House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I would like to pay tribute to a long-standing member of the House administration, Sue Holt, who passed away last week. Sue worked in the House administration for 39 years and was known to many Members across both Houses for her work in the Interparliamentary Relations Office supporting international delegations. She was spirited, good humoured and hard working. She will be very much missed and our thoughts are with her family, friends and the team that she worked with. That is the sad news that I have to bring to the House.
It would be remiss of me not to mark the fact that this is the final day that Tom Goldsmith, our current Clerk of the House, will sit at the Table. Tom, I know the whole House will join me in thanking you for your service and in wishing you all the very best in the future. For those who do not know, Tom knows every “Carry On” character and every “Carry On” film, so what I would say is, “Carry on, Clerk”.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
On behalf of the Government, I add our good wishes to Tom on his final day at the Table.
The Government recognise the importance of promoting active travel. On 12 June, we published the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which sets out our ambitious targets for active travel in England. The strategy is supported by more than £4.5 billion of projected investment through to 2030, helping to make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips.
Chris Murray
The Tour de France starts in my constituency in July. Portobello high school’s Girls Gone Cycling project has already got over 70 girls on to bikes, and it is now being extended across Scotland. The grand départ trophy visited Portobello this month to mark the race’s first start in Scotland and to recognise the girls’ excellent work. What are the Government doing to capture that energy and inspire the next generation of cyclists? May I invite Ministers to Edinburgh in this Tour de France year to meet our impressive cyclists?
Justin Madders
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Tour de France is an amazing opportunity to inspire more people to walk and cycle, and what a wonderful constituency for it to appear in. Active travel is a devolved matter, but officials from the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland meet regularly to discuss active travel, most recently in September. I pay tribute to the work of Portobello high sch ool.
Cycling is a fantastic way to get around while cutting emissions and keeping fit. In England, we are investing £135 million in schemes such as Bikeability cycle training, with over half a million children receiving training each year. Alongside that, we are supporting the delivery of safer networks, enabling more children to walk, wheel and cycle to school. I will look into whether we can visit to enjoy some of the benefits of these schemes, along with my hon. Friend.
Ms Minns
To continue the theme of the Tour de France, after it leaves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), it will finish its first leg in Carlisle. We can all agree that cycling and e-bikes play an important role in active travel. However, many Labour Members have become very concerned about illegal e-bikes that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle, which are doing great damage to the reputation of cycling. Will the Minister meet me and other Labour Members to discuss a ban on the sale of illegal e-bikes, so that we can focus on the positives of cycling in this Tour de France year?
Justin Madders
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the news that the opening stage of the Tour de France will be finishing in Carlisle next year. I hope that she will be claiming the yellow jersey at that point. She makes the important point that hon. Members from across the House are concerned about illegal e-bikes. To be clear, those bikes have no place on our roads. At the moment, it is far too easy for retailers to put in the fine print that these vehicles are for use only on private land, and for consumers to then buy them and use them on public roads, without even realising that what they are doing is illegal. I am keen to explore how we tackle this issue as a Government, including through the newly established cross-Government ministerial group. In the meantime, I will be writing to retailers and online market places to remind them about their responsibility to market these products responsibly. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other interested Members to discuss this subject.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich)(Con)
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, relating to the sad loss of Sue Holt? During my time as the leader of our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I found Sue to be always there, always cheerful and always helpful, as did the whole of the delegation that I was privileged to lead. We shall miss her dreadfully.
Let me also support your other remarks, Mr Speaker. During my time as an acting Deputy Speaker, I leaned very heavily on the wise advice of Tom Goldsmith. I wish him every happiness in whatever he chooses to do next.
I am sure the whole House will associate itself with the support for active travel in general and for cycling in particular, but there is a downside. The growth in the number of cyclists has led to a clear growth in the number of cycling offences, with cyclists on pavements, crashing through red traffic lights and cycling at night without any lights at all. Does the Minister have any information about prosecutions relating to those offences?
Justin Madders
The right hon. Member raises very important points. We have all seen irresponsible cycling, but let us be clear that cycling on pavements is an offence, except where it is permitted. Police can and do take action against careless or dangerous cycling. As he will know, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced new offences covering death or serious injury caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. We have recently written to food delivery companies emphasising the need for them to ensure that their riders are acting legally and responsibly when undertaking their duties. I understand what he says, and I will certainly look further at that issue.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, regarding the outgoing Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith. We have spent many an hour sitting in various meetings together, and I very much appreciate his wise words.
E-bikes and e-scooters are an incredibly important part of active travel. My constituency has a trial of e-scooters that has been going on for several years. That is fabulous, but unfortunately it has led to a rise in illegal e-scooters. When I met Essex police recently, it told me that illegal e-scooters are difficult to intercept, but when it does confiscate them, they are difficult to store because of concerns about battery fires. The problem is that so many people, when they buy e-bikes or e-scooters, do not realise that it is illegal to ride them, and we really need to do something about that. It is the people who buy them who end up paying the price if they do not understand that they cannot use them, and Essex police has to pick up the pieces.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member makes a very fair point. One of the purposes of the cross-departmental working group is to work with Home Office officials and Ministers to understand the limitations on police actions and to see whether we can find novel methods of tackling this issue. We would be very grateful to receive any information that she has from her local constabulary.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I associate the official Opposition with your comments, Mr Speaker, regarding the sad loss of Sue Holt. We send our condolences to her family and friends. Likewise, as many of the “Carry On” films were made in Buckinghamshire, at Pinewood Studios, I wish the Clerk of the House a very happy retirement.
The Government have been warned by more than 290 organisations that their guidance on dangerous floating bus stops puts visually impaired people, deaf people and people with mobility issues at risk. Will the Minister acknowledge that cycling and active travel infrastructure must not come at the expense of disabled people’s safety? Some proponents of active travel, including those in the Department for Transport, must stop compromising the safety of disabled people who simply want to use public transport.
Justin Madders
Let me be absolutely clear that this Department does not compromise the safety of anyone when they are crossing the road. The Department published statutory guidance on the provision and design of floating bus stops with Active Travel England in January, and all traffic authorities must have regard to that guidance. It provides very clear advice on floating bus stops and the need to design them with passengers, cyclists and pedestrians in mind. The most concerning and troublesome floating bus stops are no longer being built, but we continue to work on this issue. We understand the concerns, and we are absolutely determined to deal with the matter.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to both Sue Holt and Mr Goldsmith.
There is growing interest in the issue of illegally modified e-bikes and their use, as is shown by comments in this House and in a Westminster Hall debate last week and by our new policy passed at last month’s Liberal Democrat conference. We need to ensure that e-bikes support, rather than hinder, the growth of active travel. The Minister has talked about the cross-Government working group, but will he commit to creating an action plan based on that work to tackle the issue, with clear timescales and owners? If he did, he would have our support.
Justin Madders
I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that there is already an action plan. We have identified a number of issues, building on some of the work and recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, and those will be fed into the cross-departmental working group. The Government hear what the hon. Member and, indeed, all hon. Members are saying about this issue: we need to make our roads safe. We need to get this plague of illegal e-bikes sorted out once and for all, and this Government are determined to do that.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Last week, the Government launched the “Share the carriage, not the noise” campaign with rail operators across the country, reminding rail passengers to use headphones or potentially face fines of up to £1,000. The Bus Services Act 2025 gives local authorities new powers to crack down on nuisance behaviour on buses, including listening to loud music, littering, vaping and antisocial behaviour. Our new guidance will help authorities put these powers into practice and make journeys safer and more comfortable for passengers.
Tom Rutland
There is nothing more irritating than being sat on a train or a bus and being subjected to someone scrolling through endless videos or blasting music out loud, so I welcome the Department’s action against these headphone dodgers. Can my hon. Friend set out how this policy will be enforced to ensure that we reclaim our public transport from nuisance passengers and restore some tranquillity to our journeys?
Simon Lightwood
Absolutely. Our “Share the journey, not the noise” campaign has started a national conversation about the standards we should all expect on trains and reminded those few who fall short that there are fines in place. We expect that most passengers will comply with requests to watch videos on silent or use headphones, but there are clear routes for escalation if they do not, up to and including prosecution. Local authorities can now introduce bus byelaws covering excessive noise, with fixed on-the-spot penalties of up to £100.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
While we Liberal Democrats are very pleased that the Government have listened to our calls to tackle headphone dodgers, I did not really hear an answer to the previous question. How is this policy going to be visibly enforced, so that public transport users in Bath can be sure that something is happening?
Simon Lightwood
Antisocial behaviour on buses is tackled through wider crime and policing laws, and transport safety officers—of which the Department has funded trials—will also be used. This is about giving local transport authorities the powers to enforce these byelaws, which obviously came about with Liberal Democrats working on the Bus Services Bill Committee. We have been tackling nuisance behaviour on public transport for a long time—it is an ongoing priority. We invested £2.5 million in the transport safety officer pilots, and have taken targeted action against nuisance behaviour and published guidance so that others can adopt best practice. Of course, the Bus Services Act gives every local authority the power to introduce those byelaws.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
For too many disabled people, the railway remains a system of barriers rather than connections. To improve disability access at stations, we continue to deliver step-free access through the Access for All programme. Since July 2024, we have completed improvements at 31 stations across the country; a further 22 are in progress on site, and 36 are in design. Last month, we committed to make level boarding from train to platform a baseline expectation for all new Great British Railways trains.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, but over 1,500 people have signed my petition to make Chepstow station fully accessible. Currently, disabled travellers need to go east into England, cross over a road, get back on a train and travel back through Chepstow to go west to Cardiff, so Chepstow residents were incredibly disappointed that they missed out on the last round of Access for All funding, despite being nearly at the top of the priority list given by the Welsh Government to Westminster. Can the Secretary of State please confirm when the next Access for All round will begin, and when Chepstow station will be fully accessible to residents?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend paints a vivid picture of how critical accessible stations are, not just to her constituents but to people travelling across the country. She will know that Chepstow was nominated for Access for All funding in 2022, but was not selected for funding by the previous Government. Future funding, beyond what I spoke about in my first answer, will be considered at the next spending review, and I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend to understand how the case of Chepstow station can be raised at that time.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Disabled residents and anyone who relies on the lift at Bishop’s Stortford train station have found it consistently out of service in recent months. That is making it harder for them to get to work, school and other activities. I understand that discussions regarding a long-term fix are ongoing, but our community still lacks clarity on what those works will involve and when they might take place. The Rail Minister kindly supported my campaign to get the platform 1 lift at Hertford North train station over the line. I would be grateful if Ministers could lend their support again by asking Network Rail and Greater Anglia to bring forward a clear plan for restoring reliable step-free access at Bishop’s Stortford.
Heidi Alexander
I am very sorry to hear about the problems that my hon. Friend’s constituents are experiencing at Bishop’s Stortford station. I am aware of those problems and know that they were further impacted by the extreme temperatures this summer. A full lift replacement is planned for 2028, but I realise that that will sound like a long way off to his constituents. In the short term, I will ask my officials to meet Greater Anglia to explore how we can alleviate disruption for residents, and I would be happy to keep him updated on that.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I just put it on the record that the Tour de France will be passing through my constituency twice?
Will the Secretary of State investigate the position on Kirkconnel station in my constituency, on the Nith valley line? Kirkconnel is a former mining community with an older population, and many people are unable to use the station because of infirmity or poor mobility.
Heidi Alexander
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, matters relating to the railways are devolved, but I will look into the accessibility issues at the station he refers to and progress any necessary conversations with colleagues in the Scottish Government.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
One of the lifts at Woking station was out of service for 40 days in one year, and constituents in West Byfleet have complained that their station’s platform is too high for them to use safely. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that stations on the South Western Railway line are accessible for all?
Heidi Alexander
As I said in my earlier answer, we do have a programme of work happening across the country at the moment, whether that is further design work on stations or construction works that are under way. In reference to the two stations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—Woking and West Byfleet—I would be happy to look at the details and discuss with him whether future improvements could come forward as part of the next spending review.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government recognise that airport drop-off charges can be a source of frustration for passengers, particularly where payment arrangements are unclear, signage is difficult to follow or motorists face additional charges for late payment. Recognising those concerns about the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers, the Government have committed to undertake a review to ensure that travel remains accessible and passengers are treated fairly.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am sure he recognises that drop-off charges at UK airports have risen sharply in recent years, with Newcastle now charging £6, while London Stansted and Gatwick both charge £10, even though drop-offs are totally free at most major European airports, including eight of Europe’s 10 busiest. The airports justify it as a much-needed income stream, but for many travellers it feels more like pinching the pockets of hard-working families. The Minister mentioned the review; is he able to elaborate on the promise to review those charges? Will the review address the issues of affordability and accessibility for my constituents?
Keir Mather
Let me be clear: we expect airports to treat passengers fairly and to ensure that travel remains accessible. The review is going to look at the impacts of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services. The detailed scope will be developed as part of the review process, but it could include affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers.
More broadly, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which has just been through Committee, seeks to modernise the United Kingdom’s aviation legislative framework. One of its key objectives is to strengthen consumer rights and protections, particularly for those who travel with disabilities.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I really welcome the Government’s U-turn on adopting Conservative policy and deciding to review airport drop-off charges, but in response to my written question, the Minister did not confirm that the Government’s anti-car surface access targets, the more than 100% increase in business rates that many airports have faced, or the crippling increases in employment taxes will form part of that review. Will the Minister ensure that all these important factors form part of the inquiry into what is leading to airport drop-off charges soaring under his Government?
Keir Mather
The shadow Secretary of State does not seem to want to face up to the fact that this Government are taking decisive action to help our airports and airlines, whether it is signing off airport expansion across the country or modernising our airspace to provide community benefit alongside efficiencies. I have already been clear that the review will look at questions of affordability and access to airports. That is the right way to ensure that we have a system that is proportionate for consumers and airport users while addressing the fact that, as he mentioned, planning considerations are often built in with mode share targets that are linked to airport drop-off charges. This Government will take a proportionate approach to that review and to the aviation sector as a whole.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
My Department regularly discusses roadworks and other highways matters with the Northern Ireland Executive through the UK Roads Leadership Group.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer; I am glad to hear that she has discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Local businesses on the A25 Castleward Road in Strangford have seen their trade reduced by some 90%, and I believe there is a sensible solution: to work at night. I have suggested that to the Department back home as a way of alleviating the impact on local businesses. Will the Minister ensure that those discussions take place? At a time when businesses are struggling to meet their basic staffing and operating costs, it is essential to protect our traders.
Heidi Alexander
I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman raises these matters. Whether it is people travelling on the roads or businesses that are impacted by roadworks, the impacts are felt across the entirety of the UK. We have discussed these matters through the UK Roads Leadership Group, and I can tell him that a code of practice was recently published. It provides guidance for authorities on how to better co-ordinate roadworks with neighbouring authorities and utilities—by considering overnight works, for example—to minimise disruption.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Street Works (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 allows the Northern Ireland Executive to bring in a lane rental scheme to charge contractors a daily rate for disruptive roadworks, but they have chosen not to take this position. Will the Secretary of State extol the virtues of the lane rental scheme to the Northern Ireland Executive? While she is at it, will she take the final steps to give the lane rental powers under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to the Mayor of London, to cut traffic in Ealing Southall too?
Mr Speaker
We are struggling to stick to Northern Ireland. Pick what you can out of that, Secretary of State.
Heidi Alexander
I will do my best to address both elements of my hon. Friend’s question. From my experience as the Deputy Mayor of London, I know the difference that lane rental schemes can make to manage the most disruptive impacts. I will certainly pursue discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive about lane rental, because I know it could make a real difference in that part of the UK as well.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
For too long, our railways have not been run in the service of passengers. We are turning this around, with six operators already brought into public ownership under this Government and the renationalisation of Great Western Railway on 13 December. Next year, the creation of Great British Railways will bring the management of track and train together, ending decades of fragmentation, and delivering better and more reliable services for passengers.
Dave Robertson
My constituents rely on the Cross-City line to get them in and out of Birmingham, but the last train back from Birmingham in the evening does not run as far as Lichfield, meaning that we cannot make the most of the nightlife there. As Christmas approaches, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to change that and boost the evening service from New Street to Lichfield City, so that my constituents can make the best of Birmingham’s Frankfurt Christmas market?
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on rail issues, and I know these services would make a real difference for his constituents over the Christmas period. I welcome the work done by West Midlands Trains and the local community on developing proposals for this trial. I think our publicly owned railways should work in the service of passengers, and these extra trains would be a great example of that. I very much back his call for this trial to take place.
Jo Stevens
I thank my right hon. Friend, because my Cardiff East constituents were absolutely delighted with the announcement yesterday of £30 million for Cardiff Parkway station. Mine is the only constituency in the capital city without a train station, so this will be transformational for growth, jobs and travel. Before the Senedd election, the Welsh Labour Government agreed to a funding contribution, alongside private investors, to ensure that this project is delivered. Can she please confirm whether, in the five months since that election, the minority Plaid Government have said they will honour that intergovernmental agreement?
Heidi Alexander
It is for the new Welsh Government to confirm their own contribution to this project, so that we can get on and deliver it as quickly as possible. To my knowledge, no such confirmation has been provided to date. I am really pleased that we confirmed our contribution in the Budget yesterday, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her campaigning on this issue for her constituents. She was an excellent Welsh Secretary, and it was an absolute delight to work alongside her and start to put right the historical wrongs of under-investment in the Welsh railways.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I constructively suggest a way in which the Secretary of State could help three Cabinet colleagues—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, who is building a major reservoir in my constituency; the Housing Secretary, who has big plans within Cambridgeshire; and the Chancellor, who often talks about the Oxford-Cambridge arc? Securing a light rail link to the reservoir will shape the public response to it, but the Department for Transport currently does not seem to be involved at all with the other Departments. I do not expect her to be familiar with the scheme—it is primarily for one of her colleagues—but could she write to me setting out what her Department might do to help those other Departments deliver on their aims?
Heidi Alexander
This Government are investing considerably in improving rail services and public transport connections in Cambridgeshire. I would be happy to follow up on the detail of the right hon. Member’s proposal. I would just say that, with the East West Rail proposals linking Oxford to Cambridgeshire and the opening of the new station at Cambridge South, significant investment is going into this part of the country, but I will come back to him with the detail on his point.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In yesterday’s Budget, there was one mention of Northern Powerhouse Rail. One of the easiest ways to deliver benefit for passengers would be to unlock the indefinitely paused York area capacity scheme. Will the Secretary of State commit to continuing to look at this, and make sure that passengers in Harrogate and Knaresborough, and along that line, get trains when they need them with the service they would expect?
Heidi Alexander
As part of Northern Powerhouse Rail, we are prioritising improvements in the Yorkshire region, such as services from York to Leeds, and between Sheffield, Bradford and Leeds. Indeed, I was in Bradford just last week to make the announcement about a brand-new station at Bradford, which is much needed. I know the hon. Member continues to champion the case for the York area capacity study. We will continue to keep all of this under review, because we must provide the right number of trains, where people need them and when they need them.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Penistone line, which runs through my constituency, serves over half a million people, eight constituencies, six hospitals, four universities and a network of colleges, schools and GP surgeries, but it has only one train an hour. Our Government are funding phase 1 of upgrading the line, but further funding is needed to deliver phase 2 to enable two trains an hour along our line—the spine that connects south and west Yorkshire. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that delivering both phases of the upgrade together will most effectively secure two trains an hour, and will she meet me ahead of the next spending review to discuss delivering the full upgrade and two trains an hour to ensure growth in every postcode along the line?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend and I have met on this issue, and she is right to say that the Government are making that investment in phase 1. I remember discussing it with her when I was at Sheffield station for the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement earlier this year. I would be happy to continue those conversations about phase 2 as we head into the next spending review.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
My London constituency does not have a tube service. My residents are entirely reliant on South Western Railway services to get to work, school and elsewhere. Stations such as Hampton and Whitton have seen passenger footfall close to or exceeding half a million in the last year, yet the services are infrequent and less reliable since nationalisation. Will the Secretary of State back my call, supported by thousands of local residents with the timetable review under way, for far more frequent and reliable services for such stations?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is right to mention the timetable review that is under way. I would be happy to discuss with South Western the options with regard to Hampton and Whitton. I would just note that one of the benefits of renationalising South Western Railways has been the roll-out of the new Arterio fleet of air-conditioned trains that are providing more capacity. I also recognise the important work that South Western has done to reduce the number of cancellations that come about as a consequence of the unavailability of staff. We need to get the basics right on South Western to provide the service that she and her constituents deserve.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Labour promised that nationalisation would deliver a more reliable railway. Two years on, it is getting worse. Between April and June, all Government-run operators saw cancellations rise or punctuality fall. Ministers say that Great British Railways will turn that around when it launches next year. They promised its implementation timetable and draft licence consultation this autumn. On this last sitting day of October, neither has yet appeared. When will they, and when will passengers see the improvements they were promised?
Heidi Alexander
May I start by congratulating the hon. Lady on her appointment to the Opposition Front Bench? I think this is the first opportunity that I have had a chance to do so from the Dispatch Box. She is right in some respects. We do need to make more progress on improving punctuality and reliability, and I cannot pretend that I am happy with performance across the entirety of the rail network at the moment. However, I would gently point out to her that at the last reporting period, cancellations across publicly-owned operators were 3.9% compared to 4.9% for operators yet to transfer and still in private ownership. On punctuality, 82.6% of stops by publicly-owned operators were within three minutes of their scheduled arrival time, compared with just 73.8% for operators yet to transfer.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
A £1 billion order for 29 new five-car, battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express was recently announced. While welcome, it has raised some eyebrows, with Modern Railways magazine estimating that the cost is nearly double that of conventional electric-only trains. It would cost a staggering £25.2 billion for similar deals to replace England’s passenger trains that have diesel engines. Are we on the right value-for-money track with this approach to rolling stock specification and procurement?
Heidi Alexander
I was delighted to be in Derby a few weeks ago to announce the new fleet of battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express. It is a £1.2 billion investment. Included in that are hundreds of millions of pounds of maintenance costs for the duration of that contract. We are working on procurements for both Southeastern trains and Northern trains at the moment. Value for money and affordability will be central to the decisions we make on those procurements.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Through our Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, we are cutting down on the cost and the stress of flying for families across the country. Our changes mean that airlines on all UK flights will be required to seat children under the age of 14 with a parent free of charge, and that simple name errors on bookings can be fixed for free, ending unfair and irritating charges.
Chris Vince
If my Harlow constituency was not brilliant enough, we also have an international airport on our doorstep, with Stansted airport providing jobs for over 1,000 people from Harlow and even more on apprenticeships. With the planning application for the expansion of Stansted airport approved, will the Minister put his backing behind this vital project and agree to work with local partners to ensure it really benefits my constituents of Harlow?
Keir Mather
This Government welcome the £1.1 billion investment into Stansted by Manchester Airports Group, which will transform the airport and provide wider benefits to the local area, including Harlow, for which my hon. Friend is a determined champion. The investment is a great example of the conditions for growth in the aviation sector that this Government have created. It is going to support jobs, local businesses and skills, with the planned expansion of Stansted airport college in collaboration with Harlow college, supported by £5 million of funding by the Department for Education. This shows that the Government have a strategy that is delivering for both the aviation sector more broadly and for communities like Harlow.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
In 2025-26, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency issued 12.3 million driving licences, processed over 100 million individual customer transactions and issued 18.5 million vehicle registration certificates. We recognise that improvement is needed on the time taken to process medical driving licence applications, and plans are in place to address this.
