of exemptions and tax credits that are characteristic of our tax and benefits systems, and we need closer scrutiny of claims for benefits. The goal should be a wider tax base and a narrower welfare base, and we should be doing our best to avoid the high marginal tax rates or damaging cliff-edge withdrawal rates that are also very evident now.
Faster growth could improve the situation, but we need to be cautious. The OBR has pointed out that if faster growth is simply translated into proportionate growth in the provision of public services, growth on its own will not be sufficient to solve the problem.
Here lies a fundamental challenge. Demand for the major public services tends to increase more than proportionately in a growing economy. We see this with health, social care, education and some aspects of welfare. So, it is not surprising that costs rise more rapidly than the growth rate itself. Indeed, in the case of the triple lock the arrangements mean that pensions will grow faster than earnings. It was designed to produce that effect. This explains why growth alone will not solve this problem.
In an earlier phase of my career, I had close experience of three difficult periods for fiscal policy: 1976, 1981 and 1993. I was an academic and commentator during the first, and a Treasury official during the second and third. In each case, decisive action was taken, even though it involved difficult and often unpopular decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will remember in the case of the 1993 event. But eventually, we saw an improvement in the balance of the economy and improved market confidence.
If coping with excessive debt becomes the priority for a Government, it tends to crowd out discussion of longer-term structural policy and issues such as tax reform, which are so necessary. Once debt is clearly on a downward trajectory, life becomes much calmer, leaving more time for dealing with the longer-term issues that really deserve scrutiny. Above all, if we could get on to a path of a falling debt ratio, we might spend less time discussing the fiscal rules and whether they are a sufficient buffer for the next Budget—and I suspect we would all welcome that.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who brings so much experience and authority to his comments. They were extremely balanced and will be well received by all sides of the House.
My noble friend Lord Bridges set out his case with his customary clarity. The figures he gave speak for themselves. The rest of the world is now catching up with the warnings two years ago of our own Economic Affairs Committee. Not a day goes past at the moment without more evidence of the stresses and strains, not just in the bond markets but in the wider world of geopolitics, that are adding to the pressures and bringing closer some kind of reckoning.
Although I agree with my noble friend that the decisions the Government have chosen to take over the last two years—ducking cuts to the welfare budget and increasing taxes on business and employment—have made the problem worse, we on this side have to acknowledge that this is a problem that has been a long time in the making. Whereas in 1997, the Conservatives left office with a surplus—I repeat, a surplus—in 2024, the fiscal signs were already flashing red.
That brings me to the main point I would like to make today. It may seem slightly to one side, but I want to bring it to the discussion. Our fiscal and economic problems are a consequence of structural political problems, and we will not be able to address them unless we also address the whole way in which our political system operates and our political classes have come to behave.
When I started working in government back in the 1980s, the basic operating model for politicians was something like this: the leadership worked out their overall vision and values, and then developed policies that were coherent with that vision. The job of politicians was to make an argument in favour of that vision and seek to persuade as many people as possible of the wisdom of a particular course of action. I am not arguing that this was universally applied, nor that there were not sometimes contradictions, but I do argue that the Government and Parliament were fundamentally transmission mechanisms and that their core job was to make an argument that was as coherent as possible.
We did not obsess over opinion polls. We did not carry out endless focus groups and taxpayer-funded market research. We did not, at bottom, think our job was to split the difference between competing interest groups. Contrast that with what we see today: incoherent and contradictory policy positions to please different lobby groups. For example, there is a drive on deregulation, on which I believe the Government are to be congratulated, but it sits alongside higher taxes on business, employment taxes on non-doms and laws to make it less attractive to hire workers. One set of measures is pro-investment but another is anti-investment. The result is incoherence.
In essence, we have moved the Government and Parliament from a transmission mechanism into one that is always on receive and sits on top of a giant lobbying system, where the plaudits go to the politician who can negotiate the next 24 hours most skilfully or take most plausibly some ludicrous line—ideally, while wearing a high-vis jacket or hard hat. So is it a surprise that our fiscal problems have compounded as our political system has become ever more performative? I remember my noble friend Lord Lamont once saying, “To govern is to choose”. More recently, we have had a Prime Minister who said, “I’m pro-cake and pro-eating it”.
Fortunately, we face a test that will show whether we have a political system that is indeed capable of being serious once again. What are we going to do about the pension triple lock? It is already clear that, in the circumstances we face, it is indefensible economically. But if, as a society, we believe in some kind of intergenerational fairness, it is clearly also indefensible morally. A policy that locks in the transmission of money from a declining number of young people to a growing number of relatively well-off older people—or, if you like, from our children to us—is not the path to a strong, balanced society.
I hope we can rise to this challenge, which applies to my Benches as much as it does to the Benches opposite. As my noble friend Lord Bridges said, we can either take steps ourselves to start sorting out the mess or wait to have change forced on us. I know which I prefer and which I believe is better for our democracy, but honesty about our fiscal situation requires honesty in our politics. To restore seriousness to our fiscal position, we first need to restore seriousness to our politics.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for bringing it and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to his place. As for the tone of the debate, it is inevitable that the conference season, immediately before the Budget, is a time when all parties lay out their stall, although I have been particularly encouraged by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the contribution that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hill, about some of the thoughtful longer-term structural issues with which we are contending as a nation.
The nation’s fiscal challenges are self-evident, and my party in government faces understandable public anxiety. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill, just noted, the party opposite is also contending with some public scepticism about their record in government. As for what that does to our politics, it brings to the forefront the populists: those who peddle easy solutions to these structural challenges and who are determined to convince the country that the answer to our fiscal challenges is to blow up the system. It is not made any easier by the markets being spooked by a US President who, on social media last week, was telling the Federal Reserve in capital letters to lower the rate and who today promised a “cash bung” to those who voted the right way.
That creates a challenge for all of us, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, recognised, the real rocket fuel for populism and difficult politics is low growth. Low growth is the root of our fiscal pressures. It is a result of the financial crisis, as we have heard, which was exacerbated in Britain by Brexit and then a series of global shocks: the pandemic, the war on our continent, the rising energy prices and the Iran conflict. There is common ground here that on top of those pressures come spending pressures of an ageing population and the need to raise defence spending. All that requires a Government willing to face up to those headwinds, and I believe that is what we are seeing.
Our times demand serious responses. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, about Gordon Brown and I am going to come to that, but I took inspiration this week from the noble Lord, Lord Hague, who wrote:
“The old Conservative philosophy … is no longer a convincing governing programme. That is because circumstances have changed. We now face ageing populations, housing scarcity, energy insecurity, technological competition with the US and China, Russian aggression, weak productivity, strained public services and increasingly expensive welfare states”.
Those are wise words indeed, and they echo what we have heard in this Chamber today. However, there was also an honest acknowledgement of the new fiscal challenges and an invocation to us all to not be tempted by easy populist solutions. His remedy was growth, particularly innovation and entrepreneurship. Gordon Brown, who wrote 24 hours later in the Financial Times, also urged a focus on growth and innovation, both men arguing for a Budget as an economic event as much as a fiscal one. Encouragingly, the new Chancellor’s inaugural speech on Monday focused on growth and innovation and scaling start-ups in the north.
I will put the case for the Government. Despite the headwinds, the Starmer Government delivered the economic stability that we promised. Growth is the best in the G7. I stress that we are cutting the deficit faster than others in any other G7 economy, although I accept that a sustainable long-term path is something we have to find. Productivity is up, wages are up, business investment is rising, with planning delays, judicial reviews and the Green Book all being tackled and young people put back to work. Meanwhile, the Chancellor has reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and respect for manifesto commitments, and wisely has made no false promises on tax. I say to the party opposite, we await what the new shadow Chancellor’s prospectus is.
The last shadow Chancellor told us that his strategy was not to focus on innovation—indeed, he was proposing cuts to the British Business Bank—but for a rather implausible £23 billion to come from welfare. Welfare spending outside of pensions has hovered around 5% of our national wealth for the last 40 years, so there is scant evidence of where the axe would fall. We have been told that half a million children would be pushed back into poverty by restoring the child benefit cap. That, along with raising VAT on disabled drivers and cutting housing benefits, is not the totality of the solution. Nor is cutting overseas aid. That ship has sailed. We are told asylum hotels will be cut—another ship that has sailed. Legal and illegal immigration are both decisively down. Cutting back on some of the extra 150,000 civil servants employed in the last decade and a half is perhaps wise. My point is that the luxury of opposition should not involve aping the populists, because that is not a governing strategy.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the way forward may be to look at tax. We have heard from others, including the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that we should perhaps look at the triple lock. There are legitimate differences around where and how spending might be addressed and where the axe should fall, but I simply say in conclusion that we know from the Chancellor that this Budget will be one that sticks to the fiscal rules, restores the fiscal headroom, as it must, and reinforces the Government’s commitment to growth with a 10-year plan to follow which signals where change is coming on devolution, social care and defence. I believe these are the priorities that resonate with the country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridges on bringing forward this debate—he probably had to do a bit of pushing and shoving—and for his crystal-clear demonstration, which will be hard to challenge, that with our national debt interest we are on a path to unsustainability and no one has a clear idea what to do about it, including the present Chancellor. Fair enough, this is not new, as the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Burns, with their enormous experience, have said. This is an old problem which has its seeds in the past. I can go back further than the late 1970s to 1970, when we talked about a new style of Government and Ted Heath slightly unexpectedly became Prime Minister. We urged that we should start unravelling the almost entirely socialised public sector inherited from the war years and begin to regain some balance between private enterprise and the market economy on the one hand and the necessary government framework of laws, guidance and support on the other. As I say, it is not new, and anyone who says it is all the fault either of the present Government or the past Government makes an interesting comment but it is completely irrelevant to what on earth we do about it now.
I declare my interests, given that energy is often at the root of all these problems. I am a chairman of the Windsor Energy Group and I advise Crystol Energy, both without pay. I also advise the Kuwait Investment Office, which is an enormous sovereign wealth fund that longs to invest, as do others, in the British economy but finds great difficulty in doing so and has vastly reduced its commitment in the British economy rather as the pension fund has been vastly reduced. When I was young, pension funds with their surpluses put 60% of their money in the British economy and mostly in British equities. Now the figure is 3.8%. What on earth has gone wrong? No wonder there is a shortage of resources for investment if our main investors, at home and overseas, are quietly packing their bags and going elsewhere.
I will put four points on the question the noble Lord, Lord Hill, has rightly raised: what to do about it. The roots are deep and the problems will require an enormous change of attitude in the digital age, which will be difficult for a lot of people to face, including a lot of politicians.
First, around the world there are a lot of methods of merging or matching private finance and enterprise with public and state frameworks for basic needs—in particular, longer-term public infrastructure projects which simply cannot be delivered without a Government pump-priming and underpinning but for which there is no state cash left. There is no money. There is no more room to borrow, or if there is, the borrowing cost of interest cancels out what one was trying to borrow. And there is no room to tax, because if you tax beyond a certain point, as we know from Arthur Laffer and many others—although there are exceptions to this—you end up with less revenue, not more. So, the ceiling is being bumped against and there is no way out of that.
Secondly, these new methods that I mentioned, which we invented here under the name of PFI 25 or 30 years ago and which are now called PPP, are being developed and used in several countries. They are not just experiments or hopes for the future, but what is actually going on at the moment. We dropped the idea back in 2018, but a whole range of countries, which I will come to if I have time, are adopting varieties of this method of harnessing private enterprise to public needs. Compatibility between state and private investment can be reached through risk analysis, insurance developments and careful phasing of projects. The whole resources of private enterprise can be brought in, easing the bond markets’ tensions, worries and consequent increases in interest rates for lending us their money. There are opportunities opening, certainly not for any more bogus financial headroom and that sort of thing but definitely for carrying forward some of the projects we need, from potholes to power stations, without burdening the bond markets or government accounting. These are being followed in a number of countries.
Finally, these are immensely powerful new insights that I hope we can pursue and share, aside from the politics. We on this side think that the wrong Government are in office and that they are bound always to bow to the state. That is a statement of fact and raises all sorts of other issues. There is no point in bemoaning it. At this time, we have a role in opposition to try to state some constructive ideas. If the Government borrow them, that is fine—at least we are making progress.
I hope that we can unlock a great deal of progress. A lot of this lies in the great energy transition and providing 24/7 reliable, affordable clean energy in the quantities that are going to be needed if we can ever get growth going. The experts planning our energy future have persistently underestimated the amount of clean, green energy we will need and the amount of investment we will need to achieve that—certainly for our modern growing economy and, even more certainly, to cover the enormous requirements of the data centres we will need to keep up with the world, which are very thirsty indeed. At present, our plans are proving totally inadequate for meeting their needs.
The nations moving this way are the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, South Africa and some provinces and states in Canada and Australia. The province of Ontario is launching a huge new nuclear programme that is much quicker than ours, much more efficient and much more reliable, with the help of the Japanese and without going to its Government. There are many other examples, some of which might well bring down the cost of borrowing, which for this country is too much and too expensive, and we must call a halt. There is a third way of a sort. It does not let the Government or politicians off the hook, but we should realise that the private enterprise pattern for public expenditure of this kind is vital for the projects of the future and is attainable if we think clearly and wisely about it.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I, too, salute the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, for securing this critical, timely debate and for his compelling opening remarks. It was a pleasure to sit on the Economic Affairs Committee under his astute chairmanship, especially during our inquiry into the sustainability of our national debt. Some noble Lords will remember that we debated the title National Debt: It’s Time for Tough Decisions for some time, as many of us, me included, had little confidence that Governments of any colour would make those tough decisions. So it proved with Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, as I fear it will with Prime Minister Burnham and Chancellor Healey—more on that in a moment.
The committee’s two subsequent inquiries raised further concerns about our fiscal outlook: one was on preparing for an ageing society, which, in short, we are not doing; and earlier this year we looked at our fiscal architecture and asked the key question of whether the fiscal framework is fit for purpose. In short, it is not. Our track record, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has pointed out, is disturbing to say the least. Debt is at £3 trillion. It has tripled in size over the past 20 years, and yet we have so little to show for it—witness our anaemic growth rates. The annual interest bill now stands at £110 billion, almost double our defence budget, and our budget deficits continue to run well north of £100 billion a year, financed by yet more borrowing despite our overall tax burden rising above 36% of GDP and heading, I fear, for 40%. The OBR copped a lot of flak for its projection that debt would climb to 270% of GDP in 50 years’ time, but given our economy’s vulnerability to global shocks, let alone our baseline trends, that forecast strikes me as conservative.
That is enough fiscal hammering from me, as I want to focus on the outlook and the need for turnaround. Here I draw on lessons learned from my private sector experience in rebooting companies that have lost their great momentum and become overly dependent on outside financing. Turnaround always involves taking tough, unpopular decisions on costs in the interest of financial sustainability; the triple lock is a classic example. However, far more important than cost controls, turnaround depends on sustained revenue growth. What areas do you need to protect and nurture to accelerate growth? That is the only way out of our fiscal trap, yet Government after Government have failed to address this. Rachel Reeves’s first Budget was a classic example, trumpeting economic growth as the number one mission yet hitting the supply side, our businesses and employers, with an extra £25 billion on NICs, doing huge damage to jobs, growth and investment. I have seen the impact first hand across SMEs that I chair, invest in and advise, and I should declare my interests as set out in the register.
It is deeply disappointing to hear Andy Burnham repeat Keir Starmer’s pledge not to touch income tax, employee national insurance or VAT, because that points to raising taxes on businesses and wealth creators. This Government appear to be hanging their growth strategy on the peg of devolution, “Good growth in every postcode”. It is a mission that may come back to haunt them, because such ambitions will generate pain before gain—if, indeed, we get the gain. It will mean increased spending on reallocating resources and power, recruitment, training, management and execution, and that is before we even address infrastructure. It is a long-term strategy which in parts of this country has some merit, but it requires financing up front and will disrupt output and productivity, adding even more fiscal pressure that will not go unnoticed by the bond markets.
Economic growth is the only way out of our fiscal hole, but we need to address this head on and with realism, so let me conclude by suggesting a pathway. We need a plan and a coherent strategy that delivers a minimum of 2.5% real GDP growth from 2027 to 2032, compared to our current rate of 1% to 1.5%. This would be achieved not by shifting resources around the country or building high-speed railway networks but by addressing the core productivity issues within our workforce of 34 million, in both the public and private sectors.
I am talking about performance: management and leadership, the way we pay and incentivise our workers, recruitment and retention, training and adoption of technology, especially AI. Above all, we need to target productivity gains and reward performance—an enterprise culture, in other words. I contend there are very few organisations or companies out there that cannot achieve a 2% annual improvement in productivity if that is their prime focus.
What would this do fiscally? By adding just one percentage point of real GDP growth in each the next five years, we would see £60 billion to £70 billion a year of additional tax revenues by the end of that period without increasing tax rates. Of even greater benefit would be the impact on interest rates because debt sustainability turns on the gap between the interest rate the Government pay and the growth rate of the economy or “r minus g”. Right now, that gap is unfavourable: gilt yields are sitting at 5.2% to 5.9% against nominal growth—real growth plus inflation—currently running closer to 3.5%. We have to close this credibility gap otherwise our economy will remain chronically dependent on borrowing at unfavourable and unsustainable interest rates while our miserable GDP growth rates continue.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, the Conservative Government were swept from power, first because they did not deliver on immigration control in the way that they promised but, secondly, because they presided over a very major surge in inflation in the early 2020s, which had been brought about by excessive spending, excessive borrowing, the deliberate repression of interest rates and the artificial creation of very large sums of money by the Bank of England. Like many, I supported the first very substantial injections into the economy when lockdown was first announced. Lockdown took a lot of activity and income out of the economy and a very major offset was needed. However, I became increasingly critical and impatient in the recovery period because the Government and the Bank of England did not seem to understand that we were into recovery and carried on with excessive borrowing, excessive spending and excessive money creation. I and others told them that it was bound to be inflationary, but much of the great British economic establishment was slow to see that and the result was a nasty cost of living crunch that did damage to the electorate and drove the Conservatives from power in a perfectly understandable way.
By 2024, however, the Conservative Government had got much better control of the economy and, for the first six months of 2024, under Conservative direction, the inflation rate came back down to the 2% target. For those six months, it was the fastest-growing economy of the G7. The Government set out a five-year plan in their 2024 Spring Budget, as always, which had entirely credible figures to show the deficit and therefore the borrowings coming down year by year to reassure bond markets. Under the Conservatives, of course, it was considerably cheaper than it is today for the Government to borrow because there was a bit more credibility in the medium-term prospects for controlling borrowing than there is today.
I think the fairest thing to do to try and analyse where we are, because I want the Government to succeed and I think they need to consider very carefully where they are when framing their next Budget, is to compare the plans of the outgoing Conservative Government in the 2024 Budget for 2027-28 with those of this Government. Let us concentrate on 2027-28 because that is when the new Prime Minister and his new Chancellor can make any changes they like. They have inherited the current year and have chosen not to make many changes, just a few incidental, very small increases in spending. They have basically lived with the Reeves/Starmer construction of this year, but let us hope they think carefully about what they want to do for 2027-28.
What have they inherited from Reeves and Starmer? Well, in two Budgets, Reeves and Starmer increased taxes by £66 billion by policy changes—there is also, of course, a much bigger increase in taxes from fiscal drag and inflation—and for 2027-28 they suggested that they wanted to borrow £97 billion more than the outgoing Conservative Government had planned to do. The Conservatives were planning to borrow £50 billion in 2027-28, and the current Government inherits £147 billion. There is then the level of spending: the Reeves/Starmer Government added £145 billion extra spending for 2027-28 compared with the £97 billion that the Conservatives were planning for that year. The total package is to borrow a lot more, tax a lot more and spend a great deal more.
Looking at the economic performance of the last two years, we see that this has not been a benign policy mixture for the economy. Unemployment has gone up and inflation has gone up, not entirely because of world events in the Middle East, but also driven by public sector costs where there has been a very big increase in public sector wages. I have no problem with paying people in the public sector more, but there should be productivity gains to help pay for it, and those have been sadly lacking. We have seen the Government stumbling to maintain tax revenues at the more elevated levels because they have triggered what in the 1970s was called a brain drain. A lot of talented people and a lot of people with wealth have decided that they want to make their lives or to make their investments elsewhere, which is a considerable concern. I have no problem with wanting to tax the rich more than everybody else, because they have the money to tax, but if you overdo it they do not stay to pay the money you wish to raise from them and then everybody else has to pay rather more, because you have lost those easier amounts you can get if you tax the rich in a sensible and internationally competitive way.
As has been made very clear by my noble friend Lord Bridges, the Government have to take action on spending. I do not think higher taxation is going to help get the Government out of this, given that they have ruled out the main taxes on most people. They would have to target the wealthy, the energetic, the people who work harder rather more than anybody else. More of that would do damage to growth and would mean less revenue rather than more, so they have to find public expenditure reductions that can start to bring the budget into a proper shape.
