Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15 September 2026

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the building safety remediation of residential buildings.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation.

More than nine years after Grenfell claimed all those lives, we must ask whether the system that is intended to protect residents and deliver the safety and security they deserve is truly working. There has been progress. The Building Safety Act 2022, the Building Safety Regulator and remediation funding have strengthened our collective national response, but legislation must lead to safer homes, funding must lead to completed works and residents must be able to move forward with their lives.

Today, I will address three interconnected issues: the protection of residents during remediation, the operation of PAS 9980 and the competence of those making critical safety decisions, and the position of non-qualifying leaseholders. I will begin by drawing on an experience directly connected to my constituency. Surrey Heath is, by any definition, a semi-rural consistency, where one would not necessarily have expected this issue to rear its head, yet the correspondence reaching my office from Camberley, our principal market town, shows how deeply the problem affects ordinary households across the UK. We must judge the system by the experience of the residents who depend on it. At Dorchester Court, one of my constituents has lived in their shared ownership home for 20 years. They are unwell, unemployed and at risk of losing that home. They need to sell, but unresolved building safety and EWS1 issues have taken that choice away.

Another resident has lost two prospective buyers because lenders would not offer mortgages on that property. Cala Homes, the original developer, has accepted full responsibility for life-critical remediation, but residents say that they still have no clear timetable for those works to be delivered or completed. Accepting responsibility is only the beginning. Until the required work is completed, residents remain trapped. It is a repeat pattern across the country. People need to move because of illness, unemployment, caring responsibilities or just simple changes in family circumstances. Their lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely while developers, building owners and managing agents decide what happens next.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I can think of at least two buildings in my constituency that have been determined urgent life-critical but cannot be remediated because of delays in getting the certificates they need from the Building Safety Regulator. That leaves residents facing large insurance costs, unable to sell, and stuck with damp and mould and a whole range of other issues. Does the hon. Member agree that the Building Safety Regulator needs the resources so that residents are not left trapped in their homes for years?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know represents a Bournemouth seat. I have exactly the same issues in my constituency. Reports and certification are not being received in time, often frustrating sales and driving things like insurance premiums in the long term. Residents’ lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely while those who have the whip hand decide what happens next.

The problems do not end when remediation begins. At North Court, another development in Camberley, residents undergoing remediation through the Metropolitan Thames Valley housing association have reported restricted daylight and ventilation, broken windows and water leaks. Those issues are challenging at the best of times, but almost unbearable during a long, hot summer like the one we have just had, when temperatures inside properties regularly reached 40ºC.

Some residents have described deteriorating mental health and feeling increasingly insecure in their own homes. Scaffolding, sheeting, noise and disruption may be unavoidable for a time, but poor communication, unresolved damage and unhealthy living conditions are not acceptable. Clear information, prompt repairs and credible completion dates should be basic expectations throughout the remediation process. I ask the Minister to outline how residents will be protected during remediation works, especially during hot summer periods and cold winters.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I am struck that the hon. Member used the phrase “collective national response” to start his remarks. As a Scottish MP, I am conscious that this is a UK-wide endeavour, but four different Governments could be looking at it. If work is accelerated in one part, pressure can be put on the resources available in another. Does the hon. Member agree that the collective national response has to be considered in a UK sense, not just under the relevant Department in Westminster?

The Public Accounts Committee looked at this issue on 21 March 2025. One of our conclusions was:

“Given the lack of progress to date and the remaining challenges ahead, we are sceptical about the adequacy and achievability of MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan.”

Does the hon. Member share that scepticism?

[Dr Pinkerton]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one main handbrake to remediation is national resourcing. There are simply not enough fire safety engineers or specialist companies that can do this remediation work on a fast timescale. That problem exists not only between Scotland and England but within the English regions. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that a co-ordinated national solution is the best response we could hope for for our residents, so that the work is undertaken in a timely and efficient manner.

My second question for the Minister relates to that topic. How will those responsible be held to enforceable timetables, so that residents have certainty and transparency from companies completing the remediation works? The examples I have cited concern the pace and conditions of remediation but, before any work begins, someone must decide what work is required.

That brings me to PAS 9980, the framework used to assess fire risks in the external walls of existing residential buildings. The Government have committed to making the standard mandatory for relevant external wall fire risk assessments, but its interpretation will influence the work that is carried out, the funding available and the conditions in which residents are expected to live. A proportionate approach is sensible. Assessors should consider the building as a whole, including its materials, construction and wider fire safety arrangements.

The work undertaken should reflect the risk that the building actually presents, but that approach relies heavily on professional and subjective judgment. Residents need confidence that those judgments are competent, consistent, transparent and properly scrutinised. When assessments of the same building reach different conclusions, remediation can be delayed, funding becomes harder to secure, lenders lose confidence and residents are left wondering whose judgment they can ultimately trust.

There is a particular concern where combustible materials, which would not be permitted on comparable new buildings, are allowed to remain on existing homes. An assessment may conclude that the immediate risk to life is tolerable, but residents could still face higher insurance premiums, difficulty securing a mortgage and a reduction in the value of their property. They may be told that their building meets the required standard, while continuing to feel unsafe and financially trapped.

Royal Artillery Quays clearly illustrates this problem. At this point, I pay tribute to Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner for that development and its residents. Many hon. Members might have heard directly from him. Royal Artillery Quays is a large, private residential development in Thamesmead, built by Barratt Homes in 2002, and home to around 1,000 residents. Barratt Homes’s proposed approach there, assessed under PAS 9980, would leave some combustible panels in place, on the basis that the remaining risk is tolerable.

Residents—not unreasonably—remain concerned both about the safety of that approach and its financial consequences. They report that annual service charges have risen from £3,000 to £6,000, with much of that increase linked to insurance. That phenomenon is confirmed by the Association of British Insurers, which in October 2025 reported that buildings remediated only to PAS 9980 may face persistently higher premiums than those remediated to a higher standard. In other words, residents will be paying higher insurance premiums in perpetuity because of decisions that were made not just by this Government but by developers in the past. Some of those residents cannot sell without accepting a substantial reduction in the value of their home. Residents have drawn my attention to a fire safety engineering report that states that leaving the panels in place is

“not the most appropriate fire engineering solution”

for that building. Already there is contestation between the different approaches recommended. Where does that leave residents? The reliability of these decisions ultimately depends on the subjective competence of the people making them.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will publish the findings of their audits and reviews of the application of PAS 9980, and what steps are being taken to ensure greater consistency in its use? Where PAS 9980 assessments result in combustible materials remaining in place, how will the consequential impacts on insurance premiums, mortgage availability and property values be assessed and communicated to residents?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Member talked about publication of the audit, with which I hope everyone will agree. Does he agree that it should be shared across the nations of the UK in order that all our Executives—the Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and the Executive in Northern Ireland—can take action where that is appropriate?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He parallels the case made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). There has to be a national-level approach, and I hope that the Government will share information with the devolved Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom and with all Members of this House so that we can adequately support the affected residents, who are certainly not just in England.

The experience with the separate EWS1 process shows what happens when confidence in these professionals breaks down. One Surrey Heath constituent accepted an offer on their apartment for £260,000. That was for a flat originally bought for £316,000. They were prepared to accept a loss of £56,000 simply to move forward with their life, but even then the sale collapsed, because the buyer could not obtain a mortgage after lenders stopped accepting the building’s EWS1 form, which had been signed by the now notorious Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire Ltd. The Institution of Fire Engineers suspended Mr Kiziak’s membership and registration in 2024, following findings under its disciplinary process. It announced his expulsion on 5 March 2025, following even more complaints. Also in March 2025, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I met the then Building Safety Minister to raise concerns about Mr Kiziak and his behaviour.

My office has identified at least nine EWS1 forms issued through Tri Fire in Camberley alone that have subsequently been rejected by lenders. That is why independent verification is essential, including where an earlier assessment concluded that no remediation was required, because we now know that Adam Kiziak was faking EWS1 forms, suggesting that buildings were entirely safe when they in fact contained combustible material.

The consequences of failure in this area can be immediate. At the Courtyard in Camberley, a couple reported receiving five EWS1 forms that were not accepted before a sixth finally satisfied the relevant requirements. That delay pushed their purchase beyond the stamp duty deadline and left them with an additional bill of nearly £4,500. They had no control over the assessment process, yet bore the cost when it failed. When does the Minister expect statutory regulation of fire engineers to be introduced? Given the degree of subjectivity in PAS 9980 assessments and the potentially life-changing costs passed on to residents, how can leaseholders have confidence in a system that lacks a fully regulated profession?

Failures in assessment can impose substantial costs. The next question is who should be expected to pay them. The Building Safety Act introduced welcome protections and ensured that many leaseholders would no longer be expected to meet the cost of failures that they did not cause. Some non-qualifying leaseholders may also receive support because of their landlord’s responsibility, a developer commitment or the funding arrangements that apply to their building. However, significant gaps remain.

Once a lease is classified as non-qualifying, that status can remain attached to it when the property is sold. Someone buying their first and only home can therefore inherit the consequences of the previous owner’s circumstances and become exposed to significant remediation costs. They had no involvement in the original construction and have no responsibility for the defects, yet under the current system, they can still be left with the bill.

On 10 April 2025, in response to a written question, the then Building Safety Minister said the Government was looking closely at how to

“sunset the ‘in perpetuity’ status of leases which do not qualify for the leaseholder protections.”

Can the Minister update us on that work, and will the Government bring forward proposals to protect those who bought what they reasonably believed would be a safe and secure home?

The Government’s promised remediation Bill provides an opportunity to resolve outstanding problems and turn commitments into delivery. Under their plans, by the end of 2029, buildings over 18 metres should be remediated and buildings from 11 metres to 18 metres should be remediated or firmly scheduled, with 2031 the intended final completion point. Those ambitions are absolutely welcome, but meeting them will require accurate building data, secure funding, skilled contractors, effective independent inspection and, as we have heard today, proper resourcing for agencies across the United Kingdom. It will require costs to be recovered from those responsible, including developers and construction product manufacturers.

Residents have already spent years waiting. Deadlines will mean little unless they are enforceable and backed up by the capacity required to meet them. When will those duties become legally enforceable, and how will the Government ensure that the funding, workforce and regulatory capacity are in place to deliver it?

The lesson of Grenfell is that building safety depends on the whole system working: sound regulation, competent professionals, effective oversight and accountability when things go wrong. When that system fails, danger can remain unaddressed and residents can be left trapped in homes they cannot sell and paying costs they cannot control. Behind every assessment, funding decision and remediation timetable is someone trying to protect their family, preserve their savings or move on to the next stage of their lives.

The bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell deserve justice, and my constituents in Surrey Heath and constituents across the country deserve safe homes and confidence in those entrusted to protect them. More than nine years on, we must take every reasonable step to prevent another loss of life and ensure that those still living with the consequences of this crisis can finally move forward.

09:48

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and a delight to be called first. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this important debate. It is an important opportunity for me to raise with the Minister the many issues that my constituents are facing, which are similar to those that the hon. Member has just described. I welcome the Minister to her place as well. In having this debate, we remember all the victims and survivors of Grenfell.

I also thank all the people across the country who have been campaigning on cladding. I have talked about cladding many times and yet we are still here; that is my frustration. I thank the previous Minister for Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her work on the remediation Bill. The Bill will place stronger legal duties on landlords and freeholders to remediate unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects within clear timeframes. That is very welcome. I am also grateful to her for meeting with me to discuss a number of long-running cases that I face in Putney, and I am glad that the new Minister will continue that important work.

I welcome the work of the remediation enforcement unit, the leadership of Lord Roe, and the work of the Building Safety Regulator, but I do not know why they are causing so many delays. I understand that 69 people work for the remediation unit and 500 people work for the Building Safety Regulator. I ask the Minister to look into their work and find out why they are not able to move so many developments ahead at the pace needed. There are long delays, a lack of clear guidance and a lack of connection between the different bodies involved, as I will demonstrate.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to several developments that are covered by the developer remediation contract with major developers such as Barratt Redrow and Taylor Wimpey. Despite those contractual commitments, many residents in those developments continue to face lengthy delays before remediation works, which have been agreed and funded, can begin or be completed. In some cases, fire safety remediation has been delayed because structural defects need to be addressed first—if there are problems with the cladding, that often comes with problems with the entire building. In other cases, residents are waiting for final fire risk assessments, EWS1 forms, remediation plans, contractor appointments, updated certifications, smoke extraction systems or the installation of cavity barriers. In all those cases, it is the people in the building who have to chase things up.

One development in my constituency has been waiting for Network Rail to give permission for rear elevation works. Network Rail did not respond to the many repeated efforts by the project team to obtain the permission, so a specialist contractor had to be hired just to get a response, which added a lot of cost for leaseholders.

In another case, many defects have been found at the same time in the buildings of a really large development. Hundreds of families have moved out and moved back, and they have just been told that they will all have to move out again in a rota system, all while fighting for remediation. They have been worried about the safety of their building—they had a waking watch and then they did not—and they cannot sell their homes if they want to, so they cannot get on with their lives. The impact on all those residents of six years of fighting is unacceptable. They cannot sell or remortgage their homes, and they live in uncertainty about when their buildings will finally be made safe.

This is affecting social housing tenants too. For some badly affected social housing in Wandsworth, specifically the Eliot and Wentworth blocks in Wandsworth town, tenants have been waiting for the Building Safety Regulator to give the go-ahead. They cannot have essential kitchen and heating system replacements or other work in the building done until the cladding remediation is completed. The council submitted the application on 31 March. The Building Safety Regulator’s statutory response time for works to existing higher-risk buildings is eight weeks, but it immediately asked for an extension, which is worrying in itself. Here we are in September, and the council is still waiting for a response. The works will take 18 to 24 months. The blocks are in serious need of that repair and the other repairs they are waiting for.

Although I recognise that developers have obligations under the developer remediation contract, my constituents are understandably asking what more can be done by the unit, by Ministers and by the Building Safety Regulator when progress stalls for different reasons. The challenge is not whether a developer has signed up to a contract, but how quickly remediation can move through the assessment, approval and delivery stages, especially when there are other bodies involved.

To conclude, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to support and expedite remediation at developments already covered by the developer remediation contract? What steps can be taken to remove barriers that delay works, to speed up assessments and approvals, and to ensure that developers deliver at pace? The new legislation is very welcome, but leaseholders trapped in affected buildings need to know that existing remediation programmes will also be accelerated. They deserve not only stronger rules for the future in the upcoming Bill, but urgent action on the buildings that have already waited far too long for remediation to be completed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. Many colleagues want to speak and we have limited time. Front Benchers will be called at 10.28 am, so I suggest everyone takes four or five minutes for speeches.

09:54

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this debate and for the excellent way that he presented the case. This issue causes unbelievable levels of stress for many of our constituents.

We should briefly contrast the complications of getting remedial action to bring about safety and security for our constituents in multiple-ownership private sector developments with the relative speed and efficiency with which local authorities dealt with the problem of cladding after Grenfell. My own borough of Islington surveyed every property immediately, discovered unknown suspect cladding in a couple of places, and got on with it straight away. The issue was resolved very quickly. That was in 2018, but here we are, eight years later, and I have a considerable number of leasehold properties that have been built over the last 20 years or so where the residents, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath pointed out, want to move on but cannot move or sell, and are paying massive insurance costs.

I say to the Minister that the excessive insurance costs many residents are having to pay are not their fault. The problem should absolutely not be their responsibility; it should be the responsibility of the developers that caused it in the first place. If those developers no longer exist or are not prepared to pay, surely the default position should be that the Government as a whole are prepared to pick up that compensation. People are getting deeply into debt just to insure their own flat, but at the same time cannot move on.

I want to make some quick points about local issues that I have raised many times with the Government. The first is about the Drayton Park development. I thank the Minister and her predecessors for at last getting to a situation where Government funding has been approved for Galliard Homes to help cover part of the fire remediation costs. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me how quickly that work will now be completed. It has been subject to endless correspondence between my office, the local authority and many others just to try and get that remedial work done for the properties on Drayton Park in my constituency.

Secondly, there are the works that need to be done for Newlon Housing on the Queensland Road site, which is adjacent to the Arsenal football ground. Remediation works have been delayed, apparently mostly because of delays and complications created by Newlon. Again, I have raised this directly with the Minister and her predecessors, and I would be grateful if she could assure me that that work will now be done. Many lease extensions have been granted over the years, but the complication is that the people living there have not seen the work done. Now their lease is being eaten up as the years go by, and the value of the place is reducing, so they are losing out in lots of ways. That leads on to the wider issue of leasehold reform, but that is not the subject of today’s debate.

The final issue I want to raise is one that I have raised many times in the past, and I am quite unclear where we have reached on it. At Highbury Gardens, where Aviva is the head lessor, there was an issue about wooden railings on balconies that were deemed to be a fire risk. That issue has gone on for a very long time, and once again, the residents are stuck without any certainty about their future.

I will not take much more time, but I will just say that we have a responsibility to get this done quickly. When the fire happened at Grenfell, an enormous shock was felt all over the country. Everything that happened at Grenfell was disgusting and disgraceful—we know that, and we do not want another Grenfell anywhere else. Local authorities have managed, by and large, to get the issue sorted out, but it is the miasma of insurance companies, leaseholders, ultimate freeholders, developers that disappear and go bust, and fire safety engineers who are in short supply or, in many places, non-existent that is the problem. At the end of the day, all the stress lands on our constituents. That is not right or fair and we need to get it sorted.

09:59

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I warmly welcome the Minister to her post. I had meetings with most of her predecessors. I do not need to keep having meetings; I just hope that she takes up the points we have raised.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on laying out the issues so clearly—as a result, I have cut my speech in half. Sadly, it is a bit like “Groundhog Day”: we have all raised these issues before. The peroration of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) summarised the complexity that the Minister and the Government have to grapple with. It is not just the Government who are part of this challenge, but they have to be part of the solution.

I will not name any of the developments that I am talking about, because my residents are very concerned about being blighted. There have been some improvements. The Building Safety Regulator is getting better and the delays have reduced, but as well as dealing with historical issues, it has to work with new developments. Hackney council has a good track record of building council housing, but some of it has been delayed by the Building Safety Regulator. I understand that the delays have now reduced substantially, but I hope the Minister will look closely at that issue in her new role to make sure the Building Safety Regulator is working as efficiently as possible.

Skills remain a big issue, and there has been a woeful lack of activity. Some of us were here in 2018 talking about training fire safety engineers. It takes three years to train them, and if anyone had done that then, we would be in a much better place now.

I also wish to mention mortgageability. As recently as 3 September, I had a letter from Baroness Blake of Leeds, repeating what I have had from Ministers of different parties over time: that there are 10 mortgage companies that will lend on property with dangerous cladding. I point that out to constituents and keep referring them to the 10 companies, but there is always a reason why it cannot happen. Those companies obviously have criteria that are often not met. If the Government are routinely sending out that sort of information, it needs to be absolutely accurate.

Insurance is a huge and ongoing problem. For two developments in my constituency, only one insurer took part in the insurance tender process—insurers are just pulling out. The Treasury Committee is keen to look at that issue, but there is a real role for the Government to play. I spoke to the Minister’s predecessors in the previous Government, but this nut has not yet been cracked. I think I speak for every Member in this Chamber when I say that we would be happy to put our weight and effort behind it to help the Minister tackle the issues with insurance companies. We cannot have properties that are effectively uninsurable and bankrupting our residents. As the right hon. Member for Islington North said, people are going into debt to pay their insurance premiums, and that is before they have a claim to make.

The lack of skilled contractors was first raised back in 2020 in a Public Accounts Committee report, when I was Chair of that Committee. We asked for work to be done, but nothing has happened.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke about tolerability. I have a very expert constituent who came to my advice surgery this summer. I am very happy to introduce the Minister to him. He has written to me and the Department a number of times, and we have had a number of exchanges about the changes in British standards since Grenfell, and specifically about building materials. Instead of having set standards, fire safety is now done on measures of tolerability. He says that there is now a scale of standards, depending on the individual who does the fire safety assessment. That is why, after the Adam Kiziak affair, in which a number of EWS1—external wall system fire review—forms were forged, other people qualified to do the EWS1 certificates came to different conclusions. Two buildings in Hackney that were tolerable were then said to have issues that require remediation.

My constituent said that insurance has become so expensive because the insurers are not certain about the standards, which will no doubt have an impact on mortgage lenders, too. The issue needs to be resolved. I say with respect to the Minister that the solution must be much more fundamental than the Government getting people in, banging heads together and saying, “Sort it out.” This is fundamental to why Grenfell happened in the first place. It was the biggest public safety failure in several generations.

The Department’s permanent secretary at the time spoke to several of her predecessors to find out who could have seen it coming. Changes happened here, there and everywhere, and no one saw what the cumulative impact would be on Grenfell—obviously, there were also other shocking aspects of the Grenfell situation. This is an opportunity for the Minister, who is a very capable woman—we are all delighted to see her in her post—to tackle this issue once and for all. It may not help our residents immediately, but it has to work for the future.