Dr Evans
An increasing number of constituents are coming to me with problems getting their licence. One example was a lady who had dementia; she passed all the tests but had months of delays trying to get her licence, eventually having to take her complaint to the chief executive to get an answer, only for the licence to be backdated, meaning she will have to go through the whole rigmarole again in a few months’ time. That is not an isolated case. I have constituents with diabetes and epilepsy, who are all suffering. What is the Minister doing to ensure we can speed the process up so that people can get back on the road as soon as they are medically fit?
Justin Madders
I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns, and I have asked for further information on some the matters he has raised. We are taking steps to tackle the issue. We have introduced a new digital casework system, we are recruiting additional staff, and the automation of routine processes is happening. Things are moving in the right direction. In 2022-23, the average number of working days to complete a medical licensing application was 89; this time last year it was 76; it is now down to 66; and we want to get it down to 45 by March next year. I can assure the hon. Member that we will do everything in our power to ensure that happens.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am not certain that the Minister is right when he says that the DVLA is getting better. Its operating surplus is forecast to collapse by 54%. The DVLA is spending £96 million a year on postage and printing, despite a plan to move 85% of transactions online. The DVLA has committed to delivering £5 million in efficiency savings, yet expenditure is forecast to increase by £59 million in the same year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the position on medical licensing is out of control. The answer to a written parliamentary question from August revealed that the average time for a bus and lorry driver to get a decision is still an unacceptably high 64.8 days. Can the Minister come back with a detailed plan on how his Department is going to get a grip on what can only be described as a failing Government agency?
Justin Madders
Well, if the agency was failing, then that was the condition we found it in when the hon. Member’s party left office. I am not entirely sure what he is complaining about. He is saying that we are spending more money on the agency, but that is to increase the number of staff, to improve automation and digital services take-up, and to make the service more efficient. There is a plan and it is working—the hon. Member should support it.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Regional airports are vital gateways for passengers and major sources of local employment. The UK aviation sector operates in a commercial market, with airports attracting passengers and airlines responding to demand through route development. The UK Government support airport growth across the country. Through the Aviation Council, which I co-chair, and its regional connectivity working group, we are examining the challenges and opportunities facing regional airports.
Steve Darling
Regional airports, such as Exeter airport, should be engines of economic growth. However, one often sees that airport services gravitate towards larger regional airports. Will the Minister give further information on how he is seeking to ensure that more peripheral airports, such as Exeter, are strongly supported to be the engines for economic change that they could be?
Keir Mather
We need to ensure that regional airports like Exeter and Newquay have the connectivity into larger airports that they need. Through our consultation on the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, we were dedicated and focused on how to increase that connectivity via either public service obligation connections or routes into the airport through a regional fund to better facilitate those connections. More broadly, whether it be through airspace modernisations to facilitate better connectivity or by ensuring that regional airports are better protected against fluctuations in the price of jet fuel, the Government are committed to taking comprehensive action to support the sector, recognising that it can serve as a catalyst both for economic growth and for the economic connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that he rightly points to.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Earlier this year, we saw an issue with Cornwall council being unable to secure any eligible bids for its public service obligation service from Newquay airport. Since then, the council has been scrabbling around trying to secure new commercial routes, which is very welcome and much needed. What consideration has the Minister given to more flexible PSO arrangements that might allow airports such as Newquay to bid in with a more commercial outlook on how we get that support?
Keir Mather
PSO routes are crucial to connecting areas of the country such as Cornwall, which serve as regional economic catalysts to the nation’s capital. I note that since the end of the London-Newquay PSO in April, commercial connectivity has been retained, but I know that my hon. Friend is eager to see this work go further. The Department remains open to continued engagement with Cornwall council and options to maintain connectivity, and I will bear in mind his points about more flexibility in PSO arrangements as part of those discussions.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
We are investing in the rail network in the Greater Manchester area, including the Bolton-Manchester line and services to Blackburn. These investments will improve reliability, which, combined with our funding for longer trains with more seats, will substantially boost capacity. We are also investing in key stations, including crucial upgrades at Salford and Manchester Victoria.
Kirith Entwistle
When I worked in Manchester, my train from Hall i’ th’ Wood station was regularly delayed, cancelled or overcrowded thanks to Northern Rail’s two-carriage service at rush hour. Ten years on, commuters at both Hall i’ th’ Wood and Bromley Cross stations are still being failed by Northern Rail, and, with no Metrolink access, it is no wonder that Boltonians feel left behind. What are our Government doing to connect Bolton to the 21st century?
Heidi Alexander
I understand how frustrating it is when services are delayed, cancelled or overcrowded. The Rail Minister has been incredibly clear with Northern management that their level of performance, including in Bolton, has been unacceptable, and they have been instructed to produce an improvement plan. Beyond that, Northern is talking to other train operators to see whether they have additional trains that could be used to increase capacity and reliability. As I mentioned earlier, early planning work is under way to purchase up to 450 new trains for Northern, which could include the replacement of the ageing units on the Clitheroe-Bolton line.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government are proud to support the RNLI and the work of its volunteers to save lives at sea. The RNLI is a charity that is independent of Government, but it is a crucial delivery partner of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s maritime search and rescue service. I greatly value the contribution of the RNLI and all its volunteers and staff for their lifesaving efforts and wholeheartedly thank them for their service.
Matthew Patrick
I thank the Minister for his answer and for his full-throated support of the RNLI. He will be delighted to learn that five of the brilliant volunteers at West Kirby and Hoylake RNLI stations in my constituency have been awarded long service awards. However, they and the whole RNLI family are having to deal with a disinformation campaign run by cowards hiding behind a balaclava or a keyboard. I ask the Minister how he will give the RNLI his support and whether he could show some of that Wirral spirit, because Wirral is backing the RNLI every step of the way.
Keir Mather
I could not agree more strongly. I pay tribute to the five volunteers recognised in my hon. Friend’s constituency and to RNLI volunteers across the country, who provide a vital public service. I am clear that there is no space for the disgraceful abuse and intimidation we have seen recently directed at volunteers and staff. I have written to the RNLI to express my support and condemn this behaviour. I am visiting an RNLI station in Bridlington later today, and have hosted a “cuppa for the crew” in my constituency, which I encourage hon. Members to do. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the police have confirmed that RNLI lifeguard crews are recognised as emergency workers under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, and therefore anyone who assaults them could face up to two years in prison—and rightly so.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Saving lives at sea is not a political choice but a moral duty that we are all proud that our RNLI has been undertaking for over 200 years. RNLI volunteers are infinitely more patriotic than those who seek to abuse them. Will the Minister share with us how he will better protect and afford safety to those valiant RNLI volunteers in places like Eastbourne and across the country so that they can continue their life-saving work?
Keir Mather
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of their being emergency workers, criminal penalties apply to any such abuse, discrimination or assault. The Government take enforcement of that incredibly seriously, and it is something that I will be certain to monitor extremely closely alongside my Home Office colleagues.
Along with the Prime Minister and other colleagues in this House, I have written to the RNLI to express my support. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that they represent the best of British values. Coming from ordinary backgrounds themselves, they volunteer their time to go out to save people at sea. They are the best of our society and they deserve our protection, respect and support. This Government will stand behind them every step of the way.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with those affected by yesterday’s horrific train crash in Spain. Our Rail Accident Investigation Branch has reached out to offer assistance, and I have written to my counterpart, Minister Puente, to formally offer my condolences.
Yesterday’s Budget gave families the breathing space that they need, and transport is no exception. By extending the 5p fuel duty cut to July next year and lowering the cost of using local public electric vehicle chargers, we are putting money back in the pockets of Britain’s drivers. The Budget also confirmed a total investment of £300 million to upgrade Leeds station: breathing space today backed by investment for the future. This builds on the everyday fixes that we are already making to improve people’s journeys, whether that is the 7,000 miles of road resurfaced this year, the ending of unfair charges for air passengers, the cracking down on antisocial behaviour on public transport or the £2 bus fare cap coming back in January. Those are just some of the ways we are making everyday journeys better, safer and easier.
Andy McDonald
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks concerning the Spanish rail disaster.
Research from Common Wealth estimates that £129 billion was spent on outsourcing public services in 2024-25, generating billions in private profits. I welcome the announcement from the First Secretary of State of a dedicated insourcing unit. Will the Secretary of State meet with recognised trade unions to develop a Department for Transport insourcing strategy, including across rail and other transport services, to improve value for money, rebuild public capacity and protect workers?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the opportunity presented by the work being led by the First Secretary of State. I meet with the leadership of the trade unions regularly, and I know that this issue has already been raised at the Rail Engagement Group. Our lifting of the ban on new municipal bus companies in the Bus Services Act 2025 also presents opportunities. Where insourcing drives better outcomes for passengers and better value for the taxpayer, we should undoubtedly look at it.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State about the Spanish rail crash.
On 18 June, the Secretary of State said in a statement that the Heathrow expansion is “critical to national growth”. On 27 September the Prime Minister said, however:
“Principally, it’s a matter for London and Londoners”.
And last week, in response to a written parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), said that the Government will consider the Transport Committee’s recommendations before deciding next steps. Does she agree with herself, the Prime Minister or her junior Minister?
Heidi Alexander
The Government’s position on Heathrow expansion was set out in the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement that we consulted on in the summer. We are working through the responses to it very carefully. The right hon. Gentleman will know that this is a very significant, privately financed infrastructure project, and it is right that we look thoroughly at all the evidence, including the independent economic analysis and the really strict tests on climate, noise and air quality. It is entirely right that the Prime Minister wants to look closely at the detail of such a nationally significant project.
Mr Holden
I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification.
Last week, Chancellor Merz set out his plans to scrap the ban on petrol and diesel cars across the EU, saying, “We stand by drivers. We stand with our industry. We stand with open innovation in technology…the internal combustion ban is off the table.” When will this Transport Secretary listen to British business, the unions and British drivers and scrap the zero emission vehicle mandate that is costing British jobs and costing British taxpayers?
Heidi Alexander
I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the ZEV mandate is the rarest of things: a policy brought in by his Government that I agree with. Sadly, after a good start, even they managed to mess that up. When we came into office, we had to reinstate the 2030 phase-out date for petrol and diesel cars. It is important that we provide certainty to consumers and industry. I believe that approach is working: nearly a third of new cars sold are electric vehicles, up from around a quarter a year ago.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Welsh steelmaking remains a key part of the UK Government’s steel strategy, with Wales expected to account for around half of future UK steelmaking capacity. We are committed to a sustainable UK steel sector and encourage the use of lower-carbon materials, recognising that electric arc furnace steel can provide a lower-carbon alternative in infrastructure projects across the country.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Keir Mather
As the hon. Member has referenced, SWR is developing proposals for a refreshed timetable, which focuses on improving reliability and the resilience of services. Plans will be shared through public consultation with passengers and stakeholders later this year, and I encourage his constituents to contribute to that. In the meantime, I will ensure that I facilitate a meeting with the Rail Minister on the topic he raises.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area. She is right that these yobbos are causing misery for many communities. We are determined to see retailers cleaning up their act, and I am keen to explore how we tackle the issue. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, through my cross-departmental ministerial group, to see how we can take the matter further.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Keir Mather
GTR is working with Network Rail and local partners to explore potential timetable, rolling stock and infrastructure improvements to increase capacity through Harpenden. That follows long-term demand forecasting, which indicates continued passenger growth driven by planned housing development and the expansion of Luton airport, which the hon. Lady references. I will be glad to continue working with her to ensure we get the capacity improvements that we need over time to meet the needs of her constituents.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that new coach service to her constituency. This Government are supporting operators by extending the 5p fuel duty cut until next July. I will of course check my diary, but I encourage all hon. Members to get on and book their seat; there are nine castles and some fantastic countryside to visit.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I share the right hon. Lady’s disappointment in the decision of the Office of Rail and Road. It can independently make that decision. My had supported the application for that new direct service, which would also have served places such as Shrewsbury. I will work with Network Rail, train operators and Great British Railways, when it is established, to consider all options for new direct services to London, as well as for that part of the route. Some of the investment coming in future years could enable that to happen, because I know how important that is to her constituents and other travellers in the region.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns. Taxis and private hire vehicles are regulated through an outdated and fragmented framework, and this Government intend to bring forward a draft Bill to address that. My officials are also working hard to commence the powers from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 that will let enforcement officers suspend any licence used in their area if there are immediate safety concerns.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
My constituents have suffered delays, cancellations, and trains that are meant to go from London to Ely or King’s Lynn terminating early at Cambridge. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can take forward the Ely junction improvements, which will increase capacity and make our railway more reliable?
Keir Mather
We of course recognise the strategic importance of the Ely area capacity enhancement programme, and the significant benefits that it could deliver for passengers, freight and economic growth, both in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across the region. We will actively consider this scheme as further funding opportunities become available, and I will do my level best to ensure that she is involved in those conversations.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Keir Mather
The Government recognise the importance of this project, which is why we approved the development consent order. It is now for Gatwick airport to progress with this privately funded project. My officials continue to engage with the airport to understand how Government can help with the project’s delivery, and I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to work with me on how we can best support that process.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
In May, the Government announced £57 million in nationwide funding for wi-fi on trains. Some other parts of the country have had many rail upgrades, but the south-west has terrible rail lines, and delays due to the High Speed 2 works at Old Oak Common. Will the Minister commit to a minimum fair share of £12 million for the south-west, to cover the entire Great Western Railway network of 93 inter-city express trains?
Heidi Alexander
The fact that Great Western Railways will come into public ownership on 13 December presents an opportunity. The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of wi-fi; I hope to have more to say on that in the months ahead, because I know how important good connectivity is for people who use our railways.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is completely right to raise the subject of the pressures that motorists and businesses face. In addition to the extension of the temporary 5p cut to fuel duty, we are also maintaining the road tax holiday for heavy goods vehicles until summer next year. We are making public charging cheaper for those who have already made the switch to an electric vehicle, but do not have a driveway to charge at home, and we continue to offer money off the purchase price of more than 60 models of electric car.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
The village of Isham in my constituency is sandwiched between Wellingborough and Kettering, and for 40 years it has been battling to get a bypass. The situation has now got worse because of a huge development of warehousing, yet the bypass has been refused funding. May I invite the Minister to Isham, where I would give him a warm welcome? It is only when people see it for themselves that they can understand how desperately we need this bypass.
Justin Madders
I am happy to do that; I think it would probably be on my way home one weekend. We have invested a record amount of money in our networks, and there is only a finite amount, but I am happy to discuss the issue further with the right hon. Member.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This month, there has been a series of serious road accidents in Bracknell, Warfield and Crowthorne in my constituency. In one incident, a young man, Shayan, very tragically lost his life at the scene. Will the roads Minister meet me to discuss these incidents, and listen to Shayan’s family’s plea for more action on road safety?
Justin Madders
First, can I extend my sympathies to Shayan’s family? I am happy to meet them. I commend my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on the excellent work she did on the road safety strategy, on which I am privileged to be able to build. Part of that will be engaging with bereaved families.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Greedy corporate interests have stripped out more than £200 million from our Isle of Wight ferry services in the past 10 years. I am grateful to the Minister for setting up local roundtable meetings, but they are at risk of becoming a talking shop, and the ferry companies do not appear to be taking them seriously. Can he give us an assurance locally that if the ferry companies do not take this opportunity to improve services and reduce prices, the Government will consider taking steps to force their hand?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is determined to achieve better ferry services for his constituents, and I am pleased that he reflects on the cross-Solent group, the work it has done and the progress it is making. I am keeping a close watch on its proceedings. I expect all its members to contribute in meaningful ways to find practical, local solutions to these challenges, and we will of course keep options under advisement. For ferry services, the Government believe that locally led solutions are often best in matters such as the one that he describes.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Cowbar Lane in my constituency is at serious risk of collapse into the sea. We have a plan in place for relocating it and making it safe. Will Ministers meet me to discuss it?
Justin Madders
We recognise the impact of coastal erosion on Cowbar Lane, and we aware of the plans set out by Redcar and Cleveland council to move the road further inland. The Government have already provided more than £300 million of city region sustainable transport settlement funding to the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen to deliver on that, but we are clearly not seeing anything happening on the ground. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to see what more we can do to encourage the mayor to deliver on this issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Residents of Holton Heath and Sandford are being blighted every weekend by racing vehicles, motorcycles and modified small cars causing nuisance and loud noises. What progress is being made on the acoustic devices that enable police to act on these illegal vehicles?
Justin Madders
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having to endure these issues. There have been a number of trials, which have found that it is not that straightforward to isolate the noise. Police forces have powers to tackle this issue, and I am happy to write to her with further information about what they can do.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The A259 coast road runs the entire southern length of my constituency, but daily delays on it are a huge frustration, particularly for constituents in Rottingdean, Telscombe and Saltdean. What more can the Minister do to unlock long-promised upgrades to this road, and to finally get Reform-led East Sussex county council to put in the funding and focus needed to get those upgrades over the line?
Justin Madders
The Department recognises the importance of that particular road, and we are ready to crack on with this. I join my hon. Friend in encouraging the Reform-led county council to release the funding necessary and get on with the job.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My constituents are not demanding a multibillion-pound, high-speed answer to the five-and-a-half-hour journey time from Penzance to London, for example; they want just a fraction of that amount, to improve the comfort, reliability and punctuality of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) mentioned that £57 million has been allocated for wi-fi on trains. That is a fraction of the money spent on high speed policies. We understand that the money is being held by the Treasury at the moment; when will it be rolled out? It is desperately needed now.
Heidi Alexander
As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), we are very keen to make progress on better wi-fi connectivity on Great Western services, and I hope to say more on that in the coming months.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
First, may I associate myself with the condolences expressed by the Transport Secretary and others about the terrible tragedy in Spain yesterday?
There are many bottlenecks on the national rail system that are holding back rail freight growth. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the interim rail freight growth target of 40% by 2040, but without a clear and deliverable strategy, the Government risk falling behind on the expansion of rail freight, which is such an important sector for us all. When will we see a rail freight growth strategy, or will we have to wait for the overall rail enhancement strategy?
Heidi Alexander
The Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right to highlight the need to increase the amount of freight that we transport by rail. That is why we have set a target of growing rail freight by 75% by 2050, and an interim target of 40% by 2040. We are not publishing a separate rail freight strategy, as I will put that target in the long-term rail strategy when it is published, and I expect Great British Railways to set out in its first business plan how it will achieve that.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this week, the all-party parliamentary group on rail had presentations from representatives about access to both airports and seaports. They made the suggestion that modest electrification projects linking seaports such as Immingham to the main line would greatly improve rail freight distribution. Do the Government have plans for such schemes?
Keir Mather
It was a pleasure to visit the port of Immingham a few months ago. Rail connectivity to our ports, encouraging modal shift, and electrification’s role in increasing the efficiency of the growth in the amount of freight taken to our seaports are of real personal interest to me. I will therefore happily take this conversation forward with the hon. Member and think about how we can facilitate better connectivity to our ports through electrification of our railways.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as the chair of the electric vehicle APPG. After more record EV sales, the Government’s consultation on the zero-emission vehicles mandate closed last Friday. The mandate affects only 8% of all registrations of new cars manufactured in the UK. Has the consultation considered the billions of pounds in private sector investment in domestic lithium extraction, battery manufacturing and charge point infrastructure?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that we look at these issues in the round. He mentions charge point infrastructure. Only this week, I had a roundtable with the main operators of charge point infrastructure, as well as a meeting with the car manufacturers. We have held a review of the ZEV mandate, on which we consulted this summer. The Chancellor has set out the Government’s intention to respond to that by Christmas, so that we can provide certainty to everyone who is contributing to the EV transition.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The decision in July to abandon plans for changes to the remuneration of coastguards was widely welcomed, but that was over three months ago. Coastguards around the coastline tell me that there has been radio silence in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency since then. There are a number of whistleblowing complaints about the senior executive team that have simply not been addressed. When will we hear what the Government will do to fix our coastguards?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Member for his work in representing the coastguard service in his constituency and across the country. I reassure him that work progressed over the summer both on questions relating to backdated liabilities and on future workforce arrangements as they apply to His Majesty’s Coastguard. I hope to have more to say in the future, but I will maintain my obligation to keep him and hon. Members across the House updated as closely as I can on developments as they unfold.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Not a single rail service has run from Clitheroe on a Sunday for a very long time. I know that the Secretary of State and her team of Ministers have heard many representations from me on this issue, but can they reassure me that they are doing everything they can to get those Sunday services back up and running?
Heidi Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend that his constituents are right to expect a good service every day of the week, including Sundays. I assure him that the management of Northern is around the table with the RMT to work together on a way forward, and I hope to be able to say more soon.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Community transport minibuses, such as Mendip Community Transport, are a lifeline for rural communities, but the minibus driving test is costly—it costs up to £2,000 per volunteer—hard to access and pretty unrealistic for volunteers, and drivers who qualified before 1997, and therefore have the D1 classification on their driving licence, are retiring. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the industry, and recognise officially the sector’s own minibus driver awareness scheme as a route for car drivers to gain a minibus licence?
Simon Lightwood
The Government recognise the vital role that community transport plays in connecting people with communities, enabling access to employment, education and essential services such as healthcare. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The last train from London to Newcastle tonight is at 11.08 pm, but the last train from London to Carlisle is at 7.30 pm. Now that the experiment with train privatisation is coming to an end, is it possibly time for a new experiment where the west coast gets the same level of service as the east coast?
Heidi Alexander
Avanti West Coast is due to come into public ownership in March next year, and there is an opportunity to look again at the timetable over the course of the next few years. I recognise the importance of later services going direct to my hon. Friend’s constituency as well as to constituencies on the other side of the country.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The derailment in the summer between Haywards Heath and Lewes caused great concern to my constituents. It happened during a period of very hot, dry weather that caused the ground to dry out and crack. I understand that Network Rail is looking at ways to change how it maintains embankments and cuttings, but there was no money in yesterday’s Budget for railway services in the south-east. Do the Government have a plan to ensure that our services are punctual and safe?
Heidi Alexander
I completely understand why that incident will have been of huge concern to the hon. Member’s constituents. In this control period, we are spending over £2.5 billion on the railways to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. We are awaiting the final report of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch as to the causes of that incident. Network Rail took immediate steps to increase inspections across the network to ensure safety, and the events in Spain yesterday serve as a reminder of why safety must always be paramount on our railways.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Consideration of eastern access at Hitchin station has been stalled for far too long. I am delighted that, having worked with Ministers and our councils, we have finally been able to get it moving forward, and yesterday’s announcement of £5.6 million in new growth funding for Hertfordshire provides a fantastic opportunity to go further and finally make it happen. Will Ministers meet me to discuss how we can lobby Hertfordshire county council to make the most of this opportunity for my town?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Aura Mobility is a company in Falkirk that designs assistive mobility products for disabled people. It and its customers need certainty that any reforms to light zero emission vehicles regulation will protect access to pavements and roads, not reduce it. Six months after the consultation on powered mobility devices closed, when will the Government provide that certainty and publish their response?
Justin Madders
I am grateful to Aura Mobility for engaging with the Department’s consultation, which we will respond to very shortly.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am aware that the Secretary of State has already answered two questions about Peninsula Transport’s fantastic wi-fi pilot on GWR trains, but if we are to go ahead with rolling it out for nationalisation on 13 December, I gently ask whether there is a way to nudge the Treasury to make that money available.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this issue, and I know that she depends on GWR services, as do I in my constituency. Having good mobile connectivity is something that people feel strongly about, and it could improve satisfaction with journeys. I will continue my discussions with colleagues across Government to make that happen.