I do not share the view of those who think we should pick on the pensioners or the disabled to make particular sacrifices at this juncture. Those who are genuinely disabled need our proper financial support and I think both parties were right to promise the triple lock in the election and should keep to their word. There are many easier targets, which I have often mentioned, but which time does not permit me to handle today, but my party has set out a very good set of cuts for the benefits bill to start us off.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley on securing this debate. The fiscal outlook, as my noble friend set out in his excellent speech, is pretty awful. The upcoming Budget will be particularly difficult. The small headroom left by the previous Chancellor has probably already disappeared. Public expenditure at 44% of GDP is too high, debt at approaching 100% is too high, taxes at 38% are too high and growth at around 1% is way too low. The Bank of England seems incapable of getting inflation down to its 2% target. The backdrop to the Budget could hardly be worse.
The Government have now been in power for over two years. They may want to continue blaming their economic inheritance—as the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, did ad nauseam—but that simply will not wash. We are where we are because of choices made by this Government. They have been true to form: Labour Governments always spend too much, borrow too much and tax too much. The solution is definitely not more of the same, but there is no sign that the new leadership in No.10 and No. 11 will change course.
I will focus my remarks today on two areas: debt, spoken about by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley, and taxation. We used to think that 40% of GDP was a de facto ceiling for debt. In the wake of the global financial crisis and then the pandemic, we seem to have normalised debt staying at historically high levels. The fiscal rules require only that debt falls, and that could be by any amount, by the end of the current forecast period. There is no commitment to putting debt on a serious downward trend. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, rightly emphasised the need for this.
Debt has to be serviced, and the cost is rising. As we have heard, the UK’s long-term borrowing rates are the highest for 30 years; 10-year rates are the highest in the G7. Bond yields reflect the market’s view of our economic prospects: we are being judged as weaker than the rest of the G7. Persistent inflation, weak growth and worries about a Government that show no sign of controlling expenditure or moderating debt levels will keep our borrowing expensive. The ultra-low interest rates that we experienced after the financial crisis lulled Governments around the world, not just our own, into seeing borrowing as a cost-free option. But since rates have normalised again, the real cost is now visible and, as my noble friend Lord Bridges said, we will be spending over £100 billion a year on interest. This is way more than on defence.
There are three ways to reduce debt. The Government seem to be betting on growth solving the problem. Many of their policies, however, are positively anti-growth: employment laws and the jobs tax in particular. The two other ways are to spend less or to tax more. I do not believe that this Government will cut expenditure. Does anyone believe that the Government will be able to keep a lid on the out-of-control NHS expenditure? Does anyone believe that they will have the courage to face down their Back-Benchers to cut the benefits bill? If they cannot make headway on these two big-ticket items, expenditure will remain too high.
That leaves taxation. The Chancellor has refused to rule out raising taxes in next month’s Budget, but raising taxes is about the worst thing that he could do. He ought to learn from the last Chancellor’s dreadful decisions that hiking taxes has consequences. Loading more national insurance on to employers will simply destroy jobs, especially entry-level jobs. Increasing taxes on banks, as the TUC has called for this morning, simply means that they will have less to lend to the real economy. Taxing oil and gas companies might satisfy the green zealots, but it will threaten our energy security. The Chancellor may be tempted to satisfy calls from his left wing to tax the rich more, but that will backfire. Wealth taxes have not worked anywhere. Higher rates of capital gains tax are counterproductive, because people simply do not sell assets. Creating higher rates of income tax will drive even more wealthy people to head for the departure lounge.
Some of us were privileged yesterday to hear Dr Art Laffer speak. He was clear that the decline in the UK economy over the past 70 years is highly correlated with periods of high rates of taxation. He was also clear that there is no example of an economy which has been taxed into prosperity. The Government would do well to take note of this.
A serious response to our woes must be rooted in unburdening the private sector so that it can grow without interference. The economy needs less regulation, lower tax rates and increased incentives, and this applies to individual taxpayers as much as to our business sector. The state must play its part by doing less and spending less. I do not think that the Prime Minister or his Chancellor are remotely capable of achieving those things. That is a tragedy for us all.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate. I enjoyed the typically powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley. What I think he got right was his comment that this debate is really about political choices and political beliefs. It will come as no surprise to him that, on this side of the House, we have different beliefs leading to different choices; that is as it should be. I will speak about the triple lock, which on the OBR’s figures is a key element in determining the UK’s fiscal outlook.
I support my party’s commitment to the triple lock up to the next election. The inevitable question is: what follows? A number of noble Lords have mentioned the triple lock, and it was raised several times in last week’s parallel debate. I will not mention them all, but it is clearly a big issue. A number of people simply say that we need to abolish it. I am sorry, but this is facile—that is only a part of the equation, because you also have to say what should replace it. Crucially, we must also discuss the right level of the state pension, because the debate about the triple lock is as much about this as the technical details of the revaluation basis. In my view, these are jobs for the Pensions Commission, and I hope that it will address them in its report early next year.
I favour the triple lock because it is highly effective at protecting pensioners, particularly those on low incomes. I take it people understand the triple lock, but what is often missed is that it does not apply to the whole of the state pension. It applies only to the new state pension and the basic pension. The rest of the state pension is tied to the CPI. It does not, of course, apply to all the other sources of income received by pensioners. The net result for most pensioners is that incomes during receipt, as they get older, do not increase faster than those of the working population. There seems to be an implication that pensions are going up faster because of the triple lock. This is only part of the equation, and most pensioners experience a decline in their income during their retirement. The only people for whom it actually leads to a protection—even an increase, in some cases—are the poorest pensioners. This is because, by definition, their only income is the new state pension or the basic state pension.
Any system of pension uprating serves three distinct objectives, hence the triple lock. First, it allows pensioners to share in rising living standards, which I hope we would all support. Secondly, it protects pensioners against inflation. Last but not least, it protects the Government against difficult political circumstances.
The first two objectives could be achieved through linking pensions solely to earnings or prices. The triple lock, of course, goes further by guaranteeing the most favourable outcome each year. That reduces political risk but increases long-term costs through the ratchet effect. As I have explained, the core argument in favour of the triple lock is that it disproportionately benefits poorer pensioners. It is targeted and then recouped from better-off pensioners through them paying taxation like everyone else. For many low-income retirees, the state pension and related benefits make up the majority of their household income, and a significant minority have no income beyond their state support. It is these people that the triple lock benefits.
The 2.5% minimum increase has raised the most questions. This floor was introduced partly in response to the politically controversial 75p weekly rise in the basic state pension in 2000, which complied with the rules at the time but was widely regarded as inadequate. It still ensures that pensioners receive a meaningful increase even during periods of low inflation and weak wage growth.
The policy has helped bring the state pension close to the level anticipated by the 2005 Pensions Commission, which envisaged it being around 30% of median earnings—the sort of level it is at the moment. Coming back to the focus of this debate, clearly the triple lock’s most significant drawback is that it comes with a fiscal cost. It has increased pension spending more rapidly than was envisaged when it was introduced, particularly because the 2.5% floor has been higher than earnings growth over a number of years. Critics argue that pensioners as a group are now relatively better off, but that is not true of all pensioners: as I explained, there are large numbers of pensioners on low incomes. I agree with my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden that we need a reassessment of the triple lock. What are we going to do after the next election? However, as part of that, we have to recognise the value that it brings to the poorest pensioners.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for securing this debate and for his masterful opening. I will be more modest than him in my remarks and direct my comments to just one number: that pesky 1%. As we have heard, that number is roughly the rate of productivity growth that the OBR assumes we will reach by the end of its forecast. As we know, it is one of the numbers on which the fiscal outlook turns. Higher productivity means higher wages, stronger tax receipts and more capacity to fund public services. Weak productivity means that every aspiration—better services, better jobs, lower taxes or lower borrowing—collides with the same hard constraint. We spend a great deal of time in this House debating how we divide up the economic pie, but we must help the pie grow faster. Every Chancellor will face increasingly miserable choices otherwise.
Technology is not the only explanation for Britain’s productivity weaknesses, but investment in technology, and the ability to spread it rapidly through businesses and the public sector, is a vital part of the answer. I recently chaired the Mayor of London’s taskforce on AI and the future of work. Our starting point was that the future is not predetermined. AI is not a weather system rolling towards us that we merely observe; we still have choices. We can wait for disruption and deal with the consequences afterwards, or we can act early, shape the change and create opportunity from it. That distinction goes directly to our fiscal future.
Successive PMs have assured us that Britain can produce the next great trillion-dollar AI company, and I for one very much hope that we can. But there is another race that matters just as much: can we get these technologies into the rest of the economy quickly enough to make Britain’s jobs more productive and fulfilling? AI sitting in a data centre is not productive, but AI used well in millions of workplaces might be.
The latest ONS evidence gives us a glimpse of both the opportunity and the problem. Among businesses with more than 10 employees, reported AI use rose from around 12% in late 2023 to 35% in June this year, yet only one in 10 businesses using AI says that it is using it extensively or helpfully. That suggests that, in many cases, AI remains an add-on to existing work, rather than a chance to rethink what work is and how it is done. Having spent three years as president of the British Chambers of Commerce, I can say that SMEs are always at the forefront of my mind. The productivity revolution will not happen simply because another brilliant AI company opens up in King’s Cross; it will happen when a manufacturer in the Midlands, a hotel in Cornwall or an accountancy practice in Newcastle can use these tools to do things better and faster, increasing profits and increasing employment.
My first ask of the Government is simple: do not treat the diffusion of AI through the economy, including in the public sector, as anything less than a national productivity mission every bit as important as the next invention at the frontier. We must help smaller firms to have the skills to use this new technology, redesign processes and build businesses around it.
My second ask is to act earlier. One of our taskforce’s recommendations was an early-action system to spot changes in London’s labour market as they emerge, combining data with what employers and workers are seeing on the ground, as well as where opportunities are available. Its wider approach was to act early, shape change and create opportunity. We need the same discipline nationally. If we wait until somebody has lost their job before we think about retraining them, we have failed. Helping people move into new work is cheaper, more productive and far better than leaving them with the consequences of redundancy. Workers must not simply be the recipients of technological change. The people who do jobs understand best how technology could improve them. If we bring workers into the redesign of work, we are much more likely to use AI to augment people rather than simply removing them.
I welcome the decision to put AI much closer to the centre of government, particularly with the recent appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, but AI will not rescue government systems and processes that do not work. Success must not be measured by whether Whitehall has an AI strategy; it will be measured by whether it becomes easier for a parent to obtain support, whether businesses spend less time navigating bureaucracy, and whether front-line public servants spend less time moving information between outdated systems. AI can make the Government more productive, but not by bolting new technology on to old and bad ways of working. We must start with the greatest points of friction, and then we must give good teams the freedom, tools and support to fix them.
On Tuesday, I was lucky enough to see Demis Hassabis—as was the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, who I see is in her place. As noble Lords are well aware, he was the founder of DeepMind, and this week he received the Albert Medal from the RSA for his work. He is undoubtedly one of our greatest assets, and inevitably one of the most productive people on the planet. In his acceptance speech, Demis painted an optimistic and exciting vision of an AI future. He sees no reason to proceed with fear. But his caution was this: very few of us have an idea of what is coming, and we are not acting with enough creativity, imagination and urgency to make sure that the UK is in an advantageous position for the next decade. Let us heed Demis; let us be bolder. After all, the test over the next few years is, in some ways, remarkably simple: did that 1% go up?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridges on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech.
The Prime Minister wants to “bring back hope”, but he blames Thatcherism and Blairite economics—which he once supported—for Britain’s problems. What is his solution? More state control and more regulation. He calls it “business-friendly socialism”, but how can an economy be business-friendly with more union power and less economic freedom? We have been here before. In the 1970s, the state controlled large parts of the economy, while trade unions wielded enormous power. I remember those days: rampant inflation, power cuts, rubbish piling up during strikes, disrupted transport and economic decline.
The Soviet Union offers an even starker lesson, with state-controlled production, prices and investment. Private enterprise was not allowed. The result was shortages, inefficiency and stagnation. The Soviet Union collapsed because central planning destroyed incentives, innovation and production. Governments cannot create prosperity by controlling the economy, yet the Prime Minister appears determined to take us back to an era in which the Government owned and trade unions ran the economy.
Here lies the first contradiction. The Prime Minister says that growth cannot be ordered from the top down, yet he advocates public ownership of essential services and wants to decide which sectors of the economy should be prioritised. History shows us that Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners. The second contradiction is fiscal. The Prime Minister embarks on his 10-year plan when the fiscal headroom has fallen to just £8 billion, welfare accounts for almost a quarter of government spending and the national debt is approaching £3 trillion. Yet he has already run up a potential bill of more than £50 billion while proposing further uncosted public ownership. Nationalising water alone could cost some £140 billion.
Where will the money come from? Will the Prime Minister break his pledge and Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise taxes? The tax burden, as we have heard before, is already at a record high. Any further increases will discourage hiring, investment and entrepreneurship and accelerate capital flight. Some 27,300 high net worth individuals and 6,000 business owners have left Britain in the last two years, taking with them investment, ideas, jobs and tax revenues. There comes a point when higher taxes produce less growth and revenue by weakening incentives to work, save and invest. Policies that suppress growth do not protect the poor and vulnerable. Ultimately, they make the poor even poorer.
Will the Prime Minister borrow more? We already spend £110 billion a year servicing our debt—money that could be spent on education and defence. As my noble friend Lord Hannan has said:
“The markets are not interested in moral hazard or in justice. All they care about is whether they will get their money back”.
The bond markets are taking note. As we heard before, 10-year yields are at a record high—higher than under Liz Truss. Some economists warn that Britain could again find itself going cap in hand to the IMF for a bailout, as we did in the 1970s.
Rather than reverse Thatcherism, the Government should remember that her reforms reversed Labour’s economic decline and reduced our debt. With welfare spending continuing to rise as our population ages, we are passing an ever-larger bill to our children. This is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Prime Minister’s programme. He wants a bigger state when we can no longer afford the state we already have.
But the Prime Minister has an opportunity to build the pro-business, innovation-led economy he wants. The Chancellor’s recent call for more private investment, more profitable businesses and more wealthy founders is encouraging—but that requires less government, not more; lower taxes, not higher ones; and an economy that rewards enterprise rather than penalising it. Will the Government rein in spending, reform welfare and reverse the most damaging elements of his predecessor’s Employment Rights Act so that Britain can once again be a country where businesses want to start, grow and stay?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am obviously not alone in enjoying the period I spent on the Economic Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. I really enjoyed it—and most of his speech. It was one of the most interesting committees I have served on, but I have to say that no Government of any kind paid much attention to our reports. I am very pleased with the appointment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and have every confidence that he will obtain growth, but there is a need for some reforms of taxation. I will make three little points before two bigger ones.
First, council tax should be revalued, extended up the scale and absorbed, with an abolished stamp duty, into a land value tax. Secondly, why should small businesses want to remain small? The VAT threshold must be dealt with, because we want growth. Thirdly, why on earth should working over-65s not pay national insurance?
I have a declaration to make in that between 1999 and 2001 I was the Pensions Minister and I was responsible for the 75p pension increase. It was not all bad, as the poorest pensioners on supplementary benefit had an increase of over £3. They do not queue up to the TV cameras to say, “I’m poor and I had £3”. I explained this to the Labour Party conference that year. When I sat down on the platform, Gordon Brown said I should acknowledge the standing ovation. It is how you tell the tale. It was not just 75p—there was more to it than that.
Of course, this resulted in the double lock, leading to the triple lock, and it is now unsustainable—I have said so publicly. What is the answer? My answer is a triple average. It is fairer and easier to explain. I have done some calculations and got the Library to calculate it for me: if it had been used in the past three years, the increases would not have been 10.1%, 8.5% and 4.1%; they would have been 6%, 5.9% and 2.8%. The triple average could work after the next election. It is easy to explain and fair. We have to reset the pension—I am not arguing with my noble friend—but the mechanism for changing it could simply be the triple average, which would remove the major public expenditure obstacles we have.
My second main point—this is the message to this Government—is the need to avoid attacking the poorest low-income pensioners. This will happen unless the Chancellor changes the personal allowances—the tax threshold. It is no longer a stealth tax, following the work of the late Audrey Wise and Nigel Lawson and me in 1977. The law requires a vote in the Commons for the allowances to be raised by less than inflation. On 2 December last year, Labour MPs voted to freeze the allowances until 2030-31. They voted for a tax increase. The manifesto is completely out of the way. Everybody knows they voted for a tax increase.
This Government perpetuated the freezing of the allowances started by Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunak, and this policy is now dragging millions of low earners and low-paid pensioners into taxation in the first place and millions more into the higher rates. For anybody interested in the technicalities, these days the 1977 law is set out in Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act 2007. Taxing the very basic state pension—which is what this Government are going to do unless they change the allowances, because freezing them will cause that to happen—will be very bad news. It will be a lot worse than the abolition of the heating allowance, and it has to be dealt with. It can be avoided, but are they going to avoid it?
I understand the pressures, but it is no good saying, “Oh well, everybody’s got to carry the burden”. I do not believe the poorest pensioners have the broadest backs. Why should they not have the basic state pension? It has never happened before, but it will happen unless the Government do something about the threshold. They can do it in a way that does not affect it for everybody else. I do not agree with freezing the threshold in the first place, but the fact is that it cannot be done, as it used to be done, by stealth. You have to knowingly vote for it. I read the debate, and nobody ever told Labour MPs, “By the way, this is a tax increase, and we have to do this because those three people back in 1977 forced us to; it used to be done without that”. It was all about indexing the allowances. Therefore, they used the law—but without telling people what they were doing. I want to tell Labour MPs: you voted for a tax increase and, unless you do something else in the next Budget, you are going to be responsible for taxing the basic state pension. That is not a good idea.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, over the course of this three-hour debate, the national debt will have grown by £45 million. That might not seem like a lot of money compared with some of the figures we discuss in this Chamber, but that is 65p of additional debt for everyone in the nation. Interestingly, when we sat for Questions this morning, with the 21 hours of sitting time over the week, £315 million had been added to the national debt. Sadly for us, Britain’s third-largest taxpayer, Chris Rokos, who gave us £330 million in tax last year, is no longer around to pick up the bill.
The growing national debt is not a new problem. In my early 20s, I founded the TaxPayers’ Alliance. In the spring of 2010, we launched a debt clock tour in Parliament Square. A 14-metre Scania truck carried a 1 metre by 7 metre debt clock, which counted up the public borrowing in real time. The truck visited all four countries of the UK on a 1,300-mile tour with the message, “Wake up to the national debt”.
In April 2010, the national debt was hovering at just below £1 trillion. Between 2010 and 2020, it grew by another £1 trillion. We are currently at £3 trillion, and it is set to hit £3.5 trillion by 2030. Crucially, according to the latest analysis from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, this year’s real national debt—the figure taking into account the £1.5 trillion of public sector pension liabilities and almost £7 trillion in state pension liabilities—will be £11.7 trillion, or almost four times the size of the UK economy.
I agree with other noble Lords that our fiscal position is perilous. We clearly need to address our ballooning spending. I will not attempt to provide a comprehensive spending plan in the few minutes I have, but I would like to briefly touch on two important budget lines: welfare spending and public sector pay.
As the Prime Minister told the BBC in July:
“We have to get really serious as a country at getting the welfare bill down”—
not slowing its increase or freezing it but getting it down. He is absolutely right.
According to table 4.6 of the OBR’s report on the Spring Statement, we currently spend £333 billion on welfare, a sum almost as big as the combined GDP of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is also a sum that exceeds the £331 billion of income tax that the Treasury hopes to collect in the current financial year. The key to solving this is obvious: we need to help more people transition from welfare into work, because there is no better form of welfare than a good, well-paying job. Sir Charlie Mayfield pointed out in his Keep Britain Working report that a young person out of work costs the state around £1 million, with the same amount of money lost for the young person in lifetime earnings. Alan Milburn also spoke about this powerfully before the summer. He said:
“What is shameful … is that … for every £25 that we spend keeping young people on benefits, we spend only £1 helping them get into work through employment support”.
I commend the Government for commissioning these reviews and I hope they will be acting on them in the forthcoming Budget.
On the question of public sector pay, one statistic that came out during the Summer Recess caught my eye. Last month’s ONS figures show that private sector pay has risen by 2.8% over the past year, compared to a much greater 6.1% rise in public sector pay. Since January, there are now 110,000 fewer private sector jobs, but 42,000 more public sector jobs. Increasing taxes on a shrinking private sector to pay for an expanding public sector is the economics of the madhouse, and we should not fool ourselves that the way to solve the national debt is more tax rises.
Since this Government came into office, we have seen 24 tax rises: increasing employers’ national insurance, increasing both the capital gains tax rates, restricting business and agricultural property reliefs, freezing income tax thresholds, increasing the energy profits levy, increasing taxes on flights and plastic packaging and raising the climate change levy. If raising taxes were the answer to our economic challenges, we would be experiencing the highest growth rate in living memory.