I have several simple asks. Will the Minister get working on the mortgage lender issue and make sure that we are sending out accurate information? Will she work with mortgage lenders not just to get them to sign up to a list saying that they support lending but to be really clear about the criteria that will allow them to lend? Will she look again at insurance and skills, and will she please tackle the issue of tolerability?

10:04

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), for securing this debate.

In my Woking constituency, residents have been the direct victims of construction failures. The Victoria Square development, a new shopping centre with two residential towers and another tower containing a hotel, is a glaring example. It was all built by Sir Robert McAlpine. This development was meant to help my town grow and ensure that we can build new homes and grow our economy. Instead, it has put Woking on the map for all the wrong reasons.

The original opening date was meant to be October 2020. However, after cladding failures, it opened at Halloween 2024, and it has continued to be a horror ever since. Cladding panels fell off after the hotel opened, leading to road closures that disrupted local businesses and massively inconvenienced residents in their day-to-day lives. This was next to the town’s main road, an A road. One time the road was closed after being open for just 11 days, because another panel had fallen off.

The road was closed during Christmas, and we all know how important that time of year is for businesses. I asked town centre residents and businesses to tell me how this impacted them. One family-owned restaurant told me its bookings had dropped, and unfortunately it had to cut staff hours. A carers agency said its staff were constantly being delayed in delivering necessary care to vulnerable people, all because Sir Robert McAlpine did not build the building properly in the first place.

Thankfully, the road has now reopened and the cladding panels have now, only recently, been properly secured. Under the common law of negligence, according to the Chartered Institute of Building, purely economic losses are just not recoverable. However, this could be included under contract law. Why is that not standard practice for building projects? Will the Minister and her Department look at making it standard practice as part of forthcoming legislation?

Just a stone’s throw from Victoria Square is another building safety issue in Woking. The Eastgate building has sat abandoned since late 2023, when over 100 residents were evacuated after a report identified significant structural defects. It has been years since then, and the developer says the building is safe. The owner says otherwise. After I got involved last year, independent testing was carried out. Although the testing was completed many months ago, the results still have not been released. There is no way that both sides can be right in this situation. I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Does the Minister agree with me that the results of the testing need to be released immediately and that one of the parties must admit it is wrong, whether that means residents being allowed back in and an explanation of why the original structural testing was wrong or the developer needing to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation?

These two examples from my Woking constituency show the pressing need for stricter oversight, stronger retrospective enforcement and clear accountability for those that are responsible. We live in a country where a university degree is needed to become a lawyer or a teacher, and maybe two to be accredited, so it is shocking that I could go to B&Q, buy some materials and become a cowboy builder tomorrow, without a licence. The construction industry is an unregulated wild west. I know the Federation of Master Builders has been calling on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and testing for UK construction firms. Does the Minister agree, and will the Government include it in forthcoming legislation? I urge the Government to listen.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Forster]

I had better not, given the timings.

I urge the Government to listen to Members present and take the necessary steps to deliver the building safety and accountability that people back home in Woking, and across the country, deserve.

10:08

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for so ably setting out the issues that our constituents face.

Dartford, perhaps unlike many city centre constituencies, is not necessarily somewhere that would be associated with high levels of building safety problems, but we continue to see issues, including new and previously unidentified ones. The key point I want to make is about the length of time it continues to take to resolve these issues. When I was first elected in 2024, I was contacted by residents of a set of four blocks at Ingress Park in Greenhithe who had a long-standing fire safety issue, first identified as far back as 2019, when it was found that flats had combustible material in the balconies and inadequate firebreaks. Frighteningly for residents, there was even a fire on the site in 2023, which left four people injured, bringing home the need to get the building sorted.

I have supported residents over the last two years, bringing together the developer and the managing agents to try to overcome the various obstacles to getting the works done. It was honestly with a sense of relief that I visited the buildings last week to see that the work was finally under way, with an end in sight to the cost and uncertainty with which residents had been living. From today’s contributions and the conversations I have had with other MPs, I think this case is indicative of how these cases can drag on for years, even when the developer has identified the need for remediation works and agreed to fund them.

The second issue that I want to raise is that I am fairly astonished by the fact that we are still continuing to discover new issues. Partly, that is due to the now well publicised issues with fire safety surveys undertaken by, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and others have mentioned, Tri Fire and Adam Kiziak, who was expelled by the Institution of Fire Engineers. One instance that brings home to me the seriousness of this is Heron Court in Ebbsfleet in my constituency, where residents have recently had a waking watch imposed upon them by managing agents FirstPort, who obviously receive much attention in this place, and who once again have taken action without the agreement of the residents or builders.

Two of the four blocks at Heron Court are very slightly over 11 metres in height, and therefore in scope of the Building Safety Act. In this instance, there is a dispute between FirstPort, the managing agents, and Taylor Wimpey, the developer, about the fire safety report that has been undertaken, with one party not happy with it. Negotiations on access for a further inspection have been ongoing since the start of the year to try to clarify what work needs to be undertaken, which has left the building’s leaseholders facing a bill for the 24-hour waking watch, while having no levers to bring the other parties together to move the issue forward.

I have asked to meet FirstPort and the developer in the coming weeks to try to find a way forward and seek assurances that leaseholders will not be hit with the costs of the waking watch. Particularly surprising is that some of the new issues occurring are, I think, in buildings built well after the terrible events at Grenfell in 2017, when lessons should really have been learned, so I hope that when the Minister responds—I welcome her to her place—she will be able to confirm that it remains the case that leaseholders should not be bearing the costs of these waking watches.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. We are going to struggle to get everybody in, so brevity, please, colleagues.

10:10

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate. He often brings vital debates to Westminster Hall, and I am always glad to come along and support him in his requests. I welcome the Minister to her place. She is a busy lady. She responded to the Adjournment debate last night, and as if she never slept, she is back in Westminster Hall this morning. We wish her well in her role.

Building safety remediation is required to fix serious safety defects in residential buildings where those defects could put residents at risk. At the end of July ’26, more than 4,500 residential buildings in England measuring 11 metres or more in height had been identified as having unsafe cladding that requires remediation. The figure had increased by some 228 in just one month, so there is a growing problem, unfortunately. That demonstrates that the demand for essential remediation works is continuing to outpace the rate at which works are being completed.

We need to remember that behind those stats are real people. Sometimes we think about the buildings, but what matters is what happens to the people living day to day in them with constant uncertainty about the safety of their own home. The pressure and the stress are almost overwhelming. Many report facing significant financial pressures due to insurance premiums and difficulties in selling their property. We have seen reports of some leaseholders in London losing around £100,000 on the value of their flat as a result of a five-year delay in remediation plans and works.

Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, we have seen the potential for fatal consequences because of failures and delays in building safety remediation, and I believe that lessons must be learned from that. I will quickly give a Northern Ireland perspective. More than £2 million has been paid to managing agents under the cladding safety scheme. However, despite that support, hundreds of people in Belfast are still living in high-rise buildings with cladding that has raised serious fire safety concerns, including buildings that contain some of the very same material that caused the Grenfell tragedy. I understand that it is early days for the Minister in her role, but has she had the opportunity to talk to the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to give them details of what is being done here in Westminster, perhaps to help us to do things better back home?

While the overall number of high-rise residential buildings in Northern Ireland is relatively small compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, that cannot mean that the standard of protection afforded to residents in Northern Ireland should be any lower. Every resident deserves to know that their home is safe, regardless of where they live. Does the Minister therefore agree that more must be done to accelerate the remediation of unsafe cladding in Northern Ireland and to ensure that residents are supported throughout the process?

I am coming to the end of my remarks, Dr Murrison; I am very conscious of your comments about time. Residents deserve safe and secure homes. They should not be left in limbo, facing rising costs and uncertainty while they wait for the building they call home to be made safe. It just is not fair.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Commendably brief—thank you very much indeed.

10:16

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate. As you requested, Dr Murrison, I will keep my comments brief.

I want to put on the record that I was silver team, accountability, at Mace for this area in my portfolio, and it was my colleague Sam Kennedy who took on the delivery of that. I am sure that her work has made buildings safer in the long term. I want to make sure that her work is recognised, because I forgot to do so the last time that I spoke here on this topic.

The Building Safety Regulator was a serious bottleneck. After we spoke about this issue before, I could not go to a single panel event or roundtable, or open my LinkedIn account, without seeing complaints about the BSR and its performance, but the performance change has been substantial under Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley. Given that the BSR is a public sector organisation that has changed so quickly, I do not think that we can have this debate without recognising the substantial change that they have made to the BSR, as the performance stats show. But as colleagues have mentioned, there are still areas to improve, so rather than focusing on what is happening now, I will focus on what I think will come next.

There are two big issues for the Department to focus on. First, there is the implementation of the building safety levy. In Scotland, the scheme has already been paused, because of concerns over its viability and how it can be implemented in such a complex system. For England, the Department needs to look at that with regard to bringing forward the remediation Bill. How does the implementation of that levy apply and does it impact on us delivering the homes that we need? Is it the solution now in a reformed system?

The main thing I will talk about, however, is the remediation Bill itself, which has yet to be introduced. I hope that it will contain a number of measures to address some of the issues that colleagues have talked about. First, there is the issue of enforcement deadlines—moving from targets set for the remediation plan to enforceable targets, with the enforcement unit properly equipped to deliver them.

There must also be a clear answer on buildings under 11 metres. I welcome the Government’s extension of funding to buildings under 11 metres, but I understand that the funding pot is constrained by budget, rather than addressing the scale of the problem. Much more collection of evidence is needed to understand the amount of money that is needed to ensure that no building in the UK is unsafe.

There must be a resolution for non-qualifying leaseholders, who have been excluded for years now and, across our constituencies, still face large bills. We must also address the challenge of defect liability periods, because there has been consultation on expanding to 15 or 30 years. That sounds great for a principal developer or contractor, but it is not mirrored in the Defective Premises Act 1972 and how that rolls through the supply chain.

Unfortunately, the big two big winners from the process have been the legal and the insurance professions. I have heard countless stories of contractors who have been encouraged to secure additional professional indemnity insurance to pay for building safety work, only then to be caught out by the insurers using every single technical loophole they can to avoid paying. Ultimately, that means there are buildings and homes across the country that are ready to be lived in that cannot be insured because of the actions of the insurance sector. Contractors are failing; we are seeing an increasing number of collapses among contractors in the construction sector.

Certainly, the big winners from all this have been the lawyers. I have unfortunately heard of schemes where the legal fees outweigh the cost of remediation. Something must be done by the Government to address such ambulance-chasing by some members of the legal profession, who are making millions out of a problem that homeowners inherited.

I thank the National Housing Federation, Real Estate:UK and many others across the sector who keep us informed, and I extend those thanks further down the chain, because without the stories shared by the contractors and suppliers who are working on this, we would not know the reality of trying to fix the problem day to day and the true scale of the challenges that we face. Does the Minister agree that alongside listening to trade bodies, leaseholders, freeholders and developers, we have to ensure that we are down in the supply chain, talking to suppliers and installers to understand what it is like on the ground?

10:20

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate, and introducing it ever so comprehensively and well.

One of the first emails I received when I was elected in 2024 was from Tillicoultry residents who had been told that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was present in their roofs. I remember being really moved by how those people have been affected in so many different ways. They have experienced immense stress and uncertainty at being evacuated at short notice. Three years later, they are still separated from their personal possessions: family heirlooms passed down through generations, photo albums, souvenirs and jewellery—items that cannot have a financial price put on them. Some people have had to move to temporary accommodation, such as hotels or rented properties that will never feel like home. The feeling of being unable to put down roots has taken a toll on their mental health, and having to still pay mortgages on uninhabitable properties has taken a toll on their financial health.

These people’s lives have been turned upside down, but the most heartbreaking and scandalous part of their story is them feeling like they have been ignored. Confusion over repairs and the cost of them has been a hallmark of years of substandard communication from the council. Homeowners have struggled to get responses to emails or phone calls about their ongoing situation, meaning that people have been unable to make informed decisions—and these are huge decisions to make. Some homeowners have ended up selling their property at a vastly reduced price just to get it all over and done with in an attempt to move on with their life.

After a recent meeting at the start of this month, the council accepted that information in some instances could have been presented more clearly. That was welcomed, but it is not enough. I have to say that the SNP administration that run the council need to reflect on the lack of leadership displayed during this whole sorry saga. Both the council leader and the local Clackmannanshire and Dunblane MSP, who is deputy leader of the Scottish National party no less, have been found utterly wanting. They have been so ineffective at getting the Scottish Government to step up and do the right thing for Tillicoultry residents.

The SNP Government have utterly abandoned Tillicoultry residents. It is a disgrace that it took two years for the Cabinet Secretary for Housing to meet with the residents, and the outcome of that meeting was a dereliction of duty. Instead of taking meaningful action to sort this mess out, they just wanted to blame Westminster, but the Tillicoultry residents know that housing is a wholly devolved matter. This is the Scottish Government’s responsibility. The Tillicoultry RAAC residents just want the council and the Scottish Government to treat them with empathy, compassion and fairness. That is not too much to ask. These people are in their hour of need.

10:23

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing today’s important debate and setting out the issue so clearly. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) on all the hard work he is doing to deal with the Halloween horror of panels falling in the town centre.

I pay tribute to the 72 victims of the Grenfell disaster. No debate should pass without recognising how grotesquely they were failed by the systems that were meant to protect them. Let us not forget what the public inquiry panel, chaired by the judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, said in its epic report on the disaster. On building inspectors, it said:

“We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.”

Similarly, it said that the Building Research Establishment

“sacrificed rigorous application of principle to its commercial interests.”

I will return to commercial interests shortly.

The remediation Bill announced in the King’s Speech is expected to make it a legal requirement that every fire risk appraisal of external walls be carried out according to the publicly available specification, or PAS 9980, standard produced by the British Standards Institution. That document decides whether, by law, a leaseholder’s building requires remediation or is considered safe.

The final version of that document has only just been published, but the draft that went out to consultation should worry us and every leaseholder in the country, and we need to know whether its deficiencies have been fixed. First, it says:

“Failure of a building to meet the benchmarks given in building regulations...at the time when the building was built, should not be used as the sole basis for determining the outcome of the FRAEW.”

That means that a building can still pass the PAS 9980 test even if it is proven not to have complied with the building regulations in force when it was built. The fire safety order manages fire safety in occupied buildings on the assumption that they met the building regulations when they were built. The remediation regime should require the same standard that developers should have met when constructing the building, and that others were, and continue to be, required to meet when constructing buildings.

What is remediation for if not to make buildings meet the standards they should always have met? Frankly, what is the point of having building regulations for leaseholders in this position if they are not enforced in such clear circumstances? Can the Minister reassure leaseholders that the newly published standard requires the remediation of failures to comply with the building regulations that were in force at the time of construction? Such questions also point to worrying failures to enforce building regulations more generally, far beyond fire safety, which could lead to an unfolding tide of undiscovered construction failings.

After what we have heard from Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the panel in the Grenfell public inquiry report, any notion that the profit motive has a continuing role in building inspection following those tragic events is unacceptable and cannot be sustained. I am disappointed that the building control independent panel has recommended the continuation of private sector, and therefore profit-seeking, roles in building inspection. That is what got us into this mess; it will not get us out of it. The Liberal Democrats are calling for building control services to be in-house in local or regional authorities, or otherwise not for profit.

As we have heard, the second deficiency in PAS 9980 is the gap between “tolerable” and “low”. Where an appraisal finds a tolerable risk, the draft allows for the work that is needed to bring that risk down to low to be delayed. The commentary on clause 7 suggests

“recommending upgrading the performance of external wall components if/when there is any refurbishment of the external walls in future.”

If and when is not good enough for families who have to live in unsafe homes and with the knowledge that their external walls contain flammable material, sometimes including materials that are more flammable than that used on Grenfell Tower. The leaseholder pays for that wait in insurance premiums, mortgage difficulties and living in a building that is only partially safe. For too many, it also renders useless the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, as they apply to unsafe cladding, and this cladding is not considered unsafe.

If components are found to pose a tolerable risk, are they unsafe? Why should they not be removed to reduce the risk to low? We have heard about the challenge of getting insurance; if buildings were remediated to the standard to which they should have been built in the first place and all flammable materials were removed, residents would not have any problem in getting insurance. Developers cannot be asked to come back to finish the job under those circumstances, because the developer remediation contract only requires a building to be brought up to the “tolerable” standard. Can the Minister confirm whether the newly published standard requires all the work needed to reach a low-risk outcome to be undertaken at the same time?

These are not technical quibbles. The Department’s own figures, published in August, show that of the 4,600 buildings being monitored, only 1,800 have completed remediation, and over 2,000 of the 4,600 required remediations have not even been started, meaning. That means that in 46% of buildings with unsafe cladding no work has begun—nine years on from Grenfell, as other Members have pointed out—and the Department estimates that somewhere between 1,100 and 2,600 more buildings are in scope but have not yet been identified.

Meanwhile, leaseholders continue to struggle under the cladding crisis, buying properties that they believed met safety standards but that they now realise do not, and are suffering huge increases in premiums and so on. Many developers and building owners have passed on the cost of remediation work to tenants and leaseholders, putting many of them, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. The Liberal Democrats, following the policy passed by our conference last year on the great property rip-off, are therefore calling for the removal of all such flammable cladding, whether above or below 11 metres, as soon as possible and without tenants or leaseholders, including non-qualifying leaseholders, having to pay.

After all, those who bought leases placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down. The fault was not theirs. Solicitors’ searches would have shown that buildings had not met building regulations. Homeowners were misled, and it was not their fault. They should not have to pay a penny towards that work. That is why my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place on Friday, would protect leaseholders in buildings of any height and would put developers, contractors and manufacturers on the hook for the cost.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister six things. Will she set out the changes between the consultation draft and the recent version of PAS 9980, which was published the other day? Will she make it clear that a building that has been found to fail the building regulations that were in force when it was built must be remediated back to the building regulations standard, and that the work needed to reach a low-risk outcome should be done once, not deferred to some future refurbishment? Will leaseholder protections be extended to every leaseholder in every defective building, including the hundreds of thousands excluded from the building safety regime? Will the Government commit to driving profit-making commercial interest out of every part of building control inspections and official product testing certifications, and to making physical inspections the norm once again in every development? What more will the Government do to end delays at the Building Safety Regulator? Finally, will the Government confirm that the remediation Bill will provide for cladding manufacturers to be pursued for their share of the costs of remediation, which they have at least partly caused?

We welcomed the legally enforceable duty to remediate on pain of criminal sanction, and we still do, but a duty to remediate is only as good as the standard against which it is measured. Commercial interest should have no place in policing commercial projects for safety and building regulations. Residents in Taunton and Wellington, in London and across the country deserve nothing less. Above all, the victims of the terrible and avoidable disaster at Grenfell deserve justice.

10:32

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate on the building safety remediation of residential buildings. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate and for eloquently setting out lots of issues in the sector.

This is a vital issue. As right hon. and hon. Members have rightly said, no one should be forced to live in an unsafe home. A great deal of progress has been made to improve our housing in recent years, and the share of unsafe homes has declined in the past decade, but we must go further. The need to press ahead is as great now as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 72 people.

The last Conservative Government began the remediation work straight after Grenfell. It included the introduction of financial protections for leaseholders from the costs relating to remediation of unsafe cladding systems put in place by the developer remediation contract. That has ensured that major developers pledge to remediate life-critical fire safety issues in buildings over 11 metres that they have played a role in developing or refurbishing over the past 30 years in England, although some developers should be taken to task for not acting quickly enough and for leaving constituents to fend for themselves.

The last Government were also responsible for putting in place £5.1 billion through the building safety fund and the cladding safety scheme to recover cladding costs for repairs of buildings over 11 metres where no responsible developer could be identified. The Opposition welcome the continued progress by the current Government to implement the Grenfell tower fire inquiry’s recommendations, especially regarding remediation. Residents expect to see the inquiry’s recommendation implemented in full and to see remediation work completed swiftly and safely. For far too long, that has not been the case.

The Building Safety Regulator, established through the Building Safety Act 2022, was set up with good intentions for stronger regulatory oversight. Although it has done much to oversee remediation, it has worked at an unsustainably slow pace. I know that the Minister will be keen to point out that gateway 2 decisions, namely approvals, are coming in at a faster rate, but this is after years of delay. The regulator made just 118 decisions on remediation applications in the 12-week period to 31 August 2026, with a median of 33 weeks for a determination to be made in some older cases. At the end of July 2025, remediation works had been completed in just 39% of identified buildings, with barely half seeing remediation works to unsafe cladding start or finish. That means that, of the estimated 250,000 dwellings of a height of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding in the private and social sector, 104,000 have not even started remediation.

In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have seen what happens when fire safety issues in flats are not addressed. Earlier this year, at a six-storey block in Waltham Cross, with known cladding issues and no working alarm, residents were told on the day before the Easter weekend that they would have to evacuate their homes that evening, because the management company had stopped funding the waking watch, where someone is paid to patrol the building to look out for fires. Local authorities were forced to intervene and to extend the waking watch, and fortunately residents were able to stay. Weeks later, Homes England and the Department supported the installation of a suitable alarm and detection system.