Business of the House
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 2 November is as follows:
Monday 2 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 3 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Railways Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.
The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November.
The business for the week commencing 10 November is as follows:
Tuesday 10 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 11 November—Opposition day (fifth allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 12 November—General debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a general debate on the Nolan principles. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 November—Private Members’ Bills.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that update. As the House will be aware, this is a day of very mixed feelings as we mourn the deaths and injuries sustained in the Spanish high-speed rail disaster yesterday. In a far happier vein, it is impossible not to celebrate the triumphs of Harry Kane in the Ballon d’Or—the first British winner for 25 years—and of giant-killing Fleetwood Town in conquering Arsenal in the Carabao cup.
Just in time for Halloween, we learn that the SNP Government in Scotland have assembled an army of nearly 800 ghost workers on the public payroll, costing taxpayers £27 million a year. The jobs have vanished, but the salaries remain. One of those people has been non-working in the NHS for 17 years. That is the SNP in a nutshell. Needless to say, the Scottish Government have no plans to change that state of affairs, and with hundreds of people being paid to pretend that they have jobs, it is the perfect metaphor for this Labour Government.
So to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke after the usual orgy of pre-briefings to the media yesterday. To his credit, he avoided some of the more lunatic ideas of his colleagues. He tried his best, but frankly Harry Kane or Fleetwood Town—hell, Fleetwood Mac—would have done better with that Budget. It was a Budget for a May general election, not for the future of Britain. As Helen Miller from the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, there was “lots of fiddling”, but no “clear, coherent vision”. It means that disposable household incomes are falling, the tax burden is at a historic peacetime high, and growth forecasts are falling, with not even the whiff of a strategy for growth yesterday. Worse still, as noted economist Paul Johnson pointed out, the Budget implied back-end loaded spending cuts in
“most areas of public service spending of 2.6% per year between 2028-29 and 2031-32.”
His verdict was that this is
“not honest politics, nor is it honest economics”.
Those are his words, Mr Speaker, not mine, and I think it is well known that Mr Johnson is not a Conservative.
There is something even more troubling here. Britain is walking a fiscal, monetary and security tightrope, but yet again, the Government’s response has been to postpone difficult decisions, spin the plates, ladle on the fudge and hope that nothing goes wrong. Now we have persistent speculation, despite attempted rebuttals, that the Prime Minister may call a general election—what an extraordinary abdication of responsibility that would be. The message would be this: yes, Britain faces profound economic and international uncertainty, so let us add a little extra disruption to that with an entirely unnecessary election, more than two years before one is required and, while we are at it, let us reopen the constitutional turmoil of another EU referendum to boot. The British people would surely say, “We gave you Labour people a majority of more than 170 to sort out the country’s issues. You have replaced your own Prime Minister and your Chancellor. You have failed to deliver the change you promised, and now you want another election because you are simply too frit to make the decisions required.”
Britain needs growth, stability, financial strength and national security. Instead, it is getting short-term fixes, deferred decisions and political manoeuvring. This is not a strategy for governing Britain; it is an absolute failure of leadership. The Chancellor could not even meet his own test for defence spending, over which he supposedly resigned. The Prime Minister has talked endlessly of his desire to “rewire the state”, and the Chancellor said the same in terms yesterday. We have a huge debt burden, stretched public services, rising interest rates and growing defence commitments. There is the escalating threat of external shocks—Ukraine, Iran, inflation, AI, trade wars, extreme weather, another pandemic—so will the Leader of the House now explain, in his usual candid way, without prevaricating or blaming others, why those two men have demonstrated absolutely zero interest in actually taking any of the serious decisions required to address those issues?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our deepest condolences to the people of Spain in the aftermath of yesterday’s horrendous train crash, taking the lives of 68 people and injuring many others. As he said, I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with all those affected.
Last week, we saw some very severe and stormy weather across the UK. I send condolences to the families of those loved ones who lost their lives, and I thank all the emergency service workers who have been working hard to mitigate the effect of the storms.
I am saddened to hear about the passing of Sue Holt. She was a much respected member of staff in the Interparliamentary Relations Office, and I know the whole House will want to send condolences to her family and friends at this time.
Further to the tributes made last week and your words this morning, Mr Speaker, I would like to add my best wishes again to Tom Goldsmith who, after 30 years of outstanding service to the House, is retiring from the office of Clerk of the House today.
I would also like to pay tribute to Ceri King who, after 43 years in the civil service and 19 years as Head of Secretariat and Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, is leaving her role this week. Ceri was appointed a lieutenant in the Royal Victorian Order in the 2023 new year honours in recognition of her services to the Privy Council. I have greatly valued her advice and guidance in my role as Lord President of the Council and I wish her well.
On an entirely different matter, I congratulate Harry Kane, who this week became the first English player to win the Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen in 2001. As the shadow Leader of the House said, I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in sending congratulations on that well-deserved win and that they found, as I did, his acceptance speech very moving. Young people looking at Harry Kane will see someone entirely committed not just to the sport, but to family and everything else—he really is a hero to many people and I wish him well.
There will be no business questions next week, so I want to mention Remembrance Sunday, which is on 8 November. As we take pause to honour those who gave their lives in defence of our freedoms, let us remember the extraordinary debt that can never fully be repaid.
Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. The Chancellor set out a very clear plan yesterday in the Budget that gives families and businesses some breathing space from rising costs and supports Britain’s economic growth, not least in the £100 payment to 20 million households in council tax bands A to D in England. It also provides support for businesses, taking around 70,000 more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses out of business rates altogether. At the same time, the Budget supports the housing market, with measures for first-time buyers and social housing and on cutting unnecessary costs and delays for house builders. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to ending homelessness for good.
I have to say that I found the right hon. Gentleman to be uncharacteristically unfair about yesterday’s events. On the question of pre-briefing, in the light of what we have said over a period of time, I was struck and pleased by how little pre-briefing there was about the Budget and how disciplined the Chancellor, his team and everybody else was in ensuring that this House was first to hear the contents of the Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions household incomes. The Government are not complacent about the challenges we will face. I listen very carefully to what is being said about potential changes in household incomes, but I gently remind him and other Opposition Members that we had 14 years of Conservative government, and people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. That is the first time in history that that has happened, so we will not take any lessons from him or anyone else. He will know—because it is true—that this Government face international pressures. There are headwinds that we need to face, and a little more understanding of that would be appreciated.
Despite all that, the projection is still that the economy will grow. It will not grow as fast as we want it to grow, which is why the measures in the Budget are there to try to ensure that in getting the foundations right, we can then get on with growth as quickly as possible. We will do all that we can. I also gently point out, without being complacent, that the predictions about growth this year were lower than has turned out to be the case, but we will see what happens, not least in the middle east.
It is noticeable that when a number of very credible organisations talk about the state of the economy, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility, the International Monetary Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one of the things they pick out is not a lack of political stability, but the fact that the Government have a majority and a Prime Minister with a very clear vision of where he wants to take this country. That is done by ensuring not just that we in this place do everything that we can to boost the economy, but that no regions, towns or cities are left behind. That is why devolution is so important.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about defence. We are spending £14 billion more on defence than the previous Administration; during their time in office, they spent the lowest amount on it since the end of the cold war. The Prime Minister set out a very clear timeline yesterday in which he again committed the Government to spending 3% of GDP on defence and said that we will meet our NATO commitments. What happened yesterday was a recommitment to those things, and we are on track to deliver all of them.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about an election. The Prime Minister was very clear in what he said in the last few hours about how he sees the possibility of an election. If the Conservatives are looking for a general election, they should be very careful what they ask for.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my constituent Connor McElwaine, who has completed an extraordinary 18,000 km cycle ride from Canberra Avenue in Dalmuir to Canberra, Australia? Over the course of nearly a year, Connor has biked through 23 countries and raised more than £5,900 for Venture Scotland, a charity that supports young people to build confidence and realise their potential. Connor is now embarking on the long journey home via New Zealand, the United States and Europe. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Connor every success for the remainder of his remarkable adventure and a warm Clydebank welcome when he returns home next spring?
Sir Alan Campbell
Not only do I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Connor on completing such an extraordinary adventure; I thank him for doing so for such a good cause. Many people who will never meet Connor will benefit from what he has done, but I am sure they will be hugely impressed when they learn of his achievements. I wish him every success for the remainder of his adventure and safe travels on his journey home.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Our thoughts, too, are with the victims of the train crash in Spain and their families. I also want to add to the congratulations to Harry Kane, and say on behalf of all Tottenham Hotspur fans that he is one of our own.
It is tempting to get into yesterday’s Budget, but I have not spoken in the debate yet, and I fear that if I start now, I might run out of things to say. Of course, there were a record number of measures in that Budget, but they had the lowest cumulative value that we have seen in decades. I think that makes it the most extravagant display of looking busy for the boss in history.
Turning to other events, on Monday the AI debate was bumped off the agenda. I am afraid that that makes Parliament look slightly ridiculous. We last debated AI properly in this Chamber back in 2023; given how technology moves on, that is light years ago. Instead, we debated the performance of Royal Mail—an important issue, but one that was debated only the previous week in Westminster Hall. Critics are saying that this exposes how this House spends more time engaging with popular local issues than with some of the complex challenges our country faces. My view is that we must make time for both of those things; we need to make sure that we tackle those important local issues in our constituencies, but also rise to the challenges of our time.
There are huge questions to answer on the growth opportunities presented by AI and how we get it adopted widely across the country, but also on the safety concerns and the threat that superintelligent models pose to our society. Those are critical questions for this Parliament to engage with, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time as urgently as possible, so that colleagues can engage with these big questions of our time?
Sir Alan Campbell
I always find the hon. Gentleman’s comments both honest and brave, and admitting that he is a Tottenham Hotspur fan is characteristic of him. [Laughter.] I understand his frustration and the frustration of others about the postponement of the AI debate, but as he said, the first debate attracted a huge amount of attention, and there were two important statements to put before the House. We try to make sure that the number of statements is balanced, but we have to balance that with ensuring that the House is kept updated. I am committed to finding as much time as possible for the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—who is in his place—will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s desire for a debate.
The hon. Gentleman made some relevant wider points about the way we use time in this place, and he will know that the Modernisation Committee is looking at how best we can use our time.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of AI safety; the Budget delivers the Government’s most ambitious AI package yet, investing £700 million to tackle the risks of AI. We will put AI centre stage during our G20 presidency, and I expect the House will be given ample time to debate those issues before that happens. At the summit, we will work towards hopefully agreeing a single set of global principles and standards on AI, and the Government are clear that where further work is necessary, we will do it.
As for making time for a debate, I have just announced a further three days of debate on the Budget. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the link between AI and growth, and I am sure that with a bit of ingenuity, he or other Members could speak to that issue during that debate.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I was shocked and appalled when a peaceful Hindu festival in Wakefield the weekend before last was attacked by masked individuals, leaving two people injured. Children and families were present, including 50 of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill), in whose constituency this took place, has done sterling work in liaising with the police and the community. There is more work to come, but in the meantime, will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this kind of violence and the individuals who encourage it, and standing with the Leeds South West and Morley Hindus whom I represent? Will he also call for a debate in Government time on the need to protect all of our communities from abhorrent attacks?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in condemning the appalling incident in Wakefield and reaffirming that all forms of hatred and division have no place in our society. Attacks like these must never be tolerated; we need to send that message out in a united, clear and loud way from this place.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) for the support that they have provided for their constituents. The Government take this matter very seriously. We will certainly try to find time for a debate at some point in the future about social cohesion and what more can be done, because we are doing a lot.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, if the Liberal Democrat spokesman is brave, I can tell you that I have a season ticket to watch Tottenham home and away, and I watched virtually every goal that Harry Kane scored for us. I only wish that he was still scoring for Tottenham rather than Bayern Munich.
May I start on a sad note and pay tribute to the late Sir John Hannam, who was the MP for Exeter from 1970 to 1997? He was also the secretary of the 1922 committee from 1987 to 1997, and he died at the ripe old age of 97. I am sure that we will all join together in sending our condolences to his family.
Provided that the Leader of the House allocates us time, the House will not have long to wait for the debate on the emerging risks of advanced AI, which of course had to be withdrawn because of the sheer number of Members who wanted to speak in both debates on Monday. If we are given time on 19 November, we will allocate that time for that important debate and a debate on International Men’s Day, which coincides with that date.
In Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on Tuesday 3 November on the findings of the Milburn review. On 10 November, when we come back after recess, there will be a debate on antisocial behaviour; I remind the House that that debate will start at 11.30 am rather than 9.30 am. On 12 November, there will be a debate on fire and rescue services’ suicide-prevention training, followed by a debate on VAT policy for the hospitality sector. Further debates for Westminster Hall will be announced in due course.
In addition to Remembrance Sunday, which we will commemorate during the recess, that Sunday is also Diwali. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing all Hindus, Sikhs and Jains “Shubh Diwali” for the event, and also a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy Hindu new year, which follows.
However, any Hindus who are in Pakistan are in serious trouble at the moment. We in the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus received a report from Insight UK just last week on the plight of Hindus in Pakistan, which makes for horrific reading. I ask the Leader of the House to get either the Foreign Secretary or a Foreign Office Minister to come to the House and tell us what the Government are doing to safeguard minority communities, not just in this country, as is right, but in countries where they are severely oppressed.
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the hard work he does as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and indeed the rest of the Committee for the work they do. I join him in paying tribute to Sir John Hannam, who was a distinguished Member of this House. We send our condolences to his friends and family.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about future Back-Bench business and about the AI debate. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) should not underestimate the influence that he has in this place, because he has got half an answer—if not the whole answer—on exactly when it will be. I will look at allocating time. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) knows, I will do my very best to do that.
I send my best wishes to the Hindu community for Diwali. As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises very important concerns about social cohesion and faith groups, not just in this country but abroad. I put on the record my thanks to the Hindu community for everything that they do in our local communities and across the country.
I will also raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He has raised these matters before. The Government take the treatment of minority communities, and particularly faith communities, very seriously indeed. I will raise it with FCDO colleagues and see whether, at some point, we can get the statement that he seeks.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to Harry Kane, but let me also say how proud we remain of the success of our Lionesses—not just on the field, but off the field—in inspiring young girls to play. However, I have become aware that a girls’ coach in Carlisle is unable to access the UEFA A licence because her role as a coach in the girls’ emerging talent centre is excluded from the Football Association’s priority criteria, whereas a coach in the equivalent boys’ pathway is not. I have written to the FA, but its response states that it does not intend to change that. Could the Leader of the House advise me how we in this place can make the FA think again and ensure that opportunities available to female coaches in the women’s game are not confined to the large clubs and the top tier?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we should all take pride in the success of the Lionesses. We are committed to supporting every aspect of women’s sport, with Sport England committing £60,000 to support the FA in developing a bespoke women’s football workforce strategy, so I am very concerned to hear of her specific concern. I hope that the FA has heard what she has said here today, but she asks how best she might be able to take this forward. I am happy to facilitate a meeting with Sport Ministers to see if we can get the answer that my hon. Friend wants and take this matter forward.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The figures underpinning the business case for National Grid’s ludicrously environmentally damaging Sea Link project have been shown to have been fiddled together in cloud cuckoo land. The Energy Secretary is due to issue her determination on the planning inspector’s inquiry into that scheme imminently. Will the Leader of the House, with his usual courtesy, seek to ensure that that announcement is made on the Floor of the House, and not slipped out in a written answer on a non-sitting Friday?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about these matters and the way that announcements are made. I will take away his point, and I will do my very best to make sure that the announcement is made in the appropriate way.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
This month, 141 student loan staff, 120 of whom are based in Scotland, were told that their jobs will transfer to Capgemini, the same company that, incidentally, helped design the Student Loans Company target operating model. The transfer will come into effect from 1 March—one month before the Government’s public interest test will start compelling Departments and non-departmental bodies like the Student Loans Company to evidence the long-term cost of outsourcing decisions. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Cabinet Office to provide a statement on how it can prevent outsourcing decisions from being accelerated before the public interest test comes into effect?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises an issue of great importance to his constituents, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. I understand that he has a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office in his diary, and I hope that meeting will address his concerns. If it does not, I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a doughty fighter for his constituents, will raise it once again on the Floor of the House, and we will have to see what else is necessary to move this forward.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House raise with the Home Secretary the very real concerns of residents in Fenland about the proposed asylum centre in Leverington? The area was excluded by the previous Conservative Government as unsuitable for such accommodation. The council, on the basis of legal advice, has raised a number of objections, and the Home Office has missed its own deadline to give a decision by 16 October. The site is not suitable for the proposed asylum centre, and I would be grateful if he could raise that point with the Home Secretary.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will know how difficult these decisions can be, and I know the concern that such matters raise in constituencies like his—let us be absolutely clear and honest about that. I will raise his concerns with the Home Secretary, because even where there are difficult decisions, it is important that we take local communities with us and get the right outcome in the end.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
The athletics track at Carn Brea leisure centre is just one of two public access tracks in the whole of Cornwall, and it is the duchy’s only five-lane facility—for a population of 600,000 people. It is in urgent need of restructuring at a cost of £600,000, but with EU and shared prosperity fund support no longer available and grants largely aimed at sports clubs, the leisure centre trust is struggling to meet the costs. Will the Leader of the House help me to secure a meeting with the Minister for Sport to discuss how we can support this vital community asset at the heart of one of the UK’s most deprived communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for Carn Brea athletics track and for young people in his constituency. He knows that grassroots sports clubs and facilities are at the heart of our local communities, which is why the Government are backing them with a £400 million investment in grassroots sports facilities across the UK. I am happy to help him arrange a meeting with the Minister for Sport—she is going to be quite busy after today’s session.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Families across Cambridgeshire have been waiting years for the two new special schools in Gamlingay and March. Following meetings with two Ministers, we finally had confirmation from the Government that they will be built, and we were thankful for that. However, there has been radio silence since, which means that 270 special school places are in limbo. In July, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education to ask for an update on the timeline for construction, and I have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House please help me secure a further meeting and swift confirmation of the timeline for opening both schools so that our children, schools and local authorities are no longer left in the dark?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to raise these matters on the Floor of the House on behalf of her constituents, because they will be of concern not just to the local educational community, but obviously to the young people and their families. I will take up the matter with the Department and ensure that she gets an answer to her questions.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The higher education mental health implementation taskforce was convened in 2023 to improve mental health support for higher education students and to ensure that universities were better equipped to support student wellbeing. This taskforce, chaired by Professor Sir Steve West, as the higher education student support champion, was expected to meet until May this year, but no minutes have been published since October 2025. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Department for Education to provide an update on the taskforce’s status, confirm whether Professor West is still in post, and set out when the taskforce expects to publish its final report and recommendations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I want to reassure my hon. Friend that Sir Steve West remains in post as the student support champion and as chair of the taskforce, and he will continue to do so until at least the end of the current academic year. The minutes of the last meeting, held in August this year, will be published shortly, and I hope they will provide him with the update that he reasonably requests.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Transport is a really pressing issue in rural areas such as South Northamptonshire, and the closure of the Ability bus service earlier this year has left many of my residents isolated. We need to do so much more, so could we have a debate in Government time on securing greater support for community transport?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are very committed to community transport, and we understand its importance for all sorts of communities, not least rural ones. The hon. Lady may want to take this up as either a Backbench Business or Adjournment debate.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
At Middle Yard apartments in my constituency, one constituent is stuck on the fourth floor because the lifts are not working, and 500 constituents are without hot water or heating, and they have been told that this situation could last for months. Harley Property Investments Ltd and Union Developments Ltd are responsible for this. Will the Leader of the House ask Energy Ministers to help urgently reconnect the gas, given that we are entering the colder months? Will he also ask the Minister for Housing for a statement, so we can look at financial mismanagement by freeholders and management companies, because they have form, with an apartment block in Hackney also without water?
Sir Alan Campbell
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this situation is unacceptable. It is appalling that residents are being forced to rely on temporary measures, despite paying service charges—and with no end in sight in some cases. She is absolutely right to champion her constituents’ urgent demand for the immediate restoration of services, and I hope that her words today have been heard by the developers and the managers. The leasehold Bill is coming down the track, which will hopefully right some of these wrongs, but I will also take up the matter with the Ministers most associated with this area to see if my hon. Friend can get the progress she seeks.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
My constituent has spent eight years trying to recover child maintenance owed by their former partner. An investigation identified undeclared income and a failure to pay, yet there has been no enforcement action. The case was also recently found to have been left unassigned for seven months after being returned to the Child Maintenance Service by the Financial Investigation Unit. Will the Leader of the House help to arrange a meeting with a Minister to address this case and the wider failures in CMS case handling?
Sir Alan Campbell
We recognise that some parents’ experiences of the Child Maintenance Service do not meet the standards expected of it, which is why we are committed to reforming the system. I will assist the hon. Lady in trying to get a meeting with the relevant Minister, so she can raise the case in the context of what we are trying to do generally with the CMS.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
We had huge wildfires in the Welsh valleys last summer, so I welcome last week’s summit, which announced the UK’s first permanent military firefighting capability. When I met firefighters after the summer, I heard anecdotal reports that some fires were being started deliberately. Could we please have a ministerial update on further next steps after the summit? We need many more preventive ideas to address this dreadful issue.
Sir Alan Campbell
The anecdotal reports that my hon. Friend raises are very concerning indeed. The Government are investing £97 million in upgrading national resilience assets and we are developing England’s first wildfire action plan, covering prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. I will ensure that he receives an update from the relevant Minister to give him the answer he seeks.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby and Lindsey Lodge hospice in Scunthorpe provide an excellent service to my constituents, as does the hospice movement across the country. Hospice UK held a drop-in session earlier this week. It outlined research that found that modest additional funding to the movement could save the NHS considerable amounts in emergency treatments. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate, so that we can explore how the hospice movement can actually save money for the NHS, as well as provide excellent care for our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner for St Andrew’s hospice and related issues. I recall a particularly moving speech he gave on hospice care during the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and I pay tribute to him for that. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £125 million funding boost, alongside £80 million for children’s hospices over the next three years, but I do understand continuing concern in the sector. I will make sure that the relevant Department hears his concerns, but I also remind him that we have three days of Budget debate. I am sure he has been here long enough to be able to weave hospice funding into a contribution, should he catch Mr Speaker’s eye.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Residents in my constituency have reported to me dangerous racing, speeding and other forms of antisocial behaviour on the A52 near Bardills roundabout. I have raised this issue continually with the Highways Agency, Nottingham city council, Nottinghamshire county council and Nottinghamshire police, but to no avail. Will the Leader of the House assist me in bringing together relevant Ministers, so we can get those agencies together and secure safety on that stretch of the road?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government recognise the importance of preventing dangerous driving and ensuring the safety of all road users, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising the issue on behalf of her constituents. Through the road safety strategy, we are taking steps to make our roads safer for everyone, but that needs everyone to step up, including local councils and police. I will do as my hon. Friend asks and help to secure a meeting with the relevant Ministers so that she can discuss the matter further to ensure that those who play a part are working together to get the best outcome.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Yesterday’s Budget included an announcement that Surrey would get a mayor. The Red Book said we were in advanced talks to have a mayor in my county, which is news to MPs like me, who have not been consulted, and there has been no vote by any local authorities in the county. Can we have a debate in Government time about the merits of introducing new mayors and on the process that could result in my constituents having a mayor without having a say?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the concern in some areas about the changes that we are proposing, but I point out to the hon. Member that there is a statement on local government on the Floor of the House next, so he might want to make his point directly to the Minister.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Last week, I attended the National Curry Awards in Parliament, and I was delighted to present Sizzling Lounge from Bingley in my constituency with its award for best restaurant. It is one of the highest-rated curry houses in Bradford and is run by two inspiring brothers who came to the UK as child refugees from Myanmar. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sizzling Lounge and all the fantastic curry restaurants—particularly those in Bradford—that contribute so much to our high streets and towns?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sizzling Lounge on its award. However, I better be careful and also commend all the curry houses in my constituency for the fantastic contribution that they make. I thank all of those who made the awards possible. Curry restaurants are an important part of our local communities, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and others, and I congratulate everyone concerned.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
We are blessed with charities up and down the country doing amazing work. I was pleased to host a dinner in Parliament to launch a new charity that is based in Northamptonshire in my constituency. It is called Living Like Linda, inspired by the incredible Linda Williamson, who now helps other people going through long-term chemotherapy to enjoy days out and social experiences, allowing them to forget about their treatment for a few hours. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to both Linda and her husband Andy for the amazing work that they have done, as well as to all other charities, up and down the country, that help people who need it most?