A different attitude to business is required to get more people into work, enabling us to reduce our spending, increase our revenue and create a society with a more comfortable fiscal outlook. I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s comments on business:
“Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is: the strong horse that pulls the whole cart”.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, there are two pillars to the Government’s financial framework: monetary policy and fiscal policy. Monetary targets were introduced in the late 1970s, being replaced by inflation targets in 1992. Since 1998, the MPC has been given responsibility to adjust interest rates when the inflation rate target is not being met. With the egregious exception of 2021 where it misjudged the economy after Covid, the Bank has kept inflation reasonably close to target—not perfect, but a creditable record.
Fiscal targets for deficits and debt were introduced in 1997. The governance here is different and the record is much poorer. If the fiscal metrics go off target, it is for the Government themselves to respond. Too often they have not done so. Instead, the metrics have been changed, with new definitions, new baselines and new time horizons. Announcements have been made that have been quickly reversed. Meanwhile, the debt to GDP ratio has continued to rise.
The OBR produces two reports a year. The Economic and fiscal outlook comes out with the Budget, providing a five-year outlook. As a result, it receives quite a lot of attention. The other is the Fiscal risks and sustainability report, which provides projections for another 40 years, starting where the EFO leaves off. It comes out mid-year and receives much less focus, though it is arguably the more important of the two. The two reports appear to have been written by two different organisations. In the first period, the fiscal position improves with a dramatic turnaround in the primary balance by 2030, enough to stop the debt ratio from rising. In the second period, covered by the Fiscal risks and sustainability report, it gets progressively worse all the way through to 2070, when it could have risen by 300%. Neither of these projections on its own is plausible. The improvement in the EFOR five-year programme is because the OBR is required to embody the path being assumed by the Government, even though few people believe it. The path tracked by the FRSR would blow up long before we got to 2070.
If we look through this bizarre first down and then up trajectory, some features are clear. The EAC report of 2024, which we are discussing today, said that the path we are on was not sustainable. Two years later, it is still not sustainable. Not enough is being done on either tax or spending, difficult decisions are being dodged and too many commitments are not being followed through. That many other large economies face similar problems is no comfort. We are not in the world of Tom Lehrer’s “We Will All Go Together When We Go”. Markets may well pick on what is perceived to be the weakest economy outside of the US. Of those, it is the UK that now has the highest cost of borrowing. It would be much better to be an early adopter of a more credible policy.
The term “headroom” can be ambiguous. Headroom, which is seen as a margin providing resilience, allowing time to respond to shocks, is fine, but it has to be replenished in better times. Otherwise, it slips into being a cosy back pocket to get you around the next corner, leaving you no better off to face the next shook.
As society ages, an increase in spending on collectively provided services will be unavoidable, as will spending on defence. Ruling out increases in major taxes would be unwise. The Government will not be able to rely on funding from domestic pension funds to the extent that they have been in the past. It is vital to improve the structure of the tax system as well as increasing the level.
There are many choices to be made, and I have time to mention only a few. As highlighted in last week’s debate on an ageing economy, it will be essential to increase the participation rate of those between 50 and 70, and to help more people into jobs rather than leaving them stranded on benefits. We need to be building more affordable homes to reduce the cost of rents in the housing benefit bill. We need to look at reforming the taxation of wealth that is locked up in owner-occupation. We need a more measured approach on climate change to reduce the cost of electricity closer to that of our competitors, by being prepared to exploit our own fossil fuels rather than importing them, but there many other difficult choices beyond that.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow many interesting and thoughtful contributions to this timely debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley.
I bring a distinct perspective as a former bond fund manager. For 15 years, I managed both UK gilt and global government bond funds totalling several billion pounds. As set out in my register of interests, I continue to have several active investment roles. I chair Eton College’s endowment fund, I serve on the board of a US investment company and I chair a US-listed insurance company whose balance sheet is invested mainly in government debt. All these roles require me to keep my finger firmly on the pulse of markets and, I am afraid, make me all too aware of our perilous position today.
Of course, many Governments have seen a sharp jump in their debt levels in the past two decades thanks to the triple whammy of the global financial crisis, Covid policies and the inflationary pressures of the Russia-Ukraine and Middle East wars. Also, nearly $500 billion of debt has been issued year to date by tech companies in the US and that has recently increased the pressure on US Treasury yields, which act as the reference point for all the bond markets of developed Governments.
There is no safety in numbers, as far as bond investors are concerned. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned at the start, the UK gilt market has specific structural features that make us more vulnerable to a borrowing crisis in a high inflation, low-growth world.
Today, just as an example, 10-year gilts yield a full percentage point above Italian 10-year bonds. That is a risk premium demanded by investors for the extra risk they see in investing in our government debt, compared to Italian government bonds. To give some historical perspective on that, in January 2012, Italy had to pay its bond investors five percentage points more interest every year than the UK.
Why is the UK seen as a particularly deteriorating credit risk? The bond investors see us as running out of options to escape a fiscal doom loop because of the policy mistakes we have made over several Governments and the idiosyncratic features of the gilt market. I will give a couple of specifics on that to show the order of magnitude. First, a quarter of our debt mountain is index-linked. That is a far greater proportion than other countries. In France, for example, it is just 10%. In a persistently high inflation environment, like today, the UK suffers much more than other nations in terms of the incremental burden financing our national debt.
Secondly, the average maturity of British debt is much longer than other G7 countries: it is around 13.5 years, compared with eight years for France and less than six years for the US. This is a big problem because of the changing nature of UK pension funds, which is resulting in dwindling domestic demand for long-dated gilts. Defined benefit schemes required pension funds to match their liabilities with assets, so they had to buy long-dated gilts, particularly long-dated index-linked gilts, which offer the best match for inflation-linked, final-salary pensions.
However, in today’s increasingly defined contributions pensions world, that no longer applies. Of course, the Debt Management Office is aware of that, and it is going to experiment later this month with what it is calling a switch auction. It is just an operational test; no gilts will actually be switched. It is trying to see if it can reprofile the maturity of outstanding debt. The problem is that holders of long gilts will be crystallising their losses if they swap them for shorter bonds, so that may not fly.
One of the most active sellers of long gilts today is the Bank of England, as it tries to reverse the long period of quantitative easing after the global financial crisis. The bank will announce its plans for the so-called quantitative tightening in a weeks’ time. So, next Thursday is another worrying date for gilt market participants.
Bond investors are acutely aware that there are very limited ways for a country to escape spiralling interest payments on its national debt. My noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned three ways; I will add a fourth. In many cases, a country may be able to try inflating its way out of the problem, by devaluing the face value of the outstanding debt. However, as I mentioned, that is not an option here, because we have the huge preponderance of indexing bonds. The other three are growing our way out; raising taxes, which has been discussed a lot; and cutting public spending—or, of course, some combination of the above.
I will add my two pennies’ worth to the options. We would all love to see robust economic growth. As we all know, over the past two years, the Labour Government have often described this as their priority, but the fact is that their policy actions have undermined and not supported business and growth. Others have mentioned many examples: the increased national insurance burden on employers is the most obvious. As we have heard, economic growth depends on wealth creation, which goes hand in hand with internationally competitive levels of taxation.
My noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell just mentioned the departure of Chris Rokos from these shores. As well as contributing £333 million to the Treasury coffers last year, he has also been an incredibly generous benefactor to Cambridge University and Eton College. All of us are left poorer by his departure, and I remind those who have the ear of the Treasury that 100% of nothing is obviously nothing.
We are well past the optimal point of taxation rates that yield the most revenue. There is just one option to curb government spending. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked about political choices, but sometimes we do not have the choice. Sometimes, we do not have that luxury. Today, the warning lights are flashing. There is a headline in today’s City AM:
“Could Britain collapse under the weight of Labour spending?”
As a nation, we are in hock to the bond markets. When I am personally in significant debt to a bank, it is the bank that sets the terms and can call in the loan, raise the interest rate and refuse to lend me more. Unhappy gilt market participants are like banks and taxpayers, and they will vote with their feet. They will not accept vague reassurances about fostering growth or taking responsibilities of a fiscal nature seriously. They need and demand specific, concrete actions.
To avert a fiscal crisis, Chancellor Healey must not raise spending and taxes in next month’s Budget. Instead, he must set out quantified and credible plans to cut spending. That would be the first but critical step towards restoring government finances, so that we can start regaining control of the national debt, escape the fiscal doom loop and start to focus on our economic future.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this has been an outstanding debate, and I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on obtaining it and opening with a powerful speech. I did not agree with all of it, but it was definitely powerful.
I want to slightly change the tone of this debate. I suppose that is strange for a winding speech, but it seemed to me that we had very little attention to the extraordinary strengths that we have as a country. A significant part of our workforce is very highly skilled. Our legal framework is the basis for much of global commerce. We have world-leading sectors in financial services, life sciences, technology and the creative arts—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, focused on technology—and that is to name but four. We have exceptional universities which breed new opportunities. We have a track record of entrepreneurship, often at the leading edge. We are the place to start a new business.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, focused on AI and digital as an extraordinary opportunity to completely reset where we take our economy. Some people look at this only as risk, but I see this as the most extraordinary advantage if we go from being on the back foot and talking just about strategy and step-by-step minor adjustment to seize the chance of change. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, I and others had a meeting yesterday with Chris Woolard, who is now the wholesale digital markets champion. For once, I was hearing someone within the orbit talking about serious action at speed. That is the lesson that the Government have to take on board.
Today we have heard about the appalling headwinds that we face as a country, economy and government. I started trying to write down the names but suddenly realised that everybody was naming those headwinds, whether it is public debt to GDP at 94%, taxes at the highest levels since World War II or gilt issues at the highest interest rates since 1988. The noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, and somebody else, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hill, focused on index linking. I have screamed at the Bank of England so often on that issue, and unfortunately it is coming home to roost.
I want to pick up the issue stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on demographics and the dependency ratio, because this is something else that I and my colleagues have attempted to stress constantly. That dependency ratio is now at 57.8%. Alarm bells go off when a dependency ratio gets to 50%, and we are well over that point. It is getting worse with our ageing population. We have to address the issue that we have a very small working-age population to sustain our growing elderly population. We dodge that issue. It ties into the immigration debate as well and is so often ignored.
We have to thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Turnbull, for bringing in climate change, which seemed to be generally overlooked. Other than a quick mention by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, nobody talked about Brexit. How extraordinary. There is a 6% to 8% scarring of the economy. The other blows that we have had have been temporary and we have had a chance to recover from them. This is permanent scarring to the economy and ignoring it is extraordinary. I know that is Tory party policy at the moment, because you cannot be blamed for the damage if everybody forgets about it. On these Benches, we do not forget.
How can we turn all this around? We need to focus on growth, which was part of the discussion here but only a small part. This House will not be surprised that my first proposal is to negotiate a bespoke arrangement for a customs union and single market with the EU. The supposed freedoms that the public were promised by Brexiteers turned out to be few. In economic terms, any benefits were utterly insignificant while the damage has been huge. Businesses, especially small businesses, have struggled to grow without participating in EU supply chains and getting the benefits of an EU domestic market of an additional 450 million people. That scarring of 6% to 8% is not something that anybody can ignore. It is huge. Ordinary people pay the price daily as Brexit harms push up the cost of living.
The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and others talked about devolution. If it is done properly then I agree that it can drive growth. Importantly, for it to do so it must be across the country and include disadvantaged areas. The House can therefore imagine my utter frustration when this Government rejected my amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill which would have led to a rapid expansion of the available credit to small business to be provided by a growing network of community banks and credit unions qualifying as community development financial institutions. My amendment, which is inspired by the “Fair Banking for All” coalition and campaign, would require the mainstream banks, where they have abandoned local lending, which they have, to fund community development financial institutions.
Little businesses are the backbone of our community. Many want to grow a little bit faster than they would organically but cannot get that loan for the next shop, van or worker or for the workshop extension. We always talk about unicorns, but we forget that the backbone of our economy is in those small businesses that are growing just more than organically. It also has that spread into every area and community. I am afraid that, sadly, the Government will not deliver their agenda of good growth in every postcode without my amendment or something very similar. At present, even though the Government make money available for credit to small businesses, the mechanisms are simply not there to deliver the appropriate lending to small firms. As I have said many times, mainstream banks no longer just do not have the branches, but do not even train their staff in the necessary skills base.
I also agree that businesses which intend to scale up and be the next unicorn need different financing from that which is currently available, in the form of long-term patient capital that can carry high risk. We all want those companies to stay in Britain. I still have troubles with the Mansion House Accord and the recent pensions legislation. They are just so narrow. They are based on taking the tiny pensions of the lowest paid and least financially aware and putting them into high-risk illiquid investments. Most of those investments will fail. It is a very unattractive strategy.
We need a structure that will produce the products that Britons will be willing to invest in. Britons have something like £61 billion in investment savings that could be channelled in large part into these activities. With the end of the defined benefit schemes, we have seen that new products that are attractive to people and meet their risk appetite and return appetite are not being provided by the markets as they are at present, even though there are plenty of willing investors. I suggested that there could be a structure in which the Government encourage risk investment but provide some sort of backstop for the poorest. I thought that no one would take the idea seriously, but the industry is starting to do so and I am now involved in quite a number of conversations around this issue.
However, it needs much more imagination. The Government should focus on driving the private sector to produce the kinds of investments that would attract people, because the money essentially is there. I think we could go on, and all of us could produce a significant number of proposals which could stimulate and drive growth, but the Government will have to pull the levers on it.
As my very last comment on what I want to see, I agree with all those who are pleading with the Government to be consistent. Having a policy of growth and then a policy—the last person to discuss it was the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey—of raising employers’ NICs is a complete insanity. There needs to be consistency and direction. The Minister will be well aware that many of the voices that have spoken today have said that: set the strategy, set the goal and then keep to it in every policy decision that is made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to what I agree has been an outstanding debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley for setting out the scale of the challenge facing the country in his usual persuasive style. He rightly drew attention to the conclusions of the Economic Affairs Committee two years ago that the UK’s national debt risked becoming unsustainable. This was echoed by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford.
Our public finances are in a worse state now than two years ago, when Labour took office. The party opposite likes to talk about Liz Truss, but, this morning, 10-year gilt rates were at 5.24%, which was more than in the financial crash of 2008. This is significantly higher than under Liz Truss. My noble friend Lady Morrissey warned us that there is no safety in numbers among bond investors. In some sense, we are
“in hock to the bond markets”.
We have heard that debt is approaching £3 trillion, borrowing was approximately £130 billion last year, and debt interest costs around £109 billion now and is expected to continue rising. We cannot allow this to happen. At the same time, the tax burden is forecast to rise to 38.5% of GDP by 2030-31, which will be its highest level since records began in 1948.
The truth is that our fiscal position is much worse than the public realise, and it will not take anything major to trigger a surge in the bond markets, leading to a crisis. The Chancellor would be wise to study what happened in 1976, when another Healey had to be bailed out by the IMF—and, indeed, the experiences of 1981 and 1993, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
The international pressures we are experiencing come at a time when the UK is combining historically high levels of taxation and public spending with weak productivity, pressure on our public services and very little margin for error. Unfortunately, the Government do not have a credible plan to restore fiscal resilience, generate stronger economic growth and put the public finances on a sustainable, long-term footing.
I will make three further points. The first is that the Government’s fiscal rules cannot be a substitute for an economic strategy capable of delivering genuine growth. The Government’s so-called headroom is already extremely limited, but it is not nearly as important as the wider economic context. Growth is forecast at just 1.1% this year, while the deficit remains some 4% of GDP. This is unsustainable.
Over the past two decades, as we have heard, we have experienced a global financial crisis, a pandemic, war in Europe, energy shocks and repeated geopolitical disruption in the Middle East. It would be a reckless Government who constructed fiscal policy on the assumption that there will not be another crisis.
We need over £300 million every day simply to service the national debt—and we can all imagine what a difference that would make to our Armed Forces or our services, or, indeed, in tax cuts geared to generating growth. Dr Arthur Laffer, as we have heard, was in London this week, saying that we are taxing ourselves to death and explaining how, in contrast, over the years, tax cuts have increased revenues and fired growth in the United States.
My second point is that we cannot tax our way out of a productivity problem. The denominator in almost every fiscal ratio is the size of the economy. Without stronger growth, fiscal consolidation ultimately becomes an impossible choice between higher taxes, poorer public services and still more borrowing. Productivity must therefore sit at the heart of any credible fiscal strategy—it was good to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that it might be edging up. That means creating more of an enterprise culture, as the noble lord, Lord Londesborough, said, and using AI effectively, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. It is right to think of our strengths, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. That includes our very strong network of SMEs in this country.
Productivity also requires conditions in which businesses are prepared to invest and innovate, energy is internationally competitive, skills are better matched to the needs of employers, regulation becomes simpler, and, most importantly, people who are able to work, work. The employment rate was estimated at 75.1% in the second quarter, in a soft labour market. At the same time, welfare spending is forecast to increase from about £334 billion to £409 billion by 2030-31.
Alan Milburn has rightly condemned the insane sick-note culture as NEET figures reach an all-time high, with £25 spent on benefits for every £1 spent on employment support, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell. A CSJ report has laid bare a worrying post-pandemic trend of graduates coming straight from university on to sickness benefits. That is the opposite of how welfare should function. On this side, we are agreed on the damaging effect of the Employment Rights Act on new employment.
My third point is that we must become much more willing to confront our spending pressures. I agree with my noble friend Lord Redwood on this. The demands on defence, social care, infrastructure and public services will be substantial, especially if the PM seeks to move utilities into public ownership, as my noble friend Lady Meyer suggested he might. Every major new commitment should therefore be accompanied by a credible timetable, a long-term costing, an identified source of funding and a clear assessment of the consequences for wider public finances. That will be our conservative way under Kemi Badenoch.
In politics, we spend a great deal of our time discussing inputs. The Government announce another billion pounds here or another programme there, and present the scale of the expenditure as though it were in itself evidence of success. It is not. We need to know what expenditure actually achieves. The taxpayer is entitled to expect not simply higher spending—an input without an output measure—but better value and better outcomes.
Like others, I was particularly struck by the thoughtful contribution from my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford. We need honesty over the challenge of things such as pensions, and a change to the 24-hour political system buffeted by the demands of different lobby groups. Incidentally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the poorest pensioners should not be taxed by stealth. I was also very concerned to hear from my noble friend Lord Elliott that public sector pay had risen by 6.9% compared with 2.8% in the private sector, with public sector numbers going up by 42,000 and numbers in the highly taxed private sector declining by 110,000. This is not right.
In a typically trenchant analysis, my noble friend Lady Noakes set out the dilemma facing the Chancellor in his Budget on 28 October—we must have some sympathy for him—and the need to learn from the last Chancellor’s record, which has hit business and entry-level jobs so hard. As my noble friend said, there is no living example of taxing into prosperity. I also look forward to the reply to the rather challenging questions from my noble friends Lord Bridges and Lord Howell.
In conclusion, the fiscal outlook is grim. I agree with those who argued that we should tackle that by reducing spending and not by tax rises, which would only reduce growth and risk a downward spiral. Yet today’s leading story is of a visitor levy, which will hit growth, and a TUC request for a bank tax. Is it a surprise that so many high-rate taxpayers are leaving the country?
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for securing this debate, and congratulate him on his opening speech. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. In doing so, I must say that I absolutely cannot do justice to the number of comments that have been made and the expertise that has been brought to the debate. But I will try to frame my response around some logic: first, the economic context; secondly, the fiscal rules and OBR; and, finally, the fiscal outlook and long-term challenges. I have to warn that, with the Budget coming up, there are things I cannot talk about because they could be in it, nor can I say anything that could lead to market speculation. But I hope that within the framework I have laid out, I can at least respond well.
I frame my remarks around the lead given to us by my noble friend Lady Alexander. I believe there is considerable consensus in this House. This is an Opposition day debate, and I heard a number of speeches that were a bit polemical, which is understandable, and a few Aunt Sallies about Britain being like the Soviet Union—I think that if you had ever visited the Soviet Union, you would not be saying that. There was also the odd speech that sounded a wee bit funereal about our wonderful, resilient country. But there were lots and lots of speeches which expressed a shared overall goal, which is to drive good growth in every postcode and to back investment, innovation and jobs across our economy. That is what the Chancellor set out in his speech earlier this week.
I believe the choices that have already been taken since this Government came to office put Britain in a stronger position today to deliver those plans and capitalise on the growth opportunities ahead. I know that one swallow does not make a summer, but in the first half of this year we had the highest growth in the G7 and government borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years. My noble friend Lord Chandos mentioned productivity. We need to be very careful about productivity figures, but last year we saw a greater than 2% increase in productivity, which was the best in 10 years when you adjust for the effect of Covid.
The Government are trying to build on our strengths—my noble friend Lord Chandos mentioned our world-class universities, and we have world-leading sectors such as life sciences, defence, technology, creative industries and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned, financial services. On the need for growth, which the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, made absolutely clear, there are a whole set of things, including trade deals and planning reform, that we are trying to do.