I am relieved that there were no fires in that block and that residents did not have to evacuate in the end. However, leaseholders ended up paying thousands of pounds for the waking watch and were left worrying about the risks of fire to their homes or being removed from their homes at the last minute. That could all have been prevented if the remediation works had been carried out when fire safety concerns were first raised. I hope that the Minister will outline how the Government plan to ensure that all buildings with fire safety issues are made safe before the situation gets so serious.

I conclude by reiterating the Opposition’s firm and unwavering commitment to safe and decent housing, especially through the remediation efforts started after the tragedy of the Grenfell fire. We will continue to support the Government and work across the House to increase the pace of remediation work, improve the Building Safety Regulator and remove dangerous cladding and other materials from homes across the country.

10:37

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate.

I thank all hon. Members who are here this morning. Nine years on, a number of them have rightly raised the tragic incident at Grenfell Tower. As a London MP, I vividly remember the night of 14 June 2017. My son had been born a week earlier, on 7 June. Watching TV throughout the night was like watching a horror film with flames and black pieces, not knowing that the black pieces coming out of the building were people jumping. It is right that this House is united in continuing to scrutinise the pace of remediation and the support available to those affected.

Many residents across the country have lived with uncertainty about the safety of their homes, their financial security and their ability to move on with their lives. We recognise the impact that building safety can have not only on people’s homes, but on their wellbeing and peace of mind. Nine years on from Grenfell, we have to be honest and say that there can be no justification for unsafe buildings remaining unaddressed. Although significant progress has been made, more than 4,000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents continue to face the consequences of failures that they did not cause.

That is why this Government are committed to speeding up remediation, ensuring that those responsible bear the cost of making buildings safer, and strengthening protections for leaseholders and residents. Our objective is clear: to remove barriers to remediation, speed up delivery and ensure that people can feel safe and secure in their home. Since the launch of the remediation acceleration plan, more than 420 additional buildings over 11 metres have completed cladding remediation through the Government-funded scheme and the developer remediation contract, meaning that some 35,000 more residents are now living in safer homes. The Government have approved £2.1 billion of funding for cladding remediation since the plan was launched and have committed to more than £1 billion to accelerate remediation in the social housing sector.

But we recognise that further action is needed. We are considering how we can go further to protect residents, particularly those who fall outside existing protections, and to ensure that no responsible party can avoid its obligations. That is why we will build on the foundations established by the Building Safety Act through the forthcoming remediation Bill and our wider programme of building safety reforms.

The Bill will provide greater clarity and certainty about which buildings require remediation and the standards that must be met. It will strengthen regulators’ ability to check delay and non-compliance. It will improve routes to recover remediation costs from those responsible and ensure that residents have a pathway to remediation even where responsible entities fail to act or are unable to meet their obligations. Taken together, these reforms will strengthen accountability across the system and help to ensure that buildings are made safer faster.

I turn to some specific issues raised during the debate. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the issue of PAS 9980. As hon. Members will know, PAS 9980 was developed by the British Standards Institution. The Government sponsored the BSI to review and update it to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and captures best practice, looking at the learnings since it was introduced in 2022.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath outlined, the BSI published an update to PAS 9980 yesterday. I do not agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. PAS 9980 provides an industry-wide accepted methodology to enable qualified and experienced assessors to undertake the fire risk appraisal of external walls. It provides a consistent and proportionate building-specific approach to risk assessments and helps to achieve the right solutions for each building, keeping residents safe while preventing unnecessary and disruptive works. As the update highlights, it has improved the clarity of the structure and usability of PAS 9980, with the aim of achieving greater transparency and consistency by assessors. It does not, however, materially change how risks are assessed, so fire risk appraisals of external walls undertaken using a previous version of PAS 9980 will remain valid. Government remediation programmes require that fire risk appraisals of external walls be undertaken using this methodology.

To further safeguard quality and ensure consistency in assessments, the remediation Bill will mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to align with our best practice remediation programmes and ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation work. It will also establish mandatory auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls in law. This requirement will reinforce trust in both the assessors and the outcomes. I hope that that helps to reassure hon. Members.

Several right hon. and hon. Members rightly mentioned the issue of fire risk assessors. Fire risk assessors perform a critical safety role, and it is essential that they are fully compliant and competent. We have therefore accepted the full recommendation in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report for mandatory certifications of fire risk assessors. To meet the recommendation, we intend to bring into law mandatory compliance requirements for fire risk assessors to perform that vital role, subject to parliamentary approval and timescale.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I welcome that step, but what the Minister says suggests it is some way off. Can she give some indication of the timescale for getting mandatory licensing in place?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I agree that many people will continue to question when the fire risk assessors will be in place. The Government recently launched a public consultation on the proposal to establish a fire risk assessor profession with consistently high levels of competency, whereby trust is rebuilt and a strong and diverse pipeline of talent comes forward to ensure that fire safety standards are met. We are currently analysing all the consultation responses, and the Government will publish a full response later this autumn, so hopefully my hon. Friend will not have to wait much longer.

We recognise the additional pressures on building control and fire engineer capacity across the country. We have established the independent building control panel and the fire engineers advisory panel to examine the issues and provide recommendations on strengthening the system. The Government are committed to working with the BSR on long-term reform and exploring options for a more efficient building control system. Any future changes will be developed in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

We all want to see stronger and better building control, but local authorities have been hollowed out. We have lost a lot of experienced planners and there is not always a pipeline coming through with the necessary experience. Can we lobby the Treasury for support for local government in that respect?

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend will know that I will definitely continue to lobby Treasury colleagues very hard, and any help from colleagues around the House will be helpful. In the meantime, the current system includes a new initiative looking at digital building control programmes. I can confirm that over £45 million has been invested in growing the workforce to help to address the key issue of capacity, streamline the process and support development. More is coming, but a lot more needs to come through the pipeline.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, mentioned the key issue of building insurance and the continuing financial strain felt by so many innocent leaseholders. They see their insurance premiums going through the roof, in some cases paying more than for their mortgages. In the remediation acceleration plan, the Government have committed to working with the insurance industry to explore options to address the insurance challenges faced by residents living in buildings that are undergoing remediation.

To strengthen the evidence base, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the remediation programme insurance survey, a UK-wide survey of buildings in Government remediation programmes. The findings, first published in July 2026, provide the most comprehensive dataset collected to date on insurance costs, premiums and claims and remediation status across more than 2,000 buildings undergoing remediation. The evidence is informing ongoing engagement with insurers and wider work to understand how insurance costs can better reflect improvements in building safety as remediation progresses. The Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a short and focused review of the multi-occupancy building insurance market, and the findings will strengthen the evidence base on the next steps.

The Government are also undertaking action to improve transparency and fairness in residential building insurance. We are proceeding with secondary legislation to prevent insurance commissions, which can be opaque and excessive, from being passed on by freeholders and managing agents as freeholders’ expenses, and to replace such arrangements with fair and transparent permitted insurance payments with a fee structure. Alongside that, we will introduce through secondary legislation a new transparency requirement for building insurance, including in respect of the disclosure of the relationships and financial arrangements among landlords, managing agents, brokers and insurers.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister just said about looking at the fairness of the whole market for insurance, but the immediate issue is that many of our constituents have for several years paid exorbitant and very excessive insurance costs. This is not their responsibility or fault—they did not install the dangerous cladding or fail to inspect properly. They deserve compensation from the insurance industry for what they have been through, and if that is not forthcoming, the Government should have a default position of backing it up. Our constituents have suffered grievously through this problem.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. He highlighted examples of various developments in his constituency, including Drayton Park and Highbury Gardens, underlining the fact that innocent leaseholders have continued to pay exorbitant fees for many years. It is really important that we get to grips with this, especially for new buildings. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be discussing the matter in respect of the national planning policy framework and some other areas, and I will continue to discuss it as well. On the specific issue of backdating, it is important for us to look at clear insurance procurement—the pricing, the cover, the prescribed timeframes for providing information and the mechanism for challenging any future delays.

Together, the measures the Government have outlined are intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help to ensure that residents have a clearer understanding of insurance costs. There is a lot of jargon and hidden figures. We need to make sure that the costs are clear and that when residents challenge them, they get the right information back so that they can assess what they are being asked to pay for.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her answers; she is giving a comprehensive and detailed response, as I knew she would. Ever mindful that she has been in place for only a short time, I have a specific question about what is happening here compared with the situation back home. We have an outstanding problem with many properties in Belfast. It would be helpful if we were able, perhaps through the Minister, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in particular the relevant Minister there, to ensure that what is learned here can be passed on to those back home in the Assembly.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a valid point about what lessons can be learned from what happens in the UK. As he has outlined, buildings right across the UK need to be safe. Every home needs to be safe; it does not matter where a person lives. I am very open to looking at areas of best practice, which we can share as we develop legislation.

Several Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, outlined the big issue with EWS1 forms, which has caused many homeowners a great deal of stress. The Government recognise the difficulties in selling and remortgaging homes, and the concerns for residents living in buildings impacted by building safety issues. We have continued to work with major mortgage lenders to improve access to lending for affected buildings and support the functioning of the housing market while remediation progresses.

The hon. Gentleman referred to concerns about the validity of certain EWS1 forms. I can confirm that my Department is aware of those concerns, which relate to a fire engineer who was removed from his professional accrediting body and is, as I understand it, no longer operating in the field. Although I cannot comment on individual cases, it is important to reiterate that the EWS1 form is not an official Government form but an industry tool used by lenders and valuers to help them to understand the remediation status of participating buildings.

My officials continue to engage with the mortgage lending industry to encourage it to take a proportionate approach when using EWS1 forms. The Government consider that lenders should be moving away from the forms, but there is still an over-reliance on them. The hon. Gentleman highlighted an additional bill of £4,500 because of the delay in getting an EWS1 form. We understand that EWS1 forms continue to be used by individual lenders, and the Government will continue to stress loudly that lenders should move away from that requirement.

A number of Members highlighted the issue of cost and who pays for historical remediation. The Building Safety Act puts the responsibility for undertaking, and in most cases paying for, remediation on the building’s landlords, while making it very clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they have developed or refurbished even if they no longer own them. Courts have new powers to extend liability to associated companies, thereby stopping complex corporate structures being used to dodge responsibility. This was not fair and took a mental toll on many homeowners.

Where a developer cannot be identified or has not yet agreed to pay, public funding is available to address life-threatening cladding risk on residential buildings over 11 metres high, so that no leaseholder in those buildings will face cladding remediation costs. Many holders of qualifying leases are protected in full from non-cladding and interim measures—for example, where the landlord or its group meets the contribution condition or where the property value is below the set threshold.

Other qualifying leaseholders have their costs firmly capped and spread over 10 years, with costs already paid out since 28 June 2017 counting towards the cap. For obvious reasons, in Greater London the cap is £15,000 and across the country it is £10,000. That rises to £50,000 for properties valued between £1 million and £2 million, and to £100,000 for properties valued at more than £2 million.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned the building safety levy, which will come into force on 1 October and will raise funds to pay for the remediation of cladding on residential buildings where the developer cannot be held responsible or identified. That is a key element for ensuring trust.

Under the work started by the previous Government, 53 developers signed the developer-led remediation contract with the Government. The contract covers more than 2,000 buildings in England that are over 11 metres high and have life-critical fire safety defects. Developers have contributed and committed to pay or fix the matter, at a cost of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that fails to comply with the remediation obligations faces significant commercial consequences, including the imposition of statutory prohibitions, effectively preventing them from building new homes in England. We expect all developers to accelerate their remediation work without compromising safety.

[Luke Myer]

That is very positive, but of course those are the developers that are willing to engage, and many of them are not. I recently spoke to Carl Harris from Teesside who suffered life-changing injuries when a wall collapsed on him. He has been trying to engage the sector with an innovation he has developed to prevent unfinished walls from collapsing. What more can the Government do to encourage developers who are not already involved to innovate and protect workers and residents?

[Florence Eshalomi]

rose—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Minister, please allow a couple of minutes for the winding-up speech.

[Florence Eshalomi]

As of April 2026, developers had assessed whether remediation work was required in 94% of their buildings. Despite the progress, there is still a lot to do. Some developers are behind that stretch target and we will continue to engage with them.

The Government remain firmly committed to building a safety regime that is robust, proportionate and protects residents while enabling the delivery of much-needed homes. We have listened to concerns and have already taken decisive steps to strengthen the regulator’s capacity, improve its processes and ensure it is fit for purpose. We will continue to work with the industry, residents and Parliament to ensure that the regulation delivers effectively.

I am grateful for all the points Members have raised and will come back to them on any points I have not addressed, especially where they raised individual constituency cases. I look forward to the ongoing dialogue as we continue to address this really important issue.

10:59

[Dr Pinkerton]

I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member who participated in the debate accepts my thanks for their excellent contributions. I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople and the Minister, who is new to her role.

To pick up on one thing, the Minister said—forgive me for paraphrasing; I was writing it down as she spoke—that “no responsible party” in this whole scenario should be able to derogate, or words to that effect, from their obligations. I will leave her with one thought: the risk of PAS 9980 is that it allows those responsible to do exactly that—to be absolved of their responsibility. The defects that were built at the point of construction will be retained because of the new risk-based approach. The responsibility then falls on the purses of our constituents, because they will pay higher insurance costs in perpetuity. I know the Minister is new to her role—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Ocean Conservation and Stewardship

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ocean conservation and stewardship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. We spend a lot of time in this place talking about land, housing and farms—what grows and what gets built. We spend less time talking about the three quarters of a million square miles of ocean that fall under UK jurisdiction. That is a mistake, because our seas are the foundation of a great deal of our national life. They regulate our climate, feed our coastal towns, carry our trade and increasingly hold the key to this country’s resilience in the decades ahead.

As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, I watched David Attenborough’s documentary on the oceans alongside many colleagues in this House and the former Prime Minister. I echo Attenborough’s words that

“We are living in the greatest age of ocean discovery, yet we are also witnessing its greatest peril.”

I am the Member of Parliament for Chatham and Aylesford, and my constituency has a centuries-long maritime history through its association with the dockyard and global trade. That is highlighted by the outstanding work of the Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust in its recent “Awesome Oceans” exhibition with Steve Backshall, which seeks to educate our younger generations. Our nation’s heritage runs through our seas and oceans.

I want to use my time to cover four key elements: the state of our marine protected areas and bottom trawling within them, fisheries and sustainability, the case for parity in marine pollution fines, and the UK’s wider leadership role in the ocean, including in the recently signed biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement and the plastics treaty negotiations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. My constituency based on the scenic Northern Ireland coastline, and I am particularly interested in what more can be done to protect the sea that surrounds us. Raw sewage contains bacteria, harmful chemicals and microplastics, all of which have serious consequences for both marine and human health. Those microplastics are essentially impossible to remove once they enter the environment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more must be done to tackle the problem of microplastics?

[Tristan Osborne]

I do agree. The UK Government’s engagement on the global plastics treaty, in alignment with the European Union and other nations, is looking to resolve that exact issue. Microplastics that get into the human biology can significantly heighten the risk of cancer and other problems, and they are a persistent form of pollution that needs to be resolved.

Let me start with a number that should give every Member in this room pause. A third of UK waters now sit within a marine protected area. On paper, that sounds like a country taking marine conservation seriously; in practice, however, the Government’s own assessment finds that we are failing on 13 of the 15 indicators of good environmental status in our seas, and not one of our offshore habitats is currently assessed as in good condition. How can that be when so much of our sea is supposedly protected?

The honest answer is that designation is not always the same thing as protection. Across large parts of the MPA network, bottom trawling and dredging remain entirely lawful. Oceana estimates that, in 2024 alone, there were more than 31,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in UK offshore marine protected areas. More than 70% of those hours were concentrated in just 41 English sites—the same 41 sites covered by the Government’s stage 3 consultation. That consultation ended some time ago, and fishermen, conservation groups and coastal communities responded to it in good faith, so will the Minister provide a clearer timetable for the publication of the outcome?

Bottom trawling deserves a moment of its own, because it is not a marginal or peripheral issue. Heavy gear dragged across the seabed flattens reefs, uproots seagrass and disturbs carbon that has been locked in the sediment for centuries. It is, by some distance, one of the most destructive things that we allow in our oceans.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I had the pleasure of going out with some non-governmental organisations and marine conservation groups into the Lyme bay marine protected area, which has been protected from bottom trawling for over a decade. We had an opportunity to take a drone down to the seabed to see exactly how quickly nature can recover when we remove artificial barriers such as bottom trawling. There are now reefs and fish, but more than anything, the marine protected area now provides a sustainable business for local fishermen because the fish population has improved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more of these conservation areas in order to allow British fisheries to recover?

[Tristan Osborne]

I absolutely agree. Marine protection and a viable fishing industry are not competing interests; they depend on each other. It is impossible to fish from a stock that has collapsed, and coastal communities cannot be sustained by paper promises about future abundance. I agree that the question needs to be looked at, because we can do both and they are mutually beneficial.

That is why this year’s fisheries data should worry us. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science assessed 79 baseline catch limits negotiated for 2026 and found that 46 of them, or 58%, were set above scientific advice. The consequence of repeatedly setting limits above what the science recommends is not an abstract matter; it shows up in the value of the fishery itself. The Blue Marine Foundation reports that UK fishing opportunities in 2026 fell in value by around £136 million on the year before, as well as real declines in commercially important stocks. There are also more troubling findings on illegal discarding; more than a decade after the practice was banned under EU law, there are reports of trawlers discarding six times more fish than they land. I would welcome an assessment from the Minister of how discard rules are being policed.

I want to be clear that the transition to sustainable fishing must work for the people who fish for a living as well as for the ecosystem. Vessels under 10 metres make up more than 80% of the British fleet. These small operations are often family businesses and the economic backbone of the harbour towns they sail from, including in my home county of Kent. If we ask the industry to change how it fishes, we owe it investment in skills, in lower-impact gear and in a genuine transition plan, as opposed to simply handing down a new set of rules with no support attached.

There is an anomaly in our law that I do not think gets enough attention. If a company pollutes land in this country under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, there are no limits to the fines that the courts can impose. Sentencing guidelines allow courts to fine large numbers of organisations amounts running into many millions of pounds, scaled to the seriousness of the harm and the means of the offender. But for those who pollute the sea, the picture looks very different. Fines for illegal discharge of oil were historically capped under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and even where caps have been raised over the years, marine pollution offences have not often been brought into full alignment with the uncapped regime that applies on land.

Campaigners have documented the practical result. Over the past five years, there have only been two recorded convictions or fines for oil pollution breaches around our coasts, and one of those fines was as little as £7,000. The rate of inspection of offshore oil and gas infrastructure has fallen from a quarter of sites to fewer than one in six. I struggle to see the logic in treating a spill into the Irish sea or an ocean more leniently than the same spill into a field or other terrestrial habitat. Marine ecosystems are, if anything, harder to clean up and slower to recover than land is. A tanker or platform operator that calculates that the maximum possible fine is a rounding error against its annual turnover has very little reason to invest properly in prevention. I ask the Minister to set out whether the Government intend to bring marine pollution penalties in line with the uncapped regime for pollution on land.

Stopping damage is necessary but not sufficient on its own. Passive recovery—simply removing the pressure from trawling and dredging—can allow habitats to bounce back if the damage is not too severe, but we have lost more than 90% of our seagrass meadows since the 1930s, and salt marsh in the south-east of England continues to erode at about 40 hectares a year. Habitat loss on that scale will not reverse itself; we need active restoration of seagrass, salt marsh and native oyster reefs, delivered in partnership with local communities so that it creates jobs and skills locally. It should be something done not to a place, but with it. Blue carbon habitats matter for the climate as well as for nature, and restoring a meaningful share of them by the end of the decade should be treated as seriously as any land-based nature target that we set ourselves.

I want to end on a hopeful note. This country has genuinely led on the international stage. The UK’s ratification of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, or the UN high seas treaty, was a significant moment, because for the first time there was a legal framework for protecting biodiversity on the high seas—the two thirds of the ocean that sit outside any nation’s territorial waters. Until that point, it was outside the law. The UK was among the states that pushed the hardest to get the agreement over the line, and I pay tribute to the Department and Ministers for their diligent work on it.

The same is true of the global plastics treaty. I understand that the negotiations have not been easy, and the talks in Geneva last year did not deliver the agreement that many of us hoped for, but the UK has led as part of a coalition of more than 100 nations pushing for legally binding limits on plastic pollution. That is the right side of the argument to be on. I hope the Minister will update the House on when negotiations are expected to resume and what the UK’s position will be when they do.

Then there is the science. If they have not already done so, I ask colleagues to look at the work of our outstanding universities, including the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, which I and many Members of this House have had the pleasure of visiting. We lead on oceanographic science. I have met a number of researchers who are mapping deep-sea ecosystems that most of us will never see, tracking how the ocean absorbs and moves heat and carbon, and building the evidence base that underpins almost everything that we are discussing today, from stock assessments and blue carbon to the physical behaviour of the deep sea floor. That expertise is a genuine national asset, and it deserves long-term, stable funding.