Sir Alan Campbell
Charities are the heart and the very best of our local communities. I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking Linda and Andy for everything that they do, wishing Living Like Linda well for the future, and thanking all the volunteers across our country, who do a fantastic job on behalf of local communities.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I have been going to Penistone Paramount in my constituency since I was a child. This 110-year-old art deco cinema is the jewel in the crown of our town, yet the Reform-led Barnsley council has decided to shelve the £1.8 million in principal towns funding that was going to be used to build a second screen and a new café and bar area, as well as to make the cinema accessible throughout. Reform’s decision is indefensible: this was ringfenced funding, with planning permission already granted and a procurement notice published. My constituents agree, with over 5,500 of them signing my petition calling for the council to reverse its reprehensible decision. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can best work with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that generations of local people can continue to enjoy our treasured community asset for another century to come?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for her constituents, and she is right to raise that important matter. I am afraid that it is just the latest example of Reform-led councils letting down the people that they are supposed to represent. With ringfenced funding secured, planning permission in place and the procurement notice published, there is no excuse for Reform on the matter. I will raise it with colleagues at DCMS and ensure that she gets the meeting that she seeks.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I declare an interest as a patron of the Hospice of St Francis. The assisted dying debate provided much-needed focus and cross-party commitment to improving palliative care so that all those in need can get support and solace, just like Judith’s husband, John, found at the Hospice of St Francis. Will the Leader of the House join me first in thanking the charities and volunteers who drive hospice care, and in ensuring that we keep up that momentum by securing a debate on palliative care to consider the four-point plan from Hospice UK and secure the future and funding of hospice care?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased to join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to hospice care, both in her local example and across the country. As I said in answer to a previous question, the Government are committing more resources there, but we are aware of the concerns and demands of the hospice sector across the country to ensure that hospices can go on providing the very best services possible. We have three days of debate on the Budget, and this seems to me the sort of thing a constituency MP might want to raise then.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
My constituent recently contacted me after his three-year-old daughter was involved in a terrifying near-miss with a recklessly ridden e-bike. The unsafe use of these vehicles is a growing threat to public safety. In Scotland, enforcement is devolved and regulation is reserved. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on how the Scottish and UK Governments can work together to protect our communities from dangerous e-bikes?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a concerning matter. We have heard too many tragic stories involving the dangerous use of e-bikes, including in my own constituency. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced new offences and penalties for dangerous cycling. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate to further discuss not just how we can work to tackle e-bikes, but how we can best work cross-border.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I do not know whether you or the Leader of the House are cinemagoers, Mr Speaker, but this weekend you could visit the Lonsdale cinema in Annan for its range of Halloween films, including a 30th anniversary screening of “Scream”. I commend Alan Towers, the proprietor of the cinema, on the fact that Lonsdale has been nominated as Cinema of the Year at the British Independent Film Awards, and further commend Alan and his team for keeping the cinema going through sometimes difficult times and providing a much-valued entertainment service for people across the south of Scotland and beyond.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating Lonsdale cinema on being shortlisted as one of the best cinemas in the UK and Alan Towers himself on all the work he has done. Independent cinema is very important. I am a cinemagoer—I am something of a film buff. It might be tempting in one of these exchanges to have a week of cinema, Mr Speaker. I don’t know—we’ll see where we get to. I pay tribute to all those who work to make this possible and who have provided entertainment for so many people, both in the right hon. Gentleman’s area and, I should say, at the Jam Jar cinema in my constituency too.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby built the engines that powered the Spitfire. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a £2.5 billion joint investment by Government and Rolls-Royce to develop the next generation of aircraft engine, which will support thousands of jobs and should create tens of thousands more in the next decade. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a brilliant example of our Government rebuilding British industry and working alongside business to deliver skilled jobs and opportunities for young people and to strengthen our economy?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to celebrate the announcements made in the Budget yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I agree that this is an excellent example of the Government’s commitment to reindustrialisation, which will ensure that our investment works twice for us—both keeping us safe and driving reindustrialisation with skills here in the UK.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Essex Day, which was on Monday this week, and thanking Mr Speaker for flying the flag of the county of Essex from New Palace Yard here in Parliament? We have wonderful charities in Essex such as the Collier Row & Romford Foodbank and the Saint Francis Hospice, but we did not see very much in yesterday’s Budget to support the vital charities that help local people and do work that possibly takes away costs from Government. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can support local charities such as the ones I mentioned to support local people in my borough and across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have missed the hon. Gentleman in the last few weeks, so flags have rarely got a mention, but we are back now. I know why he does it, and he does it very well on behalf of his constituents, I have to say.
There was a lot in yesterday’s Budget, which he might want to go back and have a look at. If there are measures in it that he wants to see the Government go further on, such as hospice funding, food banks or support for charities, he has an opportunity to make those representations because we have three days left of the Budget debate.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Sandra Morphew is best known as the 82-year-old former landlady of the Rose and Crown in Bishop’s Stortford, and she is much loved by our community. She is currently on life support in Turkey following a serious accident. Due to a dispute over her medical insurance, Sandra’s family now face spiralling medical costs and a potential £80,000 bill to bring her home, which they are now raising money to pay. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging residents in Bishop’s Stortford to support this crowdfunder and sending best wishes to Sandra’s family? Will he kindly use his good offices to help me raise Sandra’s case with the relevant Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Sandra a speedy recovery. I join my hon. Friend in encouraging his constituents to donate to the crowdfunder if it is appropriate and they can afford to do so. I will be happy to facilitate a meeting for him with the relevant Minister so that he can put his case directly to them.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am sure both you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will share my delight at the news that the Seabirds pub in Bridlington has reopened following a £300,000 refurbishment. It coincides with my “Pub of the Year” competition in Bridlington and The Wolds, where we are delighted to be home to 114 pubs. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking every landlord and landlady across the country for all their hard work and everything that they do for local communities? After my competition has closed on Saturday, will the Leader of the House join me for a pint in the winning pub?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is extraordinarily tempting. I congratulate everybody involved in the refurbishment of the pub; pubs are at the heart of our local communities. I cannot guarantee that I will be there to celebrate with the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will find many local residents who will be very pleased that it has happened. Perhaps when he is there sharing a pint with them he can talk about the support for hospitality that was in yesterday’s Budget.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I believe that, as I did, you visited the Parkinson’s UK drop-in for MPs yesterday, where it was highlighted that across the country we have a postcode lottery on access to blue badges for people who are suffering from Parkinson’s. May we have a debate in Government time about this postcode lottery, because access to blue badges is a real enabler for people with disabilities to get out and go to work, education, appointments and so on?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises important concerns. I understand that she successfully lobbied her local council not to go ahead with a proposal to scrap free blue badge parking in council car parks. If that is the case, I pay tribute to her and local campaigners for their hard work. Regarding her concerns about people with Parkinson’s having issues accessing blue badges, I will ensure she gets a response from the relevant Minister to address her points directly. Should she wish to follow that up with a meeting, I will help her to arrange that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent William lives in a beautiful, high-quality recently built home in Wimborne, but the developer will not allow him or his neighbours to install solar panels on the front. Ben lives in a recently built beautiful shared ownership house in Merley, and his housing association will not allow him to install an EV charger. The Secretary of State for Housing has talked extensively about dealing with the blockers. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial update on the corporate blockers stopping people improving their own homes and trying to decarbonise?
Sir Alan Campbell
I can get the hon. Lady the update that she seeks, but it seems to me that this is a topic that an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate is ideal for, because I am sure that other colleagues across the House will share her concerns.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Purchased for £51,000 in 2022, Cockermouth’s Old Courthouse later collapsed and still partially sits in the River Cocker. However, the accounts of owner Halal Group Ltd state that it has fixed assets of £248,000, and the company has not responded to calls for transparency or action. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on micro-company accounts, their use by property investment businesses and the lack of transparency about asset valuations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the case will have caused great concern to my hon. Friend’s constituents; he is right to raise it. I hope that the owners of the building concerned have heard what he has said today and take urgent steps to address the situation. If they do not, I have a feeling that my hon. Friend will seek an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate on the subject, in which he will give the issue an even greater voice. I hope that those concerned listen and get on with it.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Across Keighley and Ilkley, we constantly see large discarded nitrous oxide canisters, many of them on the side of the road. They are clearly being used illegally by drivers and others. This creates major concerns about road safety, as well as littering, and it is left to organisations such as Litter Free Ilkley to pick the canisters up. There is a clear link to safety and a safety threat from driving under the influence of nitrous oxide, but detection in the body is still difficult for police. May we have a debate in Government time to address that, and on bringing out much stricter controls on the purchase of canisters?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are doing a lot around fly-tipping, and there are aspirations across Government to do more about waste crimes, so the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are not only distressing but timely. He might want to seek an Adjournment debate on the subject because, as he suggests, this is not the responsibility of just one Department; it is about Departments working together to take the matter forward for his constituents and constituents across the country.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
This month marks Obsessive-compulsive Disorder Awareness Month. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting young Ellis at Lord Lawson of Beamish academy in my constituency. Ellis was diagnosed with OCD at a young age and has raised over £2,000 for OCD-UK. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ellis on that incredible achievement, and consider a debate in Government time on improving awareness of OCD and access to support for young people?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Ellis on raising so much money for OCD awareness; she is right to do so. It is right to celebrate young people making positive contributions to our society. We are improving access to NHS mental health support for children and young people, including those with OCD; over 40,000 more received support in this year to June than did in the previous year. To make clear to Ministers the need to continue making progress, I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent who is approaching retirement has been quoted £2,710 for root canal treatment. With just 23% of adults in Somerset having seen an NHS dentist in the last two years, will the Leader of the House highlight the problems with access to NHS dentists, and ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to reform dental services and end the south-west’s status as a dental desert?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have heard about this issue, which is serious, on many occasions. The Government are doing all they can to get dental hubs out there, so that people can get access to dental care. However, as the hon. Lady is aware, the question is wider than that; it is about reforming the dentistry contract. I will make sure that the relevant Minister has heard what she has said, and I will get her an update on what is intended, including for her area. If she wants a meeting with the Minister, I will arrange that, too.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Last week, I visited the Horizon Group in my constituency, which has developed HERO—a solar-powered safety warning device made for remote environments. The product provides essential safety messaging about unmanned crossings and access points in some regions of the Network Rail network. Innovations like this keep people safe. Does the Leader of the House, like me, welcome the Chancellor’s statement yesterday on the importance of supporting innovation by British industry?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is right to praise the innovative work of the Horizon Group. We are committed to supporting innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises, including through the £7.4 billion for UK Research and Innovation to support innovative company growth. There are a number of days’ debate on the Budget, and I encourage my hon. Friend to make these remarks—should he catch your eye, Mr Speaker—in that debate.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
As a result of the Government’s so-called fair funding formula, Richmond council—my local authority—faces a devastating cut of over £100 million in Government funding over the next four years. That is almost 60% of its budget about to be gutted. Our vulnerable children and adults will suffer the most from these cuts. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to local leadership and empowering local communities, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on revisiting this damaging formula, so that we can find a sustainable solution?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Budget announced £100 million for local authorities to provide further support to the households in greatest need. We are giving local leaders greater control over locally generated revenue. We are delivering £78 billion in a multi-year finance settlement, and a £5.6 billion boost for local services over the next three years. I understand that local authorities that are adversely affected will have concerns, and the hon. Lady is right to raise them. We have a local government statement after this; she might find a way of getting that point into the statement.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Last weekend, the Alfred East art gallery in Kettering reopened after being shut for six years. I have such fond memories of visiting it as a child, so I am so pleased that the next generation of young people in Kettering will be able to experience the same. Would the Leader of the House join me in thanking Billie, Adam and all the gallery team in Kettering for making this possible, and in encouraging everyone in Kettering and the surrounding areas to visit the gallery? It is free and a brilliant cultural experience.
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the hard work of everyone involved in the reopening of the Alfred East gallery. We are committed to funding the arts; 130 cultural venues, museums and libraries are benefiting from the Arts Everywhere fund, which will ensure that galleries like the Alfred East are around for years to come.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Last month, South West Water was fined £8 million for more than 500 sewage dumps. Rather than going back to the Treasury, that money should reduce the bills of customers who pay for waste and sewerage services. The fine followed 330 illegal dumps into the River Camel and 230 untreated dumps at Harlyn beach, a world-class beach in Cornwall. My constituents are sick of a company that keeps breaking the law, and that treats fines as a cost of doing business. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time on holding these failing water companies to account, and on introducing jail time for offending water bosses?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have introduced criminal liability for water bosses who cover up or hide sewage spills—indeed, they could face up to two years behind bars. The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully; I understand the effect that this issue has in areas like his. I hope that the water company has heard what he said. Should he seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I am sure that he could go even further in setting out this issue, which he clearly feels strongly about.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent Hazel McLeod has brought generations in Winchburgh together—pupils from Winchburgh and Sinclair academies, together with members of the senior community group Good Companions—to create a book of residents’ memories called, “What do you see when you look at me?” The book received the “highly recommended” award at the global Intergenerational Excellence Awards 2026, which recognised 13 projects worldwide. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone involved, and commend Hazel’s sterling efforts throughout the years, and make a statement on the value of intergenerational projects in preserving local stories and strengthening community spirit?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved in making the “What do you see when you look at me?” book on receiving their prestigious award. Projects like this play a vital role in preserving local stories, bridging generational divides and strengthening community spirit. I want to say well done to everybody concerned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The report, “International Labour Law and International Human Rights Law: Analysing the Convergence and Divergence” recently launched, right here in Parliament. It highlights significant gaps in the implementation of international labour rights, which particularly affect women, children and informal workers. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the effectiveness of UK programmes in promoting international labour rights, and supporting the implementation of core International Labour Organisation conventions? Better still, will he make time for a Backbench Business debate on the subject?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. He is right to point out that it is often women and children who suffer most when international labour rights are undermined. The UK continues to work with the ILO to implement and uphold employment rights across the world. I will raise his concern with Ministers, but the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is still in his place, so if the hon. Gentleman seeks a debate on the issue, I am sure that the Committee will want to give his suggestion consideration.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
This month marks GloWeek, the Child Brain Injury Trust’s annual campaign reminding children to be bright and be seen as the clocks go back. I recently joined Delves Lane school for a GloWeek event, at which I was joined by County Durham fire and rescue, Consett neighbourhood police and Elddis Transport; it brought along vehicles to show pupils how to stay safe on the roads. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the trust, and will he make Government time for a debate on improving road safety education, so that we protect young brains from injury?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been a distinguished campaigner on this issue, and I pay tribute to her for that. I also pay tribute to the work of the Child Brain Injury Trust. We are taking steps, through the road safety strategy, to make our roads safer for everyone. These matters have been raised consistently with me in business questions, and I encourage my hon. Friend perhaps to join others in seeking a Backbench Business debate on these matters. I think it would be particularly well attended.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In South Derbyshire, an initiative developed by my constituent Dan Motley, my team and me has been taken forward by South Derbyshire district council. It encourages businesses to publish clear accessibility information. This helps disabled people, their families and friends to make informed choices about venues to visit, while recognising the economic value of the purple pound. Ahead of Purple Tuesday on 3 November next week, which celebrates the purple pound, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on introducing mandatory accessibility information standards for businesses, to ensure that disabled consumers can access clear, consistent information. and to give more businesses the confidence and guidance to become accessible and inclusive?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her constituent for their local initiative, and I will make sure that the relevant Department has heard her question today. I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, so that the matter can be discussed further, because I am sure that other Members might want to join in on that.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Last weekend was the 65th anniversary of the building of the Tamar bridge. Local people are still paying to cross what is clearly critical national infrastructure. I marked the occasion by talking to local people in Saltash and Torpoint about my petition to end the tolls, which are a barrier to growth and to accessing essential healthcare, schools and jobs over the Tamar. Will the Leader of the House support me in securing a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport on delivering a fairer toll system in the short term, and a toll-free Tamar in the long term?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for this question; she is assiduous in campaigning on this matter. She makes a powerful case about the financial burden that tolls place on residents and businesses who need to get to work and access essential services. I will make sure that the Transport Secretary is made aware of her representations on the Floor of the House today. We will see whether we can arrange a meeting for her.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, if you or the Leader of the House would like to visit my constituency, first, you would be very welcome, and secondly, you would see a rather rare sight: seagulls seemingly walking on water in Gloucester docks. I am not aware of any divine intervention, but we have had a very dry summer and an unprecedented silt build-up. The Canal & River Trust has started a £4 million dredging programme, but I am concerned that in the long term we will keep seeing this problem build up again and again as the dry summers continue. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how we can make water companies such as Bristol Water, which pump water out of our canal system, pay their fair share to uphold and maintain the historic docks in Gloucester?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand that the current water supply agreement between Bristol Water and the Canal & River Trust is due to be renewed in 2028 and that there are ongoing conversations regarding dredging and managing silt in Gloucester dock. I will make sure the relevant Minister hears my hon. Friend’s concerns, but he may want to take it further and seek an Adjournment debate.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Many local towns like Rye and Bexhill give free Saturday parking during the festive season to boost local high streets, but not Hastings. That is why last year I launched a campaign calling on the local council to roll it out in Hastings, too. Does the Leader of the House agree that after the Government took decisive action in the Budget yesterday to support local businesses and cut business rates, Green-run Hastings borough council should get in the festive spirit early and support my campaign for Christmas parking in Hastings?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for her constituents. What she says about parking in the run-up to Christmas will resonate around the country. As she rightly points out, we have given Hastings council record funding, and I suggest that the council listens to what she has said and spends it on her constituents’ priorities.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Advantage Retirement Homes runs two care homes in my constituency: St Thomas’ Priory near Armitage and Chasewater Mews in Burntwood. Between those two properties, the company is currently owed almost £600,000—a staggering sum—by the local integrated care board. The board is failing to pay out funded nursing care payments, a weekly sum that the NHS should pay to cover the cost of registered nurses in care homes. This has been going on since 2003. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is utterly unacceptable, and will he ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss the penalties available for ICBs that fail to make payments that are owed to hard-working companies in our constituencies?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concerning issue today, and the fact that it goes back to 2003 adds greater urgency to it. We recognise the significant concern that unresolved payment issues can cause for providers, so I am happy to try to facilitate a meeting between him and the relevant Minister, so that he can raise the case further.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Bonfire night can be difficult in Edinburgh, and previous years have seen serious disruption and pretty terrifying antisocial behaviour in Niddrie and Craigmillar. I have been working closely with the police for months and with the Hays Community Hub, Sandy’s Community Centre and many other groups across Craigmillar and Niddrie to keep disruption this year to a minimum, backed by £20 million from the UK Government’s Pride in Place funding. Will my right hon. Friend support a debate on how we back community organisations to tackle antisocial behaviour around bonfire night?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter, which will resonate with Members across the House. It is often raised with me at this time of year, and I commend him for the work he is doing in his local community. The Government are looking at the matter that he raises. The consultation on reforming fireworks and pyrotechnic legislation received a very high number of responses, not surprisingly. The Government are currently considering the evidence and will respond in due course. At that point, I am sure there will be ample opportunity to discuss this matter further.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
After Storm Austen last week, with its echoes of Storm Goretti, I wanted to recognise some of my Cornish parish councils for setting up emergency plans; Salt Wind Catering for working with the National Grid to provide some of the warm food that people needed; National Grid and its team—particularly Jacob Wallace—for their work; Cormac for sorting out the trees so quickly; our farmers; and Radio Cornwall. I think a lot of their actions and what we did in Goretti led to the “Be Ready” scheme that the Government rolled out last week. Could we have a debate in Government time on support for community resilience in the face of the effects of climate change and severe storms?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to list all the individuals and organisations who played an important part in clearing up after the storms. I pay tribute to them and, indeed, everybody across the country for everything they have done, including local radio, National Grid and farmers, who in many cases are crucial to the work that happens. The Government understand the challenges of a changing climate and the importance of resilience. We will be bringing forward in the future an opportunity to debate these matters further, but again, because this is about ensuring that organisations have the resources they need, we have three days of Budget debate left if my hon. Friend wishes to raise it.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Muster Point, a local veterans support group, does fantastic and vital work supporting veterans across my community. This winter, it is teaming up with the inspirational Chicksands and Henlow military wives choir to release a single “We’re Still Here” to raise funds to support that vital work. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them for all they do for our community and urge hon. Members across the House to dig deep, get behind their efforts and drive that single right up the charts this Christmas?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking the Muster Point and the Chicksands and Henlow military wives choir for their invaluable work in supporting veteran communities. I join my hon. Friend in encouraging hon. Members to get behind and listen to the Christmas single “We’re Still Here” to ensure that it gets the notice and credit it deserves.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
The Government are committed to shifting power from Westminster and Whitehall to the places where people live and work. Yesterday’s Budget shows that we are committed to giving local leaders, local councils and local communities the tools to shape their future. But our ambition to rewire the state and ensure that the country is ready for devolution depends on strong, sustainable local government, and it is only through reorganisation that we will create those strong foundations.
We know that reorganisation is difficult, but we also believe that it is worth it. The decisions we take now will be the building blocks for how the country is governed for generations to come. Our vision is clear: mayoral and strategic authorities, underpinned by strong unitary councils with real powers to take decisions in the interests of their communities.
On 7 September, the Secretary of State announced a review of the programme to ensure that it was robust and aligned with the Government’s priorities. Since then, we have listened to local leaders, sector partners, mayors, and Members of Parliament. I place on the record our thanks to them for their work and for engaging constructively. Consensus will not always be possible, but I know that all of us are putting forward arguments for what we believe is best for the different areas of England. I am committed to hearing all those views before coming to final decisions. I also want to take a moment to recognise the impact on councils, councillors and their staff. I appreciate their desire for clarity.
Today, I can provide some clarity on what comes next. I can announce to the House that the first phase of the review is now complete. I have tested the programme framework, including whether the criteria set out in February last year continue to support the Government’s priorities. I have concluded, on the basis of the programme, that it is robust and that the existing criteria are correct on their own terms and continue to support the Government’s policy agenda. We are content that we can take forward local government reorganisation in line with the existing criteria.