Nevertheless, as was made clear in the debate, global instability, conflict and trade frictions are continuing, and they drive up inflation and interest rates around the world. Although these shocks are international in nature, their impact is particularly being felt here in the UK, from the cost of the weekly family shop to the cost of government borrowing. But Britain has shown a resilience in the face of these pressures, and I think the country is on the up. In the context of a more uncertain world, we must continue to make responsible choices, and fiscal discipline will underwrite every promise that this Government make.
I do not want to dwell on how we got to 100% borrowing or on the moment when Britain ended up having the highest borrowing costs among the G7. We are looking for a coherent policy going forward, which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, was pushing us to look for. In the past, we have had so many different fiscal rules. Every time a Government were going to break the fiscal rules, they just changed what the fiscal rule was going to be—that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been unequivocal in committing to meet the fiscal rules in the Budget next month with a buffer for uncertainty.
The first fiscal rule, the stability rule, moves the current budget into balance so that day-to-day spending is met by revenues and ensures the Government will only borrow for investment. Previous fiscal rules discouraged investment. The second fiscal rule, the investment rule, ensures that net debt falls as a proportion of GDP, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was advocating. This keeps debt on a sustainable path while supporting over £120 billion of additional departmental capital spending in housing, energy, transport, and other growth-driving infrastructure—also in some pump-priming, which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was encouraging us to think about. Taking this approach is responsible: it means the Government will balance the books with a buffer to protect against uncertainty, will control borrowing, and will reduce long-term pressures on our public finances. As the Chancellor said, there is nothing progressive about spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest.
I thought the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, was a classic speech from the House of Lords of such insight and expertise about how the bond market works. I will not try to respond to it in this talk. Beyond the fiscal rules, the Government have also taken a number of steps to strengthen the wider fiscal framework, including holding regular multi-year spending reviews so that departments have certainty on what their funding will be and protecting and respecting the independence of the OBR.
The Office for Budget Responsibility will produce an updated review of the economic and fiscal outlook alongside the Budget on 28 October. As I said at the outset, our economy is beginning to turn a corner; at least I hope it is. It is an uncertain world, and Britain has shown such resilience in the face of global pressures. We see this in the uptick of confidence among many businesspeople, including the successor to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, at the British Chamber of Commerce. But clearly there remain challenges to the fiscal outlook. The war in Iran has pushed up energy costs and inflation, which in turn raised the cost of borrowing in all major economies, including in the UK. That is why the Chancellor has committed to reduce borrowing and get debt down, because that is the route to lower inflation, lower interest rates and higher economic growth.
The central point is to get debt under control, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, reminded us. As a result of the action the Government have already taken, borrowing fell last year from 5.2% to 4.2% of GDP. Okay, there is still borrowing, but the lowest in six years, and according to the IMF, for the first time since 2004 we are forecast to be borrowing less this year than the rest of the G7 on average. But this problem, which arose over half a generation ago, will take time to solve. It will take careful thought and clear discipline.
In the longer term, the OBR’s recent Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report confirms the need to boost growth and maintain sustainable public finances, and that is what the Government intend to do. People have raised questions about tax, particularly business tax. I spoke in the House about this only last week. It is true that businesses have been paying more tax, but it is also true that businesses have been responsible for that productivity increase and growth. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made a point about the Government stopping going on about inputs and starting to think about outputs. I agree that that is fundamental.
There were lots of questions about pensions and where pensions are invested. The Government are taking action on this by—let me acknowledge it—picking up a baton from the previous Government about the asset allocation of pension funds not being as good as it could be.
We had questions about employment and training. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that a 1% increase in productivity for every business would solve many problems. One statistic strikes me when we talk about people not in work: in the past 150 years there were only two peacetime years when the average annual employment rate was higher than in 2025.
Great things are there for us to do. The corporation tax rate for businesses is the lowest in the G7. The effective tax rate for a single individual with no children on average earnings is the lowest in the G7. The tax paid by a worker on a low or average income is at a historically low level. Lots of good stuff is going on.
For me, the standout speech of this debate was by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about productivity, creativity and imagination. They are in no way the exclusive preserve of Parliament or government. They belong to the British people and British businesses. Fiscal credibility is the bedrock for economic stability and national security, because without sound public finances we cannot give businesses and families the breathing space and stability that they need for the future. The ultimate goal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reminded us—we have both congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—is growth: good growth in every postcode. It will be delivered not by the Government alone but by the people and businesses of Britain, the strong horse that pulls the whole cart. The foundation for that is a sensible, well-financed Government with real fiscal discipline, and that is what I think this Government are offering to the country.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Let me start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, for not welcoming him to his place; this is the first time I have debated against him. I very much applaud his emollient and reasonable style. I think those of us on this side of the House think it is a welcome change from what we had before. We can have a proper debate about the issues before us. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken from all sides of the House and made such incredibly thoughtful contributions, in particular—forgive me for singling them out—those members of the Economic Affairs Committee who served under me. This is rather like the reunion of a pop group: we are playing our golden oldies.
I will speak very briefly. There was so much to cover that I hope noble Lords will forgive me as I am not going to go into depth and detail on all the points that were raised. At the start of the debate, I listed the Ds that we and other nations face: defence; demographics and the ageing population, which the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Davies, the noble Baronesses, Lady Alexander, and my noble friend Lord Hill picked up; welfare dependency, which others including the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, picked up; and decarbonisation and the green transition, which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke about.
I missed two Ds. The first D is depressing. This debate can be incredibly depressing. But that said—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, makes a good point, as does the Minister—we do have strengths. We absolutely have strengths as a nation, and it is very important that we do not play them down. I do not for a moment want to suggest that this country does not have massive potential but, if we are to unleash that, we have to be honest about the challenges we face.
The Minister said, and I wrote it down, that he thinks this country is on the up. I would love to think so. I hear him, and he obviously makes a very valid point about statistics that have come out suggesting that productivity might be turning the corner. He hopes it is—I noticed that little tweak on the Chancellor saying that it is turning a corner. When I think of a country on the up, very sadly, the things I see going up are our taxes, our debt and our debt interest. Unless we are honest about this, we will not be able to bring the public with us in taking the tough decisions that need to be taken.
The second D I missed is digitalisation and AI. I agree with the Minister that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is absolutely right to talk about this. AI is the revolution sweeping the world, transforming business models and entire economies. It offers immense potential and massive opportunities, but we also have to confront the challenges and risks it poses. One of the risks that we face right now as regards the fiscal outlook—the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, will know all about this—is the immense amount of debt that tech companies are issuing around the world. This relies on productivity, profits and this revolution continuing to gather momentum. That in itself poses a risk, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight it.
This debate, though, confronts a very simple point, which my noble friend Lord Hill and others made. We have to have honesty about the challenges we face. We are in this position because, over the best part of a generation, as a political class we have not had the courage to confront the public with the consequences of the decisions we were taking, not just in the next year but in the year after that and the decade after that. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, alluded to this. During Covid and the energy shock we ran up enormous bills and enormous debts. We were not honest about that.
We now need that honesty; we need to be honest about our solutions based on clear conviction and clear belief. Above all, we have to be honest about the trade-offs that need to be made in response to the challenges we face. As my noble friend Lord Hill said, we cannot try to tell everyone that we can have our cake and eat it; I am very sorry to say that these decisions are going to be painful. But the British public are not stupid. They know that we as a nation are now living beyond our means. They will reward the politicians from whatever side of the House who speak to them with this honesty and have a credible, coherent plan to get us out of the mess we are in. Choices will have to be made. We all know that a country can spend beyond its means for a time. It can borrow, it can tax more and it can hope that growth will come to its rescue, but we know from our history that if Governments wait too long, they risk losing the freedom to make those choices themselves.
I want to end by thinking about the Budget, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. I think that the Budget will be a battle between two cities: the City of London and the City of Westminster. The noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, made a point very clearly. There, in the City of London down the road, they are looking at nearly £3 trillion of our national debt, our rising debt interest and our shrinking fiscal buffer, and asking whether we as a nation have a credible plan to live within our means. Here, down the Corridor in the other place, in the City of Westminster, are 403 Labour MPs, many demanding that the Government spend more, tax more, borrow more or, at the very least, do not spend less.
Many of those MPs understandably argue that: indeed, it is what brought them into politics. Plaudits to them; they are standing up for their convictions and beliefs. They believe, quite possibly like the Prime Minister, who holds passionate beliefs, that we took the wrong turn in the 1980s. I end with this thought: we ended up making very tough decisions in the 1980s because, during the 1970s, we ducked them. We consistently pushed things down the road. The circumstances today are no doubt very different, but the lesson is not. We still have the freedom to choose and we should use it, because if we do not take the tough decisions now ourselves, eventually others will make them for us.
Patient Data: Research
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of patient data for research.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, after listening to the last debate, I am tempted to speak only about how health research data might help economic growth to alleviate all the debt that we were talking about, but I will not. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for taking this debate and ,all noble Lords who signed up to take part, despite the brief time for which they are allowed to speak. I also thank the Library for its excellent brief and POST for the publication of its report on the subject of health data research.
I fully support the Government’s initiative to strengthen the collection and use of health data for research but I hope that the commitment from the Government will be longer term and that they will be prepared to do whatever is necessary to make the UK a world leader in health data research. The use of health data to improve healthcare is not new. In the 14th century, plague killed one-third of the population because they did not have the ability to use data and track the epidemic. By 1854, however, John Snow tracked the cholera outbreak in Soho and controlled the spread of the disease. There are many examples of the use of data and epidemiological studies leading to improvements in healthcare, such as the association made in 1954 between smoking and lung cancer and chronic lung disease and, later, the association between HPV and cervical cancer. Most recently and quite importantly, the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry, kept by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, identified genetic mutations that occur in some children and adults who suffer from cystic fibrosis, and identified an effective drug that improves their ventilatory function.
The advent of AI and machine learning, genomics and pharmacogenomics, and the linking of such data through machine learning and imaging technology will transform the research using health data for better healthcare and innovations. Better data means fewer deaths.
A strong, efficient health data platform that can be accessed for research is crucial for the success of the life sciences strategy and for economic growth. Currently, the life sciences sector has a turnover of £146.9 billion and employs over 360,000 people. Apart from delivering better healthcare, health data research is the fuel that will accelerate that by adding more than £10 billion annually in value added growth. The UK’s strands for health data curation have the ability to track longitudinal data from a diverse population of 63 million, but the current system is fragmented and scattered across thousands of GP practices, hospital trusts, community health clinics and others that deliver healthcare.
However, the UK health data environment is changing from a siloed system to a national framework. One hopes that the active phasing-out of data sharing, which often led to data breaches, will now stop that from happening. Data sharing will be replaced with the secure data environment, SDE, and the data stay-put model, where the data will stay on one platform and not be shared but rather acted upon. Researchers will be allowed to access only that data, and it will not be exported. The Five Safes model for data access and outputs will make the data secure. The launch of the HDRS, the Health Data Research Service, which is backed by £600 million of Government investment, keeps the promise going. That is all very good, but the verdict is that, while it is a great blueprint, delivery is the test. We have good plans, but let us hope that delivery will follow.
What are the challenges? Currently, regional secure data environments operate in silos in over 180 trusts. Often, they are written and uncoded, which means that using them is difficult. They are diverse, handwritten and uncoded, and they occur in 180 trusts and thousands of GP practices, and are therefore not connected. Data is currently written and collected in different hospitals and general practices but is not unified in any data models. The governance to access data for research is multi-layered, causing bottlenecks. One has to answer to so many different regulators just to be allowed to use the data. If the UK is to become a leader in clinical trials, health data needs to be coded and easily available in every hospital. To maintain public trust, there need to be clear, transparent, and legally binding arrangements as to how data can be accessed and used for the pharma and tech industries, and how the NHS will benefit from the benefits that accrue, both in healthcare improvement and money. I personally approve of the opt-out model rather than the opt-in model, because the latter will not work for health data research.
What are the consequences of not addressing these challenges? If we do not address them, it will affect the NHS; it will affect patients, because they will not receive modern care; and it will affect the UK economy. I therefore have four key questions for the Minister. First, what specific legal mandate will be needed for longitudinal data streams that link GP and hospital data? Secondly, what effective plans will be put in place to end the fragmented secure data environment? Thirdly, on public trust, will the Government legislate that any benefits from the use of and access to NHS data by commercial companies flow back to the NHS? Fourthly, are there plans for trusts to have a workforce, such as data engineers, to clean up the data and produce the appropriate codes that will be used by AI and machine learning to national standards and, if so, how will they be funded? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I congratulate him on securing this very important debate and on his insightful and excellent introductory speech.
The National Health Service is one of Britain’s greatest institutions. After 30 years as a front-line NHS consultant in women’s health, I believe it can be more than a healthcare provider. The NHS holds the richest longitudinal health dataset in the world. It can help to improve outcomes, accelerate innovation, create intellectual property, patents and high-value jobs, and attract global investment. The new Health Data Research Service presents a significant opportunity. Our ambition should go further, to create the high-quality representative datasets needed to develop and validate AI safely.
AI can analyse data at a large scale in a way that humans cannot, predicting risk, promoting early detection, accelerating drug discovery and clinical trials, and enabling the much-needed shift from treatment to prevention. However, AI is only as good and equitable as the data it is trained on. We need richer data points—not simply age and sex, but ethnicity, disability, socio-economic deprivation, postcode and wider determinants of health—to identify who is missing out and why, why outcomes differ and how to address them. Diseases do not care about borders, and nor should any medical research. The UK should ensure regulatory interoperability with international standards and lead global research with our data. This is essential in particular for rare diseases and cancers, and for ethnic minority communities who are underrepresented in research.
Public trust must be the foundation. Patient consent, privacy, security, transparency and appropriate safeguards must be embedded from the outset. If the challenges my noble friend Lord Patel described are addressed, the NHS patient database can become a powerhouse for health research and AI-driven innovation, and economic growth. Can the Minister say whether the Government will ensure that the Health Data Research Service develops representative datasets for AI research and also pursue international data interoperability, so that Britain can lead in equitable and rare diseases innovation, while driving economic growth? Good patient data can drive good medical research and help deliver good health and good growth together.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate. I declare something of an interest, in that I am just back from the ninth World One Health Congress in Lisbon, partially supported by DSAC.
I go to the UKRI to start with the basic fact that the social determinants of health determine up to 80% of health outcomes, with clinical care accounting for only 20%. We must not lose sight of this reality, particularly given that healthy life expectancy is down two years in the past decade. We do not need data to know that poverty, inequality and austerity have enormous health costs. Data collection does not really add to our understanding of a reality that includes the impacts of financial insecurity, poor housing, filthy air and discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke about economic growth having an impact on health. I would argue that we need a major redistribution of the resources in our society to tackle those things. Waving the magic wand of AI and saying we will fix it with that just does not satisfy.
However, when we come to health data, and there is no doubt it is extremely important and useful, we have a huge problem of trust: patients trusting the system and trusting the Government to govern if their data is handed over. If there are no transparent controls, patients are not going to allow it. I note that the Government themselves, in a letter to the chair of the Commons health committee, acknowledged that, in recent times, tens of thousands of patients have withdrawn their data from use in research projects, with very many of them expressing concern about the involvement of the US defence and health tech company Palantir.
There really is no wonder about that. We need to think about this. Peter Thiel and Alex Karp have said some very disturbing things, but I also go to Palantir’s UK head of operations, Louis Mosley, at last year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. He said Western civilisation was in an existential battle against the “armies of fact-checkers and experts”, lawyers, academics and journalists. Palantir is supposed to be supplying unbiased, fact-based data analysis for the NHS: this is the company that we are talking about.
We know that it had very little track record in health data before it enlisted the aid of the company of the former Member of this House, Lord Mandelson—Global Counsel—and secured this contract. The Government have a really important decision to make on health data and whether they continue with this contract. We must not allow ourselves to be trapped into using these companies. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, referred to in the last debate, we have to ask questions about their financial stability; if we rely on them and they are not financially stable, that is another issue as well.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Patel for securing this timely debate, in which I only have time to speak about UK Biobank. I declare an interest, as I have been not only a participant since 2007 but also a co-investigator in a research study analysing UK Biobank data to develop AI algorithms for the early detection of atrial fibrillation.
Ahead of this debate, there have been some very biased, negative briefings about UK Biobank—a not-for-profit charity—with multiple claims backed by no evidence whatever. UK Biobank is a visionary project in modern science, admired the world over. It has assembled a unique dataset from 500,000 UK volunteers. Over 22,000 scientists have been approved to analyse the data, contributing to 18,000 peer-reviewed papers. Now, we all know that access to UK Biobank data was offered for a very short period in April on a Chinese e-commerce website. There was swift action to deal with the data breach and the advice from China was that there had been no sales of data.
Since mid-2024, Biobank has been making a transition to its data being available only within a trusted research environment, a TRE, with an airlock. The data from UK Biobank does not contain any personally identifying information. It is de-identified. No participant has ever been re-identified without their active co-operation. All participants were informed of the data breach in China and given the opportunity to ask for their data to be removed. The number of those who did so is staggering: 344 out of 500,000 participants, less than 0.1% of the total number of participants.
This voter confidence, I believe, stems not only from the altruism of the participants but from the awareness that UK Biobank has already enabled new diagnostics and treatments that are saving thousands of lives: for example, through polygenic risk scores being added to heart disease risk measurement, through non-invasive diagnosis of fatty liver disease and through near real-time automated cardiac MRI analysis.
The current UK Biobank model for patient data research could be scaled up as a result of the introduction of the single patient record. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the NHS Modernisation Bill will make this possible.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing this debate. I very much agree with the points he made and I hope the answers will be forthcoming. Clearly, I support the use of patient data for research; the benefits from medical innovation, prevention and treatment are substantial. But I want to focus on a narrower issue: the gap between what we know about public opinion and how policy responds to it.
The evidence consistently shows strong public support for the use of health data in research, yet the same evidence also shows continued concern about how data is handled and, in particular, the role of private companies in accessing and using that data. These concerns are acknowledged in many reports but are too often treated as secondary. This is especially important for mental health data. Research indicates that willingness to share mental health information remains high and differs only marginally from willingness to share physical health data. However, trust is critical. People’s confidence depends not simply on whether data is used but on who is using it and for what purpose.
For those with stigmatised conditions, the consequences of any misuse or breach can be profound. Recent events have demonstrated that public confidence cannot be taken for granted. I was not going to mention UK Biobank, but since it has been mentioned, I hear the defence clearly. I am a fan of it and a participant in it, but that case illustrates the problems we face, because once trust is lost participation may decline, undermining the very research that depends on public co-operation.
I therefore ask the Minister two questions. First, will the Government consider establishing a standing oversight body with substantial patient representation to review access to particularly sensitive categories of data, not least on mental health, and to publish the reasons for its decisions? Secondly, where commercial organisations benefit from access to NHS data, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the knowledge gained is returned to the NHS and to patients?
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, this House’s Science and Technology Committee, which I chair, has been investigating innovation in the NHS, including the use of patient data for research. We expect to produce our report in the next few months.
There is no question that the UK has unique and exceptionally rich health data. Better use of it would save lives, benefit the NHS and grow the economy. However, enabling access to this data for research has been a long-term policy problem. Professor Cathie Sudlow’s review warned that access is in danger of going backwards since the pandemic. The £600 million Health Data Research Service, the HDRS, is intended to help address this. It has the potential to be transformative, but there are two key areas of concern: funding and public trust.
First, on funding, after its initial five-year budget period the Government have set a target for the HDRS to be self-funding through commercial partnerships. But since there is not yet clarity around which services it will offer, what its expenditures will be and what prices it will charge, we cannot assess whether this is realistic. High access fees on existing health data research projects already lock out life sciences SMEs and could push researchers overseas, where they could access health data more easily. The self-funding model risks the HDRS ending up dependent on large pharmaceutical companies just to maintain its operations. Could the Minister explain how and why the department decided that the HDRS should be self-funding, and will she publish the analysis behind that?
Secondly, there is the question of public trust. Its importance has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Patel in his excellent opening speech and by other noble Lords. There is a long list of well-meaning policy initiatives to enable access to patient data, including care.data and the GPDPR, which were undermined by a loss of public trust. Public support for using health data for research is real but conditional—it is undoubtedly weaker when it comes to commercial uses. Trust cannot be assumed. It has to be earned through transparency, clarity about how data is used and visible, tangible benefits to patients. Can the Minister tell us how the HDRS will become a trusted data custodian? What safeguards will it use for patient data and how is it going to engage with the public?
I hope the Minister will tell us how the HDRS will address these important issues about funding and public trust. It is vital to ensure that we can realise the immense opportunity offered by full use of patient health data.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate. Across a range of medical conditions, we are hopefully on the brink of medical advances, underpinned by robust research, which have the opportunity to save lives or transform them for the better. With the structure of the National Health Service, we have a unique asset which puts us in a much better position than most other countries across the globe.