We have real strengths in this country to build on, including a strong domestic marine science base, genuine international credibility on ocean treaties, and a public who, by a wide margin, want our seas to be better protected. What is missing in some cases is the follow-through—the stage 3 decision. Trawling continues inside sites that we call protected, and fines for marine pollution remain a fraction of what the same offence would attract on land. These are not difficult things to understand, and none require significant new pieces of legislation to fix. They require political will and a timetable. In the words of David Attenborough,

“We can now destroy or we can cherish. The choice is ours.”

11:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), a fellow south-east coast MP, for securing this debate, and to all those who intervened. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership of the APPG.

Marine issues, including sustainable fisheries, have only recently become part of my ministerial portfolio, so this is a very timely debate for me. I am pleased to have the chance to set out my stall.

Our stewardship of the ocean matters. Our seas are central to so much of what we care about: nature recovery, food security, clean energy, coastal livelihoods and communities, climate resilience and our identity as an island nation. People rightly care deeply about the marine environment, but they also care about livelihoods, food production, energy security and the future of communities that depend on the sea. I pay tribute to campaigners and all those who work in the sector on these important matters.

Having responsibilities across those issues will enable me to take a more strategic view, consider the whole picture and look for a balanced decision-making process that supports our prosperous fishing industry and healthier, more resilient seas. I want my Department to make decisions that recognise the connections. I also want our decisions to be rooted in evidence, engagement and long-term stewardship.

The Government are committed to protecting and improving the marine environment, including playing our part in delivering the global biodiversity framework target to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. Domestically, our marine strategy and environmental improvement plan provides an important framework for action, including our statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features to be in a favourable condition by 2042. We are committed to the effective protection of our comprehensive network of MPAs around the UK.

In English waters, we are continuing to implement fisheries management byelaws, including introducing further protections in due course. That includes proposals to restrict bottom trawling, following the Marine Management Organisation’s consultation last year. The MMO is carefully considering the significant number of responses received and will announce its response in due course. Such decisions are not always easy, and must be taken carefully, transparently and with a clear understanding of both environmental and socioeconomic impacts.

We are also reviewing the English marine protected area network to consider whether sites are in the right places and have the right levels of protection. That matters because the network is effective only if it is ecologically coherent, well managed and able to respond to the pressures that our seas face now and in the future.

Those pressures are increasing. Climate change is already altering the marine environment, affecting habitats, species distribution and the communities and industries that depend on them. At the same time, we must manage the impact of growing demands on our marine environment and space, including those resulting from the expansion of offshore wind. That expansion is essential to our clean power and energy security ambitions, but it must be delivered in a way that also supports marine recovery.

Reforms led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, such as the marine recovery fund launched in December last year, will help unlock clean power while delivering effective compensation to protect nature. The marine recovery fund is one element of our offshore wind environmental improvement package, which aims to ensure continued protection of the marine environment while speeding up consent for offshore wind.

Marine spatial prioritisation and co-location work will also help us manage competing demands, including offshore wind, fishing, conservation and other sea uses. That is exactly the kind of area where we need to look across Government goals and avoid treating each decision in isolation.

We are also committed to supporting the fishing sector to adapt to growing pressures on marine space, and we will work with the industry to safeguard its long-term viability. I know that the European Commission is developing its Ocean Act, and I look forward to learning more about the important work that the EU is doing to cover both conservation and stewardship.

Marine protection also relies on enforcing the rules. Responsibility for delivering on that and tackling marine pollution incidents depends on the nature of the incident and source of the pollution. A number of bodies have statutory roles in responding to marine pollution, while any investigation and enforcement action are matters for the relevant independent regulators and enforcement authorities. In the case of pollution originating from terrestrial sources, the Environment Agency has a key role to play, while the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has an important role if the pollution comes from a marine source. Fines and sentences are imposed independently by the courts, which determine the appropriate penalty based on the circumstances of each case and applicable sentencing guidelines.

I can confirm to Members that DEFRA and the Environment Agency are engaging with the Ministry of Justice to strengthen the overall enforcement regime so that environmental offences carry meaningful consequences and provide a stronger deterrent against pollution.

Links between marine protection and fisheries are particularly important. Food security is national security, and seafood has an important role to play. A sustainable fishing industry depends on healthy fish stocks and healthy seas. Fisheries management plans are helping us to take a more evidenced view of how we support fisheries sustainably. They demonstrate why fishery management and protection of the marine environment must be addressed together, and set out a range of short, medium and long-term actions to maintain or restore stocks to sustainable levels and to improve the marine ecosystem.

We cannot, however, deliver ocean conservation alone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said in his opening remarks, the UK continues to play a leading role internationally in ocean protection, and it remains committed to delivering our shared global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We are proud to be a founder and chair of the Global Ocean Alliance, as well as ocean champion of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, in which role we are committed to protecting and restoring the health of our ocean.

We continue to work with partners to protect vulnerable ecosystems and coastal communities. The UK has bolstered these efforts by leveraging finance for the ocean through the Blue Planet Fund, which is our largest marine official development assistance programme. Also, I am delighted that in July the UK ratified the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. It will enable greater conservation of the two thirds of the ocean that lie beyond national jurisdiction, and support the delivery of the global biodiversity framework, including the target to protect at least 30% of our ocean by 2030.

Later this month, the International Whaling Commission will mark its 80th anniversary, and next month will also mark the 40th anniversary of the global moratorium on commercial whaling, but there is more work to do. The UK will be at the forefront of global efforts to protect and promote the welfare of whales and other cetaceans as the chair of the IWC conservation committee. We also look forward to being a leading voice on ocean issues at the UN biodiversity conference in October and the climate conference of the parties in November, and to engaging proactively in the work of the first meeting of the BBNJ conference of the parties next year.

We are also working with international partners to secure a new international agreement to end plastic pollution that addresses the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a global circular economy. We are committed to reaching an agreement at the first round of negotiations in March 2027.

Finally, this Government recognise the continuing need for high-quality science to support our domestic and international work, and to ensure that Government decisions are based on the best available evidence. The UK has a leading role to play in ocean science, and we regularly call on others to help us to address emerging ocean threats and to inform the implementation of our international commitments and management measures.

As this debate has shown, effective ocean stewardship means taking a long-term and joined-up approach, both domestically and internationally. As I have said, bringing together marine and sustainable fisheries will help to balance environmental, social and economic considerations. By protecting and restoring the marine environment, supporting sustainable fisheries and coastal communities and grounding decisions in the best available evidence, we can help to secure healthier seas for future generations. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for securing today’s debate, and for raising such important issues.

Question put and agreed to.

11:22

Sitting suspended.

Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the definition and application of grey belt land.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the definition of grey-belt land. Shortly after their election, the Government introduced a new concept to planning and development: grey-belt land. This would be a subset of land currently designated as green belt that the Government considered less worthy of protection than the rest of the green belt, on which they wanted to make development easier. I asked for this debate because it is important that we understand the significance of this new concept. Specifically—I know the Minister will do his best to help with all these items—I am interested in understanding, first, how different grey-belt designation seems from what the Government originally said it would be; secondly, its likely impact on our countryside; and thirdly, how it combines with other changes the Government are making to the balance of development in rural and urban areas.

Let us start with the difference between what the Government originally suggested grey belt would be and their definition published in the “National Planning Policy Framework” document. In July 2024, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in her first incarnation as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the Government’s intention was to

“release lower-quality grey-belt sites, disused car parks and garages, and ugly wasteland”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 315.]

She also said:

“The land we are talking about—grey belt, which we define in the NPPF consultation—is not agricultural land; it is disused garages and things of that nature”.—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1196.]

However, when the actual definition of grey-belt land appeared in the NPPF of December 2024, the concept was considerably wider. Grey belt is now defined as land in the green belt that does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of the green belt that were included in the previous definition of green-belt land. Those three purposes are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up are, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. In other words, to remain as green belt and not be reclassified as grey belt, land must need protecting in order to prevent urban sprawl or to stop urban areas merging, or be near enough to a historic town to affect its setting or character. Even a moderate contribution to those objectives will not be enough; to save the land from grey-belt status, it must contribute “strongly”.

The remaining two purposes of green-belt designation are no longer considered important enough to preserve green belt from becoming grey belt. Namely, they are assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, or assisting urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

We can draw two conclusions from all this about what is actually green belt and what is grey belt. First, quite a lot of what is now green belt will probably end up redesignated as grey belt, because the Government have set the bar quite high to retain green-belt status. Only a strong contribution to the three remaining effective green belt purposes will do. I am not the only one who thinks that much of the green belt could end up as grey belt. Recent analysis from “Channel 4 News” suggested that 96% of the green belt around Guildford could be grey belt, along with 92% of the green belt around Stoke-on-Trent and 80% of the green belt around Solihull.

My second conclusion is that land that continues to qualify as green belt as opposed to grey belt will largely be on the edge of urban settlements. That is because the grey belt is, in effect, all green-belt land that does not strongly contribute to the three green belt purposes that only apply very near to urban settlements. It follows that land in open countryside currently in the green belt will be less able to meet one of those three purposes, and is therefore more likely to be redesignated as grey-belt land. Much of that is agricultural land, which the Secretary of State said the green belt would not be.

The Secretary of State also told the House in a written statement on 30 July 2024 that much of the green belt is:

“better described as ‘grey belt’: land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, and with little aesthetic or environmental value.”

Given the actual definition of grey belt that the Government have decided on, the opposite is surely true. By their definition, the land on the edge of existing settlements or roads is in fact more likely to be green belt, and land further from existing settlements is more likely to be grey belt.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because grey-belt designation is intended to facilitate more development—that is the point. The Government are trying to release more land that is currently called green belt for housing and other things, so it matters what land the Government are actually making it easier to develop with grey-belt designation. The reality is that the land that the Government are making it easier to develop is not disused car parks and garages or ugly wasteland; it is agricultural land and open countryside.

We can see an indication of that in the decisions of planning inspectors in cases where developers have argued for grey-belt status. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has examined cases in the year following the first definition of grey-belt land in the NPPF of December 2024. In that period, planning inspectors approved 13 developments of 10 or more houses on green-belt land, which they believed should be reclassified as grey belt in accordance with the Government’s definition. Of the 1,250 homes those schemes deliver, nearly 90% are in previously undeveloped countryside, not on wasteland or former car parks.

I appreciate that the Minister may say that grey-belt designation is not enough on its own to allow development; other criteria must also be met. That is so, but it is worth examining those other criteria. First, development on green-belt land must also meet an unmet need, but with many councils unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply—often, it has to be said, due to recent increases in Government housing targets, to which I may return—I suspect that, routinely, that unmet need will be easy to demonstrate.

Secondly, the development must be in a sustainable location, but sustainability is an elusive concept. If I am right that most grey-belt land will be in countryside away from urban settlements, then transport infrastructure, health and education provision and even mains gas and sewerage may well be less plentiful. Therefore, we have to ask if many of the grey-belt locations will really be sustainable. Presumably, the Government must believe so, or grey-belt designation is not going to move the needle on housing provision.

Perhaps the Minister expects to see considerable infrastructure upgrades to rural grey-belt locations, but that will be expensive and will affect the viability and deliverability of the housing developments that the Government may be relying on. Then housing developments in grey-belt locations must provide more social housing than elsewhere—perhaps 50% of the total. Whatever the merits or viability of that, social houses will have the same impact on the openness of the green belt and our countryside as any other kind.

Finally, the Minister may remind us that, according to the NPPF, a development on grey-belt land may only take place if it

“would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan”.

I accept that, theoretically at least. That brings back into consideration both the encroachment of the countryside and urban regeneration. Again, it is worth exploring how valuable and usable that safeguard is likely to be, and it seems it will be challenging to argue. The plan area for most of my constituency is south Warwickshire. It would be difficult to claim that building on a single grey-belt site would fundamentally undermine the green belt in half the county, unless the cumulative effect of many grey-belt developments could be considered in measuring the fundamental undermining of the green belt. Would the Minister clarify whether the cumulative impact of other sites, in conjunction with the sites subject to individual consideration, will be relevant in that exercise? If not, why not?

I turn to the broader impact of the grey belt on the countryside. As I said earlier, it appears to me that grey-belt land as the Government have defined it will increasingly be agricultural land and other land in the countryside, which will be easier as a result to turn into housing estates, warehouses or solar farms, for example. The protection for our countryside that green-belt status has thus far offered will be substantially eroded, and for constituencies with large amounts of green belt, that could be very significant.

My constituency is roughly 30% green belt, and others are substantially more. The residual green belt will be areas on the fringes of towns and cities but, to be clear, not around our villages, which are specifically excluded from the definition of an urban area in the NPPF. That might seem uncontroversial—logical even—but it has a practical effect in the context of the debate. That is because the difference between small towns and large villages is becoming increasingly academic. In my constituency, for example, the town of Southam had a population in 2024 of around 9,200, and the village of Wellesbourne had a population of around 7,600. Under the Government’s definition, small towns in the green belt can defend themselves from grey-belt designation, but large villages in the green belt cannot. Grey-belt designation means more pressure from development on villages and rural areas, more pressure on rural roads and schools, and more of our countryside lost to bricks and concrete on top of the huge housing developments already in and around villages in constituencies like mine.

It is hard to believe that that impact is accidental, because it has to be seen in the context of other changes the Government have made. Making it easier to build houses in the countryside goes hand in hand with revised housing targets from the Government that are higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas. My constituency, again, is a good example. Most of it falls within Warwick district and Stratford district, and just across the border is the city of Coventry. The Government have reduced Coventry’s housing target by 50%. The target for Warwick district, which is mostly green belt, has gone up by 65%. Stratford district’s new target is 99% higher. That is not accidental; it is a deliberate plan to transfer housing pressure from urban to rural areas.

It is no surprise, then, that the Government do not want the green-belt purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration to stand in the way of grey-belt designation and easier development. However, my constituents and those of other Members present have seen considerable housing development around them already, and now they face even more, while predominantly Labour councils, it has to be said, in urban areas are not asked to find housing land within their own borders—land that would largely be brownfield sites. That is not just bad news for our countryside; it is bad news for our cities, too, as they will not get the new housing, particularly for first-time buyers and young families, that would help to revitalise the economy of places like Coventry.

It seems to me that the Government have described the green belt as one thing and then defined it as something else. It seems to me that there will be much more grey belt and much less green belt as the Government ask local authorities to review their green belt and as they or the Planning Inspectorate accede to developers’ arguments that the green belt they want to build on is actually grey. All of that will have a significant and irreversible impact on our green-belt countryside.

The Minister is of course entitled to disagree with my analysis or to tell me that I do not need to worry, but I would like him to address in particular the following points. First, does he accept that grey belt is likely predominantly to be open countryside and greenfield sites, contrary to what the Government originally suggested? If so, does he accept that the impact on our countryside in green-belt areas will be significant and destructive? Finally, is that likely impact deliberate or accidental? If accidental, will he look again at what grey-belt designation will likely deliver in practice? Will he be prepared to continue the conversation that I hope we will have this afternoon and seek to minimise the impact of this change on our rural communities, about which many of us are extremely concerned?

14:45

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for introducing the debate. As the Member of Parliament for Woking, housing is the top issue in my inbox due to issues such as overcrowding, evictions, problems with bedbugs or mould, and problems with leasehold. We need more and better quality homes in Woking and across the country. There is planning permission for more than 2,000 homes in Woking town centre and the surrounding area, including 1,000 in the EcoWorld site on Goldsworth Road and the 100 in the former Greenfield school site on Brooklyn Road. All those 2,000 homes got planning permission before the pandemic, and none are under construction—absolutely none. None of them are financially viable for the developers, so they are sitting on that land.

Recently, the Secretary of State stated that there is a “slim chance” that the Government will hit their target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has raised its concerns about that with the Government before. Instead of tackling the high construction costs that leave sites for new homes abandoned in Woking and across the country, the Government have adopted the concept of “grey belt” to encourage development to meet their housing targets. In one Surrey borough it is believed that 80% of its green belt would be reclassified as grey belt. Woking borough council is doing the same assessment to find out how the reclassification will impact my constituency. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member that the definition of grey belt is too broad. It has been described in a very specific way—with which even the average nimby would have no problem—but it has also been defined in a very broad manner that would, I worry, fundamentally damage our local environments.

Last year, I held a public meeting in Mayford to hear from residents about how a large proposed development would impact them. They do not want to see the fields north of Saunders Lane, which are used for recreation and agriculture, turned into a housing estate. People in Maybourne Rise in Mayford do not want to lose their fields either. Residents in Sutton Green are concerned about the green belt being lost there. Rather than unlock sustainable development in Woking and other brownfield locations, the Government have chosen to encourage development in less sustainable locations, where there is no or limited infrastructure. That will damage the local environment; that is what grey belt does. Rather than building in the places that we should be, we are targeting places for housing growth that should be protected for future generations.

I ask the Minister, will the Government seek action in the Budget to unlock the brownfield development sites that are stalled, to relieve pressure on nature and on our grey and green belt and build the homes we need? Are the Minister and his colleagues urging the Chancellor to go big in the forthcoming Budget to ensure that it unlocks those development sites? Are the Government looking at reducing tax on development on brownfield sites? Have they ruled out changing the community infrastructure or development contributions? Is everything on the table to try to unlock development, or have they not got that far and are happy to sit on empty construction sites while people on housing waiting lists wait for evermore?

If they have not thought about financial measures, will the Minister and the Government consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce “use it or lose it” powers for long-term empty sites? My constituents do not want a town full of empty sites and people sitting on a housing waiting list, while the Government introduce grey belt and damage our environment. I am afraid that, without a change of course—remember that this Government have been happy to U-turn—that is what is going to happen.

14:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I give great thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for raising this matter. Both he and the Minister know that the Minister is not responsible for housing in Northern Ireland, but I always wish to give a perspective, as an MP for Strangford contributing to debates in the House and in Westminster Hall, on what we have done back home.

Although I understand the need for increased housing development, as the MP for Strangford, a constituency covered by vast stretches of countryside, I am most concerned for the protection of our rural communities. I support the Government’s aim of 1.5 million houses. That figure will not be achieved, according to comments in the paper yesterday or the day before from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Whatever the figure may be, it has also been indicated from the stats that, in its totality, the United Kingdom faces a shortfall of some 4.3 million homes.

I want to share some of what we have done in Northern Ireland and in my constituency, just to give a flavour. There is a need to build adequate, affordable homes, to give people a chance to get on to the housing ladder. I remember that one of our former Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher, always said she wanted to make sure that people had the chance to buy their home. As a young person—I was much younger than I am now—I thought that was an admirable policy, and I certainly supported it. What did we all want to do? We all wanted to own our home.

That reminds me of a story—I want to give you an idea of prices back in 1971. I was only 16 at the time; I had just left school when a man came to buy my dad’s coal business. It was Mr Dowds and, being 16, I always called him “Mister”, never by his first name. When he came down, he told me he had bought a house up the Dunover Road in Ballywalter. I said, “Mr Dowds, how much will that cost you?” He said, “£3,750.” My words to him, as a 16-year-old, were: “Mr Dowds, how will you ever pay it back? My goodness—£3,750!” If he had had the intellect, ability or money, he would have bought four of them, sold them later and made his fortune. The fact of the matter is that housing is not £3,750 any more—it is much more. I support the Government’s policy of giving people access to affordable homes, ensuring that they have the opportunity to secure their retirement and future through owning their home.

The UK faces a shortfall of some 4.3 million homes compared with other western European countries. In the United Kingdom, we are falling far behind when it comes to housing being provided or built across the country. The housing shortage has worsened housing affordability, growth and living standards as a result. In recognition of those issues, the Government introduced grey-belt land, which would permit certain areas of green-belt land to be considered for property development where they are deemed to make a limited contribution to green-belt purposes.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam has set the scene incredibly well and has expressed both his own and his constituents’ concerns—he knows his constituency much better than I do. I hope that the Minister can give the assurances that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been seeking.

I have always been supportive of development on brownfield sites—land where businesses have closed or factories have become derelict. As a councillor for 26 years from 1985, and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years before coming to this place, I recognise that there have been opportunities in my constituency of Strangford. Rather than letting land lie derelict in the centre of town, why not use it for housing developments? The right hon. and learned Member will no doubt know of brownfield land that could be used for that purpose. I suppose one question for the Minister would be: how are we ensuring that all opportunities for brownfield sites are used? I should have welcomed him to his place; apologies for not doing so. It is always nice to see him and he always endeavours to answer the questions we pose to him, and he does it incredibly well, so we look forward to his answers later.

Brownfield sites offer an opportunity to deliver most of the needed housing development, but grey-belt land that is a good, productive agricultural land should be retained for food production. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam illustrated this very well in his introduction, as did the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), who spoke just before me, but while I believe there are opportunities where these things need to be considered, my concern is that we are no longer sustainable when it comes to food production. We cannot feed our whole nation, but we need to be able to do that.

There are some negatives with grey belt—the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to them, and he did it incredibly well. Green-belt land is generally protected from development, so the development of grey-belt areas raises serious concerns about the potential loss of farmland, woodland, animal habitats and public access to nature, for example. Proposed developments of grey-belt land have also been assessed as posing a greater flood risk and increasing car dependency in what are often poorly connected areas. There are also other issues that have to be considered in grey-belt areas. With respect, I do not believe that this is sustainable development. Indeed, the proposals have faced significant public opposition, with thousands, and maybe even tens of thousands, taking part in protests in April alone.