In concluding the review, I have also considered the best way to bring clarity quickly while making sure that each area receives the deep and thorough consideration that it deserves. We will inform councils of outcomes at the earliest possible opportunity—with some areas getting those outcomes more quickly than others.
Today, I am able to give further clarity on some of the 14 areas who had decisions in July. The Secretary of State and I have carefully considered all the proposals and the evidence for those 14 areas. Following that initial consideration, we are minded, subject to representations and parliamentary approval, to implement the following proposals in five areas: in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two-unitary proposal, including the boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove city council except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire. Those decisions are for the same council structures that were previously announced in July, or they are new decisions following full and thorough consideration.
Before final decisions are taken, there will be a minimum three-week period during which those who are interested may make further representations to me. The start and end date for that period will be confirmed shortly, as well as further details on how councils and other interested parties can make representations. Any final implementation decisions will be subject to the normal parliamentary approval. We are going to take more time on the remaining nine areas announced in July, and we will use the coming months to consider further the proposals submitted before coming to a view.
To give councils clarity on the legal status of existing decisions we are withdrawing the decisions announced in July for the following areas: Derbyshire and Derby; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Hertfordshire; Kent and Medway; Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool; Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland; Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Nottinghamshire and Nottingham; and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. I want to be clear that this is no reflection on the work underpinning those proposals.
I can now set out the plan for the final phases of the review. The review will now focus on the 15 areas that are due to have a “minded to” decision. Those are, in no particular order, the nine areas I have just mentioned, the four areas where decisions were withdrawn in September, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex. All options and proposals for those areas will remain under consideration, and I will approach them all with an open mind. As such, it should not be assumed that the same proposal will automatically be selected. It is important to allow the process to run its course and to allow full and proper consideration. We will move faster where we can, and some remaining areas may receive an outcome decision before others. I commit to coming back to the House with updates for another set of areas by Christmas, and every area will have an outcome by early next year.
As we set out in September, the local elections scheduled for May 2027 will now go ahead to existing councils. That means that elections to new councils will be made in 2028, followed by a vesting day in April 2029. That is for all areas apart from Surrey. I have also heard concerns about cost uncertainty, and we appreciate that areas have incurred costs in good faith. All areas will receive half the transition funding that they were previously due, which equates to £450,000 per new unitary previously announced. Those guaranteed payments will be made in the coming weeks regardless of the outcome of the review. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, will also receive £500,000 per area. After final decisions, we will pay any remaining balance, depending on how many councils are chosen.
I have heard from Members across the House about the pride, history and identity sitting behind our cities and counties. City status and ceremonial matters play a valuable role for local pride, so we will work with areas to ensure that city status is preserved following reorganisation. Subject to final decisions, we will continue to work with places to protect their city status by working through all the options, including bringing forward legislation where necessary—[Interruption.] Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been struggling with a cold for about a week. Usually when a Minister comes up in the morning with a croaky throat it is the result of a long night of karaoke, but I am afraid this is the result of back-to-back LGR conversations all morning, which does not carry quite the same sense of fun or rhythm.
I want to use this moment to build consensus and deliver a programme where central Government and local government work together. This programme must be a joint effort. It is the foundation of rewiring how our country works, and getting foundations in place to devolve new powers and functions in every area. This Government will be an active and reliable partner, and we stand ready to work with councils to support them to deliver these significant changes. I promise to keep the House updated, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Regardless of the croaky voice, I was paying attention because the statement concerns my constituency in East Sussex. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say that from start to finish, this Government’s approach to local government reorganisation has been nothing short of a farce. The Government first promised to publish their English devolution White Paper in November 2024. It was delayed until December 2024, with affected councils given three weeks over Christmas to decide whether or not to delay local elections. Last year, after the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) was forced to resign from the Cabinet, her successor—and, as it turns out, her predecessor—assured us that reorganisation was not taking, and would not take, any longer than planned, and that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead. The Government confirmed that twice in November 2025, yet the very next month announced that elections in some parts of the country would be pushed back as far as 2028.
Two weeks later, again in the run-up to Christmas, the then local government Minister invited another wave of postponements. In January this year, despite having promised not to delay elections in November, the then Secretary of State announced legislation to postpone 29 elections. The next month, days before the Department was due to answer for its behaviour in court, those postponements were withdrawn. Naturally, the taxpayer was left to pick up the tab for all those delays—a bill that runs into the tens of millions of pounds. That U-turn was announced during recess, so that Members of Parliament had to wait to question Ministers.
In March, there was another set of announcements and another set of legal challenges. In June, it was revealed in a pre-action letter issued by the Department that Ministers had ignored official advice over reorganisation plans. In July, just days before the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) became Prime Minister, the previous Secretary of State announced a whole new set of reorganisation plans, with many Members given essentially no time to scrutinise the sweeping changes that were set to be imposed on their areas. We still have not seen the advice that informed those decisions, so will the Minister confirm today, in the interests of transparency, that that advice will be published?
In September, following updated and privileged legal advice, the current Secretary of State withdrew decisions for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and paused plans in most of the rest of the country. What a complete joke! Today the Minister talks of giving councils clarity, yet goes on immediately to say that all options and proposals remain under consideration, and that he approaches all decisions with an open mind. He cannot be serious. We are two and a half years into this process, and the Government had years in opposition to plan it. Why have these decisions not yet been made? How can we still be at the stage of keeping an open mind, and what clarity exactly have we gained from the statement?
The vast majority of councils are none the wiser after what we have heard today. The Minister talks of allowing the process to “run its course” and of giving “full and proper consideration” to each decision, but can he set out what will be taken into consideration? What role have party political objectives played in determining new local government boundaries? Have the Government received, at any point during the process, legal advice that indicates that political considerations were given undue weight in deciding new council boundaries? When can councils that have been left in the dark by today’s announcement expect some kind of verdict from the Government? Which areas will hear by Christmas, and what does “early next year” actually mean?
Given the Government’s record on meeting their own deadlines, I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for my scepticism. The real-world results of this endless delay are plain to see. People across the country are left without any sense of which council will be providing services in the year and years to come, while councillors and council officials have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money planning and preparing for new authorities that might never materialise.
Notwithstanding the announcement that the Minister has made on funding, will he provide an estimate today of the total cost of this Government’s shambolic local government reorganisation? How much of that cost is being eaten by legal fees? The money spent on this farcical reorganisation process should have been spent instead on resurfacing roads, collecting bins and maintaining parks—core local government functions that people care about. For all the Prime Minister’s talk about local government, this whole approach to devolution has shown nothing but contempt for local democracy. Local voices have been ignored in the drawing of new council boundaries, and have been overridden by party political considerations. Again and again, the Labour Government’s approach to local government has been about imposing more government, pushing up tax, and stacking the deck in a cynical effort to gain political advantage. They should be ashamed.
Jim McMahon
First, let me say that we do not take for granted concerns about the implications of the delay on the councils, councillors and officials who have been working on these schemes. We know that the pause was disruptive, and that people put a lot of work into their proposals and the transitional work in preparation for the new unitary councils. Equally, it would have been wrong had the Government not taken into account the legal status of those that were in court and not used that as an opportunity to review the programme overall, which was the decision that we announced in September. That was the right thing to do to give clarity to the programme and move forward with confidence; to ensure we were reviewing the criteria, the process, the decision making and the evidence base; and to allow us to come to fresh decisions, where needed.
From my perspective, I am playing this with an absolutely straight bat—I want to do this with integrity. It is important to say that there are no Government proposals on the table because the only proposals that a Minister can consider are those that councils themselves have submitted during the process. Our job is to ensure that we take into account local opinion and test the evidence base, the assumptions, the alignment with public service boundaries and the financial modelling. Through that work, we then make a balanced determination. By the way, there is no perfect solution for quite large parts of England that I have seen, but that does not mean we cannot reach a solution that is the best that it can be.
Our job is to make a decision in an objective way and with an open mind, which is why I cannot understand the shadow Minister criticising what is objectively the right thing to do. It would be entirely wrong, in a legal process, to predetermine the outcome we most desire and railroad that through. All the vulnerabilities with LGR that she speaks about were features of previous rounds of LGR, which the Conservative Government undertook on a fairly regular basis.
No Government decision is not open to legal challenge if somebody wants to make that challenge. On LGR, the Government found themselves in court defending previous decisions. Cumbria is a good example: the Government were taken to court, the case was heard by a judge and the Government had to explain why they came to their view. We should not pretend that a legal challenge somehow represents a fault in the system, but it does bring a pause for thought, and we have used that pause to ensure that the reorganisation is right going forward.
On the question of how we will proceed, the approach I am setting out does not have the tranching up of areas that we had previously, so quite deliberately, we do not have tranches 1, 2 and 3. However, we are going to work through authorities as quickly as possible. The commitment that we have made is that, rather than waiting for an artificial date—a particular point in time—if we can come forward with a few earlier, we will do that, so we do not have to wait for the whole programme to be confirmed later in the process.
Finally, on the point about costs and how much has been incurred, there are different ways of looking at that. There are the costs of producing the proposals, but they are not abortive because those proposals are real today and they will be considered as part of the new process. Those are not wasted costs at all; they are the normal costs that are incurred in reorganisation. Then there are the costs of transfers and, once the decision is made, preparing the ground to move to the new shadow unitary authorities, but those costs are required whatever decision is made in whatever county, so that is not abortive work either.
However, we accept that the decision to pause and to ask staff in particular areas to stop working on the proposals has led to a cost being incurred by those authorities that would not have been incurred had we not decided to pause the programme. On that basis, we have decided to release the money that I have set out today, and I think that is the right thing to do. We believe strongly in central and local government working in partnership together and being respectful to each other. If councils say that they have incurred costs that they would not otherwise have incurred, it is right for the Government to say that we are willing to meet them halfway.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, but there remains some confusion in Lancashire, so I hope he is able to clarify a few things. Moving away from the different tranches suggests that there is now no timetable for what might happen in Lancashire. Councillors are asking me for clarity on a timetable for Lancashire. I also seek reassurance that the decision means that Lancaster will not lose its city status in any part of the reorganisation, and that the building blocks with which we are making the reorganisation do not have to be strictly borough councils. For example, Wyre borough council, which was already an amalgamation of other councils, might want to look in different directions.
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for the representations on Lancashire’s reorganisation and on devolution that she has made over a long period of time. I accept that we have not set out a list-by-list, county-by-county timetable showing exactly when reorganisation will come, but we have said that we will conclude the considerations in the new year. Wherever the counties find themselves in the programme, when it is eventually developed, they will know one way or the other in that February to March period, and we will work through them as and when. My point was that if we are in a position to announce them earlier, we should do that rather than keeping areas waiting unnecessarily—that is the idea of the approach that we are taking.
My hon. Friend correctly makes a point about Lancaster’s city status, and that applies to cities across the counties that are in scope. It would be absolutely wrong if a city risked losing its status just because its city status is aligned to a local authority that is being abolished rather than to a geographical area. I can give an absolute assurance that even if we have to introduce new legislation to preserve that status, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that no city loses its city status through reorganisation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution and shifting power out of Westminster, but we have been shocked by the Government’s botched handling of this process. Ministers promised that MPs and local leaders would be properly involved in decisions affecting their areas, yet many have been left in the dark until announcements were effectively made for them. Will the Minister explain why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before today’s announcement?
Even now, after months of confusion over local government reorganisation, delayed elections and significant abortive costs, councils and communities are still waiting for certainty. Local authorities, many in dire financial positions following years of under-investment, have spent time and money in good faith preparing these proposals according to the Government’s criteria and timetable, only for that timetable to shift repeatedly.
In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest growing areas in the country, businesses need certainty to invest and plan. Councils need certainty to set budgets and deliver services, and council staff deserve clarity about their future. Yet today’s statement leaves Cambridgeshire and Peterborough yet again awaiting a decision, while other areas move ahead. When will the Minister finally provide a clear and stable timetable for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and for other areas that are still awaiting decisions?
Finally, following the chaos of decisions being withdrawn, reorganisation being paused and the programme being reviewed following updated legal advice, can the Secretary of State even guarantee that what is being announced today is legally sound? Will she now publish the legal advice to demonstrate that?
Jim McMahon
Working backwards, the reason we carried out the review was to ensure that we, as the Ministers who were making the decisions, were satisfied that the decisions were being made in a rational way, with the evidence base secured, and that where there were outstanding questions, we tested them in the process. Obviously, we were not the Ministers who made the decisions in July, so on coming back in, we needed to be absolutely sure that what we were putting our names to was correct. That is what we are doing.
That may mean that the same conclusion is reached in many areas, but importantly that conclusion will be reached as a fresh decision. We are going to go through that process, which is why it is taking time, but if we had come here and said, “Do you know what? We have completed the whole programme review and the financial review, and we have done every single outstanding county in England in a few weeks,” hon. Members would have cast doubt on just how much time we had given to each of the counties and their proposals. We are determined to make this decision robust, for it to be right and to put in the time needed to ensure that we fully go through the proposals, the consultation and the financial assessment.
Where local areas have put forward an argument in support of their proposal, we are testing that line by line. For example, if a local authority is requesting a boundary change or to grow its boundaries, and that is predicated on matters like housing numbers, economic growth or travel-to-work areas, I want to see those things. I want to see the travel-to-work map, the form that the urban development takes and so on, so we are testing those proposals to ensure that we are satisfied. To return to my previous point, I have not seen a single proposal that I consider to be the perfect proposal, but our job is to ensure that we get the best possible proposal using the information that we have received, and we are undertaking that work.
On the hon. Lady’s point about Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—obviously, the point applies to West Sussex as well, as they essentially go into the same pool—I would not necessarily assume that because those authorities were at the end of the decision-making process in the previous round, they will be at the end of the process in the current round. We will make a decision on which ones we are going to bring forward shortly.
On the hon. Lady’s point about legal advice, which was also mentioned by the shadow Minister, it is long-standing Government policy that we do not publish that legal advice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I need Members to ask much shorter questions, and I need the Minister’s answers to be on point as well.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
When I am out listening to residents in Kidsgrove and its surrounds, they tell me that they want good public services delivered efficiently and to a high quality, but a two-tier system causes constant confusion. If a resident wants to raise issues about their local park, they can go and speak to the borough council. If they have a question about their local library, they can go and speak to the county council. If they need a pothole fixed, they can go and speak to their county council, not their borough council. The list goes on. At the same time, we are paying for managers and directors at two councils, rather than one, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Does the Minister agree that what matters most to the residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality services that work for them? That also offers greater accountability; at the moment, my residents are passed from pillar to post. Equally, residents in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove want clarity from the Government, so can I please press them to offer that clarity?
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend makes the case for reorganisation well. It is less important how we perceive the structures of government in this place; in my view, it is more important that local people know who to hold to account for decisions made in their name and with their taxes. The truth is that in two-tier areas, there is confusion about which council to hold to account for the delivery of services, and there is a duplication of services. The fact that we have multiple chief executives, multiple finance directors, multiples HR directors and so on means that—in a period with there are all the pressures on adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, and when we desire to start rebuilding neighbourhood services so that people can see improvement in their area—we have to do absolutely everything that we can to direct money to the frontline and to the local services that people can see.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I do not think that the Minister mentioned Essex in his statement, but he made a point about funding which I think is much appreciated—that areas have incurred costs in good faith. Does that apply to Essex? On the basis of £450,000 per new unitary previously announced, we would be due £2.25 million for the inconvenience and disruption to local government in Essex.
Jim McMahon
All the local authorities that were engaged in LGR, whether they were part of the four subject to the court challenges or the one that we are withdrawing today, will receive a payment for the work that they have done. The reorganisation programme is going ahead, so we are going to return to Hampshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk to complete that work.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Councils have spent considerable time and resources building the case for local government reorganisation, including by producing robust financial analysis, housing data, work on the social care impact and work on the impact on travel-to-work areas. Today’s announcement raises serious questions for any future timetable. Will the Minister confirm if councils are expected to go back to the drawing board and negotiate with surrounding councils on new boundaries? If so, how can they be expected to do that by January while meaningfully consulting their residents?
Jim McMahon
As it stands, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement for areas to develop new proposals. We will consider the proposals already submitted and the evidence base, as well as the consultation that went alongside. However, there have to be fresh ministerial decisions that are objective and that we approach with an open mind.
There is no further requirement on councils to do that front work. However, we are going to introduce a “minded to” process. When decisions are made, they will be “minded to” decisions. The idea is that we need to rebuild good faith in local government. If areas have concerns about a proposal that we believe is a “minded to” decision—if that proposal is not quite right for an area, or there are concerns about its potential implementation or what it means for local communities—there has to be something in the process that ensures that the Government are open to listen. We believe that is best done through the “minded to” process.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
May I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and his announcement that Gloucestershire will be one unitary authority? That will produce better administration and better value for money. However, will he explain to my constituents why we are having an election next May on the existing councils, which will gradually lose power as we move toward the following election the next year? Why can we not simply have an election next May on the shadow unitary authority?
Jim McMahon
It is important that we have a programme that is consistent across the country. We cannot say, “Well, because there seems to be a bit more local consensus in one place than another, and maybe the legal risk is a bit less, we can suddenly kind of shortcut the process.” That means that Gloucestershire, like everywhere else, will go through the “minded to” process. The letters going to councils today will give interested parties around three weeks to make representations. We then need to consider our response and do any more development coming from that. That will mean that the 2027 election for the shadow unitary just will not be possible.
Another thing to have in mind is that, even though we are doing our best to tie this work down and make it robust, any decision of Government can be challenged in court, including the one in Gloucestershire. The worst outcome is that we pretend that May ’27 is an option. We are going to get to the end of the “minded to” decision in January, and it will take a couple of months to look at it; there will be no time at all for returning officers and political parties to find candidates for the new shadow unitary. There is a chance that a decision could be judicially reviewed in that process, and that would probably be the worst outcome. It is a fact that this work will take a bit longer, but that gives more certainty to councils so that they can prepare.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister knows about my frustration with LGR and the original outcome. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) agree that the outcome that came for Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre to merge as one authority was the worst outcome possible, given the challenges that we face in an authority like Blackpool. Will the Minister look at the “minded to” decisions to ensure that if local areas object, they are able to feed in other proposals that were originally on the table and may work better—not just for our area but across Lancashire? On top of that, if local areas want to go back to authorities of 500,000 people, will he look at that?
Jim McMahon
We have confirmed multiple times that the 500,000 population size was a guiding figure, and we were very mindful during the course of reorganisation that some councils went above that, with Gloucestershire being one example—I think the population was in the mid-600,000s. Other councils did not believe that was the way forward for their local population, for different reasons; sometimes it was because of a spread of different identities between a coastal community, an urban city or a rural shire surrounding it. In those councils, the view was, that the council should better represent the identity of the area, rather than being a single unit. That figure was always a guide.
There is not a window in this process for new proposals, but there will be a “minded to” process. When we confirm our preferred option, if there are proposals for tweaks that would make it better, we will be open to receiving them during that process.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On 7 September, the Secretary of State made a commitment that Devon MPs would be able to hold a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss local government reorganisation in Devon. Sadly, that meeting has not occurred to date. What timescale can the Minister give for such a meeting occurring?
Jim McMahon
We said that the meeting would take place after the review, as we wanted the review to take its course. It has obviously now concluded, and I have made a statement today. We have a list of about 40 to 50 MPs who have requested meetings in debates and in writing, so we will have a Monday evening surgery every two weeks from 7 pm to 9 pm. We will make sure that MPs are given a slot at the earliest possible opportunity.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The prize on offer for Gloucester residents from local government reorganisation is the promise of devolution so that we can share in the powers and investment that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have announced over the last few months. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that local government reorganisation and the model proposed for Gloucestershire will unlock devolution opportunities, rather than block them? The only credible option for Gloucestershire is a foundation strategic authority in the short term and joining the West of England combined authority in the long term. That is backed by six of our seven local councils and all four constituent councils of the WECA.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the criteria for reorganisation is that it has to be compatible with devolution going forward. I hope that Members saw the announcement yesterday for 10 new devolution agreements across England—that is significant investment coming our way. When we look at the map of England, there is that belt around the midlands where economies and communities say that they look in different directions. We need to work through what a good settlement for those areas looks like in practice, but I absolutely take on board my hon. Friend’s points. I thank him for all the work that he does on this issue, and I am very happy to meet him.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Government are very good at imposing on people things that they do not want. In Staffordshire Moorlands, the Government want to impose the end of Staffordshire Moorlands district and the end of Staffordshire police—reorganisations that will have different timeframes and will lead to great confusion. Will the Minister consider my proposal for local government reorganisation—this has been my proposal all along—which is to leave our councils and local authorities in the state they are in? The Government can give us a mayor, if that is what they want, but we really do not need any more distractions for our local government officials, who need to get on and deliver services.
Jim McMahon
I just do not agree with the analysis that we can stay as we are. I do not think we can stay as we are from a public service delivery perspective, a devolution perspective, or a financial sustainability perspective. The world has changed, and the demands for people-led services—in adults’ and children’s social care and in temporary accommodation—are overwhelming councils. We have to make sure that we free up the money from the system that is currently used for executive pay and back-office support and direct it straight to neighbourhoods and people-led services. That is not at all to decry the good work that district councils do. I respect those councils, but we have to take this in the context of the 50-year period of reorganisation.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, I support local government reorganisation, and I welcomed the original pause of the decision to split Amber Valley in two. I know that the Minister is taking the time to carefully review the situation, and I thank him for the thorough and thoughtful manner in which he is doing so. However, delays bring uncertainty about council officers’ futures, planning services, and delivery of projects for the people of Amber Valley. Given that splitting Amber Valley is the only point of contention between the boroughs and districts of Derbyshire, can I urge the Minister to commit to a swift and firm timetable for Derbyshire? This can be sorted out quickly.
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for all her representations on this issue over a long period of time. I can definitely commit to moving as quickly as possible. All the points she has raised—about identity, good public services and so on—are in our mind when we consider the proposals.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I am pleased that my party’s legal challenge has bought us a stay in Essex and elsewhere, but to re-emphasise: district councils matter to remote, rural and coastal communities. In Clacton, planning decisions—big decisions that matter—are taken in Clacton town hall. Under your proposals, those decisions will be made in a large population centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Farage, no “you” and “your”, because it is not me who is responding.
Nigel Farage
Under these proposals, big planning decisions that are currently taken locally will be taken miles away, in a big population centre with no understanding of the local ground. Is that not against the devolution powers that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and you yourself have championed as being good for the country?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that I am not at the Dispatch Box. It is “the Minister”, not “you” and “your”. Back-Bench MPs should be speaking through the Chair.
Jim McMahon
I am delighted that the hon. Member has managed to find his seat today—he looks quite comfortable there, and there is not a prayer card in sight, as far as I can see. Actually, he makes the important point that local politics matters. What we do not want to do through reorganisation is take away the local, so the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 requires us to bring forward neighbourhood governance arrangements before Christmas. We want to try to have a unit of government within a council—to hardwire it and mainstream it, so that local councillors are given the respect that comes with being frontline councillors with the powers and resources to get things done in their area. We can do that at a bigger level and in a different way.
To be clear—although I know the hon. Member did not mean it—the Reform party is not taking the Government to court; local authorities have decided to issue claims. We need to make sure that we are not using local authorities for party political reasons.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. As he knows, I have been calling for a devolution settlement for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, which I was pleased was confirmed in yesterday’s Budget. However, we know that local government reorganisation is going to be key to long-term strategic growth in our communities, so it is disappointing to hear about this withdrawal now. I have more concerns, though, about how this uncertainty will impact our communities and our hard-working colleagues across local councils. In the light of this change, how will local authorities in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland be supported to make sure it does not disrupt their long-term aim of providing excellent services to my residents?