Data can be of major benefit when it is collated correctly by government, its quality is uniform in nature and it is used effectively. I will give an example from outside the health service. During the pandemic, in Northern Ireland we had a single education authority which held all data for every person in Northern Ireland on free school meals and the uniform grant. That meant that, when support needed to be given to families in need, we could identify them straightaway. About 98% of families could be helped from the very start, which contrasted with most areas of Great Britain, where the data was quite often of a different nature and fragmented between different local authorities.
I think that the Government’s response to the Sudlow review, in terms of the HDRS, is the right way forward, but there are four conditions which are critical to implementation. First, it is about not simply the quantity but the quality of data, particularly as most health data tends to be qualitative in nature. As has been highlighted, it is critical that data is codified, but must also be coded in a consistent way, and that we have linkages between datasets.
Secondly, it is critical that we provide clarity and certainty for medical companies and researchers on what can be available. We need to ensure that data is research ready and that companies know what data they are getting, what the cost will be to them and how long they can have that data. That will enable them to plan research for the future.
Thirdly, as has been highlighted, public trust is critical. One of the main barriers whenever the Government looked at some form of national identity was public concern over how their data would be used and whether it would be secure. Particularly now with malevolent foreign states and criminal gangs, we know that there is a risk of data breaches and data capture, so we need to ensure that what is put in place is secure from the start.
Finally, it is important that we are comprehensive in our approach to geography and subject matter. We need to ensure that, for example, if we are going to integrate social care, that is factored into data provision, and that we have systems which take account not simply of NHS England but of services across the UK, involving all the devolved institutions working together to provide that data.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My noble friend Lord Patel, in introducing this important debate, spoke about health data secure systems. I will speak about the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage system—the SAIL database—based in Swansea and funded by the Welsh Government, which runs on the mantra of “public data for public good”. It has been going for almost 20 years and has data reaching back a quarter of a century. The SAIL Databank was highlighted in the Health Data Research Service (HDRS) Digital Ecosystems Analysis report, because it has expertise in data pipelines, advanced data linkages and secure research infrastructure, powered by the Secure eResearch Platform, or SeRP. These capabilities are essential for the future of health data research.
The SAIL database is very widely trusted, because it was so carefully set up and is so carefully managed. The report identifies it as one of the UK’s established examples, with
“documented transformation logic and quality assurance”
built in. The database has an extensive number of research projects internationally, and it reinforces the importance of trusted research environments, TREs, and secure data environments, SDEs, where approved researchers analyse sensitive data within secure settings, rather than downloading or transferring information. That model has maintained public trust while enabling high-impact research.
Professor Simon Thompson, a co-director of the SAIL Databank and SeRP, has pointed out that they have been
“recognised as a benchmark for the UK”
and that their work linking
“Welsh population data across health, education, housing, justice and beyond shows what’s possible when secure, person-level linkage is done properly and at scale”.
It is one of the leading environments.
Sharon Heys, the head of legislation and due diligence at SeRP, has discussed the difficulties in defining the lines of anonymisation and whether data is likely to be identifiable. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tarassenko for talking about the Biobank data. I had the privilege of being on the ethics committee as Biobank was being set up. The durability of Biobank and of SAIL represents the importance of considering all aspects before you even get started.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I have worked on decision aids to help patients and healthcare professionals, and I am also an unpaid adviser on the board of OpenSAFELY, a system for allowing research to be carried out securely on data.
Every healthcare decision we make is based on knowing what has happened to people like us in the past. Knowing the outcomes for thousands of people and how much those outcomes vary is the only way we can do better than just blind hope. It allows us to say, “Out of every 100 people like you who have taken this option, X had this outcome”. That makes all the difference for those faced with a hard decision. For those developing potential new treatments, analysing data helps them to see those outcome differences in detail. Shared information is the whole basis of medicine. We in the UK have unique health data, and we must do all we can to continue to learn from it and to communicate it to patients.
On the other hand, I know how people feel when their trust is undermined. Society works by spreading the costs and the benefits across many people, but industries such as insurance and marketing benefit financially if they can target their products to individuals. They would love to get their hands on our medical data. As other noble Lords have said, when you talk to people, they say that they share their data for the benefit of society but do not want it to be used for things that stratify society such as differential insurance pricing, differential access to healthcare or welfare, or profiteering—quite understandably.
Some people’s experience has been that of trust abused—healthcare records accessed or used inappropriately. Every abuse of power we learn of undermines trust a little more. The thing about data is that you need it to be representative. If trust is lost from some groups of people, we will end up losing the data of those groups of people; that erodes the value for everyone, especially those groups themselves.
If you want to be trusted, you need to be trustworthy. Demonstrating trustworthiness takes dialogue, listening, honesty, owning up to mistakes, good faith and trying to do better. Where there is a breach, like at UK Biobank, it needs to be fully and transparently investigated with lessons learned. Everyone needs to know that their voices are heard, respected and acted on. Everyone should be able to say what they want to happen to their data. If they do not want it shared, that has to be respected too.
I do not expect that my doctor’s consultation will be recorded and uploaded to AI for note-taking. For me, that is sharing my data, and I do not know with whom. As the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare today reported from its consultation,
“a majority of participants believing that patients should be informed when AI has been used in their care”.
What are the Government’s plans for data-sharing opt-outs, and how will they ensure that they are always respected? Is consent always going to be explicitly sought for AI during consultations? Are patients being meaningfully involved in dialogues about all the uses of their data, as the Government make plans for more? We have to be able to answer “yes” to all these questions before we can reap the benefits that our data should give us.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, today I address a challenge that sits at the intersection of public service and my professional background, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for this timely debate. Over a decade ago, I was working in the data analytics sector. It was an era when my colleagues and I routinely repeated a phrase that has now become a bit of a cliché: “Data is the new oil”. We were at the beginning of a digital bonanza, watching a frontier expand while Governments maintained a largely laissez-faire approach, long before modern privacy regulations were covered by the Data Protection Act and GDPR that we rely on today.
I raise this because the data landscape has evolved exponentially since my time in the industry. Today, the pressures to find solutions to chronic diseases are immense. While I deeply share the health professionals’ enthusiasm for laudable life-saving research, those of us with backgrounds in data know a quiet truth. In the rush to find health solutions, individual privacy can inadvertently be compromised if our security frameworks do not evolve as fast as the technology.
We had wake-up calls this April, and some noble Lords who spoke before me highlighted the case of rogue researchers at a partner institution in China who violated their contracts and attempted to list the data of 500,000 UK Biobank volunteers on Alibaba. It was a near miss for our research ecosystem. Thankfully, swift action prevented actual sales and the data itself lacked direct personal identifiers but, as your Lordships’ House knows, the methods of data manipulation have grown sophisticated—far beyond what we imagined a few years ago. The rise of advanced artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed the game.
Today, deidentifying data is no longer a permanent shield. With modern AI algorithms, bad actors can cross-reference anonymised health files with external commercial datasets to reidentify individuals with terrifying ease and accuracy. If the public begin to fear that AI will be used to turn their altruism into exposed personal medical records, public trust will evaporate. We cannot let that happen. I urge the Minister to secure the system so tightly that public trust remains unbreakable. I urge a shift away from data extraction entirely, moving instead towards trusted research environments and requiring external commercial players to run their AI analytics inside a secure government-hosted cloud, where they can query the data but never download or export raw files.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I take this opportunity provided to us by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to talk about the data for research for the greatest health challenge of our time—dementia. We need to improve the quality, accessibility and use of dementia data to support research, which is in an extremely poor state. We identify people too late, if at all. There is poor follow-up and data linkage, and difficulty matching people to the right trials. One problem is that people get referred to memory clinics over here, often remote from hospital services there. That is good for access, but where there are no links to research organisations, diagnosis is rarely followed up and, if you have a mild problem, you are never seen again. There is a wholesale lack of understanding that if you wish to research dementia, you need to understand that social care services, both statutory and independent providers, are where the subjects are. Coding is inconsistent. Data is often unusable. Those eligible for clinical trials are invisible to research, so recruitment to trials is very low indeed.
Over the four years from 2021 to 2025, dementia trials recruited only 551 participants, compared with 24,000 in cancer. The UK has strong basic sciences, major data resources, early phase trial capability and a trusted regulatory environment. However, the science is moving rapidly, and while the UK now has a major opportunity to build on these strengths and become a global leader in dementia research, we are very constrained by the lack of national leadership to align the science, diagnostics and trial delivery. We are even further away from the NHS adopting results and realising the full value of government investment.
Governments since the early 1920s have done some very positive things. The Dame Barbara Windsor Dementia Goals programme in 2022 and the Medical Research Council’s £20 million investment into a dementia trials accelerator were excellent initiatives, but we need to go further and faster. Does the Minister agree that we should use the modern service framework to improve the quality and usability of dementia data and ensure that people are not lost to research after diagnosis? BARBARA is the brain ageing registry for biomarkers, access to trials, research and adoption—it is a marvellous name; I would love to know who thought that up. Surely the Government should make BARBARA a government priority by 2030. I ask for that to happen.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this debate. As an obstetrician, clinical teacher and academic, his exceptional work for well over 50 years has reduced the risks to women in pregnancy and childbirth. I am sure that patient data will have been key at every stage and contributed to the life-saving and life-changing therapies and treatments.
From these Benches we are clear that patient data must be available for medical research. I thank the Alzheimer’s trusts and others for their briefings on the real progress in treating diseases as well as the hopes for future research. I especially thank the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. My dear childhood friends, Julie and Vivienne Gastor, both had CF. All their lives they took dozens of tablets every day to mitigate their symptoms. In the early 1960s there was no hope of tackling the underlying disease and, as they and we knew would happen, they died as teenagers in the early 1970s.
These days, using patient data, eligible people with cystic fibrosis can receive new drugs that treat the underlying causes by targeting the faulty CFTR protein. A partnership involving the CF registry collects evidence on their effectiveness in routine care before NICE appraises the therapies. This has meant that people with CF are able to access the new drugs while effectiveness data is still being gathered. What a life-giving transformation.
However, we have also heard in the debate today of concerns about the wider use of patient data, especially regarding AI. It is prescient of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to have called this debate before your Lordships’ House starts to consider the Government’s health Bill. The BMA has told us about threats to the common-law duty of confidentiality of patient data—that patient data can be used beyond the narrow protections available for use in academic research studies, that data functions would move from NHS England to the Secretary of State.
This is not the first time that a Government have tried to change the data protection for patients regarding their own personal and medical data. From these Benches, we will challenge the Government to keep the research black box protections which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I negotiated, with Labour support, during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022. We will do this because—this gets to the heart of today’s debate—the vast majority of patients, doctors and academics believe that it is vital that patient medical data is made available for medical research but, and this is key, with the data securely, appropriately and strongly anonymised and pseudonymised.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate on using patient data for patient-centred research, health and social care. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke and refer the House to my interests in the register—I will not name them all, because that would be the rest of my three minutes.
We can have the most innovative healthcare systems in the world, but that will be meaningless if patients do not trust the NHS and other health and social care providers with their data. There is some consensus on the need to collect and share patients’ data to improve patient care and research, not only for today but for the research that will drive the innovation of tomorrow. Currently, not all patient data is digitised or shareable. Records do not always follow the patient. Information is often duplicated, delayed or not available when most needed. Although we hope that the single patient record and Health Data Research Service will respond to that challenge, the key will be patient trust.
First, recent events that have been mentioned, such as the UK Biobank incident, have shown how fragile public confidence can be when governance and, outside that, cyber security, are not watertight. How does the Minister’s department intend to address the problem of researchers downloading patient data to work in less secure environments, sharing it on sites such as GitHub, or even perhaps selling or offering to sell it—they did not actually sell it—as we saw? Secondly, can the Minister tell the House whether organisations and individuals accessing patient data for research will be required to meet minimum cyber security standards? Thirdly, how will they address the concerns of civil liberties organisations such as medConfidential, which have found UK Biobank’s response less than reassuring? At this point, I should also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for his reassuring points on that particular incident.
Nowhere is the need to get this right clearer than in dementia, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said. It is the leading cause of death in the UK, affecting individuals, families and the economy. A recent Alzheimer’s Research UK report tells us that the UK has world-class medical science, major data resources, early-phase trial capability and a trusted regulatory environment, but that progress is constrained by weaknesses in data co-ordination and implementation. Without high-quality data and interoperable systems, researchers and clinicians cannot identify patients early, recruit them into trials, evaluate new diagnostics or scale treatments across health and social care. This is not a technical detail; it is a foundation on which meaningful progress to diagnose and treat dementia will stand or fail. Will the Minister tell the House whether her department has considered how to connect existing initiatives so that dementia data is linked, accessible and usable for research?
Real progress will depend on confidence: from clinicians that systems help rather than hinder, from patients that their data is secure, and from the wider public that data governance is transparent, proportionate and accountable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this debate and on his acknowledgement of the importance of patient data to research and of what the Government have done to date. I also thank noble Lords for their very thoughtful and informed contributions. I very much understand the point about trust, which has been made several times. We will come back to that, but I want to assure all noble Lords of the understanding that it is not always whether people have distrust because of something factual; if they feel distrustful, that in itself is a challenge for us.
We have some of the richest health data in the world, thanks to our diverse population and because we have an NHS that has supported and cared for us for some 78 years; we are fortunate indeed. It is the case that patient data drives life-saving discoveries. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke very personally to that point, and I know many noble Lords could also draw on their personal experience to do so. It helps us to understand disease and to develop new treatments, many of which we could never have dreamed of.
This is also essential to improving the nation’s health and prosperity; it is key to our life sciences sector, and to creating jobs, driving investment and powering innovation. Ensuring that benefits flow back to patients and the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked for, is also, I agree, essential. That is why we have published a value-sharing framework for NHS data, and also why we will charge organisations for access.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Davies, who asked about an oversight body, that the confidentiality advisory group is the independent oversight body; I feel that is probably what he seeks. It decides whether confidential patient data can be used for research without individual consent. As many noble Lords have acknowledged, we all know that people do want their patient data to be used for research, but I completely agree that this trust is conditional on our keeping the data secure and making that known.
We are committed to moving from a system of data sharing, in which copies of people’s data are sent to researchers, to a system of data access by default, using secure data environments. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke to this very point. Perhaps I can give some further outline and further reassurances and pick up a number of the questions. On any key questions that I cannot answer because of time, I will be glad to write to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, said that NHS England now uses secure data environments—SDEs—as the default route for accessing data for research. Its network brings together around 300 local and regional datasets that were not available previously. The Health Data Research Service—HDRS—will build on that foundation by developing a much clearer route into the system and more consistent processes. That is important more broadly because, although investment in secure data environments had begun previously, and services were being established, we are now taking the system from where it was—as has been said, it was somewhat fragmented—to a coherent approach. I can say to your Lordships’ House that a simpler, safer and more accountable set-up is where we will get to by the end of this Parliament.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Weir, last year we commenced powers to allow us to mandate information standards and to create binding rules across both GPs and trusts. Yes, there is more work to do, but I think that sets us absolutely in the right place. There are some examples of very good practice. We can look to Greater Manchester, where they have linked GP and hospital data. This is not commonplace, because it is GPs who currently decide, on a practice-by-practice basis, how their patient data are used. We are currently running a programme of national engagement with GPs on the use of patient data, and we will use that to work with GPs and other primary care professionals to improve the use of GP data in the future. Our new guidance on enabling safe access to UK human genomic data demonstrates that we expect human genomic data to be accessed through secure data environments—and, I would emphasise, only by approved researchers.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Gill that we have to act swiftly and robustly where things go wrong. Of course, we minimise that possibility, but we have to be realistic.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for setting out the facts on Biobank, to which my noble friend Lord Davies also referred. I will not repeat the points he made, because I share his analysis.
On the federated data platform, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that it is not used for research; it supports NHS operations and direct care. This means that opting out of sharing your health data for research and planning will not stop your data being used by the FDP to support your care. That is an important reassurance to those who wish to opt out of sharing their health data. As I mentioned, the FDP contract will be reviewed ahead of the February 2027 break clause.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that the issue of gaining and maintaining trust is key. That means giving people meaningful choices over their data. So, following public engagement, we are reforming how people can opt out of having their data used for planning and research, and making it clearer and simpler, so that they do not feel bound should they not wish to participate.
As noble Lords have said, it is true that people generally support the use of patient data when they understand who is using it, why it is being used and for what purpose. I accept that awareness remains low, so we have to be transparent about its purpose, as well as maintain strong safeguards and involve the public in decision-making.
On the safeguards about which I have spoken, we want to make it easier for legitimate researchers to access data. The Sudlow review described just how long it can take for approved researchers to access health data. That is an issue. So, through the NIHR, we are investing around £1.7 million a year in research and research infrastructure. Alongside that, the NHS data and analytics academy is developing the workforce of data engineers, analysts and other specialists we need, as per the point of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in order to turn this into better treatments and care.
Our NIHR reforms mean that clinical trials are being set up some 47 days faster than last year. But we want to go further and faster, which is why we have established the HDRS. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that the question of dementia research will indeed be one for the HDRS.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, asked about HDRS. Processes will indeed be streamlined. On the matter of funding, I say to him that the future funding model is to be developed and we certainly will take into account the patients and the public. I am sure that is something we will want to develop further.
This has been a helpful debate. We are moving towards a coherent strategy. A number of other questions were raised, including from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and others, and I will be glad to follow up on those. For now, I hope this will take us forward and that we can all move to using patient data to better manage how we provide our health services.
Home Owners and Home Ownership
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Eaton
That this House takes note of home owners and levels of home ownership.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I open this debate with both a sense of history and a sense of urgency. For generations, across parties and across social classes, the desire to own one’s own home has been one of the most powerful and consistent aspirations in our national life. It has shaped communities, underpinned family stability and helped to create the social and economic resilience on which a civilised society depends. It is not a narrow economic goal, but a means for profound social good. Yet today, for too many people, especially the young and those on modest incomes, home ownership feels less like a realistic ambition and more like a distant dream. I want this afternoon to remind the House why this aspiration matters so deeply and to highlight how recent government policies, sometimes by design and sometimes by neglect, are undermining it. I hope to suggest how we might adopt a more hopeful and practical approach.
Home ownership is not simply about bricks and mortar; it is about roots, belonging, agency and responsibility. Families who own their own homes are more likely to invest in their neighbourhoods, voluntary groups and civic life. Children enjoy greater stability with deeper ties to schools, friendship networks and community support. People are better protected against economic shocks and the insecurity of short-term tenancies and sudden rent increases. We know from decades of experience that home ownership can be a ladder of opportunity, enabling families of modest means to build an asset over time, support retirement, help the next generation and weather life’s storms.
However, the wider context is deeply troubling. Home ownership in England now stands at 65%, broadly unchanged for over a decade but well below the peak of 71% in 2003. Affordability has deteriorated dramatically. The average home now costs 7.6 times average earnings, compared with around four times average earnings at the turn of the millennium. In London the ratio is over 10:1. For young people, the picture is even starker. The average deposit for a first-time buyer is now £78,000, with the median still an eye-watering £36,500. Deposits have grown to the point where they are worth more than a year’s salary for many. The average age of a first-time buyer has risen from 31 to 34, and the proportion of under-25s entering the market has collapsed from 25% in the 1990s to just 6% today. More than half of first-time buyers now need two incomes to purchase a home. Surveys show that while 75% of renters aspire to own, around 60% believe they will never be able to afford to do so. That is not aspiration; it is despair.
These pressures are compounded by the Government’s economic decisions. Youth unemployment has reached 16%—higher than during the pandemic—and rental reforms have reduced supply, driving rents upwards. High rents make saving for a deposit harder, trapping families who could afford a mortgage but cannot reach the starting line. Under the previous Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through Help to Buy and stamp duty relief, yet since Help to Buy ended major developers have reported a nearly 50% fall in first-time buyers. This is simply not sustainable or a fair model for a country that believes in social mobility.
The supply side tells a similar story. The Government pledged 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, yet in their first year they delivered just 208,600 net additional dwellings, a fall from the previous year and far short of what is required. On current trends, they will miss their target by 400,000 homes. Worse still, the new mandatory housing targets shift responsibility away from cities and on to our rural communities, cutting housing numbers in London, Birmingham and Coventry while imposing huge increases on rural authorities. This is not a serious plan for meeting demand. It is a political redistribution of targets.
Taxation policy is also central to this debate. Stamp duty has become a significant barrier to home ownership. Conservative Governments recognised its distorting effect and acted to limit the damage, including during the pandemic, but the current Government have cut first-time buyer stamp duty relief and now preside over a system that slows the market, penalises mobility and reduces affordability. The housing Select Committee concluded earlier this year:
“Stamp Duty Land Tax … puts barriers in front of people seeking to buy a new home … and … damages the economy”.
It is simply an unfair tax and yet another hurdle for individuals trying to get on the housing ladder.
Meanwhile, Labour’s Social Housing Bill downgrades right to buy, one of the most successful Conservative policies of the past half century that brought more than two million people into ownership and delivered measurable social benefits. Labour’s reforms raise the minimum tenancy period to 10 years, exclude new homes for 35 years and slash discounts. These changes do not expand opportunity, but restrict it.