I live on a farm in the Ards peninsula. In my constituency of Strangford, the rules are very strict. Anyone with a farm business number—anyone who does more than just work the land—is allowed one site on their land every 10 years, whether it be for their farm labour or their family, or as a retirement home. The conditions are strict, but they are strict for a purpose. Fortunately, I do not think we will have the issues with the grey belt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised—we will not find ourselves in that position—but through the years we have had other opportunities to develop land.

Although grey-belt land is not applicable to Northern Ireland, there are still protections in place for development of the countryside. A key issue in Northern Ireland is our infrastructure capacity for housing development. This always has been, and must be, addressed before consideration is given to larger developments in countryside areas. In my time as a councillor and as an Assembly Member, and now as the MP for Strangford, there have been a number of developments on fairly good agricultural land on the edge of the town that lent itself to development.

A proposal has been agreed for some 700 new houses in the east of Newtownards. Importantly, the developer has committed himself, under the very conditions in the planning application, to ensure the infrastructure—the roads process, sewerage and water, playgrounds, green areas, and access to infrastructure, whether that is health clinics or schools. The developer has to do a lot of things, and that is right. The developer should not throw everything on to the present infrastructure, but should have a responsibility to ensure that the development is sustainable.

As an example, I think of Rivenwood, a lovely development in Newtownards—they are finishing the third phase and are going to the fourth. It is connected to Movilla Road, over to Donaghadee Road and then ultimately over to Bangor Road—they developed the road infrastructure. Again, that was the way to do it. In Comber, Enler Village is another development where, again, there was an opportunity on the edge of the town on land that was not productive. That is an example of where the development was acceptable and did not cause any problems. Does the Minister agree that grey-belt land should not be viewed as the whole solution to the housing crisis—this is a simple question, and I am sure that he will give me some response to it—and that greater consideration should be given to building up the infrastructure that we already have?

What do we need to do? We must find the right balance, and I believe that there is a balance to be found. It is a question of making sure that people have access to affordable homes and that sustainable development can happen, while protecting the environmental value of our countryside. I love where I live. I am fortunate always to have lived in the countryside, and I am fortunate to live on a farm. I go out my back door and I am in the fields—I love the countryside; I always have—and my sons have opportunities to do that as well.

Grey-belt land may remain a grey area, but I believe that development and environmental protection are not irreconcilable aims. The question to the Minister is this: do we have the balance between retaining the environment and providing houses? Those are two things that we are all committed to—every one of us in this Chamber today—to ensure that people have opportunity, but we have to be committed to ensuring that our environment is protected as well.

I do some country sports, and I always think about the fact that we have a responsibility to ensure that what we have now is there for those who come after us. That is our responsibility today. As someone who is 71 years of age, I am very conscious, now more than ever, of what I will leave for my sons and my grandchildren. I want them to have the same opportunities—the chance to have a house, but at the same time the chance to enjoy what we enjoy now.

15:02

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for bringing to the House an important debate on an issue that affects a lot of our constituencies. I also thank all the Members who contributed today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster)—indeed, I thank him for contributing in this Chamber for the second time today.

The Liberal Democrats want to see more homes built, principally the 150,000 council and social rent homes that the country needs, but the right way to deliver those homes is by working with communities and trusting them, and prioritising brownfield sites, the 700,000 empty homes in the country, and the 500,000 homes that could be provided in empty commercial buildings, according to the London School of Economics.

When it comes to the green belt, few of us, and certainly not the Liberal Democrats, would object to a community deciding, through its democratic local plan, to release formerly green-belt land for its own reasons, and particularly for social homes. But the Government’s grey-belt policy is not that. It is being abused, giving carte blanche to development pretty much anywhere and, as it is currently set out in the national planning policy framework, it has to go. We were told that “grey belt” meant disused car parks and old petrol stations, but the CPRE has found that, in the first year, 88% of homes approved on the grey belt at appeal were on land that had never been built on, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam also pointed out.

In this Chamber in July, the Minister told us:

“The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 466WH.]

There is a definition there, but for me it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It omits to protect two of the green belt’s five purposes—safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and recycling derelict land. Because the purposes that are left do not apply to villages, it has also removed villages from the green-belt protections that they have had for more than a century, so a field on the edge of a green-belt village is very likely to be grey belt. Developers know it and are trying their luck.

On 7 September, the Secretary of State told the House that she is

“strengthening and clarifying the rules around the release of grey belt”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 643.]

If there is no confusion, what is being clarified? The answer so far has been to take the test for protected landscapes out of the definition altogether. That widens the grey belt rather than tightening it. On the same day, the Minister confirmed that the Government do not collect data on how much land councils have identified as grey belt. Will the Minister commit to collecting that? My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) asked for that last October.

The new national planning policy framework requires every green-belt council to plan for grey-belt releases, allocated in its local plan. But since the Government’s grey-belt rules allow any developer to apply for grey-belt development on any site, whether or not it has been allocated as grey belt in the local plan, there can be little point in pretending that the local plan approach is the only one, or that grey-belt development is, in any sense, being plan led.

Developers do not need a grey-belt policy to redevelop an old petrol station in any event. Redeveloping previously developed land in the green belt has been allowed since 2012, if not longer, as long as it does not harm openness more than the development previously there. What grey belt adds is the field next to it, and it is decided at appeal, rather than through the local plan—that is, rather than by the local community. That is another instance where community powers have been stripped away in what the Town and Country Planning Association has called an “unprecedently permissive” planning regime.

This policy comes into play where there is unmet need—in practice, where a council cannot show a five-year land supply. In Somerset, the Government are mandating that another 75,000 homes—a 41% increase—should be found in the next local plan. I have not met anyone who believes that is realistic or achievable. The targets are derived from the Government’s new standard method, which has in one fell swoop thrown much of England under the threat of development, as the majority of councils cannot meet such impossible targets under the new standard method. It would take them the two-year local plan process to escape that threat, and millions of pounds to boot. This could be called a developer’s charter but, unfortunately, many of these sites are not being developed, so it is more of a land speculator’s charter.

Developers, not the community, end up selecting which part of the green belt is up for grabs. Villages are hit hardest, not just because they have lost their green-belt protection but because for many, if not all, the new targets have undermined the one thing that has reliably delivered affordable homes for local people in rural areas: rural exception sites. Last week, I brought to the House an example from an inspector’s decision in Gweek, Cornwall.

The Minister told us in July that the framework makes exception sites easier. In reality, exception sites work where agricultural land that is worth, say, £12,000 an acre cannot be sold for a higher price for commercial housing due to strict planning rules, so it might as well be allowed to be sold for agricultural value, or a little more, for social housing that helps the village. The Government, however, have now told every landowner around villages and elsewhere that their acre could be worth not just £12,000 but anything from £150,000 to £3 million—the price of land with residential permission—because those strict planning policy preventions no longer apply, and because anyone can apply for it to be developed as grey belt anywhere in the green belt.

If a landowner is told that their field might be grey belt, why would they sell it for £12,000 for social housing, when they could get £150,000 or more? It would definitely be more in the home counties and near London. Hope value has always been the enemy of exception sites, and the way that the grey belt has been implemented has created hope value around every village and green belt—so goodbye to social housing on such exception sites. Building the kind of homes that villages lack just got harder.

We do agree on the golden rules, which rightly require more affordable and social housing where green-belt land is released. That is absolutely right, but it does not mean that valuable green spaces should be up for grabs. Ironically, an area with no green belt can be better protected from some of these policies, but that does not mean that our green spaces in Taunton and Wellington are safe.

In Taunton, we have green wedges—countryside running right into the town and doing the job that the green belt does elsewhere—but those spaces have only local policy protection. Earlier this year, consultants recommended releasing Trull green wedge from its green wedge status, ironically because it was the last bit of green remaining in a built-up area. That is something that, in my opinion, made it more valuable not less. An application for 125 homes quickly followed, because the council, like most in England, cannot meet its new five-year land supply. Our councillors rightly refused the application. Fortunately, it was under the 150 homes limit, above which councillors must now ask Whitehall’s permission to refuse a development.

The appeals public inquiry has just begun showing how thin green wedge protection is. The green belt, green wedges and local green spaces can all be weakened by the next rewriting of the framework, without this House having a vote. In the Liberal Democrats’ view, all communities—not just those in the green belt—should have a stronger and longer-lasting way to protect their most precious green spaces.

What should we do instead? First, we should scrap the grey belt and instead release green-belt land through community-led local plans, with the golden rules applying in full and with social homes at their heart. Secondly, we should keep the long-standing exception for previously developed land, and make brownfield-first a legal requirement. Thirdly, we should give communities who review their green belt 20 years’ statutory protection for the green wedges and green belt that they prioritise. That would give them confidence that, instead of a free-for-all, their most precious green spaces will be protected in law for the long term.

If people are to accept the homes that we need—and we do need them—they must have confidence in the protection for the bits of green space that are most precious to them and most dear to those communities, as our amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 set out. We were promised that the grey belt would turn old petrol stations into homes, but what it is actually delivering is the loss of green field after green field, as decided by the Government’s policy issued in Whitehall. It is time to scrap it and put communities back in charge of their green belt and their green spaces.

15:11

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to take part in this debate about the definition and application of so-called grey-belt land. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate and for his excellent opening speech.

The first mention of the Government’s novel term “grey belt” came in their 2024 election manifesto. Labour MPs campaigned on a promise to release

“lower quality ‘grey belt’ land”,

which they described as scrub land, disused car parks and old petrol stations, alongside a commitment to “preserving the green belt”. Those policies were part of an overarching pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029.

Just over two years later, however, and almost halfway through this Parliament, we are left wondering where it all went so wrong, because the Government are not releasing low-quality land, they are not preserving the green belt, and they are nowhere near their stated target of building 1.5 million homes. How could that be the case, given that they have such a mammoth majority with which to make it happen? The answer is that the concept of the grey belt was a fiction from the start. It is, and always has been, a thinly veiled conceit. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) highlighted, the grey belt has been talked up as low-quality land made up of disused car parks, but behind the façade it is usually found to be prime green-belt land.

That is not just a political point; it is a factual one. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England has shown that by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes that had been approved by Government planning inspectors on so-called grey-belt land, 88% were earmarked for building on previously undeveloped countryside. To be clear, that is not disused petrol stations or low-quality land, but our local and valued countryside. What is worse is that those developments made up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on allegedly grey-belt sites.

With so much grey belt looking far more like green belt, at least according to the Government’s own NPPF definitions, what is the true definition of grey belt? For the sake of our concerned constituents, perhaps the Minister can explain what definition inspectors are working to, as it is clearly not the same as the one that has been codified and publicised.

Even if the Government stuck to their stated definition of grey belt and refused to waver from it, we would still be left without a clear route to their target of 1.5 million homes. As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) pointed out, that is because the Government have done nothing to make development on previously developed land any more viable than before; indeed, they have made it worse.

The Government have made an effort to increase and swiften planning permissions, but there has been no corresponding effort to make proposed sites more viable. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 did much to silence the voices of democratically elected local councillors in order to push planning permissions thicker and faster through the system, but it did nothing to make building new homes more affordable. There has been no recognition at all of the barriers—largely been created by the state—that have been thrown in the way of developers. The top-down housing targets that our rural councils were saddled with, representing an increase of up to 487% in some cases, make sites no more viable; they just put more pressure on local planning authorities to grant more permissions.

Superficially, supposedly grey-belt sites may be an attractive prospect for development because there are likely to be fewer complications than anticipated for brownfield development. However, when supposedly grey-belt sites are released, they might not deliver substantially more housing because the Government will still have done next to nothing to improve the site’s viability. The Government have imposed the golden rule of at least 15% affordable housing above local policy requirements, up to a 50% cap. Sites still come with a biodiversity net gain requirement; they still require landfill tax payments, they still have to meet building regulations and soon they will be subjected to the building safety levy.

After a site’s release, some building will likely take place. But given the Government’s unwillingness to help to make brownfield sites more viable, we will be left with the lamentable scenario of losing chunks of green-belt land without getting anywhere near the required housing numbers. As the Government hide behind their own nebulous grey belt definition, they chip away at our local green belt without making a dent in their 1.5 million homes target. That is not progress; that is failure.

The statistics show it too. It is estimated from the energy performance certificate lodgements data that the Government oversaw the net addition of just 392,400 homes between 9 July 2024 and 14 June 2026—a paltry 26% of their manifesto target. Far from using the green belt to meet their targets, they are ditching its protections and removing its special place in our communities, all for the sake of plodding progress towards an increasingly distant target.

I am pleased to say that there is a way out of this malaise that dually serves to protect the green belt and build more houses. Instead of sham terms and shady insincerities, the Opposition stand for a genuine brownfield-first approach to building. We on this side of the Chamber will not just pay lip service to brownfield development but prioritise it and make it easier. It can and will be done. We all want to see more homes built, but they must be built in the right places, with local understanding and on brownfield sites first. That is the common-sense answer. It is the Opposition’s answer, and it is an achievable outcome.

Further research from the CPRE shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could be swiftly met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024. The same data shows that, as of September 2025, more than half of those sites had planning permission already. The 1.41 million amounts to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. Perhaps when considering this, the Secretary of State may change her mind again and once more view 1.5 million homes as a viable goal rather than a “stretch target”, as she described it at the weekend.

The Government must change course. The returning Secretary of State has already U-turned on her disastrous and costly programme of local government reform. Perhaps the Minister can use his platform to join Conservative colleagues and stand against concreting over our green belt. I hope he uses his time to do exactly that. I hope he also takes the chance to not just acknowledge but to respond to the concerns shared by hon. Members and take a better and fairer approach to our green belt.

15:18

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous and highly effective parliamentarian, whom I have the upmost respect for, and he opened the debate with a characteristically incisive and challenging contribution. I thank him for the opportunity he has given the Chamber to debate this issue, and I will seek in the course of my remarks to respond to each of his specific points.

I also thank the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I appreciate fully that this topic provokes strong views, to put it mildly, but in the time I have available, I hope to provide some further clarity on the Government’s green belt policy, specifically the nuances of national policy relating to grey belt. Hon. Members and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I will be unable to comment in detail on individual local plans, planning applications or how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.

As the right hon. and learned Member made clear in his opening remarks, the definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the “National Planning Policy Framework”. It is defined, for the purposes of plan making and decision making, as

“land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not…contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d)”,

as set out in NPPF policy GB2. As I make that point, it is also worth making it clear that we have not altered the five purposes of the green belt that we inherited. They remain as they were, and we do not propose to alter the general extent of the green belt either.

I will come on to expand on the role of local planning authorities in the process. It is for individual local planning authorities to undertake the necessary assessments to identify if land is grey belt, either through plan making or through considering specific applications that come forward. Let me take each of those in turn, starting with plan making, and in doing so gently push back on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster).

This is, and is intended to be, a plan-led approach. The NPPF allows for local planning authorities to alter green belt boundaries using the local development plan process in “exceptional circumstances”. That includes situations where a local authority is unable to meet its identified need for development, having examined all other reasonable options for doing so, including making as much use as possible of suitable previously developed land, optimising the density of development and assessing whether sufficient sites can be identified outside the green belt. As set out in NPPF policy GB2, any decision to alter green belt boundaries should be informed by a green belt assessment, which identifies grey-belt land within the green belt.

Following the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, the Government awarded over £9.3 million to 133 local planning authorities to support them with the costs of undertaking such green belt reviews. An assessment of the strategic role of the green belt should also inform the preparation of spatial development strategies, as legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, where these will be setting the strategic context for land release.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is always generous with his time and in responding to interventions, which is appreciated by all of us. If the intention is that this should be a plan-led approach, will he remove the provisions in the NPPF that allow developers to claim that their land is grey belt through an application by reference to the policies that have been put in the NPPF for such grey belt decisions to be made outside of the local plan process through individual planning applications?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey belt, if that is part of the application that is submitted. Where there is disagreement and it goes to appeal, I have set out exactly how planning inspectors need to determine such applications.

It is crucial to note that where grey belt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development or released from the green belt, or that development proposals be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant, as I will expand upon shortly. I also want to stress that any alterations to green belt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations, taken together, do not fundamentally undermine the five green belt purposes of the remaining green belt when considered across the plan area. Considerations also include giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the green belt, then considering low-quality grey-belt land, which will include disused petrol stations and other previously developed land of that kind, although not necessarily be limited to it, and only then exploring other green belt locations.

To respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on whether allocating grey-belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the green belt over time, I would point out two things. First, as I have already mentioned, development proposals on grey-belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need—I will come to his points about the standard method shortly. Secondly, it is precisely to avoid the situation that we inherited—which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release—that this Government have implemented the approach that we have. Its effective working is predicated on ensuring that designation and release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a 10-year horizon, and in due course—because they are just as important—through spatial development strategies with a 20-year horizon. We want the approach to be plan-led.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I know that the Minister recognises the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was making to him is that, although we all want this to be a plan-led process, the NPPF still allows for grey belt designation to be achieved through an individual application, and that is what the Conservatives are also concerned about. I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact. He may come on to this later, in which case I apologise, but I put to him in my speech that if we look at an individual application or site, it may be difficult to make a credible argument that building there would undermine the purposes of the green belt across the plan area. On the other hand, if we look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the green belt across the plan area, it might be easier to demonstrate. Can he clarify which of the two the Government believe it should be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to do so; it is a fair question. In terms of the sequential approach that local authorities need to take with grey belt assessment and green belt release through local plans, the test of fundamentally undermining is at a plan level. Local authorities look at all the sites they have assessed through a review to constitute what is grey belt and then select those that they might need to bring forward to meet assessed housing need. I cannot go into detail, but the joint local plan for south Warwickshire, which includes the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency, is instructive in that regard. It has gone through its regulation 19 consultation and the authority is looking towards submitting that emerging local plan. That will release land equating to 1.54% of Stratford-upon-Avon and 6.99% of Warwick. That is a plan-led approach to green belt release that will meet need in that area. I will come on to speak about decision making, but that is the test, in terms of fundamentally undermining the five purposes in the remaining green-belt area. I will briefly speak about what the guidance says in that respect as well.

There have been several questions about decision making. It goes without saying that we want local planning authorities to get up-to-date plans in place. I repeat that ad nauseum; we inherited a dreadful situation, where less than a third of plan coverage was up to date. We cannot have a plan-led system with such low levels of coverage; we are doing lots as a Government to ensure that we are driving towards universal coverage, including intervening where necessary. However, when development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, the NPPF also provides a limited route for development proposals of grey-belt land in the green belt in certain circumstances.

When considering development proposals, decisions should be informed by green belt assessments, as I have previously referenced. Where grey-belt sites are not identified in existing plans or green-belt assessments, authorities should consider evidence, informed by our guidance, on whether the site strongly contributes to the relevant green belt purposes.

It is important to note that where a site is judged to be grey belt, development proposals on grey-belt land must also respond to demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. If that does not exist, that is grounds for the local authority to refuse. It must also be sustainably located and meet our golden rules, which, as hon. Members are aware, require additional benefits to be provided to local communities— including higher levels of affordable housing, new or improved green spaces and improved local infrastructure where the green belt is developed—in recognition, and rightly so, of the value placed on that type of land.

As previously mentioned, the contribution that a specific plot of green-belt land makes to the relevant green belt purposes is only one consideration involved in the decision on whether to develop there. Decisions should also be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPPF. That includes policies in the natural environment chapter, which safeguard areas of importance for the landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value, including protected landscapes and designated sites for nature.

To assist local planning authorities and other decision makers in both plan making and decision making, and to support a consistent approach to determine whether land is grey belt, my Department published updated planning practice guidance on 27 February last year. That PPG sets out a range of considerations to help to determine whether land is grey belt and how to consider proposals on potential grey-belt land. When considering how any given land performs against the relevant green belt purposes, the guidance also sets out illustrative features to help to inform judgments.

The PPG does not—we have been challenged on this point, so I want to address it head on—provide an exhaustive or overly prescriptive list that accounts for all possible scenarios. It is ultimately for the decision maker to consider those factors in accordance with national policy and guidance. It is right that they exercise their judgment in doing so, given that local context and development-specific considerations will vary markedly across the country. We want that flexibility to allow expert local judgment to be applied. The more prescriptive we get in national policy, the more edge cases and difficulties we will create. Our system is discretionary in nature; it is for local authorities and decision makers to make that judgment in the round.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Woking, in instances where a given application goes to appeal, and the relevant inspector is asked to determine whether a site is classified as grey belt, they will consider relevant legislation and national planning policy, including the NPPF and PPG, and any relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.

I want to briefly address the standard method and the urban-rural balance. This issue is put to me frequently in debates and I attempt to set the record straight, but it appears in the next debate none the less. The targets we have introduced are ambitious—they entail uplifts in many areas, and we expect rural areas to play their part in providing the homes the country needs—but the formula does direct housing growth to larger urban areas. It does not, though—this is the significant change we made—direct it by applying an arbitrary 35% urban uplift to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. That was the previous Government’s approach; we think it was arbitrary.