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point about the impact of the delay. That has impacted a lot of council staff who have been working on this; it has definitely impacted chief officers, legal officers and councillors, which is why we committed to return as soon as possible. I think we have honoured that through the work we have done so far, but we will move at pace to make sure we can act as quickly as possible. Obviously, securing devolution and investment for the counties of Leicestershire and Rutland could be transformational for their communities and their economy.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
After more than two years, the Minister has come to the Chamber today to say that all options are still on the table. He cannot say what the timeline is for Cambridgeshire, yet he also said from the Dispatch Box that his priority is getting resources to the frontline. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State, who is in her place, has decided to duck making this statement and has passed it to the Minister, but will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)? What has been the total cost to local authorities and the Government of this process so far, given that we have arrived at a situation today where all options are on the table?
Jim McMahon
The cost of transitioning from the two-tier system to new unitaries is covered by councils in their proposals. They tell us how they will finance the transitional arrangements that they are asking the Government to consider. For the first time—Government have not done this before—we have introduced a multimillion-pound budget, £900,000 per new unitary, to support the transitional arrangements on top of that, so I do not believe that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has framed his question reflects the reality. The Government are meeting the councils halfway.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement in this statement that the Minister has scrapped the disgraceful and discourteous announcement made in July 2026. He is right to throw it out, but my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme want and deserve certainty and clarity, and I did not hear much of that in the statement, so may I ask the Minister three very quick questions? Will he confirm how Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs will feed into the review? How much money will our local authorities get to redress what they have spent so far? And may I urge him to focus on the new mayoral authority announced yesterday, because that has the support needed to achieve a change of this scale?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I appreciate how local this is for everybody, but I ask Members to please ask only one question each, because we need to get through this statement quickly.
Jim McMahon
Obviously, we were delighted to announce the devolution agreement yesterday. That will definitely bring new resources and powers to my hon. Friend’s area, but it has to be built on a strong foundation of local government that can be sustained. As for how MPs can engage, the “minded to” process for when decisions are issued gives us a window in which MPs and other interested parties can make representations.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The two local authorities that serve my constituency are due to be abolished next year as part of the first phase of local government reorganisation, and now we hear that Surrey is likely to have a mayor. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will let Surrey choose whether or not to have a mayor via a public consultation and a vote of councillors?
Jim McMahon
As with LGR, devolution is locally led, so it is for local areas to come to Government to say, “We have a broad agreement that we want to be in talks about devolution.” We then bring that into a programme and speak to the Treasury about financing that programme, which is where we got to yesterday, so this is great news for the 10 areas that are in scope. The next stage is a consultation, probably around December, and then local authorities will be taking local decisions to form the strategic authority, probably in February and March. Once they have done that, we will move the statutory instruments—the legislation—here in the House.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Councils across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have worked collaboratively throughout the whole local government reorganisation process, even when they have disagreed. I have long advocated for our region to have three unitary councils, not just two, and I hope the Government will agree, but there are of course questions about where boundaries should lie. What avenues will be available, or are available, for councils to submit modifications to proposals if consensus can be built on improvements?
Jim McMahon
At the moment, we will be going on the proposals that we already have. If those proposals generally contain the type of outcome that my hon. Friend wants and we are minded to go with them, there is an opportunity during the “minded to” window to make representations: “Actually, those proposals could be improved if this modification were made.” If we accept that as an argument and want to make a modification order, we will then need to go through a separate consultation process. That will probably take a bit longer, but if it is the right thing to do, we should be open-minded about doing it.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government are not imposing local government reorganisation, and then say that the status quo is not an option. Is he fully aware of the chaos, cost and uncertainty that this indecision is causing in Worcestershire? If I understand correctly, we have local district council elections next year, a unitary election the year after, and maybe—for what mayoralty we do not know—a mayoral election. Does that make sense to him?
Jim McMahon
The pace of change is quick—we know that—but the economic and social requirements for that pace are vital. If we do not move quickly, we will have no chance of ensuring growth can reach every postcode in the country, which is our promise, and no ability to ensure the funding required for those who need social care, care in their local communities and vital neighbourhood services. It is, therefore, the right thing to do.
On the hon. Member’s point about whether we are imposing this, to be clear, the English devolution White Paper that was published in December 2024 invited councils to be part of the voluntary programme, and every one of the 21 outstanding counties applied.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Minister will know, because of the many times I have raised it with him and the Secretary of State, that there is still real concern in Peacehaven, Telscombe and East Saltdean, in my constituency, about the proposed merger into Brighton and Hove. Given today’s announcement and the “minded to” decision, can he explain a little more clearly how my constituents can feed in, during the three or four-week period, and how I can ensure their views continue to be heard?
Jim McMahon
At the moment, the proposal regarding the “minded to” decision is to expand the boundary of Brighton and Hove city council to include the communities of Saltdean and Peacehaven further down the coast. However, that is a “minded to” decision, so there is an opportunity for communities to make representations, alongside MPs. I give my hon. Friend credit for the representations he has already made on this over quite a long period.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I commend the Government on granting Cornwall, by exception, a single-authority FSA—foundation strategic authority—devolution deal. I have been proud to work with all of Cornwall’s MPs and the council leader on this, and Cornwall is very much relieved that it will not be merged with any other region. Will the Minister now meet all of Cornwall’s MPs to discuss how we can move to that mayoral suite of powers and funding, without a mayor, as new legislation comes before this House?
Jim McMahon
I understand that all MPs were invited to the meeting at No. 10 North about devolution, which is good news. That shows just how importantly we are taking this; it is a Government-wide priority and we are working across our different teams to ensure that it lands.
I hope the hon. Gentleman also recognises that, for Cornwall, we are working as hard as we can to recognise that different places are in different positions on devolution, but, ultimately, we want to complete the map, either through a foundation authority or through an MSA.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome yesterday’s announcement of a mayoral strategic authority for the geography of Devon. However, as the Minister is aware, cities that currently have district councils are the drivers of economic growth, jobs growth, house building and much else in their areas, but are currently locked out of sitting as full constituent members of mayoral strategic authorities. As we are looking at potential legislation regarding cities, can the Minister give some commitment to looking at whether cities, in advance of local government reorganisation, could sit as full constituent members of MSAs?
Jim McMahon
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the representations he has made on behalf of Exeter over a long period of time on this, both regarding reorganisation and devolution. He raises a very fair point, which is that we were trying to align reorganisation to be in place before devolution, but the fact is that those are now going to run to slightly different timetables. It raises a question: if this is about an economic project—which it is—the city economic drivers and the travel-to-work areas ought to have a voice in that. I cannot make commitments today, other than to say that I acknowledge the point my hon. Friend makes and will take it away.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Were he to consult a map, the Minister would understand that the Creator’s purpose in placing the estuary of the Test was to prevent, for government purposes, the eastern part of the New Forest from being treated as a suburb of Southampton.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
Peterborough is ambitious for growth and to improve life for our residents, so anything that extends this process risks knocking back some of that ambitious growth. I ask the Minister, can we do this as quickly as possible?
I think Peterborough is also unique in this process, in that we are already a unitary council and are being brought into a bigger process. We are consistently told that a decision has not been taken, but in July a review had already started. Can the Minister confirm whether any review has actually happened since the last one was started in July? Will it take a “minded to” decision for MPs, councillors and communities in Cambridgeshire to have a say on the options being considered?
Jim McMahon
With Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also with West Sussex, we are still earlier in the process, so we will confirm in writing what that will be. However, all decisions will be “minded to”. My hon. Friend makes a very strong case about the economic benefits of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and that being built on strong foundations. Also, I congratulate him on his appointment as the Government’s co-operatives champion; he has always been my co-operatives champion, but it is nice that he has been recognised.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The reason this local government reorganisation has been so appalling shambolic is that the Government made political decisions, as opposed to the right decisions. Reform in Lincolnshire welcomes the decision to pause there, but does the Minister understand that Reform in Warwickshire is concerned that the two-unitary proposal he is minded to accept will lead to the bankruptcy of both unitaries within a matter of years?
Jim McMahon
The “minded to” process will allow anyone in the area to make those points in representations. If there is new information that we have not considered, I would be happy to receive it.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I urge him to make a “minded to” decision as quickly as possible for Hampshire, and for that to include the creation of a north Hampshire unitary authority. It is right economically and for the delivery of public services, and has a coalition of charities and businesses behind it. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) in urging representation for districts—not just cities, but large towns such as Basingstoke—on the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority.
Jim McMahon
Hampshire was one of the areas where decisions were withdrawn earlier in September, so we will be reviewing that process. As I think I said before, it should not be assumed that, just because areas were in previous batches, that will be the order in which we will take them. We will confirm how we will batch those up, or not, in the coming weeks.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I did not think that the Minister could make things for people in Worcestershire even more confusing than they were. They just want their bins taken out, their roads maintained, enough school places, adult social care provision and a say in planning. But now I understand that we will have to get councillors elected to district councils again next May, that we will have to get councillors elected to a new shadow authority the following May, and that this new entity in the south of Worcestershire will now not be created until 2029. I just cannot see how that is going to benefit my residents.
Jim McMahon
The hon. Member makes the case as to why the district elections are important. We cannot have a situation in which there is a democratic deficit, where one part of the partnership in the reorganisation—the transfer of assets, workforce and liabilities, and the rest of it—does not have a say. As she says, the vesting day on this timetable will be April 2029. I am afraid that the idea that there should not be a democratic-mandate reset to negotiate that transfer just does not hold.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I will start by thanking the Minister for the part he played in getting the announcement of a strategic mayoral authority for Staffordshire over the line in time for yesterday’s Budget. However, despite the potential efficiency and simplicity gains of local government reorganisation, the shifting goalposts and the stop-start process have caused deep frustration in our county. Can the Minister confirm what the coming months will bring in terms of consultation with MPs, councillors and, most importantly, our constituents, so that they are clear on how they can again have their say over the future of our councils?
Jim McMahon
Now that the review has concluded, the individual meetings requested by a list of MPs will take place, and we will contact MPs in the usual way for those Monday sessions. Notwithstanding that, the “minded to” process will allow formal representations even beyond that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Still West Sussex waits, and we badly need certainty on the geography of the new authorities for my county. I cannot overstate how cash-strapped and fragile our public services are. The £500,000 to offset the cost of further delay is welcome, but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the amount of money that the Department has spent in the past two years on LGR. May I press the Minister again: how much has that cost?
Jim McMahon
As I say, all the localised costs of reorganisation are included in the financial profiles that councils send to the Government; councils themselves determine what type or form of arrangement they want to put forward for their area. Alongside the boundary proposal, they have to do a financial assessment of the transitional arrangements and the cash implications, and that is all set out in the proposals.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome today’s statement, the new transitional funding and the Minister’s work on this issue so far. My understanding is that Lancashire’s case for reorganisation is stronger and more robust than it was just a few months ago, if a little delayed. Can the Minister confirm today that this new window of engagement is an opportunity for Lancashire to remake its case for our future—we have had the very welcome announcement of a new mayor—and an opportunity for me to keep lobbying him for a smaller east Lancs unitary, and perhaps new electoral boundaries, rather than the existing county divisions?
Jim McMahon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his representations. It is probably fair to say that I cannot get through the voting Lobby without him making those representations, but he does so for the right reasons. He cares about the place that he represents, and he wants devolution in Lancashire to be a success. In that, we are entirely as one.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Like others in this House, I think it is fair to say that this whole process has been a shambles. Like many in the House, I come from a local government background, and I feel sorry for my councillors, my council and my residents for what they are having to go through. Having said that, the previous decision for Hertfordshire was wrong, so I appreciate that the Minister has taken the opportunity to reassess what Hertfordshire will do. Given that my community is a collection of small towns and villages, and we do not have a mayoralty, how will he ensure that my community is properly represented, whatever the outcome for Hertfordshire?
Jim McMahon
I will review not only the proposals that came forward, but the consultation that was carried out at the time, and I will test the assumptions. On one side, there is the idea that big is beautiful, and that having a single unitary will save money and all the rest of it; on the other side, there is the idea that local is better. In today’s debate, we have heard that there are very different views on that, and I tend to find that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I am trying to get a compromise that people accept, but clearly we cannot pre-empt the findings; we are coming at this with an open mind.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is right that all options proposed by Nottinghamshire authorities be looked at fairly and properly, so I welcome the Minister’s confirmation, but today’s update makes it clear that LGR is extremely complicated, should never have been a term-one priority, and has destabilised the very organisations on which we rely to deliver so many services. Having led a local authority, I cannot emphasise enough how big an impact this is having on our councillors and council officers, so I hope the Minister can clarify the situation. Are there scenarios in which “minded to” may mean that LGR does not go ahead? Are councils able to make representations to that effect, and who is being held accountable for the announcements on 16 July, which should never have happened?
Jim McMahon
To be clear, the invitation for areas to make submissions to the LGR process was entirely voluntary; there was no mandation. When councils submit a proposal, that initiates LGR. This is a Government-wide programme, but it is taking place because we have received proposals from local councils that we are now required to review. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about being mindful of the impact of the process on council officials and councillors.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister is a genial sort of fellow, and I want to believe him when he says that he wants to proceed by consensus. Will he accept that there is no consensus at all on splitting the New Forest and putting the Waterside under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton? Well over 30,000 people signed the petition to keep the forest together, and it was handed in at Downing Street on the very day that the Government rightly withdrew the plan for Hampshire.
Jim McMahon
Hampshire is an area that we will look at afresh, just as we will look afresh at other decisions. I have not predetermined what might happen, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This is an imperfect process, but ensuring that the decision reflects community identity is definitely at the back of my mind.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the Minister said, LGR and devolution are intrinsically linked, so it came as a bit of a surprise to read on page 66 of the Red Book that Surrey is apparently in advanced talks with the Government over a new strategic mayoralty, because those talks have not involved any of the local MPs and have apparently entailed only a 10-minute phone call with the new unitary authorities for Surrey on Monday evening. In the spirit of consensus and correspondence, can we make sure that before this goes any further, those unitary authorities and the local MPs are fully consulted?
Jim McMahon
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about consultation. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), and I have done a lot to engage with local government, and many of our drop-in sessions have been about devolution, so I push back on the idea that we have not done that, but we could always do more. Further talks might be required, but let us not detract from the benefit of this multibillion-pound investment to our communities. As local MPs, surely the reason we come here is to make sure that our areas get their fair share.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I agree that merging six district councils and one county council into one unitary authority for 650,000 people is a good idea—it has a lot of efficiency. In Worcestershire, we have 630,000 people, six district councils and one county council. How on earth did the Minister come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to split the county council in two and have a north-south divide in a county smaller than Gloucestershire?
Jim McMahon
We do not align the decision on one county with the entirely separate legal decision on the county next door; all we can do is act on the basis of the proposals we receive. These are not always easy decisions, and they are always a matter of balancing competing interests. As I said, I have not yet seen a perfect proposal, but we are trying to get to the best possible solution in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and all the other places that we have mentioned today. We are in the middle of the “minded to” process, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, I would be very happy to receive them.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Minister knows, because we have discussed this many times, that the boundaries of historical counties and cities are very different from local government boundaries, and I am pleased that he has said today that city status is preserved, as are ceremonial matters. Will he finally allow historical and ceremonial counties to be as one, in order to avoid confusion, and so that we in Romford can have our Essex identity, regardless of local government boundaries? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that there is no plan to merge the London borough of Havering with other east London boroughs to create some sort of super east London council?
Jim McMahon
I think I have enough on my plate without taking that on.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
There seems to be some confusion on both sides of the House about the next steps for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; perhaps the Minister can clarify. He said that the process was in its early stages, so Cambridgeshire will still receive written confirmation of what the options are. He also appeared to confirm that despite the fact that the four options tabled will be selected, they could later be modified by councils, if they saw fit, and taken forward. Could he clarify that that is the process, and clarify the criteria under which that decision will be taken?
Jim McMahon
We published the criteria at the start of the process, and those criteria stand. They are unweighted; the idea is that they give us the freedom to take into account that England is very diverse, and what is right for one county might not be right for another. In the end, decisions have to be as sustainable as possible. They have to balance efficiency and identity, and these are not easy decisions.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the opportunity for a modification proposal, we are now receiving proposals, and there is no additional window to do that. Also, consultations have already been carried out. However, there will be a “minded to” process for all these decisions, so that he and others can make representations. In the case of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also West Sussex, I am very happy to confirm the details by writing to Members shortly.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
As many Members have said, this process has been a shambles, but I welcome the “minded to” approach, and the fact that people have time to give their views. Although I want this process sorted quickly, the timetable has to be long enough for a real consultation. Bear in mind that all local government has to give proper due notice of its meetings, and of what will be on the agenda, so that the public can come and have their say. I am not at all sure that three weeks is long enough. Will the Minister please look at having a timetable that makes it practical for local authorities and local people to properly make their representations?
Jim McMahon
The way we approach “minded to” decisions is not to assume that the council will be the conduit for every view in an area. In a single area, there may be very different views from different political groups, local charity organisations and other public service providers. The deliberate intention is for councils, local residents, the business community and whoever has an interest to make representations, and our view is that three weeks ought to be enough time to do so.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Six weeks ago, the Government announced that they were scrapping the local government reform proposals for Essex and going back to the drawing board. That announcement created yet more uncertainty and further paralysed decision making, yet the Minister has not even mentioned Essex, and he has provided no additional clarity whatsoever. How can he expect elections to go ahead in 2028, when we will not even know what authorities the candidates will be elected to until next year?
Jim McMahon
I definitely accept the right hon. Member’s point that having an itinerary of areas, with a clear date alongside them, would do what he has asked, but that is not where we are. We have decided that we ought to confirm the decision for an area as soon as possible, rather than waiting for this to be patched up, in the way that may have happened previously. On whether elections should go ahead, I have made the point that these district councils will be in place until the vesting days of the new local authorities. We cannot have elections being cancelled, creating a democratic deficit. Councils must have representatives around the table, with a mandate given to them by the public.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the two unitaries serving my constituency, are unanimous in wanting to maintain the status quo, as are the four MPs across the area. The Minister’s predecessor announced that that would be the case. Could he enlighten us as to why he is further delaying and continuing the uncertainty?
Jim McMahon
The hon. Member is almost suggesting that the further delay is for the sake of delay, but new decisions have to be taken. When I review previous decisions, I am not just saying, “Well, we’ll just allow them to go through.” We are withdrawing decisions entirely for areas, and we will make new decisions from the point of proposal, with a consultation and based on fresh evidence. He says that his is a compelling proposal, and asks why we would think otherwise, and what he proposes may well be the outcome, but it would be wrong to predetermine it.
Personal Statement
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement. Following a complaint to Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme by a former member of my constituency staff, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Independent Expert Panel have found that, on three occasions in February 2025, I breached Parliament’s bullying and harassment policy. I accept those findings in full.
At a small gathering to thank my former colleague for her work establishing the constituency office, I initiated a hug. I assumed that she was content to be hugged, but I did not ask, and the hug was unwelcome to her. Later that month, while out of the office, intending to join an online meeting that was not in my diary, I took my former colleague’s phone from her hand without her consent to join that meeting. She immediately challenged me and took the phone back. It was not mine to take. The next day, two calls between my former colleague and me were ended abruptly while I was trying to find the venue for a constituency appointment—one of them deliberately by me, after I entered a live church service. Regrettably, I never explained why these calls had ended, as I ought to have done.
As a result of these behaviours, my former colleague was upset and humiliated. My behaviour had a real and continuing impact on her and her family, and I am truly sorry for this. I was the employer of my former colleague. There was an imbalance of power between us, and I was not sufficiently alert to it, as the behaviour code requires. The responsibility for behaving in a way that was mindful of that imbalance was mine, not hers. I also recognise that behaviour like this could well impact on somebody who is vulnerable, whether or not it is known that they are vulnerable. That is why respect and courtesy must come first in every interaction I have with others.
Since these events, my approach has changed. I am more alert to the need for sensitivity to those I work with. I have undertaken further training, including one-to-one training. Going forwards, I will be mindful of the need for both courtesy in my dealings with staff, including in times of stress, and for my personal attention when staffing problems arise. I made mistakes, and I breached the policy. I apologise unreservedly to my former colleague and to this House.
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
This Budget must be bewildering to members of the Prime Minister’s party. He promised them a “circuit breaker”, an end to “40 years of neoliberalism” and a “new political model”. Instead, it is all gherkins and aubergines. The Defence Secretary, who is sitting on the Front Bench, is probably wondering the same as everyone else: was that it? To be honest, he is probably thinking he would have done a better job, and he might be right. It is not too late: if he resigns again, he might get his chance to be the Chancellor.
All the while, Britain has a debt problem, Britain has a defence problem, Britain has a growth problem, and apparently, as we learned yesterday, there is nothing the Chancellor can do. On the big challenges, what has this Budget actually done? It does not reduce borrowing; total debt has gone up. It does not properly fund defence; the Government still have not set out how 3% will be funded. It does not cut taxes to get the economy growing; instead, they are putting up taxes again.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says this country has a defence problem. Could he elaborate on the context of that defence problem, and perhaps reflect on the fact that it may have something to do with the under-investment that has left the Army with unprecedented levels of poor morale and left British soldiers unequipped to do their basic job of defending our country?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions should be short and sharp, and questions should be to the point.
Andrew Griffith
If time allows, I will be very happy to go into great detail about our record on defence. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we were proud to stand with the people of Ukraine, and to reboot the funding for defence. The test that the Chancellor failed was not my test; it was his own test. It was the Chancellor who resigned because the previous Chancellor and Prime Minister would not give our armed forces the proper funding for our defence.
Yesterday we needed decisive action, and all the Government delivered was a Budget of ducked decisions. The Chancellor has taken to heart the idea of, “Why do today what you can put off to next year or the year after?” Let us be clear that, as a result, Britain will be less secure, less fair and poorer for it.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The shadow Chancellor says we will be less secure. After 14 years of Tory Government, our armed forces were reduced to a size smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic wars. How secure were we during his time in power?
Andrew Griffith
Madam Deputy Speaker, I should make some progress, and we have got plenty of time to talk about defence—
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)
That is not an answer!
Andrew Griffith
No, no. I have a very good answer. In 2010, the Defence Secretary’s party wanted to reduce and cut further our armed forces. We were the party that will always stand behind our armed forces.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Griffith
Let me make some progress, because this debate is about the whole Budget. There will be plenty of opportunities to talk about defence, which we can come back to.
Let me give the Government some credit for some of the few positives in the Budget. The Chancellor was right to U-turn on his party’s manifesto commitment to equalise the youth rate of the minimum wage. One in six young people under this Government—shame on them—are looking for a job and cannot find one. Equalising the youth minimum wage would have made a desperately tough situation harder. He should have gone further and halved the jobs tax for young people as we would have done.
The Chancellor was also right to ignore those on his Back Benches who wanted to raise capital gains tax. In fact, it was not just the Back Benchers; the Defence Secretary was also calling for that. Thank goodness the Chancellor did not listen to him. It would have meant many more wealth creators joining the thousands who have fled our country under Labour.
The public were not asking for much from this Budget and yet even their lowest expectations have not been met. Ordinary people wanted the Government to get a grip on out of control welfare spending. They wanted a Budget that properly funded defence. They wanted the Government to tackle the deficit, with tax cuts for their families to be better off. That would have been real breathing space. Against all and any of those tests, the Budget has comprehensively failed.