For those who have managed to buy, the leasehold system remains fraught with unfair charges. Progress on reform has been slow and partial, leaving families trapped in unsaleable homes and undermining confidence in new-build flats.
Taken together, these trends paint a deeply discouraging picture. Home ownership is becoming simply a distant prospect for too many. If we are to honour the aspiration of home ownership, we need a coherent, long-term strategy, stable planning, fair taxation, well-designed support schemes and robust leasehold reform. Above all, we need a clear statement of principle that home ownership is a public good that we actively wish to promote.
When we debate home ownership, we debate the kind of country we wish to be: a country where a young couple with steady jobs can reasonably expect to buy a home or a country where they find themselves permanently locked out, paying ever-higher rents with little prospect of ownership. Government policies either support that aspiration or undermine it. Too often in recent years they have done the latter. We must renew a balanced housing system in which the aspiration to own is respected, supported and attainable. If we fail, we erode not just economic opportunity, but a key element of our national story: the belief that through work, saving and contribution, a secure home can be achieved.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, on securing this debate because for a generation across Britain the dream of owning a home has felt entirely out of reach. It is not because they lack ambition but because they have been trapped in an adversarial stop-start system designed to benefit speculators rather than communities.
Having led housing organisations providing both social housing and homes for sale right here in London, I know first-hand the delicate balance needed to make a city liveable. I know that a healthy city needs mixed-tenure communities where social rent, private sale and affordable home ownership co-exist seamlessly. Our mission must be to structurally rewrite the rules of British housing to enable those families and others who want to transition out of renting permanently to do so.
To understand how this Government are addressing this, look at how buyers were locked out. First, there was the deposit wall. Lenders routinely pulled high loan-to-value options during economic dips, meaning a young couple could work hard and save diligently only to find the goalposts moved overnight under the previous Government. I welcome that this Government solved this by launching the Freedom to Buy scheme, transforming a temporary set-up into a permanent government-backed guarantee. By removing the risk for high-street banks, we changed lending behaviour. Lenders now confidently offer 95% mortgages through all market cycles, meaning that if you can afford the monthly payments, a 5% deposit is permanently enough to secure your foundation.
But fixing finance does nothing if buyers are left competing for non-existent supply. For a decade, the “why” behind the lack of houses was local political paralysis. Councils routinely bowed to pressure and scrapped housebuilding targets, choking the market. We broke that logjam by immediately reinstating mandatory housing targets and aggressively streamlining the planning rulebook through the updated National Planning Policy Framework. By introducing brownfield passports and opening underused grey belt land, we have removed the bureaucratic vetoes to clear the path for 1.5 million new homes.
This Government are addressing the supply issue too. We have changed who gets new housing by establishing local priority windows. We have blocked overseas investors from buying up entire developments off-plan, ensuring that those new keys go to local families first. This is especially critical for our key workers—the nurses, teachers and first responders who keep our country running but are routinely priced out of communities they serve. For many of them, shared ownership was supposed to be the safety net but let us be honest about what has happened to it: high interest rates and volatile service charges have left many shared owners struggling.
In response to this, the Government have injected new protections through the social and affordable homes programme. We have tightened regulations around optional fees, enforcing greater transparency on costs and backing the new Shared Ownership Code to protect buyers from financial hardship. We are also reforming the model so that it serves as a sustainable staircase to 100% ownership, not a dead end.
Yet solving this crisis is not just about pouring new concrete or tweaking intermediate tenures; it is about better utilising all the homes that we already have. Right now, there are thousands of older citizens living alone in large multi-bedroom family houses who want to move closer to their children, grandchildren or wider family. They want a home that is easier to manage, but the heavy financial friction of moving stops them.
I urge the Minister to look at targeted initiatives that the Government can prepare to help older home owners to right-size. There is data—from the Radix Big Tent housing commission’s landmark Resizing Rightsizing report—that indicates that nearly half of those over the age of 65 find the current stamp duty rates an active barrier to moving. This effectively locks up an estimated 870,000 underused homes across the UK. If we want to bring family-sized properties back into the active supply chain for the next generation, without laying a single brick, I ask the Minister to consider a tailored scheme that will help them to unlock a massive hidden housing supply.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my noble friend on securing it and on setting a good tone of hope and practicality, as she said, where we can talk about the type of country that we want to be. There are three things I wish to raise. The first is a more general point. I am always struck by how many people in this country care passionately about all aspects of housing and growth. We should surely acknowledge that as a healthy sign. For those of us who want growth, we should, however, look at doing things differently, and articulate a clearer vision that faces the facts and comes up with solutions. In these debates—and you may hear it today—I sometimes get exasperated when hearing the terms “nimby” or “yimby” being thrown around. Too often, it belittles the debate and oversimplifies views.
Broadly speaking, people want development. Last year, polling from Public First showed that 55% of the population are in favour of development in their area and, for many who do have concerns, that does not translate automatically into a total rejection of new housing. We greenies should not instantly object to growth and development, because you can do both. Last year, I visited a development in Aylesbury where they are delivering some 2,500 homes, yet biodiversity has flourished simply by planning to put nature and development together from the outset.
While I am always delighted to see them, I am particularly glad to see my Chief Whip and leader on the Front Bench today. I never tire of thanking them for giving me the privilege of chairing the Built Environment Select Committee here in your Lordships’ House. Most recently, as the Minister knows all too well, we have been talking about new towns. This great endeavour has bedevilled many a Government, but the Minister knows better than many that, if done properly, they can create a lasting positive legacy.
Our committee’s second report on new towns focused on making sure we can create strong communities. Some will say that we just need to build homes, but what those homes look like matters—they need to become places and communities where people want to live and that they want to take care of. To be fair, I would say developers want to build homes that people love and that will stand the test of time. We did a recent report about how to get the views of younger people embedded in the whole process, from education through to employment and through consultations. If we begin to combine this with doing other things differently—such as better ways of engaging, and ensuring people see the uplift locally by making sure Section 106 and CIL payments are being delivered, and looking at why on earth major infrastructure projects like HS2 take so long and cost so much—then I think we can begin to make a difference and change the tone of the debate. Optimism or “cakeism” alone is not enough, and you cannot satisfy everyone. There must be some trade-off, and of course there are challenges. But it is our job as politicians to take them on, to fix the issues we face and own this agenda.
Secondly, I was in Downing Street under Prime Minister Johnson; we accomplished some great things on supply-side reforms, and in my view we should have carried on. I confess that, while I still have reservations about the Planning Act and how it will work, I think that the new NPPF, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, was just mentioning, should be welcomed. To give confidence and clarity, it would still be good to hear more detail about where exactly these well-connected stations are.
If we look at the market right now, we have about 1.4 million homes sitting with approval yet waiting for work to commence. That is not to say we should reverse the policy to unlock land, but the debate should move on to the demand side. The Minister will perhaps say later that the Government will not set out the detail now, but I hope that, in the upcoming Autumn Statement, there will be a lot more on helping first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder, which will hopefully kick-start the wider housing market beyond first-time buyers. If we look at what previous Governments have done, this area is a rare opportunity for government to step in and have a positive impact. What we did with Help to Buy, for example, when we were in government, had a net benefit to the Treasury, fired up the sector and helped get more than 300,000 first-time buyers over the line.
Finally, I will briefly comment on the capital. I briefly worked in City Hall, and sometimes when I speak in these debates it feels a bit like a reunion—particularly when I see my noble friend Lady O’Neill, a good friend, on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord John, opposite. I worked in City Hall for a few years after the crash, and I came to make London my home. As a northerner who made it his home, I can say that Samuel Johnson remains right: if you are tired of London, you are tired of life—it does have everything. However, there are challenges, and they are stark. There is the tragedy of families and children in temporary accommodation, and there are issues relating to the cost of rent, lack of social housing and supply not meeting demand, which are driving those less able to afford the costs out of the city. A fascinating yet sobering recent report from the Centre for London sets out the scale of the problem, as well as measures to tackle the plethora of issues at play that are:
“Touching the lives of almost every Londoner”.
In that vein, given that this is not a single issue but one requiring a much broader response, do the Government recognise this complexity? Is work taking place to develop a different and more comprehensive package of solutions? This is a vital debate beyond simply building homes. It is not something that has gone awry overnight, but there is a huge opportunity here to not just increase home ownership but create jobs and growth, do things differently and get people more involved in society.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, in this short contribution, I will stress just one point. But first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Eaton on procuring this debate. I take the opportunity to thank her for her copious contributions to the House and for the many years of service she has given to local government.
I grew up with my mother and brother in my grandmother’s house. Ours was not possible to live in due to bomb activity during the war, so when I married, you can imagine the thrill of my husband and me about owning our own home. Early in our marriage, many years ago, we had a painter and decorator named Mr Brown—who was always called “Mr Brown”. He was a rather testy figure, particularly where his young assistant was concerned. One day, he told me that no one in his family had ever owned their home, and he was nervous about doing so. I suggested he talk to my husband, a solicitor, after which he took the plunge. Ever after that, he repeatedly told me that my husband had given him the best advice he had ever had. He was a proud owner and certainly made his home his castle. It mattered to him, as he felt he had a stake in society.
Home ownership is always popular with the public. I remember the excitement when the right to buy was introduced, giving those who rented from local authorities the right to buy their council houses. It was remarkable how soon those houses looked different, as the owners cared for them and brightened them up. Some 65% of people now own their homes, but I hope we can find ways to increase that level of ownership. I hope the Government will realise the damage that has been done by their attitude to stamp duty. The value of properties today means that the deposits needed have increased dramatically, making the chance of owning your own home seem almost impossible. I believe it is a noble ambition to try to give future generations an opportunity to buy their own homes, and we have a responsibility to make it happen.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, before I start, I remind the House of my interests in this area, as a partner in Quoin Partners and as the chair of H4Life. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for bringing this debate, because it has prompted me to really think about the philosophical question of why we truly value home ownership. I commend her and all those who have made contributions so far.
As a child of the Thatcher era, I suppose I grew up thinking that the gold standard for one’s housing was home ownership. Over the past 40 years, we have also seen housing become an increasingly prudent investment vehicle: the equity in your house is your wealth. I have been a beneficiary of this thinking, seeing my £72,000 first home, a one-bedroom flat in Bermondsey, as the financial foundation for my current, fortunately mortgage-free, home. Home ownership has historically provided both housing security and financial security for those fortunate enough to have been part of that generation buying their homes since the 1980s. However, of those two, it must be right that we focus our attention on housing security. Now it seems that the era of ever-upwards house price inflation is on pause, so we have to look at pensions, savings and investments to act as the financial growth vehicles which recently we tended to look to our homes to provide.
If the most vital importance of home ownership is housing security, how can we as a society best replicate that security outside of ownership? How can we ensure that people who do not own their own homes still feel invested in and part of their communities? I should add that one of the drivers of Mrs Thatcher’s policy of right to buy, which has been discussed today, was the belief that people would take greater pride in, and care of, their homes if they owned them. Initially, that seemed to be true. However, as a consequence of the right to buy, we have seen some instances of the fracturing of those communities, such as in my experience in Southwark, as some of the first-generation right to buyers moved on and their properties became buy-to-let housing. The point I am making is that home ownership has not always demonstrated itself as the only way to achieve housing security in settled and safe communities.
This Labour Government’s Renters’ Rights Act makes a very positive contribution towards the housing security I have been talking about, with the overdue end of no-fault evictions. I well remember a conversation with a facilities management worker at Southwark about 10 years ago, where he told me that the following week his daughter would be five and that for each of her five years she had lived in a different home. They had had the misfortune that, every year, their landlord would serve an eviction notice and relet the property at a much higher rent which he simply could not afford. He asked me what I could do to help. Sadly, it took the Renters’ Rights Act to provide that help a decade later.
I would not argue that home ownership is not a valuable source of housing security. With that in mind, it is perverse that we live in a world in which someone renting for many years and paying significantly more in rent than they would on a mortgage for the same property, and having demonstrated that ability and reliability to pay over a long period, remains shut out of the home ownership market because their income, even if multiplied by five, does not equate to the purchase price of the home they are living in. Why is that the case? In trying to cure the failures of the subprime market from 2008-09, we allowed a banking and lending system to be created which too often seems to work against the interests of the public and which bears a great deal of responsibility for public disaffection with the system or the establishment. The banks were seen to get away with their failures, and the people who were punished were the Great British public, who found it harder to get a loan and impossible to get a mortgage.
What more can be done to radically rethink the approach that the banks and lenders take to those who could meet a mortgage rather than a rental liability? Essentially, whether we see an increase or decrease in home ownership in coming years—I accept that the factors influencing that are many and varied—we need to ensure that housing security is the gold standard for everyone, not just those fortunate enough to be able to buy.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for introducing this debate so ably. I declare my interest as a director of a company that has carried out a very small development—and as a home owner.
As we have heard, home is more than an investment or a place; it is one’s sanctuary. A home is more than bricks and mortar. It encompasses general surroundings, community and neighbourhood. Where we live has an effect on our mental well-being and health. As the old adage goes, an Englishman’s home is his castle. As we have heard, home ownership has been a long-held aspiration in this country, more so than for our colleagues on the continent, who have a tendency towards a rental culture. Much of the recent home ownership debate has centred on numbers of houses, but it is much more than this. Most of us value a home by what it looks like, where it is and other factors.
You so often hear how housebuilding has fallen behind in recent years, so I was really interested to read in the briefing notes that we were given by the House that housebuilding kept up with the population until 2021. While current ownership data suggests that home ownership here is at a fairly constant level, it has never been easy for first-time buyers to get on the ladder, and it has got progressively more difficult. House prices are rising, and the average ratio of prices to earnings of 7.63 is higher than the five times average affordability benchmark used by the ONS.
I think we all agree that we need to do more to help younger people get on to the housing ladder, and that means we need to build more houses. However, just applying a sticking plaster of mass building is not the answer. We should also address the causes. Some is due to the huge influx of people into this country. Also, for many years we have allowed people from all over the world to buy properties in central London, pushing prices beyond affordability for most British people—thus doughnutting our capital city of its settled population. Do the Government have figures on this? How will they enable more British people to buy in their own capital city? The effect of this is rippling out around the surrounding counties.
We are the custodians of this country, with its beautiful old towns and villages and an outstandingly lovely countryside. Yes, we need more housing, but it is important that we do not spoil what we have and that new housing is sensitively done in the small rural towns and villages where small numbers of extra houses are needed. We need beautiful housing built in a way that harmonises with the existing community. We need to encourage and facilitate local builders who will build a few houses and are invested in their neighbourhoods. We should make it easier for people to build just one house or two houses. The report Building Homes Better by the Housing Forum recently highlighted:
“Government policy has prioritised growth in housing delivery”
over quality, and documented “poor-quality workmanship” and falling customer satisfaction levels.
Housing should be a long-term asset. We should be building beautiful, not adding to what Roger Scruton called the uglification of the UK, driven by utilitarian modern architecture, corporate greed and a cultural rejection of traditional beauty. We are seeing this too often in the developments going up around the country—often big, unsightly developments inappropriately tacked on to and spoiling small villages. Have we yet implemented the statutory requirements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 for LPAs to prepare design codes? If not, why not?
In discussions about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last year, it was identified that there were 1.2 million brownfield sites, around half a million planning permissions given and over 300,000 empty neglected houses that could be refurbished. We need to end the practice of development companies land banking planning permissions until prices rise. It is perfectly possible to meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million houses without encroaching on greenfield sites.
The planning Bill also introduced grey belt, citing examples of disused petrol stations and abandoned car parks as sites in the green belt that could be released for development. However, new research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England reveals that the Government’s grey-belt policy is paving the way for large-scale development on England’s unspoilt rural landscape. What are the Government going to do to stop the misuse of this policy and erosion of genuine green belt?
Before I close, I would like to raise an issue that I have spoken about before. Under human rights law, we are entitled to live without our property being interfered with. The party wall Act cuts across this. This can result in damage to adjoining houses and, in some rare cases, houses have collapsed. I declare that I have been a recipient of three party wall notices in the last four years. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, tried to put forward a Private Member’s Bill in 2016 to address aspects of this. I have tabled some Written Questions about this, and the Government said they would engage with stakeholders and the public to gather insights and explore ways to improve its implementation. During the passage of the planning Bill last year, I tabled some amendments. I understood that the Minister said she would meet further to discuss this, so I hope she will not mind me asking whether we can meet, and not before too long.
To conclude, of course we need to help young people to be able to buy their own homes, but in doing so we must ensure that this is not at the detriment of present home owners and existing communities, and that we continue to preserve our countryside.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, on securing this debate. She set out very eloquently the benefits of home ownership, and I do not need to dwell on them again. We know what they are, and I am sure most of us agree with them: the stability it gives and the stake in society and in your local area that it provides—we all saw the socially transformative effects of the council house sales programme in the 1980s.
We can all agree on that. The problem is: how do you deliver home ownership in modern conditions? We need to achieve it. We need an effectively functioning housing market that is capable of providing housing where people want to live, at affordable prices. At the moment we simply do not have that in this country, and we have not had it for quite a long time.
Much government policy over the last 20, 40 or even 70 years—it depends where you start—has been going in the opposite direction. Obviously, this all began with the Town and Country Planning Act and the green-belt policy that first came in in the 1950s and has expanded since then. But a lot of the real damage was done in the 1990s and afterwards, with the huge rise in stamp duty that has persisted, and the constant green and environmental restrictions on what can be built, how it can be built, where you can build, the style in which you can build, and so on and so forth. To mitigate all this, successive Governments have engaged in price manipulation, such as the so-called affordable housing scheme—subsidised housing, really. Of course, we have had the latest wave of restrictions on tall buildings, specifically in London, that has brought housebuilding almost to zero. We have had the war on renters across successive Governments that has also destroyed rental stock.
This has taken us to a position in which we have a planning process where there are simply too many blockers in the process to get the job done. We have the absurd situation that the green belt now is actually bigger than the developed area of the country. It is quite an unusual belt that is bigger than the area it is trying to constrain, and it is certainly constraining the growth of our cities and towns pretty effectively. Prices are of course super high as a result of all this.
It is worth pausing for a moment to contrast the situation in this country with that of other European countries, which are of course our nearest comparators. It is true that the UK is a fairly small and dense country, and England even more so. However, there are European comparators, and the story is not particularly flattering. Belgium is a country I know well. It still has a lot of natural beauty of all kinds and is only slightly less dense in population than England is. Of course, the Netherlands is significantly more dense.
Here in England, we have 430 dwellings for every 1,000 in the population, in the Netherlands there are 490 and in Belgium there are 500. Our dwellings are also the smallest in Europe. If we want to give English people the same housing opportunities as those in Belgium and the Netherlands—and that is a reasonable aim—we will have to build 2.8 million houses just to catch up with just the Dutch, 3.6 million to catch up with the Belgians, and 4.5 million if we aim for the European average. That is simply to catch up, not to deal with any of the social changes or trends that are currently driving the problem.
We have to face up to this reality. Much of the current debate on this question—not just today but generally—is about trying to avoid this reality and the belief that we can somehow have more houses without changing any of these rules: the magical Tardis-like powers of the brownfield in cities that can supposedly accommodate everything we need. We have a policy that appears designed to maintain the economic geography of the 1950s and 1960s and never allow villages to merge or towns to grow. We have the belief that people can be made to live where the houses are, rather than the other way around, and we have an endless circular debate about social, council and affordable housing—we have one of the biggest sectors in Europe, of course—all of which is avoiding the problem.
The Government deserve a bit of credit for the planning Act and for the latest plan, but the solution is not driving the current system to work harder, and still less is it, as some have suggested, to allocate housing to favoured categories of workers. It is not about telling people they need to rightsize and that they are somehow occupying the wrong kind of house. It is about freeing up the system and trying to generate a real housing market with incentives to build, invest and grow, but we are simply not achieving that.
I fear we are heading to a social and economic crisis if we do not look this hard in the face and realise we have to do some things that many of us do not particularly like. We have to give opportunities to our young people to settle and to have houses, as we did. We need to get serious about this.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue of home ownership and the Government’s record on housing delivery. I will focus on one or two areas. One is about family housing, the other is about the current housing crisis and supply and demand, and a few practical solutions to the current malaise.
I will not rehearse the comments I made at Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill on 1 June. Suffice it to say that there is little evidence that the Government understand the need to support more home ownership for families and have failed to address, via regulatory policy or legislative changes, the economic and social impact of falling birth rates. What we saw in that Bill was a spiteful ideological assault on right to buy, which will be all but scrapped by raising the required tenancy length and eligibility and reducing the discount to 5%, which will lock 600,000 potential householders out of the scheme. A future Government will and should reverse this pernicious and incoherent policy.
There is no doubt that the Government’s housing record is lamentable. Nationally, housebuilding starts are at a 12-year low. There were 261,000 housing starts in the last 18 months, compared to the implied target in the Labour Party manifesto of 525,000. Bloomberg predicts a shortfall of between 90,000 and 100,000 starts each year between 2026 and 2029.