Instead, the standard method that we have introduced increases targets by 20% across city regions. It also better directs housing growth to a range of urban areas, including smaller cities and other areas of growth, as well as to the larger cities. We think that is a fairer approach. It is not the case that we have uniformly dropped housing targets across metro areas.

Before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on villages—

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Before the Minister does that, I understand his point earlier about guidance, and I am certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point that I made to him earlier was to suggest that the reality of grey-belt designation is that grey-belt sites are likely to be further away from urban settlements rather than closer to them, because those closer are more likely to remain as green belt. As the Minister says, there are three purposes—A, B and D—that would enable a site to remain as green belt rather than be designated grey belt. Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those three requirements and remain as green belt rather than be redesignated as grey belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific question in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record the policy in relation to villages. He can rest assured that I will address the point; if he is unsatisfied, he is more than welcome to intervene again.

A number of hon. Members mentioned villages. The PPG that I have referenced throughout my remarks makes it clear that, in assessments of contribution to the relevant purposes, large built-up areas and towns do not include villages. However, neither the NPPF nor the PPG includes a definition of a large built-up area, town, historic town or village. Considering whether any particular settlement constitutes a village is, again, a matter for the given local planning authority to judge, and it may be informed by the adopted local settlement hierarchy in that area. Where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons, a range of tools are available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific point, I say to him directly that I do not recognise his assertion that grey-belt land, in every part of the country, is likely to be predominantly in open countryside. The guidance that I have referenced is clear that land that is likely to be assessed as grey belt is more likely to include “existing development” or “other urbanising influences”, with land that is free from development more likely to make a strong contribution to the three relevant green belt purposes listed in policy GB2.

A point that needs to be made generally is that this issue is incredibly place-specific across the country. It will vary widely, given the significant variation in how green-belt land is constituted in different geographies throughout the country, so it is very hard to apply a blanket or generalised approach, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, to say, “In all circumstances, such will apply.” It varies across the country and, as I have said, our policy as a whole ensures that development is directed towards sustainable locations, which will act to prevent development from coming forward in isolated or unsustainable locations. That hopefully clears up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about open countryside—one of three.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman one last time, but I am more than happy to set out the full policy in writing.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

That may be very helpful, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity. I know he would accept that the starting point for all these decisions will be the NPPF definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria; we have spoken a little about the limitations that there might be on those qualifying criteria.

The substantial point remains, does it not, that the definition in the NPPF of grey-belt land overwhelmingly—perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly—will be met by fields, farms and greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements. A, B and D in the list clearly each relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and the Minister knows that the green belt encompasses more than just such sites. It is inevitable, is it not, that the starting point will be that grey-belt land will be those sites that are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is of course the direct antithesis of how the Government originally described the concept.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I am afraid I do not agree with his characterisation of the policy, which is, again, in essence that grey-belt land in every part of the country is more likely to be found predominantly in open countryside.

All I can do is to repeat again our approach: land that is likely not to make a strong contribution to the relevant green belt purposes is likely to contain existing development or other urbanising influences. But I say again that it is for individual local planning authorities to make green belt assessments and to make judgments about sites that might constitute grey-belt land. If some of those sites—in most cases not all of them, but some of them—are required to meet demonstrable unmet need, it is for the authority to select the most appropriate and sustainable sites from that list. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his local plan, which is hopefully on the verge of submission—a small percentage of green belt will be released over the plan period to meet demonstrable unmet need.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way again on that specific point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am testing the Chair’s patience. I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am sure the Chair will remind the Minister that we have plenty of time left in this debate.

On the specifics of the local plan, the Minister is right, of course, to point me to the specific statistics in relation to my local plan area. But he will recognise that, as was said earlier, there is a difference between decisions that a local authority makes about what to seek to extract from the green belt, and subsequent decisions about whether part of the green belt is in fact grey belt. The Minister has referred me to statistics relating to the former, not the latter.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is where I come back to the importance of having up-to-date local plans. If a local planning authority has in place an up-to-date local plan, it may or may not include grey-belt sites, as the policy feeds through the system. At the point that an authority has a plan in place that meets demonstrable unmet need, it has robust safeguards against grey-belt applications that come through the decision-making route. That is why we are encouraging local areas to get local plans in place.

We have inherited a situation in which we have extremely low up-to-date local plan coverage. That has exposed communities to speculative development, and it is happening all over the country. We have to put in place policies that, through the decision-making route, allow homes still to be brought forward in that interregnum, but then we have to push heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. At that point, the protections are in place. Over the 10-year plan period and, as we roll out spatial development strategies on a sub-regional level, over a 20-year horizon, that will ensure that there is a strategic plan for green-belt land designation and release.

To come back to the point I made earlier, it is not as if no green-belt land was released before 2024. I know the Conservative party likes to give the impression that it did not, but it oversaw plenty of green belt release, in a completely haphazard and unplanned way. We are taking a strategic approach, which we think is right.

I have addressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about what is likely to constitute grey-belt land. Let me directly address his other two specific points. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely, and it has been judged as much by the Office for Budget Responsibility and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, to release more land into the system. This is where I take a principled different view from the CPRE and other commentators that say we can simply meet housing need through existing brownfield land. There is not enough land on existing brownfield land registers to meet the volume of homes that our country needs, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location. Where it is necessary, we want to see green-belt land released to meet demonstrable unmet need. It is right that when we look to release green-belt land, we focus on the lower-quality grey-belt land that does not make a strong contribution to those purposes.

To conclude, I again thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing the debate, and other Members for their contributions. I hope that, while I may not necessarily have been able to convince Members in my response, I have been able to provide some valuable clarity on the national policy with respect to grey-belt land, and particularly the different approaches to plan making and decision making.

As set out in the Government response to the consultation on the new NPPF that was published last month, we have already recognised that further guidance may be helpful to support spatial development strategy-led strategic reviews of the green belt, and we will consider producing guidance on the considerations that should inform that process. As we update PPG to fully reflect the changes made in the new NPPF—and we absolutely must do that—we will of course consider whether any further clarity might be helpful to inform decision makers. To that end, I will reflect on a number of the points made in the debate.

15:40

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I thank everyone who participated in the debate, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches. I particularly thank the Minister, who—there will be general agreement on this—is an excellent Minister. He tried to engage properly with the issues in the debate and to give us the clarity that we asked for. He is a perceptive man, and he is right when he says that he has not quite persuaded all of us of everything, but I am grateful to him for what he said last, which is that he will reflect on what has been said here and consider whether further clarity needs to be provided.

Ultimately, the evidence as to which of us is right about what the grey belt turns out to be will become apparent over the years during which the policy is used. If I can ask the Minister to reflect on one other thing, it would be that the Government keep under review—as I am sure they will—what the impact of the policy change ends up being. If we see a great deal of new development in open countryside within green-belt areas, rather than in the type of land that he and his Secretary of State have previously described as wanting the grey belt to be, I hope the Government will reconsider the policy and look again at whether it is doing the damage to the countryside that many of us fear it will.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the definition and application of grey belt land.

15:42

Sitting suspended.

Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered goods trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Trade within any nation should be so simple and uncomplicated that it ought not to be a focus of much debate. And so it was within this United Kingdom until some time ago. One of the founding principles of this United Kingdom, as set forth in the Acts of Union, is that all parts of the United Kingdom should be on an equal footing when it comes to trade. That, of course, would manifest itself in utterly unfettered trade among and within all parts of the United Kingdom.

But then, sadly, along came the Windsor framework, previously called the protocol, which upended that equilibrium. That happened because the Windsor framework treats Northern Ireland alone within the United Kingdom as subject to the EU’s customs union. As a consequence, the EU’s customs union requires Great Britain, the other part of this United Kingdom, to be treated and regarded in trade terms as a third or foreign country, and from that flows the iniquitous Irish sea border—a full international customs, sanitary and phytosanitary and trade border—which is truncating and partitioning this United Kingdom.

In consequence of the Irish sea border, we have checks and customs declarations on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—a part of this United Kingdom whose economy was historically very integrated with Great Britain, which is where our raw materials came from, and to where we sold most of our goods. To impose upon such an integrated economy an international customs border was inevitably going to grossly and disadvantageously affect trade, and so it did.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It may seem of little consequence to say that there is a customs border, but in practical terms, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it means that when goods are brought from GB, they are subject to full customs checks and customs codes have to be filled in? If Laird Grass Machinery in my constituency wants to bring a tractor in, about 15 items in the tractor have to have separate customs codes. Filling in the paperwork to bring in one piece of machinery can sometimes take an hour.

[Jim Allister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All our constituents in Northern Ireland who are in the business of trading goods have had many very daunting experiences in that regard.

Of course, the Minister will probably tell us, “Oh, but the Windsor framework established the UK internal market system.” What a fraudulent name. An internal market is customs-free, yet under the UK internal market, previously called the green lane, customs declarations still have to be made. People make customs declarations when they are travelling from one single market to another. They have to be in a trusted trader scheme, to which they have to pay to belong. They have to undergo checks on 5% to 8% of all goods passing through, and in some circumstances, they have to pay duties—truncating and utterly upending the idea of free trade as it should operate within any national internal market.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on introducing the debate. One of the greatest issues we all face is the crisis in the supply of veterinary medicines following Brexit. They continue to be subject to additional EU regulatory requirements, and farmers continue to face potentially serious consequences for animal welfare and the responsible management of antimicrobial resistance. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore agree that Northern Ireland cannot continue to be economically cut off under the regulatory burdens placed on farmers and vets? Those burdens must be reduced.

[Jim Allister]

I think all that is self-evident, but sadly, we have a Government who are deaf to those issues, and sadly, the hon. Member’s party seems to have come to terms with them, because in Stormont, the DUP is now prepared to implement the Irish sea border and the Windsor framework, but let me be very clear: the integrity of our single market has been utterly destroyed.

Among the practical consequences of that are unimaginable levels of trade diversion. We were once a wholly integrated part of the United Kingdom. Once barriers are erected, trade is discouraged. Various surveys show that that has happened. From the Federation of Small Businesses survey, we know that 34% of GB companies that used to trade with Northern Ireland have ceased trading. Why? Because this paperwork and this checking is such a disincentive that it is not worth the bother.

This week, I received figures from the Department for Transport that I find quite astounding, and they make the point with great clarity of what it means to have had trade diversion. According to the Department for Transport, in 2022, 8.6 million tonnes of goods were distributed in Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles—in other words, GB haulage companies bringing goods into Northern Ireland. Last year, that figure fell to a staggering 2.2 million tonnes. In just four years, there has been a fall of 75% in the quantum of goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for securing the debate. Would he agree that the very fact that businesses face customs processes, extra paperwork and EU-derived rules when moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland proves that the Irish sea border is still very much in place? Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and goods moving from one part of our country to another should not be treated as though they are crossing an international frontier. Is it not time that the Government restored Northern Ireland fully to the United Kingdom’s internal market, instead of pushing us towards an economically united Ireland?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. The hon. Member makes a valid point. Some might say, “Well, what does trade diversion matter? As long as you get the goods, does it matter where they have come from?” Of course, the corollary of trade diversion is what it is doing to our economic links. It is consciously and deliberately building an all-island economy. In place of Northern Ireland being a fully integrated part of the UK economy, the whole idea of trade diversion—indeed, the whole idea of the protocol and the Windsor framework—was to build the stepping stone to an all-island economy, to step us out of the United Kingdom. And that is what is happening.

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it contained article 16. It promised that if there were any trade diversion, the Government would step in and sort it out with the EU. There is lamentable and demonstrable trade diversion, but the Government are blind and deaf to the issue, refusing to act. The challenge to the Minister is this: why, in the face of demonstrable trade diversion, is that other part of the Windsor framework—article 16—not being implemented?

[Sammy Wilson]

There are not many MPs here from other parts of the United Kingdom, but I find it even more staggering because that trade diversion has impacts on constituencies of MPs across Great Britain. If goods are being brought from the Irish Republic or other parts of Europe, that means jobs lost in GB, from suppliers that would normally have been selling goods in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

Of course. The fact that 34% of businesses—many of them small—that previously serviced and supplied Northern Ireland have ceased, is obviously having a detrimental employment consequence for those firms in GB. It is not just big or small firms that are suffering but ordinary consumers.

One of the most striking illustrations of that, particularly pertinent to this House, is that items purchased online from our own House of Commons shop cannot be delivered to Northern Ireland. It cannot supply to Northern Ireland because of the EU’s general product safety regulations. It is impossible to order a packet of House of Commons fudge, a leather folder, a candle, a keyring or a Christmas bauble—not even this bookmark I have here. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so delicate that it could not withstand the import into Northern Ireland of a bookmark? How preposterous and ridiculous is it that we have got to that point?

I suspect that the Minister, in trying to excuse and wave this away, will tell us that we have the wonderful advantage of dual market access. What a fraud and con. Dual market access has amounted to nothing for Northern Ireland. We were told that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west. Strange then, that in all the years of the Windsor framework there has not been a single incidence of foreign direct investment because of dual market access.

That is for one very good reason. If a manufacturer coming to Northern Ireland is told it is wonderful that they can sell to GB and to the EU, they should ask where they are to get their raw materials. If they are told they should get their raw materials from Great Britain, they would have to pass through an international customs border. They might have to pay duties and do all the paperwork. Suddenly, the attraction of setting up in Northern Ireland as foreign direct investment disappears very fast.

Any perceived advantage of dual market access is cancelled out by the Irish sea border itself. Many the Minister will tell us that the Government will do an SPS deal, which will solve many of these problems. Will it? The SPS deal is not a United Kingdom-EU deal; it is a GB-EU deal, leaving Northern Ireland utterly, totally, irreversibly under EU rules pertaining to everything of the nature of SPS. The SPS-GB deal means that, in addition to Northern Ireland being disenfranchised by being allowed to make the laws that flow under SPS, the whole United Kingdom is to be disenfranchised and Great Britain is to join us, unable to make laws about her own SPS arrangements. It is no silver bullet whatsoever.

We might be told, as we are often foolishly told, “Oh, but it’s about protecting the Belfast agreement.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement. Indeed, if it had anything to do with it, it is in this context: the Belfast agreement created a scenario where cross-community consent was supposed to be the barometer for everything, yet when it came to the Windsor framework being imposed on and extended to Northern Ireland, the one thing in the Belfast agreement that was liquidated was cross-community consent. That was taken out so that the protocol could be extended, knowing that it did not and would not have cross-community consent. The Windsor framework makes a nonsense of the Belfast agreement argument by trashing the very core of it—namely, by removing cross-community consent.

I come back to where I started. If we are a United Kingdom, why oh why are we denying to my part of the United Kingdom and that of my colleagues the most fundamental tenet of being a United Kingdom—namely, unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom? It does not have to be like this. We could deal with the border issues with the EU through mutual enforcement—in other words, something relatively simple. It is a hallmark of international trade that if you are making goods for a foreign country, you make them to their standards and vice versa. That is the essence of mutual enforcement, with criminal sanction so that there is liability if that is not done. That is what protects each other’s markets.

We do not need all this paraphernalia of the Windsor framework. Indeed, if it had anything but the political purpose that lies behind it, we would not have all this paraphernalia. We are in the appalling situation where local businesses, particularly those that depend on GB-Northern Ireland trade, have no help from the Government and are having to set up their own Intertrade UK business association to try to highlight these issues. I am grateful for the work they have done and the statistics they have provided; thankfully, at least they are trying to look after our interests, in sharp contrast to this Government.

16:18

[The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate—its importance was reflected in the urgency and tone of his remarks. I thank him for his comments, particularly those on the importance of the Union, with which I agree.

That is why I would like to start by very much refuting the hon. and learned Member’s assertion that it is the policy of this Government to enable Northern Ireland to step out of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he does not fully mean that, although he is clearly very concerned about these issues of trade. I acknowledge those concerns, but the situation is more complex than his remarks have perhaps allowed for. Clearly, if there were a simple solution to this that would deliver all the benefits he has described for Northern Ireland, the Government would want to move to that solution, but it is more complex than that. Through my remarks, I will try to address the many points that he and other colleagues have raised, and I will perhaps be able to elaborate on some of that complexity.

First, I will address the hon. and learned Member’s point about unfettered access. The Government remain fully committed to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I also want to be clear about the importance of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in that market. The Office for the Internal Market highlights the importance of the internal market and of the sales to the rest of the United Kingdom, equivalent to around a quarter of Northern Ireland’s economic output in 2021. In 2024, which is the last year for which we have published data, Great Britain accounted for 52% of Northern Ireland’s trade in goods, and that figure is broadly the same as it was in 2018, indicating the robustness of Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market.

[Jim Shannon]

Shops in Newtownards that have always bought their goods from a certain company across the water have been unable to do so because of the bureaucracy. By not being able to trade with that company directly, they are not able to offer the prices they once did. Nurseries and those that buy plants and seeds have also been restricted in what they do. DIY stores have been restricted by the bureaucracy and their ability to be competitive has been reduced. Has the Minister given any thought to that? I write to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly about these matters, although not to the Minister in particular, but has the Minister had a chance to understand the issues and problems that my businesses in Strangford are feeling?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He raises concerns around bureaucracy and paperwork, essentially, for small businesses, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentioned our own House of Commons gift shop as well for low value items. I very much want to come on to this point in my speech, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

I will start by talking about the general performance of Northern Ireland trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland’s goods exports within the UK and with the European Union have been strong. In fact, Northern Ireland’s exports to the European Union have outperformed the rest of the United Kingdom, increasing since 2019, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom, exports have decreased in that period. It is therefore important to note that Northern Ireland does benefit from being a fundamental part of the UK internal market and having unique access to the EU single market. Of course, I do recognise—and the point was made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim—that this experience varies across sectors, companies and individual constituents, which is why this debate is so valuable. I will go on to talk more about that.

I understand the challenges around this, but public authorities have a statutory requirement to have special regard for Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. That guidance gives real statutory power to ensure that policymakers within the United Kingdom actively consider Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market when they are implementing the Windsor framework or making policy involving the movement of goods in the United Kingdom. Where that is the case, the statutory guidance ensures that those policymakers must have special regard for Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

Most importantly, one part of having special regard means the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of streamlining trade between the two, and maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. The guidance ensures that policymakers must give that special regard considerable importance and weight above other factors in policymaking. That represents how this Government have implemented a key commitment in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper published under the previous Government to ensure that proper process is in place to always consider both Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Members have spoken in detail about the Windsor framework and the challenges it brings. I would like to stress that the Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. The framework supports the peace and prosperity brought by the Good Friday agreement, one of the proudest achievements of our last Labour Government, and it plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members.

It is clear that the Windsor framework is delivering benefits and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have already noted how the Northern Ireland-Great Britain supply of goods has been maintained through the implementation of the framework. Over 15,000 traders are now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and the Northern Ireland plant health label. Northern Ireland traders are benefiting from these facilitations, and businesses are choosing to invest in the dual market access that Northern Ireland uniquely offers.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is concerned about the level of investment and believes that businesses will not wish to invest in Northern Ireland for that reason. On my recent visit to Northern Ireland, however, I saw significant investment from Boeing, Airbus, Navantia and many other businesses. It is clear that this is not a uniform experience across all businesses, but it has been possible for Northern Ireland to attract significant inward investment.

[Sammy Wilson]

Although the Minister paints a picture of firms signing up and supply still coming through, does he accept that the FSB has indicated that in retail, plant nurseries and firms that use steel, 32% of small businesses in those sectors in GB are no longer supplying to Northern Ireland? He cannot ignore the problem of suppliers stopping supplying from GB and businesses in Northern Ireland not being able to get the supplies that they were previously able to get.

[Chris McDonald]

Far from trying to ignore issues, I am trying to explain that it is quite a complex situation. I have already acknowledged that there are concerns in particular sectors and with particular companies, but as I have said, I think it is important to take a more balanced approach. Overall, in my view and the Government’s view, and according to the economic numbers that I have presented, the Windsor framework is in fact having a net positive effect on the economy in Northern Ireland.

For example, the company Evri has invested in Northern Ireland being home to the new EU gateway. In Lisburn, PRM Group, which is a major chilled and frozen food distributor, has said that this influenced its investment decision, as well as the growth of its business. Businesses in other sectors, from medical devices to advanced manufacturing and consumer goods, have made a similar call.

I recognise that if businesses and consumers are to benefit from the Windsor framework, they must have access to clear advice and guidance. In our response to Lord Murphy’s review, the Government committed to strengthen our offer, and we are taking action in that regard. We are building on the comprehensive support available through the free trader support service beyond 2026, and work is under way to progress the £16.6 million regulatory support service, which will provide clear and targeted support to help businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. I am personally grateful to businesses and civic stakeholders for their engagement on this project as we design and build the new service.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister will know, because I dealt with it at some length, about the issue of diversion of trade, which is illustrated by the fact that there has been a 75% fall in the tonnage of goods supplied by GB-registered vehicles into Northern Ireland. Does he accept that there is diversion of trade? If he does, when will the Government activate article 16 of the Windsor framework, which is supposed to be a protection against it?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. and learned Member did indeed raise the issue of diversion of trade and I was just about to address it directly. He gave some figures, but there is a more complex picture and perhaps I can just illustrate some of it.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland trade remains robust, with over £17 billion in goods moving into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 2024. The independent monitoring panel confirmed that the internal market guarantee—that 80% of Great Britain-Northern Ireland freight moves as “not at risk” goods—was met in 2025, and the latest figures confirm that 96% of goods moved under freight did so within the internal market system. We expect the panel’s next report shortly.