It could have been a moment when a Chancellor resolved to live within our means. Instead, this Government will have added—do they know the number?—more than £300 billion-worth of borrowing over the course of this Parliament. Borrowing is up in every single year of the forecast. The national debt now stands at the equivalent of £100,000 for every household and it is set to grow by a quarter in the next five years. Britain is walking along a fiscal cliff edge and the Government have decided that this is the moment to close their eyes.
Yesterday, the OBR confirmed that the Government are spending £124 billion a year on interest alone—up £14 billion and more than the Government spend on defence, policing and prisons combined. That money goes straight out of the door to our creditors. It was so out of control that the Bank of England, in the run-up to this Budget, was forced to make an extraordinary £200 billion intervention to try to reduce the cost and still the 30-year gilt rates rose above 6%.
It is not fair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not fair to our children or to their children. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road for future generations of taxpayers. Instead of getting a grip, the Chancellor doubled down. He repeated his predecessor’s mistakes and cut the fiscal headroom to just £15 billion, the equivalent of just three-and-a-half days of public spending. Is that recklessness why the Defence Secretary want us all to have three days’ worth of stockpiled food? The Chancellor said in his conference speech that
“these levels of debt are an assault on our common sense, they are an affront to our values.”
That was just a month ago, so what has changed? He is now raising debt in every single year of the forecast. A month ago, it was an affront to his values; now it is front and centre in his Budget.
The Prime Minister may not care about the debt we hand on to the next generation, but he really ought to. And so should Labour’s faithful little helpers, the Liberal Democrats, who are so enraptured by Europhilia, so desperate to crawl back into the clutches of Brussels, that they have not noticed a glaring problem: the nation’s figures are so poor that we could not rejoin the EU even if we wanted to. EU rules say that a member country’s national debt should be under 60% of GDP, yet the UK is approaching 100%. The EU’s deficit limit is 3%, yet the UK’s is one-and-a-half times that.
Despite all that debt, the Chancellor still has not found the money to properly fund 3% of GDP on defence. We welcome that the Government are finally funding their own defence investment plan, but it is not good enough.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware that while defence spending when Labour left office in 2010 was 2.5% of GDP, it fell below 2% under the Conservative Government and is now set to rise to 3.5%? Does he understand the correlation between Labour Governments and increased defence spending?
Andrew Griffith
The Labour Whips have clearly been doing their history lessons, but history lessons are not going to defend our country. The threat is real. The Defence Secretary is running around telling us to put food under our beds and to store water. The issue is now and that is why the Chancellor himself resigned as Defence Secretary, saying that funding below 3% was inadequate. Nobody challenges that.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is an element of agreement, because in our Budget yesterday we agreed to get to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, as did the hon. Gentleman’s mini-budget back in 2022. But does he agree that the difference between our Budget and his budget is that we will actually get to the spending review next year to be able to deliver it, and that it will last longer than 47 days?
Andrew Griffith
Labour Members try so hard, but the hole in their Budget is gaping wide open. The problem is that it is not just us on the Opposition Benches who can see that hole, but our adversaries around the world, leaving ourselves open. Not properly funding our armed forces is not going to scare anyone in Moscow and it will not deter Tehran.
The Defence Secretary has resigned once before, so we know he is not against resigning. Perhaps he could resign again on principle today. We on this side of the House are used to Labour breaking their promises, but to break the promises they made to our armed forces is a new low. If the Chancellor had any dignity, he would have resigned yesterday.
Despite their failure to fund defence, the Government have still raised the tax burden to the highest level on record—higher than in the aftermath of world war two and higher than even the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) raised it. Who remembers how this Government had no plans to put up taxes? How is that working? For the third Budget in a row, the tax burden is set to rise. All told, taxes are going up by a total of £75 billion a year: higher next year, higher the following year and higher in every single year of the forecast. Even the Prime Minister’s former economic adviser, Andy Haldane, now says that Britain is “taxed out”. He also called the Chancellor “penny wise, pound foolish”. I am not even sure about the penny wise bit, to be honest. And where will that money come from? Families, small businesses, the self-employed, farmers, the people who work hard and want to get ahead. Why? To pay for those who do not—those who could work, but choose not to.
The damage does not just stop with the tax bill itself. It is the disincentives in the economy that do the most harm. Two years ago, the then Chancellor stood at that Dispatch Box and raised taxes on jobs. Now, we are in a jobs crisis, with over 170,000 jobs lost since July 2024, all because Labour does not understand that if you tax something, you get less of it. Now it is raising taxes on the banks, which provide mortgages, loans to small businesses and pay interest to savers. The Chancellor might think it is just a bank tax, but we know that, like every tax, it will end up being paid by ordinary working people: higher mortgages, lower returns on savings and bank branch closures in every constituency and every high street, and fewer jobs in this country.
The Budget also contains a vindictive tax rise on people who have done the right thing, those who have done what Governments have always told them to do and what this Government want them to do: save money. Yet for many, up to 49p in every pound of interest on hard-earned savings will now be taken by the Chancellor. It is the same story with landlords, who have already come under attack from this Government, and the OBR says that rents will go up as a result.
Of all that the Budget was missing, the lack of welfare reform stands out the most. Or at least, so we thought—because this morning the Chancellor told the BBC that there will be welfare cuts before the election. Perhaps a Treasury Minister could come to the House and clean up the Chancellor’s mess. His Budget has not even survived 24 hours.
Last week, the Prime Minister called the benefits bill a moral outrage; he was right then, but he is not doing anything about it now, because Labour Members are too afraid to say, “Enough is enough.” They do not have the courage to get a grip on welfare, because they are worried that it would cost them their jobs. Thanks to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, we know that for more than half of all Labour MPs, the number of benefit claimants in their constituencies is larger than their majority. It is true for the Chancellor, it is certainly true for the Defence Secretary, and it is true for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. They will not get welfare under control because it would cost them their seats—they are putting their own interests before the country’s. [Interruption.] I am making progress. Don’t you worry—I am doing very well, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Fascinated as we all are, there are many people hoping to contribute this afternoon, so I hope the shadow Chancellor will be concluding soon.
Andrew Griffith
I read that the Budget had the most measures in it of any Budget, but also that they were the most inconsequential. I will try to crack through a few other things. [Interruption.] Labour Members are all chuntering, but I will tell you who else’s interests they are putting first: the trade unions.
While the Government are raising taxes on everybody else, they are handing out more than £40 million over the next two years to a union learning fund. I cannot even begin to imagine what they will be learning: how to run rings around the Health Secretary; what to do with those extra days off from working a four-day week; how to keep public sector pay rises twice as high as the private sector—[Interruption.] The Defence Secretary says, “How to keep the Conservatives out.” That is probably about right—that is probably exactly what they are doing! It is a political bung to their political allies. It is ridiculous. While families face tough choices in a cost of living crisis, this Government use their Budget to tax people and hand money to the trade unions.
It was not just the Budget we heard yesterday; we also heard the figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and they really do show us just how bad things are. For the first time ever, the Government are planning to spend over 45p in every £1 in the economy. Government spending goes up every year of the forecast, debt is up every year of the forecast, and it is official: living standards are down. Real household disposable incomes are set to be lower next year than when Labour took office—£1,500 lower at the end of this Parliament than they were forecast to be under the Conservatives. It is not hard to understand why: inflation is up, interest rates are soaring and unemployment is up again.
The one-off £100 that the Government are putting into bank accounts will not touch the sides for most people, given the cost increases. The only thing that will put us on a path out of decline and deficits is growth. The Conservatives understand the value of growth. The Prime Minister has got his history entirely wrong. The mistake this country made was not to choose markets over socialism in 1979—it was not electing Mrs Thatcher—but giving up all that we achieved in the ’80s and ’90s.
In conclusion—Madam Deputy Speaker is very firm, so I will conclude—this Budget will go down as one of history’s great missed opportunities. It was an opportunity to undo not 40 years of neoliberalism, but the damage of the first two years of this Government—the mistakes made by the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, who is now busy job hunting and discovering for the first time what it is like to receive rejection after rejection. Yesterday was a chance to put Britain back on the right track, and the Chancellor blew it. Higher taxes, higher spending, higher borrowing; lower growth, lower living standards, fewer jobs—I hope the Chancellor kept the receipt for the Budget, because I think he is going to want to return it.
The British people know that this is not the Budget we need. This is a great country whose potential is being held back. We have a Chancellor who ducks his choices, and a Prime Minister who wants to take us back to the 1970s. We cannot tax and regulate our way to growth. National security really does matter more than social security, and only by tackling the deficit can we back away from the fiscal cliff edge and do the right thing by future generations.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)
I am proud to open this Budget debate on behalf of the Government, proud of the leadership of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor, who is offering this country breathing space today and fresh hope for the future.
Before I turn to that, I need to talk about the threat this country faces—one that sabotages our economy, pushes out misinformation and attempts to undermine people’s trust in government. For once, I am not talking about the Russians, but the Trussian, not least the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who I fear is part of a Trussian sleeper cell operating in the shadows of the Conservative party. He did not say much about his plans today, but I do not think we do not need to look very far. In fact, there is a book out that tells us all about the secret plans he is no doubt saving up for the next manifesto: “Bank Job”, it is called, written by one Liz Truss. The shadow Chancellor knows her well; it is the Liz Truss for whom he helped write the mini-Budget, which crashed our economy and damaged Britain’s reputation, and which he still says contained, “lots of good things.” Maybe that is why, when I tried to obtain a copy of “Bank Job” this morning, I found that there were no copies available in bookshops for miles around. Presumably, the shadow Chancellor has gone around and bought them all up, just in case someone finds out exactly what the Trussians stand for.
Because that is the danger, Madam Deputy Speaker: they walk among us, the Trussians, hiding in plain sight— deep-cover sleeper agents masquerading as responsible fiscal Conservatives. But we will not be fooled. We remember when the shadow Chancellor cheered Truss on, and we all know the consequences of their misjudgements. If we are not careful, the Trussians will be coming—they are already winding up to play their own game of roulette with our public finances once again.
All joking aside, I think it is genuinely appalling that the arsonists have the audacity to complain as the firefighters are clearing up their mess—never forgive, never forget, and never let the Tories do it again. In fact, in one of the low points of an otherwise dull and inaccurate contribution to this Chamber, the shadow Chancellor had the audacity to level low blows against my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Let me point out that, despite the economic global shocks that this country faces, along with security threats of a kind that we have not faced in generations, earlier this month the IMF upgraded its growth forecast for Britain for 2026. It said that the UK “stands out” among G7 nations, and it credited the Government’s responsible approach to handling the public finances. That is the legacy of my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to her leadership, her experience and her hard-headed stewardship of our economy. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can tell that the Defence Secretary has had his Weetabix, because he is very loud at the Dispatch Box—but he has to be loud, because there is so much heckling. Can everybody just calm down a little bit?
Wes Streeting
They can shout all they like, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that the former Chancellor restored the confidence of the markets after the Conservatives trashed Britain’s reputation with their catastrophic mini-Budget. She created the platform for our Labour Government to invest in public services, protect the most vulnerable, foster innovation and navigate the headwinds of the last two years. During her time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey established a record that the Conservative Front Bench could not begin to touch. Those are the facts.
None the less, against the backdrop of the enormous challenges this country faces, the Chancellor, as he set out yesterday, is taking action to tackle the cost of living and give households breathing space today: help for 20 million households to heat their homes this winter; freezing fuel duty to keep prices down at the pump; helping with the everyday cost of the weekly shop so that people have more money in their pockets; action on energy bills; and the minimum wage, the national living wage and the state pension all going up to help people out. No one is suggesting that these measures solve everything for everyone, everywhere, all at once, but people can see that we are doing everything we can, as fast as we can, to give them breathing space today and fresh hope for the future; to show that this Government and this Prime Minister have got their backs; and to show that we can still do big things as a nation, that Government can make a difference to people’s lives, and that Britain is a country we can still believe in.
That is important, as we look beyond the optimism of the first 100 days of this new Government and our new Prime Minister to the brighter future that lies ahead for our country if we make the right choices. Yes, we face great challenges, but the character of a nation is not defined by the challenges it faces, but how it chooses to respond to them. And be in no doubt: it is a choice. We choose not to be daunted by the scale of the challenge, but to be motivated by it—to face the future not with fear, but with confidence, and to choose hope. We choose it because we know what hope can do.
Look at what this Labour Government have delivered in the past two years: half a million children out of poverty; waiting lists down by a quarter of a million; the asylum backlog down 60% in a year; small boat crossings at their lowest in six years; the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year; free breakfast clubs feeding 680,000 children; six train operators brought back into public ownership; and defence spending up by £14 billion compared with the Conservatives’ final year in office. Lots done and lots more still to do, but so many reasons to believe that our best days lie ahead.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As the Defence Secretary is talking about defence spending, could I just point him to paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 on page 31 of the Red Book? I am sure that one of his Treasury colleagues will have a copy. He will see that £10.3 billion of that spending is funded by reprioritisation, alongside £4.7 billion, £3 billion of which is from capital cuts elsewhere and £1.7 billion from the reserve. He will, of course, get the £1.7 billion from the reserve, but has he been told by the Treasury where that £3 billion of capital savings is coming from? How much of it, if any, is coming from his Department? Can he assure the House that the Government are on track on the more than £10 billion of efficiencies, given that the Institute for Government and many others say that it is highly unlikely to be delivered?
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely confirm that thanks to the responsible choices made by the Chancellor and his predecessor, we have headroom to weather shocks, and the Chancellor is drawing on that. On capital budget reprioritisation across Government, it is absolutely true to say that across the Cabinet, Ministers have been willing to prioritise within their own capital programmes in order to fund defence. We can be absolutely clear, beyond any doubt, that this is a Chancellor, a Prime Minister and a team who choose to prioritise defence. I bet the right hon. Gentleman wishes that he made the same choices when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, instead of leaving our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”.
It was another great Healey—my predecessor, Denis Healey—who said that without strong defences,
“we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
The first duty of any Government—to keep our country safe—is a greater and more urgent challenge now than it has been for generations. The gravest dangers of the 20th century are returning, armed with the technologies of the 21st. Britain faces growing threats from state-sponsored terrorism, sabotage and hostile acts that are designed to disrupt our lives, undermine our security and spread fear.
Yesterday, the Chancellor gave his response to those threats at this Dispatch Box, delivering more support to the frontline for freedom in Ukraine, plugging the £4.7 billion gap in the defence investment plan and confirming our unshakeable commitment to NATO to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. But he went even further, with a new target reflecting Labour’s commitment to fund defence spending at 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the commitment the Chancellor made at this Dispatch Box yesterday. That is a record the Conservatives cannot even begin to touch—
Wes Streeting
But I look forward to the hon. Gentleman defending the indefensible.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I just wanted to bring the Defence Secretary back to his comments about the defence investment plan and its being fully funded. According to the Red Book, there is a reallocation of capital spending that is £145 million this year and £2.1 billion next year. Can the right hon. Gentleman outline where that reallocated capital spending will come from?
Wes Streeting
I have just set that out. It is there in the Budget. The Government have reallocated from capital programmes across Government to ensure that defence is fully funded.
It is disappointing, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has become a running theme of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. When we sat on the Opposition Benches, I remember that Keir Starmer always made a virtue of standing with the Government on issues of national security and defence. We provided constructive challenge where we needed to, but we stood with the Government. This lot cannot help but try and score petty party political points at the expense of defence and national security.
What is even more extraordinary is the enormous brass neck of the Opposition, considering their record. Just look at it: we had the smallest army since the Napoleonic wars; every single recruitment target was missed; morale fell to a record low of 40%; almost every equipment programme was over budget or behind schedule, and often both; and defence spending faced a real-terms cut between 2010 and 2024, falling from 2.5% of GDP to 2.3%. [Interruption.] In the words of their own Defence Secretary, the armed forces were left “hollowed out and underfunded”. [Interruption.] And now the Conservatives have the audacity to turn up and criticise a Labour Government who are investing more, investing more quickly, and cleaning up their mess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, this is not good behaviour. After yesterday, Mr Cartlidge, I thought you would have had a much quieter voice. I cannot hear the Secretary of State. Can we just let him continue?
Wes Streeting
I am trying to make my voice heard from the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I have said from my first day as Defence Secretary, I trust this Chancellor to give us what we need to keep our country safe, and yesterday demonstrated why. His Budget proves why Labour can be trusted on defence—[Interruption.] It does say that here, because I wrote it. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. That was Labour’s record before the Budget; this Budget takes us even further, and next year’s spending review will take us further still. What a contrast with the abysmal record of failure staring us in the face from the Opposition Benches.
I appealed in my first statement to this House for national unity on national security. It is important that our allies and our adversaries know that we agree far more than we disagree. We all believe that we should spend more on defence; we all believe that we should stand with Ukraine; we all believe that we should invest in homeland security. What a pity, then, that the Leader of the Opposition and her ragtag band of political vandals choose to play politics with national security. For the Opposition to do that in the current environment is bad enough; to do so with their abysmal record in government takes some brass neck.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Wes Streeting
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wants to defend that record.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he will be aware that there is no plan to ensure that that 2030 target is met. At a time when we have short-term cuts in operational spending, the Secretary of State must feel a certain amount of disappointment that we do not have a firm plan in place, because if the Treasury do not sign off the numbers, then nothing really happens. That is true, is it not?
Wes Streeting
I just do not know what the Opposition have to moan about. We came into government with the abysmal inheritance that we faced, and we chose straightaway to invest more in defence to clean up their mess. We have now gone even further than the NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 by choosing to set our own target of 3% by 2030. That is not just about the future; it is built on our record in our first two years.
Defence spending has gone from 2.3%—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the Defence Secretary give way?
Wes Streeting
In a moment. Just so that we are clear, we have gone from spending 2.3% of our GDP on defence when we came into office to spending 2.7% next year. It is very clear that we are on the right trajectory. That is not a record that they can speak to. I do not know how they can be so shameless—
Mr Francois
If it is true that the Defence Secretary has a plan for 2030, I ask him why the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee said yesterday in reaction to the Budget:
“some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, may I point out that there are many people wishing to contribute? Hopefully his speech will be coming to a conclusion shortly.
Wes Streeting
I have been too generous with allowing interventions, but let me take that point head on. I think that is completely unfounded criticism—
Wes Streeting
I don’t care if he is the Chair of the Defence Committee. I would say it directly to him, and I am sure I will get the chance to say it to the entire Committee. It would be fair criticism if this Government had not already made decisions that are leading to the fastest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—not in future years but already, on the basis of our first two years in power. The Chair of the Defence Committee is a good friend, and I am sure that, just as I can take his criticism on the chin, he will take mine. I will gladly accept criticism where I think it is fair, but I robustly reject it where I think it is wrong.
I have referred to the Conservatives’ record of 14 years in power. Let me contrast that with what I have presided over in the last 14 weeks: armed forces recruitment showing its longest run of growth for half a decade; 400 contracts signed, worth £4 billion; £400 million for spy drones for the Army; £135 million for Royal Navy torpedoes; £700 million for next-generation fighter jets; over £8 billion for our nuclear submarine fleet; and the UK’s sixth attack submarine and first ever space squadron launched. We have returned gun barrel manufacturing to the UK for the first time in decades; we are backing British industry to build the docks for our nuclear subs; we have increased monitoring of Russian vessels in the English channel; provided 50,000 apprenticeship opportunities for young people; welcomed record-breaking investment in Scotland; deployed our armed forces to help Saudi Arabia defend itself from Houthi attacks; bolstered support for Ukraine; and signed a landmark AI deal to access cutting-edge battlefield data. We have strengthened our NATO alliances, as I have visited Washington, Paris, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Reykjavík and Kyiv. We have mobilised with our allies in the Ukraine defence contact group, the E5 and the joint expeditionary force, and hosted our friends from Italy, Japan, Canada, Australia, Qatar and Oman as well as the NATO Secretary-General. And in case the Conservatives missed it, as their party leader seemed to yesterday, on top of the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, we have set out our target to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. That is our record, and it is a record that the Conservatives cannot begin to touch.
This is a Government who actually put our money where our mouth is—strengthening our armed forces, alliances and industrial base, and backing Britain by buying British. That is how to defend this country—not with the gimmicks and grandstanding of the Conservatives but by making this country ready with our allies to fight and win so that our adversaries think twice about launching an attack in the first place.
The truth is that this is a more dangerous world, and that makes greater investment essential. Delivering what the Chancellor announced yesterday requires choices and trade-offs. We will ensure that every pound that we invest is well spent and creates jobs and opportunities—not just a Ministry of Defence but one of growth and opportunity. We will help to deliver the Prime Minister’s domestic agenda—stronger regional economies, a rebuilt industrial base, good jobs and better opportunities for the next generation. We will have a more resilient United Kingdom built by the British people to keep Britain safe.
Spending on our defence is a measure of our commitment, but capability is a measure of our credibility. That is what this Labour Budget does, rooted in our values. It gives breathing space to working people. It gives us fresh hope for the future, and it strengthens the security on which we all depend. Building a Britain ready to fight and building a country worth fighting for—that is our record and plan. That is why I am proud to stand at this Dispatch Box and commend the Budget to the House.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
After years of government chaos and failure we can only end the brutal cost of living crisis and fix our broken public services if we get the economy growing. We need a real growth plan with Europe at its heart, so Labour must fix the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal by joining the single market, negotiating a new customs union and using the billions of pounds that that raises to cut people’s taxes and bills.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He should have listened to what I said in the previous 30 seconds. What I said was that we need to join the single market and negotiate a new customs union. I did not say that we need to rejoin the European Union.
First, Liberal Democrats would fix the biggest brake on our economy: the botched Brexit deal. It has put up barriers for every business that trades with our largest market. Small firms in Maidenhead tell me that they now spend more time filling in forms than filling in orders. Some have simply given up trading with Europe altogether. That is lost trade, lost jobs and lost revenue. We would rip up the Government’s red lines and build a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, including the single market and a new customs union.
We would grow our economy. According to independent research, those measures would bring in £27 billion a year in extra tax revenue by the end of the Parliament. We would give those proceeds back to the people who earned it by raising the tax-free personal allowance to £15,000 and raising the higher rate threshold to £56,000, taking 2.5 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether and putting £650 back in people’s pockets. It was the Liberal Democrats who raised the personal allowance before. We can do it again. That is how to cut taxes responsibly—we grow our way there.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman wish to add his thanks to the Chancellor for the new low-income tax-free allowance for pensioners, which will ensure that they can keep their state pension and hard-earned pension?
Mr Reynolds
I think the hon. Lady will find that there is an anomaly within the Chancellor’s proposals: a 54% tax rate for certain pensioners on certain incomes. I do not necessarily believe that a 54% tax rate for pensioners is the right thing to be doing.
Secondly, Liberal Democrats would make fairer choices about who pays. This Budget goes back once again to savers. Tax on savings and property income go up by another two points. That is on top of the two points that were announced last year. The retired couple who have put money away all their lives and the family who are saving for their deposit will be taxed more. The Government are giving savers a little with one hand while taking with another.
There is a fairer option, though. Because of the high interest rates and the way that the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme works, the Treasury is handing billions of pounds over to the big banks every year. That is a windfall that the banks did nothing to earn. It is a windfall that they keep, and businesses in our villages and towns are paying the price. Our plan to claw back some of that money would raise £5 billion a year on average. That has never been needed more. As UKHospitality confirms, the hospitality sector pays 82p in business taxes for every £1 it makes. That is the highest amount paid by a sector in our economy and double that of the banks.