The situation under Mayor Khan in London is even worse—indeed, it is dire. In quarter 1 of 2026, 6,325 homes were started, just 7% of the mayor’s target. Some 22,000 homes are unsold or under construction. There is no way that the Government’s annual target, which is broadly supported on both sides, will be achieved to meet their 1.5 million homes aspiration. Are we surprised, given the Government’s mishandling of the economy? We have the highest energy costs in Europe, and there are labour shortages and increased inflationary pressures on materials. Higher national insurance contributions, a higher minimum wage, rising taxes, increased borrowing and mortgage rates have all contributed to and exacerbated what Savills has described as a “particularly gloomy” outlook for the housing sector.
On the supply side, the Government’s planning reforms are, to be fair, a small step forward in the right direction, but no more than that. I welcome some aspects of the revised NPPF. Under the NPPF changes, faster infrastructure consent was brought into force in August. There was a redesignation of low-quality green belt and a focus on brownfield and transit land sites, but it is simply not enough to overcome the inherent viability squeeze on new building sites. Planning hold-ups, long decision times, biodiversity rules, nutrient and water neutrality conditions, infrastructure levies, tighter building standards and the forthcoming building safety levy—due later this year—all mean that land which is viable and buildable on paper cannot and will not be developed profitably. The Government should address that.
In addition, we have one of the highest levels of affordable housing targets in the western world. It is much higher than most of the developed world. That means that sites are land banked and lie idle and undeveloped. We need to look at this 40% to 50% figure again, because it is not delivering housing that we need.
The Government have also failed to look at demand. Only 27% of tenants in social rented accommodation are in work, so the Government intend to borrow £39 billion for their social and affordable homes programme to build more properties to warehouse welfare—a direct capital transfer from business, working people and pension funds to the workless, who will continue to receive benefits. This is economically insane and unsustainable. Immigration and welfare are integral to better housing policy. We must look again at prioritising working families and young people. It is a badge of shame that in 2021, over 100,000 social lettings in London were held by foreign-born tenants. It is indefensible and offends against fairness, efficient resource allocation and social equity, and it is a breach of the social contract. The figure is 12% across the whole of the UK.
In conclusion, a future Conservative Government—or, indeed, perhaps even a Reform Government—should cut taxes for SME builders, which suffered so grievously in the downturn in 2008-09. We must reduce regulations; establish a sovereign wealth fund to build new houses; give priority to families, married couples, veterans and young working people; restore right-to-buy eligibility post ante; and relaunch the coalition Government’s very successful new homes bonus policy. The present Government’s anaemic policy response will do nothing to tackle this grievous housing crisis and build enough homes. Much more radical change is needed.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I start by reminding your Lordships of my declaration of interest: I am a vice-president of London Councils and a co-owner of a rental property in Bexley.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Eaton on securing this debate. It is an important subject, and I know she feels as passionately about it as I do. We recently had some conversations about home ownership as part of the Social Housing Bill debate. I hope that this debate will allow expansion of that discussion, especially around the value of right to buy and the potential of the shared ownership model.
Contrary to some of the comments from the Government, we should recognise that right to buy council properties gave opportunity to many who would not otherwise have had that chance. Many were on low incomes. It afforded them the aspiration to be a home owner. Ownership did not go without benefits to their communities and, contrary to what is often suggested, the majority of tenants who bought continued to live in those properties and raise their families. If they had not bought under the scheme, they would likely have remained council tenants.
It was noticeable that one of the first things that many of them did was to install a new front door. I am sure that most of us saw that when we were out canvassing. I do not know why that was so important, but it seemed to be the first action that most former tenants did when they transferred to being a home owner. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, the sense of pride in those who bought through right to buy did not stop there. They got more involved in their surroundings and their community. That benefited others, as well as what was happening within their property.
There were other benefits as well. Research says that the children of people who bought under right to buy did better in schools. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Jamieson will remind the House that receipts could be used to build additional social housing. Ownership through right to buy benefited many people and it is such a shame that the Government are looking to water it down.
Moving on to shared ownership, as we discussed during the Social Housing Bill, shared ownership can also allow some to get a foot on the property ladder who would not do so otherwise. This often includes the key workers whom we all depend on to run our vital services on a daily basis. However, as we heard during the social housing debate, there can be issues with the current offer around service charges, legal costs and sales. I thank the Government for agreeing to a review and hope that any change brought forward through that review will make the offer more attractive to potential purchasers.
Right to buy and shared ownership can help people who want to buy their own home. However, for the vast majority of those who are looking to buy, there are many other barriers, some of which have already been identified. The first, of course, is affordability. The average cost of buying a property now is out of the reach of many, and the multiple of salary, size of deposit or length of mortgage can be eye-watering. Many cannot access the bank of mum and dad, and the cost of private rental often means that they are unable to save the required deposit.
Often, the cost of private rental is higher than a mortgage payment might be. The previous Conservative Government’s help-to-buy scheme and saving schemes helped many first-time buyers. There is now a gap in that support. The Minister did say that conversations were being held with banks and building societies to come up with some more attractive products. Maybe she can share some of that information with us this afternoon.
Stamp duty is another barrier—one reason why our party is promising to look at that and take action. It is not only expensive but can stop people accessing the housing market. They might not buy that starter flat with a view to moving into a bigger home, or it might discourage those considering downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family accommodation.
Another barrier to home ownership is availability of the right type of properties, whether that be starter homes, flats and apartments for those commuting, student accommodation, family accommodation, supported living or properties for those wishing to downsize. While it is important to build, it is also vital to consider the types of homes that are being built to ensure that need is met. It is also worth considering the knock-on impact to other public sector services if that does not happen.
Nobody is suggesting that home ownership is right for everyone or that it is the only type of accommodation, but we should definitely recognise the benefits it can bring.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for having brought before the House. Home ownership matters, and the decline in the number of people who are able to buy a home should be of concern to all of us. On that point, I suspect that there is more agreement than disagreement.
I begin with a personal matter and a personal perspective. I grew up in a high-rise council flat, my grandparents lived in a council house, my uncles and aunts lived in council houses, and, in the community where I grew up, that was entirely normal. Owning your own home felt like an unattainable dream. Then, in the early 1990s, after a lifetime of hard work—and I really do mean hard work, with multiple jobs and lots of saving—my mum was able to buy our family home through the right to buy scheme. Whatever view noble Lords take of this policy, and I am sure there are differing views across the House, it was transformative for working people.
The shame, of course, was that some of the receipts were not able to be reinvested into other homes. I just want to put on record that it did not turn all of us into Tory voters, as was an ambition of the programme. But it was transformative: it gave us our own front door, security and the feeling that we were finally set up for life. It also—I do not think we understood this at the time—turned out to be a defining moment for the generations that followed.
It turns out that home ownership, as has already been discussed, is not simply about having a property; it is a way of passing security and opportunity from one generation to the next. It also showed that it was possible to work hard and, because of your own efforts and a helping hand from the state, change the trajectory of your life. That is why some recent research from Cambridge University was so sobering and spoke so loudly to me. It found—this is hardening and lengthening and has taken place over the last decades—that housing wealth and home ownership are increasingly linked to parental home ownership and parental education, even after taking into account an individual’s own work and achievements. However hard you work, or save, or educate yourself, the thing that is most likely to determine whether you will go on to own your own home is whether your mum or dad did. This cannot be right. This is not about the bank of mum and dad; it is evidence that the housing ladder is increasingly becoming an inherited ladder.
We know the importance of firsts in working-class families: the first to travel abroad, to go to university, to own your own home. These milestones change horizons and expectations for those who follow. The danger is that, if fewer people become first-generation home owners, these advantages are increasingly concentrated within the same families over time, and that should trouble us. Home ownership should not be hereditary. As noble Lords know, on this side of this House we are not general enthusiasts for hereditary principles.
I am therefore delighted that Labour, after many years of policy neglect, has decided that it needs to tackle the issue of supply and build more homes. That is why Labour’s ambitious housing programme matters so much. Delivering 1.5 million homes is significant, but it is a difficult target, which can be achieved only through a pragmatic, partnership-based approach to removing barriers. The Government have already shown a willingness to confront some of the difficult decisions and vested interests that previous Administrations have too often avoided, such as the grey-belt reforms, revised planning guidance, and measures to bring forward land around transport hubs for new developments that will help accelerate delivery. We know that progress will be hard and incremental and will probably involve setbacks, but I am proud of our ambition, purpose and desire to do this, because it is the most difficult thing.
Alongside supply, however, there are other practical routes into ownership that matter too. Housing associations, at their best, are not simply landlords. Through shared ownership, which has already been mentioned, and other affordable ownership projects, they help thousands of families take their first steps onto the housing ladder. Organisations such as Clarion demonstrate the important role housing associations can play in supporting aspiration and widening access to ownership. They can be transformative, but they need a review to make sure that they are opening access in the way that was intended, and that these are schemes to be proud of, not a burden to those who take them up. Housing associations have highlighted many challenges with the schemes, including thresholds to participation that have not kept pace with the challenges of rents and wages, and are keeping out the people who they were designed to help.
In addition, pressure needs to be applied and incentives developed to encourage innovation among mortgage lenders, helping them to develop new products and new ways of assessing risks that reflect the realities of how we live. I want to call out some of the great new products and some of the companies that are doing just that, such as Nationwide’s “helping hand” mortgage and Skipton Building Society’s “track record” mortgage. That means that if you have a track record of paying your rent on time, you are likely to pay your mortgage as well, and on the basis of that, it will lend you money. This is great, and is rooted in common sense. These are practical solutions that help creditworthy households overcome barriers to ownership, and they should be applauded.
The Opposition have brought this debate because they believe home ownership matters, and I agree with them. We should also agree that hard work should be the gateway to improvement, and that is not always the case right now. These things need to change, but that will not happen simply because we talk about it. It means planning reform. It means supporting development in places where too often it has been resisted. It means saying yes as well as no. It means welcoming developments and the people who live in them.
Although I welcome this debate, I ask the noble Lord opposite whether they will go beyond diagnosis and commentary, and help to support the remedies as well. The test is not whether we can agree that home ownership matters, but whether we will make the difficult decisions to make it happen. That is the challenge that this House faces, and I hope that we will find common cause in it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it is common ground that we need more homes, but this Government are going entirely the wrong way about it. We are on track to complete fewer new homes in this Parliament than in the last—a period that was disrupted by Covid and the strategic supply shocks unleashed by a European war. It is not hard to understand why we are failing, but to mask the failure to grow in our cities, impossible unachievable new targets have been set in the countryside, and have undermined the equity and collateral in the largest sites with the greatest entry costs. Any old orchard for a handful of homes has economic preference over the strategic allocations, which are being left to moulder. Yes, the five-year land supply is part of the problem, not the solution. New levies, fees and charges amount to between £30,000 and £40,000 for a new dwelling house, and I now learn that regulatory costs for high-rise flats amount to about £70,000—a real fiscal disincentive, borne disproportionately by the young and the first-time buyer making a start.
There are three elements to sustainability, but Natural England has been granted a veto on the creation of new homes in the largest parts of the country with the greatest housing potential—as if not building new homes is going to clean up our rivers. All those ecological and archaeological reports, which can only be done at certain times of the year, add delay, cost and increased risk. Failure to dot an “i” or cross a “t” means growth is postponed for a year by quangos acting as judge and jury in their own court, using the consent process as a make-work scheme for university chums and colleagues, while bricklayers, tilers, roofers and ground workers are put out of work. The Labour Party, which was established to represent the journeyman, has nothing to say to these people.
Only last week, the Home Builders Federation told me about the case of a small piece of ground suitable for nine homes that cost about £40,000, but was burdened with proposed biodiversity charges of over £200,000. That was before the madness of the nutrient neutrality levies. No wonder the developer walked away—no homes built there. Now there will be more mayoral taxes, and building safety levies in London—£90 a square metre in Fulham—are chilling our capital’s housing growth. The fiscal incontinence of this Government, unable to get spending under control, has led to the highest interest rates for two decades, which have killed off nearly all the small builders. Even the largest operators, public companies, are now struggling with the number of active sites, which is down 20% in London since this Government started.
Only this morning, the Times reports that worse is to come: 140 of the 166 developers operating in London are working on projects due to complete in 2027. Without a pipeline of work from 2028 onwards, the Times says they will “effectively exit London”. Of course, the Government try to blame councils for this sorry situation, but to find the culprits they just need to look in the mirror. This is their calamity.
Looking at the situation for families who have aspired to, and own, a stake in their own home, we have a Prime Minister who tells them that their land and property is not taxed enough; the politics of envy, and a mansion tax that falls on the old widow eking out a pension while living in a home bought generations ago; second home surcharges that are crashing the tourist economy of coastal communities; a resistance to addressing the injustice in the balance of power, and sharp practice, between shared-ownership owners and the RSLs, where the residents cop all the costs and the landlord gets off scot-free; and crazy stamp duty rates that damage labour market liquidity, trap people in their homes and discourage inward investment in our economy.
The Government are trying, of course, but their medicine is making the patient worse. Vibes alone will not build these homes. The new town programme is dead on arrival, not even going so far as to long list schemes with fast rail connections, grade-separated junctions and all the land assembled in the adopted plan, with the unanimous support of the local planning authority. It is just incompetent.
The emergency relaxations on high-rises in London will expire before they can do any good, so that is another three years wasted. On 1 January, the Government plan to implement even more taxes—on steel and cement. How many more burdens can the construction industry take? We have to call time on these delusions, because build costs have leapt while house prices have fallen. Can they not see the jeopardy here? Why would anybody want to catch a falling knife like this?
The property market is being taxed to death. Whether you are building, buying, selling, owning, renting or being a landlord, this Government are crushing aspiration while missing their own numeric manifesto target by miles. This matters because workers cannot move about, growing families cannot get on, the old cannot downsize and the young cannot upsize. Worst of all, the journeymen are being put out of work.
The economist Arthur Laffer, with whom I had dinner last night, says that you cannot tax yourself to success. But Britain is taxing itself to death, no more so than in building, construction and housebuilding, with a dogmatic whole-economy experiment on housing that is killing home ownership and aspiration. It is just not working.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, for which I am most thankful to my noble friend Lady Eaton. It is we on these Benches who have been and proudly remain the party of home ownership. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Paul, I declare that I was born in a council property, on a south Manchester council estate, which my parents had the good sense to buy in 1972 under the Conservative Government of Ted Heath. Unlike the noble Baroness, obviously, I became a Conservative.
We are committed to supporting first-time buyers specifically to help home ownership to become a reality, especially for younger generations. Under the previous Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty relief. The lifetime ISA was also introduced to help young people save towards their first home. We understand the Government are seeking to introduce a new ISA scheme. Any assurances the Minister can give to existing lifetime ISA scheme users and clarity on how they will be affected, if at all, would be greatly appreciated. Savers should not be punished for doing the right thing. As for stamp duty relief, Labour let the threshold expire. My party has pledged to scrap stamp duty altogether on all primary residences. If implemented, the average buyer could save over £4,500.
The policy is there for the Government’s taking, but, alas, millions of prospective buyers face exorbitant stamp duty bills, slowing the housing market, disincentivising those who want to downsize and keeping larger family homes and home ownership out of reach. If noble Lords do not believe me, the Housing Select Committee reported in June this year:
“Stamp Duty Land Tax reduces the affordability of home ownership, slows the property market, and ultimately damages the economy. While it is a valuable source of revenue for public finances, Stamp Duty Land Tax must not be maintained in its current form and needs to be reformed”.
The tax did generate £15.2 billion in the most recent financial year, but this is a question of priorities. Do the Government care more about increasing levels of home ownership or would they rather increase welfare budgets? We have done the work for them. This is not an unfunded announcement. We have identified £47 billion of savings, around half of which could come from the ballooning welfare budget. Would the Government rather see that increase or would they rather see more people get their keys to their first home? Some 76% of renters—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but the noble Lord has two minutes in the gap.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I apologise. I simply ask the Minister whether the Government will consider scrapping the stamp duty land tax for primary residences. I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for giving me the opportunity to voice this cause, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for speaking in the gap, because it saved me from pouncing immediately on the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, whose comments were so provocative—I should know by now. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for securing this timely debate and introducing it with her customary experience and insight. I agreed with much of what she said, although obviously not all.
We have heard a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion from across the House. Coming at this point in the debate, I knew that noble Lords would have covered all the key aspects and asked all the main questions, so I am going to take a slightly different tack. I particularly enjoyed the thoughtful contributions from the noble Lords, Lord John of Southwark and Lord Gascoigne, and, interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I felt they had something slightly different to say and what I am going to say might chime with them.
We may have completely different perspectives, as was all too evident, but there is a striking degree of agreement about the scale of the challenges facing aspiring home owners today. We have heard contributions on housing supply, on planning, good or bad, on infrastructure—a real issue when we are trying to get people to agree to housing—on mortgage access, on rental costs, and on the wider functioning of the housing market. All noble Lords have posed detailed questions to the Minister, and I do not intend to repeat them.
Instead, I want to focus on two issues that have only been touched on: affordability and intergenerational fairness. As former Mayor of Watford, I met many people whose experiences illustrated why this issue matters. They were not looking for special treatment; they simply wanted the opportunity that previous generations often took for granted—the chance to buy a home, put down roots and build a future.
Several noble Lords have spoken about the need to build more homes, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, as a country, we have not built enough homes for many years, and certainly not enough social homes. I want to publicly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his use of the phrase “warehousing welfare”. My question is: where should the most vulnerable people in society live?
As today’s debate has demonstrated, supply alone does not explain everything. Of course more homes need to be built; I doubt anyone in this House would seriously disagree with that proposition, though some housing experts do. But perhaps we should be honest about the limitations of what building can do. Do we really believe that we can build our way to affordability alone? If so, over what timescale? Five years, 10 years, 20 years? Even if ambitious housing targets are reached, targets do not build houses; builders do. I get fed up of the “Our targets are higher than yours” kind of willy-waving that goes on where targets are concerned.
Even if they are achieved, are we confident, as somebody said, that homes will be built in the places where the demand is greatest, where the jobs are concentrated and where people want to live and work? These are not arguments against building more homes. They are arguments against believing that a complex problem has a simple answer: just keep building.
If affordability is the objective—and we on these Benches believe it should be—should we not be honest enough to say that building more homes is a means to an end and not an end in itself? Affordability lies at the heart of almost every aspect of housing policy. It determines whether young people can save for a deposit, whether families can afford mortgage repayments, whether people can move as their circumstances change and, ultimately, whether home ownership remains a realistic aspiration.
One of the difficulties in housing policies is that political debate, as evidenced today, often searches for a single cause and a single solution. We are told that housing would become more affordable if the planning rules were changed, if there were not all the extra taxes that we have to pay, if only interest rates were lower or if one element of the market behaved differently. The reality is far more complicated than that, and it is important to say that where we are now has been decades in the making, not just the past few years.
Housing affordability is shaped by supply, definitely by planning rules, by land values—an interesting one—but also by wages, interest rates, demographics, construction costs and wider economic conditions. It is also affected by how effectively people can move through the housing system at different stages of life and by the availability of supported and specialist housing. Now, no one mentioned that today, so I immediately look over and say, “Lord Best, where are you?” as that is something that he always reminds us of.
During my years in local government, I would encounter two very different conversations about housing. One resident would proudly tell me how much the value of their home had increased since they bought it, but another, a renter, would tell me they had all but given up hope of ever buying a home; sometimes, those conversations were on the very same street. This captures the dilemma at the heart of housing policy. Those seeking to enter the market understandably want greater affordability and, as we have heard a lot today, those who already own their own homes often see rising house prices as a source of security, which for many is an important component of their long-term financial planning. In truth, we celebrate affordability when we are trying to get on the ladder and rising house prices once we are on it. That is why housing remains one of the most politically difficult areas of public policy.
Almost everyone agrees there is a problem. The disagreement begins when we discuss who should bear the costs of solving it, because every serious solution creates winners and losers—and I am sure the Minister is very aware of that. More development can place pressure on existing communities and infrastructure. Lower house price inflation may be welcomed by aspiring home owners, but not necessarily by those whose wealth is tied up in their homes. Reforms to planning, taxation, land use and incentives involve trade-offs. The challenge is not that the choices are unknown but whether Governments are prepared to make them.
An equally important theme arising in today’s debate is intergenerational fairness—mentioned ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Paul, and I agree with her challenges. The reality for many young people is that they are attempting to enter a housing market that is fundamentally different from the one that we entered and that was entered by their parents and grandparents. Deposits take longer to save for, high rents consume the income that might otherwise have been used to build a deposit and mortgage affordability remains challenging. Increasingly, access to home ownership appears to depend not simply on work and saving but on whether someone has access to support from parents, grandparents or inheritance. That is a stark reality that I believe we on these Benches and the Government are trying to address. This is a question not of whether one generation has worked harder than another but of whether opportunities available to successive generations are broadly comparable. Increasingly, many people doubt that they are, and this should concern us all.