[Alex Easton]

Is the Minister not concerned that 32% of businesses across the UK will not trade with Northern Ireland? Furthermore, does he agree that that is unfair on consumers in Northern Ireland, who cannot get goods from the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Chris McDonald]

Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman heard me outline some of the measures that the British Government are taking to enable businesses in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to trade freely with one another.

As we are in the dying seconds of this debate, I hope that Members will not mind if I do not take any more interventions, because I want to confirm some final statistics that I think are important. Sales from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK reached £10.9 billion in 2024, and that figure was up by 0.8% on 2023. The UK internal market is expanding, not shrinking. As I have set out in detail, the importance of the Union and the many ways in which this Government are committed to maintaining and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland run through all the points that we are making about how we interact with the Windsor framework.

To conclude, I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for raising these points. Hopefully, he has heard from me that the Government are committed to the internal market, and that we are committed to the Union and the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. [Interruption.] Congratulations to the Minister—right on time.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House for attending on a one-line Whip, which shows the strength of feeling. Their presence proves that the unresolved problems that have emerged for many in Liverpool West Derby represent a national scandal requiring a national response. In my constituency alone, 35 people have contacted me with serious concerns about the administration of their civil service pension. I speak for them, and for civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families across the country being badly let down. They have served the public, paid into their pensions and planned their retirements in good faith.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. I wonder if it is reflective of the failure to pay pensions on time, or to get the basic administration right or even a quote out, that the Minister does not turn up on time for a debate that follows an earlier one about the failure to look after pensioners under this Government.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call Ian Byrne.

[Ian Byrne]

These civil servants are entitled to expect accurate information, pensions paid when they are due and accountability when things go wrong. With the permission of my constituents, I want to place on the record three West Derby cases. Dave Barlow has spent around 18 months trying to obtain up-to-date pension information. He tells me that he has not received an annual benefit statement for several years. Dave, who is reducing his working week partly to care for his elderly parents, is due to begin partial retirement on 6 October, yet he still does not have the information needed to plan his finances. He was given no guarantee that his pension would be ready, no timescale for his statement and, incredibly, was told by Capita to approach his employer for hardship support if necessary. Think about that—a civil servant may have to seek hardship support because the private company paid to administer his pension has totally failed to do its job.

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of the private sector in this instance, which also affects pensioners in my constituency, shows the benefits of the Government taking control and in-sourcing this pension scheme once and for all to deal with the issue?

[Ian Byrne]

That excellent point is well made, and I will raise it in my speech.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The civil service pension scheme is not delivering for the people who have put faith in their hard-earned income, as the hon. Gentleman said. When Capita took on the scheme, it was already facing a backlog of cases and was likely ill-equipped for the task. Serious questions must be asked about whether a sufficiently thorough assessment of Capita’s capability to take on such an important responsibility was undertaken before this transfer occurred. Should its capability to do the job it was tasked with not have been ascertained?

[Ian Byrne]

A point well made.

James Burke works for the Department for Work and Pensions in the Child Maintenance Service. James entered partial retirement, reducing his working week salary by about 20%, with his pension intended to replace the lost income and provide a lump sum. Neither has arrived. With his mortgage due for repayment on 30 July, his borrowing increased and his provider told him it could not offer a new product. James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

In my constituency, constituents have complained of delays of over nine months to receive their pension. One terminally ill constituent’s case should have been fast tracked, but was not. Like my hon. Friend, I have had complaints about people waiting over two hours to get through to the helpline and then receiving conflicting information, and of documents sent by constituents being lost. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on Capita, and perhaps have stronger oversight by the Cabinet Office, to get better accountability and more investment in technology and data quality?

[Ian Byrne]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I will not be taking any more interventions, because people have put in to speak.

Another of my constituents, Karen Morrow, took early retirement at the end of June. She will not receive a state pension for another two years. The civil service pension she earned was supposed to supplement her income. After two years of delay and inaction, she was told that her documents would be uploaded by 4 August and she might receive her pension by the end of that month. August came and went, and Karen received nothing. She has chased every single week. On her latest call, she waited three hours to be told only her that her case would be escalated—with no payment, no explanation and no reliable timescale. Karen has been left without an income since the end of June.

The circumstances of the constituents’ cases I raise may differ in nature, but the pattern is the same: they earn their pension, yet carry the debt, uncertainty and stress created by a failing system. These are not minor administrative errors; they are major failures with serious human consequences.

It is not just my constituents and many others around the country waiting for their pensions who have been failed by Capita; it is Capita’s own staff as well. Workers employed by Capita, including many in my city, have reported to the Public and Commercial Services Union that they are suffering due to the company’s failure to deliver on the contract. They struggle physically and mentally as a result of inadequate staffing levels, insufficient training, poor processes, inappropriate IT systems and constantly changing demands.

More than half of Capita’s workers who took part in a PCS survey said that they experience stress every day or most days, with a quarter responding that they are frequently extremely stressed. One PCS member described their day-to-day experience:

“every day is draining and it’s always a massive relief when my working day is over.”

Many are resigning because working conditions have become intolerable. More than 75% told PCS that they are considering leaving their roles. Is there any wonder we are in this mess? We know that Capita has failed in its duty to run the civil service pension scheme, but clearly it is also failing its own staff.

The Government’s actions confirm the scale of the crisis. In February, Ministers said that they were working to bring most aspects of the service back to expected levels by June. That deadline was missed. In July, after sending two separate letters to the Cabinet Office in December and March, the Government confirmed, in response to a written parliamentary question of mine, that Capita had failed to restore standard contractual service. Ministers rightly withheld the £9.9 million, deployed independent auditors, appointed a remedial adviser at Capita’s expense and recovered the cost of Government surge teams.

Last Friday, Karl Flinders from Computer Weekly, having covered the scandal over the last year, reported that the Cabinet Office is establishing a team with direct access to Capita’s systems to independently validate its data. That is welcome, but is it not extraordinary that the Government have relied on Capita’s own management information in the first place? The contractor under scrutiny has been supplying the figures by which its performance is judged. How can Capita possibly be held to account in the way that it clearly needs to be?

Despite those repeated interventions by the Government, on 7 September more than 1,000 bereavement cases were still more than 100 days old, alongside 308 death-in-service cases and 288 payment cases. Around 900 retirement quotations also remained from the backlog that Capita committed to clear. Bereavement, death-in-service and retirement are not cases on a spreadsheet; these are human stories—people facing some of the most difficult moments in their lives. The sequence is clear: a deadline was set, missed and followed by emergency measures, yet hundreds remain trapped in the backlog.

Progress is welcome, but progress is not resolution. The question is no longer whether there has been a serious failure—that is absolutely beyond dispute. The question is when will civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families finally see the end of it? I have raised this repeatedly with Ministers; sought Cabinet Office engagements with the PCS general secretary, Fran Heathcote; supported parliamentary motions; and tabled questions on the backlog, compensation, sanctions and bringing the service back in-house. I secured this debate because constituents are still coming to me in absolute distress.

This brings us to the fundamental question of outsourcing. We are told that outsourcing delivers efficiency and transfers risk, but when Capita failed, civil servants cleared the backlog, employers provided hardship funds and Government-appointed auditors and MPs became an escalation route, so where exactly was the risk transferred? Administration was outsourced; responsibility was not. A private company holds the contract while the public sector picks up the pieces, and all the while our constituents carry the consequences.

This is the failed ideology of outsourcing laid bare: born under Thatcher, followed by successive Governments of all colours in the name of efficiency while delivering absolutely the opposite and putting the burden on ordinary people. Whether it is Fujitsu in the case of the Post Office Horizon scandal, or even our failing water industry, how many more examples must we bring before this House before the political establishment finally accepts that this experiment has completely failed?

Today I ask the Minister for three clear commitments: recovery, compensation and accountability. First, on recovery, will the Minister set out a firm dated timetable for returning the scheme to normal service? That must include clearing overdue cases and urgently prioritising those without income and those with serious welfare, bereavement and ill-health cases. As part of that, the Government must also commit to publishing the number and age of outstanding cases until that has been achieved. The parliamentary caseloads that MPs have received on this issue should also be highlighted.

Secondly, there is compensation. When failure creates debt, higher borrowing costs, mortgage problems or reliance on hardship support, people should not face another battle to regain the position they would have been in had the service worked as it should have. Will the Minister provide a clear, simple and accessible route to compensation for financial loss?

Thirdly, there is accountability. The Government have announced a public interest test under which contracts worth more than £1 million will be assessed for in-house viability before renewal. If ever a service justified considering whether public provision would be more resilient, reliable and accountable, surely this is it. After months of failure under the administration of Capita and every indication that problems will persist, surely we have our answer. Will the Minister commit to bringing the administration of the civil service pension scheme back in-house, to put it back in the service of the people it exists to support?

This is not an attack on the staff working hard to clear the backlog; it is about the system and the political choices that have put us in this position. David should be able to reduce his hours to care for his elderly parents, James should not fear losing his home, Karen should not be left without an income and spending hours chasing her pension, and the other 32 constituents who contacted me should not need their Member of Parliament simply to access the pension service they were promised and have earned. Civil servants have served our country and our communities; they have paid into their pensions and planned their futures in good faith. They have kept their side of the bargain; it is time for the Government and the system for which they are responsible to keep theirs.

I ask the Minister for three things: recovery, compensation and accountability. The administration may have been outsourced, but responsibility cannot be outsourced with it. It is time for the system to do its part for our civil servants.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Everyone can see the nature of my dilemma. I lost a wager with the previous Clerk by suggesting you would not all be here because there was a one-line Whip at 4.30 pm, but you all are. To clarify for Mr Stuart and other Members, I should say that the Doorkeepers have informed me that the Minister was here in plenty of time, but was caught in the mêlée as people left.

I regret to inform all of you that, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit of one minute on Back-Bench speeches. Even then, I cannot guarantee that everybody will get called, so please do not take interventions.

16:43

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I wrote to the Cabinet Office in January in response to constituents’ concerns about late payments, dreadful customer service and, in some cases, desperate pleas for pensions to be released. Shortly after, I met Capita representatives; they made assurances that pension arrears would be cleared by the end of April and that overall service levels would be restored by June. Those were hollow words: both targets were missed and everything has got worse. One constituent told me that he had given 43 years of service to the Royal Navy. He retired in October last year and is still waiting for his pension forecast to arrive. That is nearly a whole year.

My case workers have been exhaustively responding to constituents who are attempting to access statements and payments. In January, I wrote to the Cabinet Office but we are still waiting for movement on this issue. I suspect that my caseworkers are doing a better job than those hired by the Government, who have somehow seen an increase in the number of complaints. I do not think that bringing the contract in-house will make a difference—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:44

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I have heard from far too many residents in Gloucester who have devoted their lives to public service only to be unable to access their pensions in retirement. In the short time I have, I want to highlight a specific example of one constituent who sadly lost her husband and was trying to get access to his pension. She had to relentlessly battle Capita during one of the most difficult times in her life. In her first email to me, she said that she felt that Capita were waiting for her to die. Her husband served our country, first in the Navy and then for 12 years at GCHQ.

In cases like these, widows are being failed by Capita. While suffering immense grief, they face the administrative burden of trying to secure what is rightfully theirs. I am pleased that after support from my office, my constituent has secured a lump sum and is due her husband’s pension this month, but even after my involvement, the communication from Capita has been limited and poor.

I know that the Government are working around the clock to improve the situation, with the taskforce of civil servants being deployed. Progress is being made, and I know that the Minister is determined to build on that. I would be grateful if she could outline the steps that the Government are taking to improve the situation.

16:45

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Since Capita took over the administration of the civil service pension scheme, about 8,500 retired civil servants have experienced delays or failures in their pension payments. There are many in my constituency of West Dorset—many of them widows or ex-servicepeople—and many of them are having to take out hardship loans. We have seen delays, inaccurate calculations, enormous backlogs and, more recently, a data breach affecting 138 members in which some received other members’ annual benefit statements. The Public Accounts Committee warned in 2025 that Capita was not ready to take on this contract.

I recognise that the Government have introduced a recovery plan, including interest-free hardship loans and additional surge teams, but a hardship loan is not a pension, not compensation and not a substitute for people receiving the money that they are owed after decades of public service. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what the Government intend to do to rectify this.

16:46

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I stood on a manifesto that promised the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. This situation is only one of many since the 1980s in which the responsibility of the state has been outsourced to private companies, which have consistently failed to deliver for working people. I will not stop fighting until this scheme is brought back where it belongs.

Will the Minister commit to drawing up plans to bring the scheme in house? Will she also apply pressure on Capita to issue comprehensive finalisation statements for each case? How will the Government hold Capita to account in the meantime? Will the Minister clarify who made the terrible decision to award the Synergy contract? Will she push for a compensation scheme for all affected by Capita’s failures that considers both the stress and the financial loss caused to our much-loved civil servants?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Some Members have left the Chamber, so I am increasing the time limit to one minute and 30 seconds.

16:47

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

My Spelthorne residents were given incorrect quotes months after I intervened and despite my office regularly pressing for updates. Some are still waiting for their initial quote—again, despite my office repeatedly following up. Others were told that their pensions could not be found, despite their furnishing the details several times. Only three of our 17 cases in Spelthorne have been resolved.

Spelthorne residents are not statistics. They are people who paid into their pensions throughout their working lives. They are the newly retired, the medically retired, widows and widowers, who are experiencing serious financial hardship and experiencing difficulties in securing the loans promised by the Government. It is futile for the Government to continue to go over old ground and play the blame game. What residents need and deserve is to receive without any further delay the pensions that they paid into over a long time.

16:48

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

For Capita, our constituents are now paying the price. We are talking about workers like my constituent Simon, who lives in Stanwick. He put in 37 years of public service at HM Courts and Tribunals Service. He gave six months’ notice that he wanted to retire, but Capita simply never processed his application, and his retirement date has now passed. Simon now plans to retire in March 2027, but has no confidence at all that that date will be met. After 37 years of service, he is unable to receive the money that he has earned.

This just shows the absolute madness of outsourcing. This Government promised to deliver the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I agree with the 20,000 PCS members who signed a petition urging them to demonstrate it here. Members of the civil service pension scheme deserve a cleared backlog with every case resolved, deserve without delay the money they are owed, deserve those responsible for failures to be held to account, and deserve a pension scheme back in house, under Government accountability.

16:49

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate.

Like everyone here, I have constituents who, after years of dedicated public service in our armed forces, prisons and vital public services, are now struggling to make ends meet because of failures by Capita. I raised those issues back in April, when the then Minister made a statement on this matter, but sadly it is now like a conveyor belt: just as we get one case resolved, another one appears from a constituent who cannot access the pension they have worked for and earned.

The most important point I want to make today is that behind every delayed pension is a person whose life has been put on hold. One of my constituents is grieving the loss of her husband, who passed away in July. As if that were not already enough, she cannot access his civil service pension. She spoke with Capita last week and was told that her case was “progressing”—exactly the same update as she had a month earlier.

I attended Cabinet Office questions last week, at which the Minister outlined the Government’s insourcing plans and the penalties that Capita is experiencing, but I want her to address two questions today. First, what are the timescales for insourcing? “Plans” do not help our constituents right now. Secondly, what criteria are being applied in relation to penalties for Capita? Constituents need answers and reassurance.

16:50

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate and for focusing so well on the human costs. Many constituents have come to me about this issue. They are living in poverty and misery, having given decades of service to the British people.

This is an absolute scandal. Quite simply, the backlog flows from the repeated, serious failures of Capita, and Capita has very serious questions to answer. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that this should be brought in house, both for the sake of the staff working at Capita who, as my hon. Friend explained so well, are suffering from immense stress, and so that constituents across Britain who have given decades of public service can have confidence that they will be treated properly and be able to access their pensions on time.

16:51

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I will share with the House one particular case that is representative of many. My constituent, Mrs Gillian Pothecary, lost her husband almost a year ago. She wrote to me in July about her valiant but so far unavailing quest to obtain a civil service widow’s pension. She wrote:

“Throughout this process, I have been given differing information about the status of my claim…More recently, I was told that I was at the top of the list for assessment, only to then be informed that some of my paperwork had become out of date and needed to be resubmitted, causing further delay.”

I was very impressed to get a reply, when I forwarded this on, from someone holding the exalted position of deputy director of civil service and Royal Mail pensions in the Cabinet Office. She said:

“Mrs Pothecary’s…case falls under the commitment to be fully resolved by early September at the absolute latest. Capita has assured me that her case is on their escalation log and has been flagged for priority handling.”

I rang up Gill just before coming into this debate and—you’ve guessed it, Dame Siobhain—she has not yet received her pension. She is now dipping into her savings and working longer hours at the supermarket.

16:53

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

The people affected by this issue have worked hard, done the right thing and put money aside for the future, and of course the consequences when things go wrong are dreadful. One of my constituents has experienced a catalogue of errors lasting more than six months, from a £27,000 mistake about a lump sum to a tax code error that still has not been resolved.

That is just one case among many. People are spending hours on the phone only to be fobbed off, paperwork is going missing, money is taking months to arrive and lives are being ruined. Capita’s response is arbitrary targets that come to little or nothing. Will the Minister say what will happen if Capita continues to set itself targets and then miss them? The Government’s action so far is welcome, and it is entirely right that Capita should be audited. Can we have progress on this, please? Can the Minister also tell me who will pay the interest on any delayed payments?

A pension, of course, is about money, but more than that, when they have tried to sort out this mess with Capita, my constituents have been left feeling that they do not matter—but they matter very much. This is not Capita’s money; it is their money, and every single penny must go where it belongs.

16:54

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain, and my apologies to the Minister, who was indeed here on time. I have written her a note to apologise.

I am aware of at least 10 people in Beverley and Holderness who are still waiting to receive what is rightfully theirs, as colleagues across the Chamber have so powerfully expressed. Angela from Burstwick gave 37 years to the civil service, most recently at His Majesty’s Land Registry. She retired in May and, four months on, has received neither a quotation nor a payment. She is now living off her savings and struggling to meet her mortgage.

Sally from Beverley has spent nearly a year trying to retire, after almost 40 years of service. Capita wrongly closed her case as a duplicate, lost the documents sent by the company’s HR team and gave her conflicting retirement dates. In August, it admitted that its own notes on her case did not add up.

This case will resonate powerfully with the Minister. John from Withernsea retired in April 2026 after 30 years as, like the Minister, a prison officer—in his case, at HMP Hull and HMP Full Sutton. Five months on, he has received neither a pension quote nor a penny of income, despite his former employer sending Capita the same information three times.

That is three lives and more than 100 years of service, yet none of them can get what they are owed. Ministers knew that the IT was not ready, but it went live anyway. Can the Minister explain why that decision was made?

16:56

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Time and again this issue is raised in the House, whether at business questions or in questions to Ministers, and we are assured that the situation can and will get better. We are given deadlines and meetings. My constituent Mark’s case was even taken off the tracker, and my office was assured by Capita that the case was solved. Then, last week, we found out that it still had not been resolved and he still did not have the pension he was due.

Barbara had to fight six months for her late husband’s pension. She dealt not only with the grief of losing a husband, but with not being able to get the pension that was owed. Frankly, it is disgraceful that we are treating anyone like this, let alone public servants who have served for many years and deserve a peaceful retirement. Instead, they are having to battle the system to get what they are owed.

What out of pocket expenses will be covered? People are having to pay extra for legal support and to get extra documents reprinted and sourced, as well as getting by day to day. At what point do we draw a line and say, “Enough is enough,” end this contract, and bring it back in house or give it to another supplier that can actually provide what it is paid for?

16:57

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I first raised the case of my constituent Sarah Rees in January. A year after retiring, Sarah had not received her civil service pension, and it took my raising it in the Chamber to get any sort of action. Sarah’s husband is now in the same situation and has had to endure Capita’s delays and incompetence. Since first asking for his quote in January, he has chased it 20 times and still not had it.

I am asking for three things. First can the Minister give us further details on the long-term strategy being developed to bring the contract in house? I welcome that move, but we need more detail. Secondly, on behalf of my constituents, I seek assurance on exactly how the UK Government intend to hold Capita to account, as we know that it is not hitting even basic benchmarks. Finally, will the Minister fully consider calls for compensation to reflect the financial cost of these failings for people and their families, many of whom have been without income for nearly a year or more?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Isb apologise for the hokey-cokey way of chairing. We are back down to a minute for speeches.

16:59

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Let me tell Members about two men. The first is Adolfo Hernandez, the chief executive of Capita, who has an annual remuneration, I believe, of £1.6 million. The other is my constituent, a man who gave 33 years of service to the Metropolitan police and, despite giving ample notice of his retirement, did not receive his pension for at least six months. He wanted to fund his daughter through university, but was unable to do so. He took out loans from the police. He then developed cancer and is under treatment at my local hospital. He has finally received a quotation for his pension. This is an utter disgrace and we in this place must surely be able to do something about it. We all came to this place to change things. Surely, this is something that we can change. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view.