I hope the Minister will address two issues in particular. First, does she accept that affordability pressures are increasingly creating a housing market in which access to home ownership depends more heavily on parental wealth and inheritance? If so, what do the Government see as the answer to that challenge? Secondly, if affordability is the objective, how should success be measured? Is it by the number of homes built or whether a young person on an average income in 10 years finds it easier to buy a home than they do today? It will take that long.
We all know that home ownership should remain an aspiration achievable through work, savings and endeavour, not a consequence of inheritance. We know many of the drivers behind the affordability challenge and many of the potential solutions. The difficulty is not that the problem is misunderstood but that the solutions involve trade-offs, winners and losers, competing interests—some very powerful—and difficult political choices, with electoral consequences at the ballot box.
I will leave with a final question for the Minister. Does she believe the Government accept that the real obstacle is no longer understanding the problem of housing affordability but having the potential courage to confront the trade-offs required to solve it and to confront the consequences of what we already know?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for bringing forward an essential debate on housing and home ownership. It has been quite an enlightening debate across the House. I think there has been quite a lot of agreement and I would not say disagreement but puzzlement because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly says, this is a very complex issue. It will require trade-offs and there is no simple solution. I do not think anyone knows what outcome we all desire. There are so many different outcomes, whether it is housing numbers, affordability, security of tenure and so forth.
However, I think we can identify the biggest problems. Housing is the single biggest cost facing most families. It puts enormous pressure on household budgets. Too many people are living in overcrowded accommodation, paying too much rent or mortgage and increasingly unable to live anywhere near where they work. My noble friend Lady Eaton gave some statistics about how many people would like to own their own home. I will not repeat them, but there are some other good statistics from that survey. Some 65% of people believe it is harder to buy or rent today than it was for their parents, and 62% believe that housing is on the wrong track.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Seccombe, the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, and the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, raised the benefits of being able to own their own home and how it helped them or people related to them in their lives. We are unashamedly the party of home ownership. We recognise that not everyone will want to buy—that is perfectly legitimate—but everybody should have the opportunity to do so. Those who rent should have access to affordable, secure alternatives.
Sadly, this situation has deteriorated since Labour came into power. One-year mortgage costs have risen from around 5% to 5.7% and average rents are up 10% to £1,450 a month. This is not simply a housing crisis; it is a growth crisis. Building homes creates jobs, investment and economic activity, but the wider economic benefit is even greater. If people can afford to live close to where they work, businesses can recruit more easily, productivity improves and our towns and cities become more vibrant.
Look at London, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Rents for a two-bedroom flat in central London are above £2,000 a month. Someone needs to earn close to £100,000 a year to be able to afford to live in the centre of our capital city. That is not realistic. Alternatively, people face a punishing daily commute or overcrowding. Is it any wonder that London is losing its appeal as a destination for graduates and skilled workers?
We have repeatedly debated housing in this House. Since Labour’s election, every time I speak on this subject the position appears to worsen. The Government talk about building 1.5 million homes, but this is an ambition; it is not delivery. Delivery fell again last year, by 3%, to around 200,000 homes. By contrast, the last Conservative Government delivered their target of 1 million homes in four and a half years. The pipeline is getting weaker, as others have mentioned. Only 1,220 sites for private housing received planning permission in England in the first quarter of this year, down from the 2,000 sites approved in 2022.
When I first became a councillor in 2009, my priorities were about improving services, rebuilding the local leisure centre, reducing costs and fixing potholes. Those things all matter, but I quickly learned that in the long term nothing is more important than planning, than building great communities, good housing, infrastructure, local jobs, schools, leisure, public services and beautiful homes, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne.
We have all seen the transformative effects of successful regeneration, whether it be King’s Cross, Brindleyplace in Birmingham or Kidbrooke Village in Greenwich. The Minister has on occasion suggested that I am a little too focused on London and brownfield development. I make no apology. Yes, there will be need for development on greenfield land, but our greatest missed opportunity is the failure to build enough homes in our towns and cities where there is the greatest demand. MHCLG’s own figures show that two-thirds of local authorities failing to meet the housing delivery test of 75% are essentially urban areas, and 21 of London’s 33 boroughs are also failing this test. The housing crisis is particularly acute in London. Since 2016, the number of households in temporary accommodation has increased by 50% to 76,000. There are more statistics, but we do not have the time.
The cost of building has also soared. It is not one regulation or levy: it is the cumulative effect of layer upon layer of additional costs, building levies, landfill tax, building safety requirements, Section 106, the future homes standard and others. That is not to say that any one of them is not valid in its own right, but the cumulative effect is clear: the Home Builders Federation estimates that the cost of building a low-rise home has increased by £76,000 since 2020. The Government argue that that will be reflected in lower land prices and so forth, but that ignores the reality. The problem is particularly acute on brownfield land, where remediation and build costs are often higher and the land value has higher alternative use. If we genuinely want to regenerate our cities, gentle densification of urban areas is essential. We must make brownfield land viable. We cannot load so many costs on to a development that the finished product costs more than people can afford. Manchester is an example: the council and the mayor recognised the need for compromise, including on affordable housing targets, and homes were built.
The principle is simple. If you want more affordable homes, the cost of building them must be below the price that people can afford to pay, whether to buy or to rent. The Government need to change direction. You cannot tax your way to growth, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. The Social Housing Bill will undermine the right to buy—one of the greatest engines of social mobility that we have seen. If the proceeds are reinvested, this will also drive more housing and more availability of social housing. The Renters’ Rights Act risks yet more landlords leaving the sector, reducing supply and putting upward pressure on rents while undermining the build-to-rent sector.
By contrast, the Conservatives have proposed positive measures, such as removing stamp duty on housing—as mentioned by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Evans of Rainow—which would free up the market and reduce the cost of buying your home. It is not just the deposit; when you have to find another £20,000 for stamp duty, buying a home gets even more difficult. Removing stamp duty would allow people to do what we used to do: buy a very cheap one-bedroom studio somewhere that is maybe not the most salubrious location and move up the housing ladder. That is no longer possible with stamp duty.
Finally, the Government should stop distracting councils with top-down local government reorganisation. We warned that this would consume local authorities’ time and resources, and that the Government’s proposals would not work. I am sad to say that we have been proved right not once but twice—please do not prove us right a third time. Will the Government commit to reviewing the burdens placed on urban brownfield development? Will they look at what support they can give buyers, such as Help to Buy, and when will they publish the report they commissioned on Help to Buy?
On the grey belt, will they ensure that those commitments in the NPPF are held to by developers, and that they do not walk back from them on the basis of viability? The Minister committed to a shared ownership review, which—as we discussed during the debates on the Social Housing Bill—if done properly, is another great way to get on the housing ladder. When will the Government move forward with that review and publish it? Is there a timetable?
Britain does not need more targets—it needs delivery. It needs homes people can afford in places where they want to live and work. It needs a planning system that enables rather than obstructs development, and a Government prepared to remove the burdens that make new homes unaffordable. If we get housing right, we do more than solve the housing crisis; we unlock growth, improve productivity, strengthen communities and give the next generation something that too many are being denied today: the chance to call a home their own.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for securing this important debate. I also thank her for her enormous contribution to local government over many years. I very much remember her tenure in the Local Government Association, and I thank her for that. I also extend my gratitude to all speakers for their very valuable contributions to this important discussion. As ever, the House has brought a wealth of experience and perspective to an issue that matters deeply to people across this country.
The Motion before us is broad, and that is appropriate. Home ownership cannot be separated from wider questions around housing supply, affordability, economic opportunity or community; it is bound up with all of them. For generations, owning a home has represented something important: stability and independence. It has given families a stake in their community and confidence in their future. For many people, it remains one of the clearest expressions of aspiration and security. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, spoke powerfully about roots, belonging, aspiration and security. That aspiration is still very much alive; the challenge is that, for too many people, the pathway to achieving it has become increasingly difficult. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise.
I am sorry but I am not prepared to absolve the party opposite from the legacy of the worst housing crisis for generations, which was our legacy when we came into office. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many of the themes raised during this debate reflect pressures that have been building over decades: house prices have outpaced earnings, saving for a deposit has become more difficult, and housing supply has failed to keep pace with need. For many across the country, people who work hard and do the right thing nevertheless find themselves unable to take the next step towards home ownership.
The consequence is that too many people feel that opportunities available to previous generations are becoming harder to reach. That matters not only to individual households but society as a whole. A strong housing market should allow people to move through different stages of life. It should allow young people to leave home and establish themselves, renters to buy if they wish to do so, growing families to find homes that meet their needs, and older people to move when that is the right choice for them. That is why the Government see housing as both a social and economic priority.
Housing is about more than bricks and mortar. It affects productivity, labour mobility, health, community cohesion and opportunity. It shapes people’s confidence in the future, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the debate about home ownership. My noble friend Lady Paul clearly articulated some of those issues.
This Government want a country in which more people have a genuine choice about where and how they live. We want a housing market that works better than it has in recent years and a fairer system in which opportunities are not determined solely by geography, wealth or family circumstance. That requires a long-term approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly diagnosed. There are no quick fixes to challenges that have developed over many years, nor is there a single policy lever capable of solving them. Instead, progress depends on addressing the fundamentals.
It means increasing the supply of homes, because we cannot tackle a housing shortage without building more homes. That is why we have taken urgent action through bold planning reforms—which was recognised by my noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I say that it is not the case that all social and affordable housing is occupied by those on benefits. Many occupiers of social and affordable housing are working people who continue to contribute to communities, in the same way that, in my town, when I was growing up, the majority of homes were council housing and they developed an entire community from that housing.
We need to increase the supply of homes, so we have also launched the £16 billion National Housing Bank to unlock private capital, support delivery on large and complex sites and accelerate the construction of new homes across the country. Together, these measures are designed to address the root cause of many of the challenges discussed today: the simple fact that, for too long, we have not built enough homes. It also means ensuring that aspiring home owners have realistic routes into ownership. That is why we are supporting first-time buyers through a range of measures, including shared ownership and reforms to mortgage lending that will help more people access suitable mortgage products. We have also consulted on a new first-time buyer savings product to replace the lifetime ISA, and that means making the experience of buying and owning a home simpler and fairer.
That is why, on 19 June, we published a road map setting out actions the Government will take over the course of this Parliament to reform the home buying and selling process. I am very grateful to the cross-sector partners who have worked with me to deliver this. At a time when families are feeling the squeeze, these changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks, save first-time buyers an average of £650 and stop the nasty surprises in the house-buying process that cost time, money and heartbreak. Overall, first-time buyers are set to save a total of more than £200 million a year from these reforms.
Finally, it means recognising that housing policy must work for existing home owners as well as future ones. That is why we are taking action to improve the experience of home ownership itself. The King’s Speech confirmed that the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will be introduced this Session, delivering long-overdue reforms for millions of leaseholders and helping to make commonhold the default tenure for new flats. At the same time, we remain committed to ensuring that people are safe in their homes, accelerating the remediation of unsafe buildings and removing barriers that prevent vital works being completed. Our aim is to create a system that offers more choice, more opportunity and greater security for people at every stage of life. Whether you are taking your first step towards ownership, moving to meet the needs of a growing family or considering a move later in life, everyone should have confidence that the housing system is working for them.
Throughout today’s debate, there has been a common thread running through many contributions, regardless of political perspective, and that is a recognition that home ownership remains important. There may be different views on precisely how to expand access to it; there may be disagreements about individual policies or interventions; but I suspect there is broad agreement across this House that we should be striving for a society in which people have a realistic opportunity of buying a home if that is what they choose to do. In fact, I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said in this respect; we cannot just keep doing what we did when it has not worked.
That is certainly this Government’s ambition. We want aspiring home owners to feel that this ladder is once again within reach. We want existing home owners to have confidence that the system works fairly. We want future generations to look ahead with optimism, rather than resignation. Achieving that ambition will take time. The barriers facing many households today were not created overnight. We have to take sustained action with our partners across the sector.
I will address some of the issues that were raised individually by noble Lords, but I am sure I will not get to them all. I will respond in writing where I do not reach any particular issue. I appreciate that there were different approaches on these issues, so I will set out our government view.
First, I want to talk about first-time buyers. This was an issue mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady Gill, Lady Seccombe and Lady Hodgson. In addition to increasing the supply of homes for all tenures, the Government are supporting people into home ownership, including through the shared ownership scheme and the lifetime ISA. On first-time buyers, I want to tackle the stamp duty myth. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, all spoke about stamp duty from slightly different perspectives. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty land tax up to £300,000 and are able to claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. From noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, I keep hearing about all this money they are going to spend from what they are taking out of the welfare bill, stamp duty being yet another one of those—following on from defence, tax cuts and so forth. I wait to hear which part of the welfare bill that is coming from, and I look forward to those discussions later.
The Government have also introduced a new permanent mortgage guarantee scheme to support and sustain the availability of low-deposit mortgage products for prospective buyers. The Bank of England has eased the loan-to-income limit. My noble friend Lord John mentioned the need for flexibility on finance, and he is quite right. The Financial Conduct Authority has an ongoing review of the mortgage market, which means many borrowers can now borrow 10% more towards a property purchase, and I commend Lloyds and Santander, both of which have reintroduced their 5% mortgage deposits. In June, the FCA published proposed new mortgage rules to support first-time buyers and underserved customers, including wider access to interest-only mortgages and greater flexibility for borrowers on variable and non-traditional incomes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Paul, mentioned some of the great examples that building societies are taking up. I really commend the Building Societies Association on its “Think again” campaign. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned an example of someone who did not think they would be able to buy and could—that is what the “Think again” campaign is looking at. There is a much more flexible consideration now around, for example, fluctuating income levels and taking payment of rent into consideration as a guarantee of mortgage payments.
A number of noble Peers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady Hodgson, Lady Paul and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, mentioned supply and the 1.5 million homes. We inherited this acute housing crisis after decades of not building enough homes. That is why the Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament. I do not apologise for the ambition of that target. We are pulling every lever at our disposal. We have taken urgent action through bold planning reforms and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housing at scale across the country. We have launched the National Housing Bank, unlocking over £53 billion of private investment, as well as our programme of new towns—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for all the work he has done on that programme. Our interventions are showing positive signs of change, with new-build starts in March 2026 up 15% on the previous year and residents in outline applications up 54%. That mission signals our commitment to the country and to the market that we are serious about solving the housing crisis and ending this ingrained break on aspiration. It was always the case that we were going to have to take some time to put these steps in place before we started to see the outcome that we are looking for.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of planning reforms: the noble Baronesses, Lady Gill, Lady Hodgson and Lady Paul, and the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Frost and Lord Jamieson. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Jackson, for their support for the planning reforms—it is good to hear that. This has been a very important step: a set of pro-supply, pro-growth planning reforms to support our commitment to build those 1.5 million homes. The changes we have introduced to the National Planning Policy Framework involve a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help us build the homes in places people want to live, but also supported by the right infrastructure that needs to go alongside it. The new NPPF confirms those reforms to make planning policy easier to use.
To specifically answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, about well-connected stations, there is a definition of that in the National Planning Policy Framework, and I think I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Banner, next week to discuss that further.
We are building on our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act, a major step in the reform programme to unlock a new scale of housing delivery, especially focusing on the right type of housing, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
Noble Lords raised the issues around right-to-buy reforms. We are reforming right to buy to deliver a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme. We want a scheme that helps long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, while protecting much-needed social housing stock and ensuring that more homes are built to last. As my noble friend Lady Paul said in her thoughtful and analytical speech, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for too long, social homes have been sold off without being replaced. That is why we have already acted to reduce maximum right-to-buy cash discounts to their pre-2012 levels. The Bill will implement more comprehensive reforms to right to buy, including minimum tenancy requirements and allowing councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This is an important move which will enable the building of much-needed council homes, and it is something that councils have called for for a long time.
A number of noble Lords raised issues about London. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke about the complexity of building in London, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Jackson, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson. In March, the Government and the Greater London Authority confirmed a package of temporary emergency measures providing targeted, time-limited support for housebuilders, to improve the viability of schemes and get quicker approvals on new housing schemes across every borough. That includes the GLA’s fast-track planning process for sites with at least 20% affordable housing, removal of guidance that constrains density, expansion of the mayor’s planning powers, temporary partial relief from development levies and £324 million for the GLA to establish the City Hall developer investment fund to unlock stalled sites and increase supply.
We are backing London with a major long-term investment, with up to £11.7 billion from the social and affordable housing programme confirmed for London over the lifetime of the programme, and an allocation of £1.5 billion of the new low-interest loan scheme for social and affordable housing. I am very aware that we need to give some assistance to London to deliver the housing it needs.
The Renters’ Rights Act was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord John and Lord Jamieson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who mysteriously called it a war on renters. I think it was actually a big support for renters. It is transforming the experience of private renting for the 11 million private renters and 2.3 million landlords in England, delivering our manifesto commitment to end Section 21 no-fault evictions, which were an enormous cause of homelessness in this country. Tenants also have stronger protections against unfair practices. The Act also prevents landlords from demanding excessive amounts of rent in advance and helps remove barriers that can prevent renters from accessing accommodation. I am very proud of the Renters’ Rights Act. It is going to deliver much greater security of tenure for renters, and we do not expect those reforms to have a destabilising effect on the supply of rented homes and the rental market. So far, that has proved to be the case.
I will comment briefly on the support we are giving to SME builders, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, mentioned. She also mentioned rural homes; we have specific policies around making sure we have rural exception sites, to make sure that local people can think about what homes they need in their local areas. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also mentioned that issue, on SMEs.
There is a package of financial support for SMEs. We will unlock £53 billion of private investment through the National Housing Bank and support the building of over 500,000 new homes, including supporting SME housebuilders. We have also doubled the ENABLE Build guarantee scheme to £2 billion to increase SMEs’ access to finance. We recognise the challenge SMEs have in accessing suitable land and, to support them, Homes England has committed to sell more of its sites through SME-only sales, with a less bureaucratic sales process to help level the playing field.
I will respond in writing to other issues that I have not got to.
Lastly, a number of noble Peers raised shared ownership, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gill, Lady O’Neill and Lady Paul, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. Shared ownership continues to have an important role to play in supporting households. However, the Government are aware that some people who entered the shared ownership process have faced challenges. As many noble Lords will know, this was recently discussed on Report of the Social Housing Bill. As I set out in that debate, we have a programme of improvements in place to make shared ownership work better for customers, but there is more to come in the improvement programme. We are continuing to consider what more can be done to improve our customer experience for shared owners. My right honourable friend the Housing Minister is in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on many of those issues.
There are no quick fixes to these housing issues. The barriers to home ownership were not built in a single Parliament, and they will not fall in a single Parliament. But the direction is settled: building the homes the country needs, opening the route to a deposit and a mortgage, rebalancing the market towards people who want somewhere to live and making ownership secure for those who already have it. I am proud that Labour has picked up the challenge of tackling the housing crisis we inherited from the previous Government. To pick up the analogy from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, we grabbed that knife that was falling and turned it into steel for building. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for giving this House the opportunity to debate this issue.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify a couple of things? First, there was a lot of discussion on planning and there was some recognition that some of the things in the NPPF—not necessarily all—are positive. The biggest issue now is not just getting planning permission but the viability of the site. The Minister did not address that issue, other than mentioning a temporary measure in London. If it is not viable to build in London, then it is not viable not just on a temporary basis. Will the Government consider extending that? What else will they do, as I mentioned in my contribution, to make sites viable, possibly by reducing these levies and regulations on sites?
Secondly, if the Minister wishes me to share with her the full calculations of how we would fund the stamp duty cut, then I would be happy to do so.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we continue to have active discussions with the sector on viability. There are elements in the National Policy Planning Framework that look at that, and we continue to debate this very important issue. The immediate crisis was in London, and we worked with the mayor and his team to introduce measures that we hope will help with that. Homes England is looking at it as well, so we continue to explore that.
We have to be careful about broad statements about how we are going to cut away at the welfare bill. It is easy to say we are going to chop the welfare bill and do this, that or the other with the money. It is when it comes to actually saying which bit of the welfare bill you are going to cut that the difficulties start to arise.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate today. The many contributions have shown and highlighted that, across the parties of the House, we see clearly the value of home ownership to society. As the Minister said, this was a broad title for the debate, and that was deliberate. I have seen, as we all have, the contributions from many different angles about this complex agenda. They have shown that we have a consistent interest in delivering more homes for people.
I thank the Minister, because she addressed with great detail and thoroughness the questions and issues we raised for her today and she has again shown her commitment. Although we do not always agree with her solutions to the problems, she certainly is committed to the housing situation in the country.
One of the things that the many contributions have shown is that there are no easy fixes, and we need to look at changing many of the restrictions that have been raised, such as planning complexities and infrastructure and financial policies. If they are addressed appropriately, it might alleviate the problems arising with home ownership. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and I hope that our deliberations will bear fruit.