17:00

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate. I was contacted in February by a constituent who sadly lost her partner in November 2025. She was left caring for two children on one income. When she reached out to access a hardship loan, she was denied. The Government had shut out bereaved families at the time they most needed help. When I asked the Minister how much it would have cost to include them, I did not get an answer.

That has been the theme throughout, for myself and my constituents. I have asked what penalties have been applied to Capita—no answer. Given that much of Capita appears to be nothing more than a rebranding of MyCSP, with the same workforce doing the same job, can the Minister tell me what assurances she can provide that we will not see a repeat of the Capita fiasco? The Cabinet Office is responsible for civil service pensions. Unlike other pension providers that are monitored by the Financial Conduct Authority, this issue is not subject to FCA scrutiny.

17:01

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is an understatement to say that Capita’s service in administering civil service pensions is unacceptable. One resident has faced real financial hardship because it took five months and considerable pestering from my office just to receive a quote from Capita. That pension has still not been paid. It does not end there. I have heard from a bereaved and grieving widow, Carolyn. On top of the pain of losing her other half, she has had to fight through a mountain of administration just to receive a widow’s pension.

I have personal experience. I am incredibly proud that my father worked in the civil service and shared a pension with my mother, who passed away in November. MyCSP did not even have my mother’s name spelled correctly on the account, and all progress I had made was lost when Capita took over. I personally experienced the difficult situation that residents in North Somerset have to go through. Surely it is time to act decisively and consider ending Capita’s involvement in the administration.

17:02

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Saving for a secure retirement is a baseline expectation for the people I represent. For some members of the civil service pension scheme, that expectation has been replaced by unanswered emails, long phone calls and an indefinite wait. That frustration is compounded by the fact that they are not waiting for a favour but for their own money. I will never forget a woman who came to one of my summer coffee mornings. She had worked all her life and to mark her retirement had booked the holiday of a lifetime with her husband. Instead of being able to enjoy that holiday, it was punctured by the anxiety caused by Capita’s incompetence.

There is a power imbalance: retirees know that they are owed and Capita knows there is a problem, but Capita is the only one able to fix it. People are left screaming into a faceless bureaucracy, somewhere inside which their pension is trapped. I know the Minister cares as deeply as I do, and I look forward to hearing of the work she is doing to ensure that we fix this urgently for my constituents.

17:03

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Capita is causing a real financial and emotional impact on decent, hard-working people across our country. Examples from my constituency include Anne-Marie from Brotton, who served in the Department for Work and Pensions for 40 years and is still waiting for her pension after nine months. Ivan from Nunthorpe retired in 2023 and is still waiting to make his McCloud remedy choice three years later.

Samantha from Marton is trying to secure a death payment following the death of her mother Angela, but has been chasing the bereavement team since February. I met the Minister about these problems recently, but the reality is that Capita is not delivering for long-serving, decent people who spent their lives in public service. I urge the Government to act more quickly to sort it out.

17:04

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I have a constituent with terminal cancer still waiting after months for their pension. Another constituent has been trying to finalise his deceased mother’s pension for two years. Other constituents have had hardship loans that have now run out. In the words of my caseworker, it is “just dreadful”. Constituents have told me that, when their payments have been delayed, they often have to borrow money simply to make ends meet.

Why should somebody whose pension has been unlawfully or negligently delayed have to borrow money to replace income that is already theirs? I hope Capita will be properly held to account. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government intend to compensate people who have suffered financial loss, distress or serious inconvenience as a result of these failures.

17:05

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Capita and MyCSP have failed public servants and ground lives to a halt. Derek tragically lost his wife Julie last year. We found that vital information in relation to Julie’s pension had been lost by Capita, and despite raising this in a previous debate, that case is still unresolved. Despite Capita’s supposed priority to death-in-service cases, it is Derek’s sincere and despairing belief that he will never get what he is entitled to. Tim retired in May. He sent everything he needed to immediately to Capita, which quickly confirmed it had received everything it needed, only to come back to Tim two months later requesting documents it did not initially send him.

I could go on and on—terminally ill people waiting for hours on the phone; prison officers mentally battered and left for months without any updates from Capita. The fact that a single penny has been earned by Capita’s shareholders since it took on the contract is shameful. The fact that that contract was transferred to Capita on the cheap in 2023 is shameful. Minister, enough is enough. Insource this contract.

17:06

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I completely agree with the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) raised about Capita’s unacceptable performance. Sadly, despite repeated promises from Capita that it would prioritise, escalate and expedite such cases, too many of my constituents continue to live with the consequences. One constituent has been waiting nearly 11 months for their bereavement case to be resolved. Despite Capita’s assurances that it would clear stock cases involving bereavement by 1 September, that one remains pending.

I am also concerned that Capita appears to be providing constituents and their MPs with incorrect and often conflicting information. In one particular case, my constituent and I contacted Capita separately, and I additionally raised the matter with Ministers in the Cabinet Office. Shockingly, my office received a different answer from the one that Capita provided directly to my constituent, and we both received a different answer from the one given to the Cabinet Office. That is three different answers on one case. The ineptitude is simply staggering, and no one will be surprised to hear that that case is still outstanding.

In the meantime—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:07

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

This Capita situation is not acceptable. I have constituents who have served for decades who are now living off their savings because they cannot get a response from Capita, never mind the pension payments that they are owed. Others have had to borrow money from friends and family just to make ends meet, and have no idea when this will be resolved. One person worked for 30 years in the prison service. In September, he received a letter promising that he would receive his pension

“by the end of August”.

Those are not isolated examples. I have received hundreds of emails—about 400 in total. Whatever uniform they wore, and whatever office they worked in, they worked hard, they paid in, and they planned for their retirement on the understanding that the pension they had earned would be there when they needed it most. They have kept their side of the bargain; it is time the system kept its side, too. I ask the Minister to lay out the plans and timescales for getting this resolved for my constituents.

17:08

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

My constituent Sarabjit partially retired last year. Capita wrongly worked out her pension, and over a year later she has still not got the money she is owed. Another constituent, Inderjeet, retired after 39 years in the Met police to spend more time with her parents, who live abroad, but five months later she has still not had a penny and her mum has sadly died since then. This is affecting real people’s lives.

I know the Minister is new to the job, but I congratulate her on how she has already grasped the nettle on this issue. We have had two virtual surgeries offered to us next week for both those cases, but could she confirm the new deadline we should be working to, in order to ensure that Sarabjit and Inderjeet get the money they are due?

17:09

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Dozens of my constituents have been waiting months on end for their pensions, but I want to raise just one case. My constituent Cally came to see me in February this year. Her mother, Sarah Mitchell, died in August 2025. Despite repeated efforts from my team, Capita still cannot locate her details. Sarah died before getting her pension, and Cally is still waiting for her survivor benefits. I hope the Minister agrees with me—and, it sounds like, everybody in the Chamber—that the shameful cases raised today show that Capita is not fit to deal with this contract. [Interruption.]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I apologise; I did not see you, John. I will reduce the Minister’s time so that you can speak.

17:09

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain—I am not sure if that is beneficial to the debate, but there you are.

I declare an interest as the chair of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. I first want to thank the Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance, which worked with the trade union to expose what is going on. I also thank the Minister for her open-door policy. On 9 September, Capita supplied her with information that, let us say, has a passing relationship with the truth.

For the October statement, could we ensure that we have the full publication of the Grant Thornton audit report, so that we can see the hard information? The PCS is willing to work with the Minister on the insourcing strategy. I also ask that we have a full inquiry into how this contract was awarded in the first place, and how Capita has been awarded further contracts despite its successive failures.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson. You have five minutes.

17:10

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. We always say that in this Chamber, but we can see from the number of Members who have come here today to represent their constituents that this issue really needed to be debated.

In August, I hosted a surgery in the bucolic surroundings of the Rushfields nursery, at the foot of the south downs near the village of Poynings. A gentleman called Greg Mountain came to see me. I know Greg because before I stood for election in Mid Sussex, he was the Labour candidate there—I believe in 2015 and 2017. I was not sure what he was going to raise with me, but Greg was there in his capacity as a member of the executive committee of the Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance. He advises former civil servants living in my constituency. Greg described the situation we have heard about this afternoon as a “national scandal”, and he is right.

Let us look at some statistics. As recorded by the Cabinet Office on 20 August this year, annual benefits statements for existing members were still not available. There were 68 retirement cases more than 100 days old, with a further 267 requiring additional information before payment could be made. There were six ill-health retirement cases over 100 days old, with another 12 awaiting information. There were 45 death-in-service cases over 100 days old, and a further 242 requiring more information. Perhaps most troubling of all, there were 1,082 bereavement cases more than 100 days old, with another 779 awaiting third-party information.

These are people who have given decades of their lives to public service. Newly retired civil servants say they are struggling to pay bills and buy food because delays in their pension scheme have left them without an income for months. These repeated failures in pension administration are causing real distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better. The outrage and anger is particularly understandable given that the Public Accounts Committee warned of a clear risk that Capita would not be ready to take over full administration in December 2025.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Bennett]

I will not, because I have a time limit.

The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to explain how it ensures sufficient staffing and resources, and raised serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight. It is now clear that those concerns have come to fruition.

I have five questions for the Minister. First, how did this happen, and when will it end? When Capita bid for this contract, did it properly understand the scale and complexity of the work it was taking on, and did the Cabinet Office undertake sufficient due diligence to satisfy itself that the company had the capability to deliver this vital public service? Has the Cabinet Office put a date in place for getting this right?

Secondly, are teachers going through the same ordeal? I have received very concerning casework from teachers in my constituency who seem to be having similar or the same troubles with their pensions. The idea that the immense stress and potential financial hardship that we have heard has been inflicted on civil servants has been mirrored for teachers is appalling. Can the Minister tell us what guardrails the Government have put in place to ensure that when the teachers’ pension scheme transfers to Tata from Capita, that will not result in similar issues?

Thirdly, the Government must tell us how they intend to put this right. How will they restore the confidence of 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want reassurance that their pensions, earned through years of public service, will be administered competently, fairly and with dignity? The Government must outline exactly how they are ensuring that the most vulnerable of those affected are being prioritised.

Fourthly, will the Government commit to inflation-linking payments to all outstanding cases, to make sure that those affected by Capita’s mistakes do not suffer even more for the delays? Fifthly, what assessment have the Government made of the systemic failures in civil service pension administration? What lessons have they learned to ensure that the same thing cannot happen again when similar contracts are awarded in future? These people served this country. They earned their pensions. They should not now have to fight to receive them.

17:15

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to take part in this debate. I take the opportunity to formally welcome the Minister to her role. The turnout for the debate shows the strength of feeling of hon. Members of both sides of the House. I join them in expressing my deepest sympathies to the civil servants and families of civil servants who dedicated their lives to public service and who have been left without the pensions they earned throughout that service. Recent updates from the civil service pension recovery plan show that although progress has been made, thousands of families are still waiting for retirement quotes and pension payments. Of particular concern is the number of older cases involving bereavement, death in service and ill health that have yet to be resolved, as highlighted in the most recent updates. I trust that the Minister will use the opportunity of this debate to highlight what further steps the Government are taking to ensure that those cases are dealt with.

An adequate explanation from Ministers for why they allowed Capita’s contract to administer the civil service pension scheme to go ahead in the first place has been entirely absent. I know, and the Minister will no doubt point out, that the contract was signed in November 2023 under the last Government. The last Government agreed to a two-year transition period with clear milestones that Capita was required to meet to take over the administration of the scheme without causing disruption to service.

[Graham Stuart]

The mistake that the Government made was trying to transfer a complex system in disarray. Is the danger not that the Government now will take a system that is still in disarray and seek to transfer it again? It must be put right under Capita and then, at that point, a consideration can be made of its being brought back in house, not before.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I could not agree more. It was under this Government’s watch that it became clear that many of the milestones were not being met, and Ministers failed to take the necessary action to ensure a smooth transition and prevent such disruption. That was certainly not through lack of warning, given that both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee published reports in the weeks and months before Capita was due to take over administration of the scheme highlighting a clear risk that it was not ready to do so. Ministers said they received personal assurances from Capita on its readiness to take over the scheme, and they have not said why they chose to believe those claims despite the findings of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

Will the Minister clarify who in her Department authorised the go/no-go decision in November 2025, clarify what criteria were used to make that decision, and commit to publishing all documents relating to that decision with only necessary commercial redactions?

Ministers have spoken at great length about potentially insourcing the civil service pension scheme in the future, but they appear far less willing to consider using powers that they already have at their disposal under the Procurement Act 2023 to address issues with suppliers.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Does my hon. Friend agree that since the Government have got involved in this situation, the backlog has got worse? Does he think that they should prevent Capita taking on any more Government contracts until this is sorted out?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I could not agree more, and I am about to come to that point. We have all seen our inboxes full of horror stories of individuals who have been caught up in this situation. I therefore ask the Minister specifically to confirm whether the Government will refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service, or does she intend to allow Capita to continue freely bidding for public contracts while the Government take months to complete their review of insourcing?

It is clear that the mishandling of the civil service pension scheme is the result of not only corporate failures on the part of Capita but the Government’s failure to manage the contract effectively. Ministers should reflect on the Government’s shortcomings in regard to that before outsourcing blame elsewhere. However, I am aware that the Minister took a keen interest in this subject from the Back Benches and I will work constructively with her to try to find a resolution to an issue facing many thousands of people up and down the country.

It is absolutely right that, while we try to understand how we got to this point, we must work more closely together to try to resolve it. That is in the interests of the civil servants and their families who have been so deeply impacted by this travesty. I therefore look forward to hearing what plans the Minister has to take this issue forward and resolve it as quickly as possible. I look forward to her response.

17:19

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I declare that I have a Capita Prison Service pension of six years, but I am 34 years away from my retirement age, so I do not have a current financial interest. I am also a member of the Prison Officers’ Association. I want to apologise as I was not in my seat for the start of the speeches; I will endeavour in future Westminster Hall debates to be more bullish in fighting through the crowds to make sure I am here on time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate and actively campaigning on this issue for his constituents, as all Members present have done. I raised this issue both in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber before I became the Minister responsible for it—life comes at you fast. I am absolutely committed and determined to ensure that this issue is dealt with.

I want to thank the constituents who have been affected by this issue. They are public servants who have given so much to our country and our communities. I give a special shout-out to my former colleagues in the Prison Service and at HMP Moorland, because public servants like them have dedicated their working lives to this country and deserve financial security and unwavering dignity in retirement—not corporate failure, not empty promises and not severe administrative failure.

I will do my best to get through as much of my speech as I can in the time I have, but I am happy to speak to any Member after the debate to deal with individual case issues. Subject to the Speaker’s permission, I also hope to come to the House in October to give a full update.

The continued poor experience delivered to the many public servants and their families by Capita, which has been the administrator of the civil service pension scheme since 1 December 2025, is totally abysmal. I have read accounts of the endless delays faced by scheme members, many of whom have written to their local MPs and Ministers, I have heard the concerns raised by hon. Members in the debate, and I have heard the concerns of my constituents in Doncaster Central. I am truly sorry to hear about the worry and distress that has been caused, particularly to those dealing with bereavement and death in service. Resolving this matter is of the utmost urgency for the Government, and we are taking direct action to intervene.

I will answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby. First, on recovery, Capita has set a commitment to achieve its full service level agreements from the end of this month. I am meeting senior Capita staff later this month to challenge them again and get their assurance on that. On the commitment to redress and compensation, we are committed to ensuring that no member is left financially worse off. All complaints will be handled in line with Pensions Ombudsman standards. There is further work to do on that, and I intend to bring my focus to it, but in the immediate future, I want to make sure that as many scheme members as possible are getting their pension and the money they are owed. Further work will then be done to ensure that people are properly compensated. I will come to insourcing later in my speech.

I will explain the context of this issue and how we got here. The contract was signed in 2023 under the previous Government. On 1 December, the administration of the scheme transferred from MyCSP to Capita. While the core payroll for over 730,000 existing pensioners continued to be paid correctly and on time, following the change of administrator, the process for retiring since December has been fraught with delays, and a large number of public servants and their families have been significantly impacted.

Following that, Capita defaulted on its major recovery commitments, missing its end of April target to clear payment arrears and its end of June milestone to clear the backlog of inherited cases. Following Capita’s failure at the end of June, we mandated the production of a formal contract rectification plan, which was submitted by Capita in July. A remedial adviser from Grant Thornton was appointed at Capita’s expense to test the validity of that plan. They will test whether Capita can realistically deliver what it needs to with the systems it has in place and in the timeframe it has set out. Once Capita reports next month, we will hold it to account for the quality of its planning and execution.

In addition, the Government have appointed a Government internal audit agency to undertake a deep review of the effectiveness of Capita’s operational arrangements between December and July. After I get all that information back and break it down, I will then report again in October. That will allow us to understand how Capita got it so wrong, despite Ministers receiving explicit personal assurances from the chief executive officer. We will hold it accountable for the quality of its delivery.

In evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 8 July, Capita committed to two further operational milestones: 1 December to clear all remaining backlog and retirement arrears; and 30 September to restore normal operations and standard contractual levels, excluding 600 complex cases. As stated in my ministerial statement on 9 September, Capita has reported that it has met that in five priority areas. I want to be clear that that is Capita’s reporting, not my or the Government’s reporting. I am personally testing that, based on cases that MPs have sent me that have come through my ministerial correspondence. I will be holding Capita executive to account on individual cases next week when I meet them.

I am also working towards setting our own measures of Capita’s success. At the minute, it is setting its own milestones and measurements, and that is not good enough. We are in charge, so we need to tell it what our terms and measurements are, and it needs to work towards that. I am doing a separate piece of work on that.

On transition and go-live, the decision obviously predated my elevation to Minister for this area, but it was based on evidence requested from Capita about capability and readiness in critical delivery areas. By November 2025, assessments indicated that Capita had made significant progress since the PAC hearing in July. It gave assurances via external audit by the National Audit Office, technical security assurance, gateway reviews in the go/no-go discussions in October and November, and weekly assessments of critical cases against specific acceptance criteria.

To support and provide financial security to those impacted, the Government have approved more than £100 million to provide interest-free transitional support loans to public servants. Let me be clear: the Government should not have to financially plug any gaps due to Capita’s failure, but to date it has been necessary to supply more than 4,100 loans.

I turn to Capita’s engagement with Members in this House. The volume of outstanding MPs’ correspondence has grown significantly, and peaked at 2,200 open cases. It has decreased slightly to 1,700, but it is still not good enough. In recognition of the need to do better, my predecessors set up the virtual surgeries system. To date, it has had more than 870 sessions with 260 parliamentary officers, which underlines the scale of the catastrophe we are facing. We will maintain those surgeries until the pension scheme is running smoothly. It feels like that could be a while, but we will not withdraw them.

I am personally committed to continuing to work with the unions. I have already met the PCS union, which represents Capita employees and scheme members, and other unions, including the POA and the FDA. I met the Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance this week to ensure that it is involved and that its views are heard throughout this process.

I am using all commercial levers to hold Capita to account. We have held nearly £10 million in contractual payments for undelivered milestones. We will pay only for what has been successfully delivered, and nothing more. We have a Capita-funded remediation adviser, and we will be hearing from them very soon. We have also deployed auditors to Capita to get a full understanding of its failure, and we will be recovering all costs from it, including to pay for the 140 surge staff that the civil service has provided.

Core operations are currently being propped up by the 140 surge staff, and we will put more in if required. The surge team will remain in full service until restoration is completed. We will not permit Capita to reduce its own headcount until performance has improved.

The contract awarded by DWP followed a separate rigorous process; it was not done via the Cabinet Office. I have expressed my own views on that in this House before, so they are on the record. I think there is further work to be done to look at how we can hold Capita and similar companies to account when they fail in these areas.

It has been nine months since Capita took over the new contract. The Government are very clear that members of the civil service pension scheme and their families deserve better. If any Members who have raised personal cases today have not already done so, I ask that they get in touch with me so that I can personally escalate them.

I will hopefully come back to the House in October with a better update and more information. The Labour Government stood on a manifesto pledge to have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. I am personally committed to that. I have said in this House before that I think that is a priority for this scheme, but we can do that only if it is done in the interests of the members. There must be no disruption, so we have to do it in the smoothest and quickest way.

I want Capita, not the taxpayer, to pay for its mistakes. It does not get to just walk away and do nothing about it. It needs to pay for this and get everyone their pensions, and then we will look at what needs to be done in terms of the long-term viability of the scheme. I am committed to doing that. I assure all hon. Members that this is absolutely a Government priority. It is also a personal priority for me, and I feel I have demonstrated that in recent months when I have raised it. We will not rest until it is sorted.

I am conscious of time—I have about 15 seconds left. The Government will not accept further caveats or moving targets. We will not accept continued poor delivery for current and former civil servants, who deserve better in their retirement. I thank everyone for showing the strength of feeling today. More will come in October.

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).