In my constituency, we have felt that more than ever. Last month, the Crown at Burchetts Green, ranked among the 50 best gastropubs in the country, closed its doors, with its owner blaming staff costs, rent, business rates and VAT. They said enough was enough. If a pub like that cannot make the numbers add up, what hope is there for cafés, restaurants and pubs across the country? That is why we would use some of the bank windfall tax to cut VAT for the hospitality sector, where it needs it most. The third thing we would do is take our security seriously.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
There is a slight irony in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He wants to cut VAT on pubs, yet he wants to get closer to the European Union, which would not allow us to cut VAT in our own country. Is there not a slight contradiction there?
Mr Reynolds
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is confusing rejoining the single market and customs union with rejoining the European Union.
I am glad that the Defence Secretary is in his place, because just days ago, he said that we need to be ready for war by 2030, within 1,000 days. I take that warning seriously, and I hope that his colleagues do, too. Yesterday, the Chancellor set the target for spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, and the plan to pay for that will come in next year’s spending review. The money needed for the issues and compromises that the Defence Secretary describes will not come until next year. No Government can meet a 1,000-day deadline on a funding plan that does not exist. That is why we Liberal Democrats have proposed defence bonds. Our plan would raise £20 billion over two years, ringfenced to rebuild our armed forces. That would start now, inside the Defence Secretary’s 1,000 days, and not after them.
Meanwhile, the Government are funding their defence investment plan by cutting budgets across Whitehall. Earlier this year, Departments were told to cut 1% from their capital budgets to pay for the first £10.3 billion of the DIP. For the remaining £5 billion, they must now find another 1% on top of that. As has already been mentioned, we do not know where the cuts will come from. Families right across the country want to know which capital projects are to be cut. Will it be the rebuilding of our crumbling schools or our leaking hospitals? Where will that money come from? We are asked to choose between security and growth, but we need both. The Government urgently need to make the case for defence bonds, so that we have the money to rebuild our defences as soon as possible. If we built that capacity alongside our European partners, every pound would go further, and support skilled jobs and British businesses in the supply chain.
We have also set out how to keep that investment going for the long term: through the digital services tax. We would raise the tax from 2% to 10%, bringing in billions of pounds a year from the tech and social media giants by 2030. They are some of the most profitable companies in the world, and they should pay their fair share. Our plan shows how, and it is fully costed. Defence bonds will provide the money up front, and the higher digital services tax would sustain that amount year after year. Together, they would pay for us to expand British shipbuilding and build more frigates to protect our waters.
Our European neighbours are investing billions in their defence industries, and Britain must be at the heart of that, not watching from the sidelines. We need our new growth and defence partnership with Europe—buying together, building together and defending our continent together—to ensure that British shipyards, engineers and factories win jobs and investments from European contracts. If we are shut out, those jobs go elsewhere.
This Budget is a holding pattern Budget; it is not the growth Budget that we all needed. There is a better way: growth with Europe; fairer taxes that ask the big banks, rather than hard-pressed savers, to pay their share; lower bills for every household; and a serious plan for our security. That is what fiscal responsibility looks like. We need to grow our economy, cut people’s bills and cut people’s taxes.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This Budget gives my constituents and people up and down the country much-needed breathing space and fresh hope for our long-term future. It tackles the big issues facing our country, from the cost of living pressures facing all our constituents to the need to bring growth back to our economy. The Chancellor was honest about the impact that the war in Iran has had on our economy, energy prices and supply chains. I remind the House that we Labour Members opposed that war, but the Conservatives supported it.
I will address the impacts of the Budget, first on my constituency, and then from my perspective as Transport Committee Chair. I am pleased that the Budget delivers for house building, and will mean more council and social housing, as too many families in Hounslow, Brentford and Isleworth live in temporary housing. There is also the new Your First Home scheme, which will support many who are earning, but do not have a deposit to get on the housing ladder. The Treasury listened, and raised the sale price cap for the scheme in London. I am grateful.
Over the past year, I have met businesses across my constituency, from restaurants such as Sam’s Waterside and coffee shops such as Ballucci in Isleworth and Hounslow to small specialist manufacturers Ormiston Wire and Newmont Engineering. Their common message has been that costs, particularly energy and business rates, are too high. I am therefore pleased that the Chancellor has committed to taking more businesses out of paying business rates—900 each in the Hounslow and Richmond boroughs—and frozen business rates for many more.
I know that to support businesses, we need to get more money into people’s pockets. Increasing the national living wage and the minimum wage, addressing energy bills, keeping commitments on tax and introducing the new pension tax allowance, among many other measures in the Budget, are all much welcomed by my constituents. I also welcome London now having the fiscal devolution that our city has long deserved, bringing it more into line with other world cities. It allows the mayor to kick-start projects across the capital, one of which is the West London Orbital, a much-needed rail line linking Hounslow to Hendon via Old Oak Common, opening up development and employment opportunities across a swathe of west to north London.
As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will mention several transport-related elements in the Budget that I welcome: the Government’s work to bring international rail services to Stratford, which will increase rail connectivity and choice; the work to address the costs for electric vehicle drivers using public charging points; and the decisions on fuel duty, which not only benefit car drivers but save a light goods vehicle driver £472 on average, and the average heavy goods vehicle driver nearly £4,000 per year. Given the impact that fuel prices are having on the critical logistics sector, we all end up benefiting from those changes.
Rail infrastructure costs far more to build per kilometre in the UK than in any equivalent economy; I refer to my Committee’s February ’26 report, “Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust”. I welcome the announcement of the review of rail infrastructure costs, and the publication of the more extensive infrastructure pipeline. The review’s terms of reference responded to many of the issues discussed in our inquiry, including investment certainty, with clarity about at what point costs are fully understood and when funding will be committed. That drives efficiency, safeguards workforces and enables skills planning. Investment certainty is certainly needed if we are to allay the concerns of the rail supply chain and its investors.
Although the Government review is restricted to rail, its scope is otherwise very similar to the scope of the Competition and Markets Authority’s review of road and rail procurement, so I want to know from the Government how the two will relate to each other. Strangely, in their response to our report, the Government denied that there was such a thing as boom and bust in investment; I hope that the review will be more open-minded on that front.
I am glad that the Chancellor has heard the pleas of the owners of airports and private rail infrastructure, such as St Pancras and High Speed 1, who are concerned about the exceptional and unpredictable rateable value increases. I hope that a rational and predictable system can replace the current mess, which is holding back long-term investment in our rail and aviation infrastructure.
I welcome the work that the Treasury is doing to enable the Prime Minister’s drive for devolution and partnership with local leaders. Northern Powerhouse Rail and a whole host of local transport projects will deliver local growth across Britain. Finally, the Chancellor is also backing British bus manufacturers, with a new look at bus procurement, which is very welcome indeed. I conclude by thanking the Chancellor for tackling the big issues that face our economy, and for a Budget that delivers both for constituents and for the whole economy.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important Budget debate. I listened to the Defence Secretary, and thought he absolutely embedded his comedic skills. Some of what he was saying would have been better said on “Have I Got News for You” than in this Chamber.
This Budget was a tragic lost opportunity to fix the fundamentals of the economy. Our debt is at a record level. The tragedy is that we are paying a higher interest rate than Greece on that debt—5.31%. That will add additional interest of £14 billion, just on that debt. If the amount that we are paying to service that debt were a Department, it would be the third largest. The budget for the Department for Work and Pensions is around £344 billion. That does not even cover the amount of income tax we raise in this country in total, which is £330 billion. In other words, income tax does not pay all our DWP bills. The second highest-spending Department has a budget of £226 billion. I welcome the Chancellor saying that he will meet his fiscal rules by the end of this Parliament, but that involves the national debt falling by the end of the Parliament. If I were a betting man, I would doubt very much that he will meet that rule.
One of the saddest things about our economy is that inflation is going up. Before Labour Members start to scoff at that, it is one of the most important measures of the lot, because it affects everything; it affects all our cost of living. Everything from our fuel costs to our energy and mortgage costs are affected by inflation, so the one thing we ought to be doing is trying to get the rate of inflation down. One of the saddest things about inflation is that my constituents, many of whom live off the gas grid, have to pay for heating oil, which has gone up by 75% in the last year. Imagine that for someone on benefits. In this Budget, they are getting very little help with meeting those costs.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has made his point well. Let us hope that is read into the record. Currently, 13% of 16 to 24-year-olds are not in employment, education or training. We should be focusing relentlessly on creating opportunities for young people and supporting businesses that employ them. Sadly, this Budget does not do that. When sickness benefits pay more than the minimum wage, what is the incentive to work? Sectors such as tourism and hospitality that provide opportunities in every part of the country and in every constituency, but especially in rural areas, face significant economic pressure, and nationally, at least one pub is closing a week. The rates relief offered by the Chancellor in this Budget may help by a minuscule amount, but that is unfortunately offset by the increase in the minimum wage, and the VAT costs that those businesses face.
I want to turn to the kernel of what the Defence Secretary was saying, and to defence. It was solemnly promised by this Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister that we would not only quickly get to spending 2.7% of GDP on defence, but would have a path to 3%. There is no path to 3%. The only path I can see is that departmental budgets will be cut, and it has not yet been tied down what services will be cut to pay for that 2.3% real cut in Departments. There was no clarity on this in the Budget yesterday. Surely if the Labour party and the Government keep boasting that they will go to 3%, the least they owe the British people is a path to get there—and it is not only the 3%, but the 3.5% in the following Parliament, which is a great deal of money.
Importantly, as General Sir Richard Barrons said recently, we do not own the clock. In other words, we do not know when our adversaries are likely to launch some form of attack on us, and we know that the Ministry of Defence is not able to place the orders it needs. To take the bigger equipment, when will the F-35s come? The Defence Secretary shakes his head. They are still in the queue; they cannot be manufactured for us because we have not given a solid commitment on when we want them. Those delays in procurement particularly affect some of our smaller defence companies, because they do not have the cash flow.
I mentioned artificial intelligence in an intervention yesterday. One of the most important things the Chancellor could have done for this country yesterday was provide a proper path to how every single Department will operate digital and AI more effectively, so that he could increase productivity. The machinery of government changes that the Government have undertaken in the last year do not give the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, any confidence that the Government have a real policy on digital and AI, and how they will produce mechanisms for using this technology properly.
A year ago, digital policy was in the Cabinet Office. It was then transferred to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but DSIT was abolished. Now it is in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—the Department which historically has been used to dealing with sport and culture, not the important matter of AI. Without this priority, it is difficult to see how the Government will make this digital policy work.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), as I said in an intervention yesterday, gave in his Budget a significant sum of £3 billion to the Department of Health and Social Care—the Defence Secretary’s former Department—to transform their digital equipment, that was the start of what we should have been doing for every single Department. I do not know how the Government will meet their efficiency targets unless they start to introduce proper AI and get rid of some of our legacy equipment, which, as the Defence Secretary knows only too well, is more vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
I turn to local government reform. I was pleased by the announcement this morning that Gloucestershire will be one unitary authority—that is good news—but our local authority will only get any increase in finances if we can come up with devolution. There was no link to how Gloucestershire will move from local government reorganisation into a strategy authority, and we need to have that. Otherwise, we will not be able to take advantage of some of those financial benefits.
On the civil service pension scheme, there is a good news story for which I praise the Government. We have had five hearings on the Public Accounts Committee into the dreadful mess that Capita has left that scheme in—five hearings where every single deadline has been missed. That is not good enough for the poor 1.7 million members of that scheme. The Government have done a good thing. Last week, I wrote to the Pensions Minister about a problem: if Capita did not pay out a lump sum within two years, scheme members would be taxed on that sum at the highest rate. The Minister met me fairly quickly, I raised it on the Floor of the House on Monday and—bingo!—I got a letter yesterday saying that the law was going to be changed in the Budget. I pay tribute to the Government and the Pensions Minister for that quick action. That was the just thing to do. Those pension scheme members will not have to keep worrying about whether they will get their full lump sum.
In conclusion, this is sadly a wasted opportunity, and we look forward to future Budgets actually giving us a path to a better economic future. One of the economic forecasts we had in the Budget yesterday was growth of 1.2%, which all the Government and the Chancellor are crowing about, but historically 1.2% is not enough to keep spending at the rate the Government are. We need more measures to help business and a proper taxation policy, and then this country will start to grow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Chris Webb.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Yesterday the Chancellor affirmed this Government’s commitment to good growth in every postcode. As the MP for a town that has been neglected by previous Governments, I welcome this investment in communities like mine because it is desperately needed. Through years of austerity and economic decline, places like Blackpool were asked to do more with less, again and again, until there was nothing left to cut. I believe that with the right investment and with local people in the driving seat, no community needs to feel left behind again.
Many of my constituents have already welcomed the cost of living measures this Budget set out. A £100 household energy payment for eligible households in council tax bands A to D means 97% of households in my constituency will feel that benefit. Freezing fuel duty rates and extending the 5p cut to July 2027, along with more generous mileage rates for people who use their own vehicles for work, will make a real difference to the Blackpool’s tradesmen and care workers alike. Taken together with a welcome increase in the minimum wage, these tangible changes will have an impact on my constituents’ pockets.
However, improving people’s lives also means improving their environment. People want to walk out their front doors and be proud of where they live, not be met by boarded-up buildings. High streets are the beating heart of our communities, and hard-working businesses should be able to thrive on them. The derelict buildings fund, announced alongside the Budget, lets us bring prominent long-term vacant buildings back into productive community or commercial use. After campaigning hard in this place for funding to tackle the blight of derelict buildings in Blackpool, I am delighted that we have been allocated £1.35 million from that fund. This is the type of investment we have to make count, and I will be leading on this work locally. I want local residents to tell me the buildings that matter most to them, or the projects to back that have the potential to transform the area. This fund is exactly what we mean when we talk about putting power back into every postcode, and it is another step towards building a better Blackpool.
It is right that this Labour Government have now committed more than £40 billion to the biggest house building programme in a generation, with an extra £1.5 billion committed in the Budget. At the end of last year, 11,844 people in Blackpool were waiting for social housing. I therefore urge Ministers not to overlook us, like their predecessors did, and ensure that we get a share of the additional homes to meet the scale of our need.
I welcome the Chancellor’s additional £432 million to ensure that people sleeping rough have a route off the streets. Figures from Blackpool council show that applications from people seeking help with homelessness in 2024-25 were running at nearly three times the national average. We must make sure that safe accommodation sits alongside the practical health, addiction and housing support that people need to rebuild their lives and stay off the streets for good.
We have fantastic homelessness and outreach organisations across Blackpool, such as Streetlife, whose youth advisory group I welcomed to Parliament last week. They told me that they need wraparound support and for us to see the whole person. Unfortunately, the odds have been stacked against our young people. We face serious concentrations of deprivation and poor health, and high demand on services for children and families. Blackpool currently supports nearly three times the national average of children in care.
Despite the immense pressure, Blackpool council has significantly improved its children’s services. We were recently graded outstanding by Ofsted, thanks to the tireless work of frontline staff and dedicated leadership from Councillors Jim Hobson and Kath Benson. The leader of Blackpool council, Councillor Lynn Williams, joined me in urging the Government to commit to a dedicated children and families transformation investment package for Blackpool, so that we can build on the work that has already been done to bring down the numbers of children in care. We stand ready to work with the Government to make our town a national example of prevention-led children’s services reform.
I have told this House on numerous occasions that I truly believe that when Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds. If we can fix the problems of a town at the sharp end of many statistics, we can fix them anywhere. We are now a town on the cusp of change. We have a wealth of creativity and culture and the ambition to be the city of culture in 2029. That could be the connecting tissue between all the areas of good work being done. In conclusion, breathing room is needed, and this Budget provides some of that, but we must scale up the ambition and the speed of the projects. Blackpool’s motto is “Progress”. The town has pioneered so much and has kept moving even through deep spending cuts. We are on the right path; what we need now are a Government who walk with us.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I begin by asking the House a question. When I heard the Chancellor’s speech yesterday, I thought, “Is that it? Is this the Government’s best shot?” If the Prime Minister is planning to go to the country on the back of this Budget, I say, “Bring it on.” Yesterday the Chancellor delivered the gravest betrayal of the just transition in my constituency and in Scotland. Grangemouth, Mossmorran and now St Fergus—this looks like Thatcherism on steroids. Is anyone seeing a pattern here? The Chancellor did not even have the courage to spell it out in yesterday’s Budget, with the loss of Government support for Acorn hidden in the weeds of the Red Book.
While the Labour Government’s so-called “mature” carbon capture, usage, and storage projects in England and Wales get the go-ahead, their paltry offer to Scotland amounts to merely seeing how loans or equity investments can support the continued development of future CCUS, with specific mention of the Acorn site. In other words, the project will no longer be considered for direct Government money as part of the Government-funded track process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Seamus Logan
No, I am not taking interventions. A lot of people want to speak.
The Labour Government are prioritising £9.4 billion in England and Wales, but are not even managing £200 million for the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster. The rhetoric once again fails to match reality and instead reveals treachery in cold blood. I was promised a final investment decision by the previous Chancellor at the Dispatch Box. Where has that promise gone?
Trust in this UK Government from Scotland lies in tatters, as they renege on their commitment to the green transition and re-industrialisation in the north-east of Scotland. We have taskforces, reports, road maps and decisions to be made in the future. It is jam tomorrow. As one newspaper put it this morning, the sound we heard yesterday was the can being kicked down the road.
The Chancellor calls it capital reprioritisation, but his fancy phraseology hides the truth. Existing capital remains prioritised in Teesside and Merseyside. Why not Acorn in Scotland and the Scottish cluster? The UK’s net zero future, and thousands of jobs in Scotland, rely on the ability to cut industrial emissions. Acorn provides the country’s only viable CO2 transport and storage solution. Without it, key industries including energy, chemicals and manufacturing will face mounting costs, a loss of competitiveness and a major risk of job losses. Meanwhile, as the cost of living and the cost of food, fuel and energy spiral upwards, Scotland remains trapped in an economic doom loop under Westminster control. We estimate £650 million will be removed from our budget next year.
Where is the breathing space for households? When energy bills will soon be more than £1,000 higher than promised, the Labour party’s gas price hike will disproportionately increase costs for people in Scotland. What about the many people who rely on home heating oil in my constituency and across Scotland? They will not benefit from the changes on standing charges. Where is the help for those households facing enormous hikes in heating costs? [Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not like to hear it, but I am still going to say it. [Interruption.] Where are the transformative measures on child poverty?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am struggling to hear the hon. Gentleman. Please let us hear the words being said.
Seamus Logan
Where are the transformative measures on child poverty? The UK Government only have to look to Scotland for inspiration and innovative policies to combat child poverty, such as the Scottish child payment.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Seamus Logan
No. Where is Labour’s equivalent? Where is the full windfall tax on the banks? Just 3% for 15 months will not cut it, when £46 billion of profit was made in 2024.
Seamus Logan
I have already said no interventions, thank you. Where is the help for the Scottish whisky industry? Why is there nothing on fiscal drag and tax thresholds? Why is there nothing on VAT reduction for small hospitality businesses? Of course, the extent of the Barnett consequentials remains to be seen.
Devolution is fine for mayors, but what we need in Scotland is a fresh start with independence. That is why we in the SNP choose Scotland, not this tepid version of a Chancellor’s Budget. It is a wasted opportunity, a betrayal of our energy workers and a hopeless stab in the back for struggling families. The Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. I will conclude by channelling the words of T.S. Eliot—words written more than a hundred years ago. This Budget was not so much a bang, but a whimper.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Members who are heckling from the Back Benches while also trying to catch my eye that they may want to be mindful.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget, particularly the additional £1.5 billion for social and affordable housing, taking the Government’s investment to more than £40 billion. The only lasting solution to our housing crisis is to build more homes, particularly council homes, but I want to address a crisis that cannot wait for those homes to be built: the almost 200,000 children across the country who will spend tonight homeless. In London, that figure is one in 30 children, or one in every school class. They are not sleeping on the streets—they have a roof over their heads—but they are homeless.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation, I see the national picture and scale of the homelessness crisis we face, but as the MP for Mitcham and Morden, I see the faces behind those statistics week in, week out at my constituency advice surgery. I see families living in a single room, parents desperately trying to keep their children at the same school, and children without anywhere to do their homework or cooking facilities where their parents can prepare a proper meal.
Temporary accommodation is increasingly anything but temporary. Earlier this year, my APPG published research into child mortality in temporary accommodation. Between 2019 and 2025, 104 children died in cases where temporary accommodation was identified as a possible contributing factor to their vulnerability, ill health or death. Seventy-six of those children were babies under the age of one. Behind every one of those numbers is a child whose future has been taken away and a family who will never recover from that loss. We must never accept that as an inevitable consequence of homelessness.
There is also a serious financial argument for tackling this crisis. London councils are spending more than £5.5 million every single day on temporary accommodation. Much of that money is spent on securing accommodation from private providers, often at considerable expense, without creating the permanent housing assets that councils so desperately need. The cost of unsuitable temporary accommodation does not end with the council’s housing budget; it is felt in our schools, our NHS and other public services, through disrupted education, worsening health and the additional support that families so often need. That is why we must consider the full cost of homelessness to the public purse, not simply the price of providing a roof over someone’s head.
I welcome the Chancellor’s additional £432 million to tackle rough sleeping, but homelessness is not confined to our streets. The Budget recognises this and confirms that the Government’s ongoing value for money review of homelessness funding will examine temporary accommodation. That review must consider how councils can acquire more suitable accommodation locally, reducing their reliance on costly private placements.
But we cannot wait until 2027 to improve conditions for children living in temporary accommodation today. Every child deserves somewhere safe to sleep, somewhere to do their homework and somewhere their parents can prepare a proper meal. Those are not luxuries but the most basic requirements of a home. The Chancellor’s additional investment in social and affordable housing is a welcome commitment to tackling the root causes of homelessness, but building the homes we need will take time. For the children growing up homeless tonight, time is something we cannot afford to waste. We must ensure that the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping is matched by an ambition to end child homelessness.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Fiscal responsibility means living within our means. Every household across East Yorkshire and up and down the country knows that we cannot spend more on the family credit card than we earn, racking up debt with little more than the hope of a future pay rise, yet that is exactly what this Government are doing with our country’s credit card—a credit card taken out in my constituents’ names.
After Labour crashed the economy in 2008, it left a deficit of 10%. It was spending 10%—£160 billion—more on the country’s credit card each year than our country earned. Only the Conservatives’ fiscal responsibility was able to fix Labour’s mess and steadily wrestle that deficit down. Even after the exceptional need to support jobs and businesses through the global pandemic and the Ukraine war, that deficit rose to 4.4%—less than half of the legacy left by Labour in 2010.
Here we are again, with Labour’s fiscal irresponsibility and no plan to deal with the deficit. Labour is borrowing £308 billion more than the plan it inherited in 2024. Under this Government, the national debt has surged through the £3 trillion mark for the first time ever. This spending cannot go on. This Government need to get borrowing down, they need to get public spending down, they need to get welfare spending down, and they need to get people’s taxes down. Next year the tax burden will reach a historic high of 37.9% of GDP under this Government, and it is set to surge from there.
Where is this money going? I would like to address briefly some of the issues around the mismanagement of public money in the civil service. This Government, to their credit, pledged to reduce the size of the civil service, but I have bad news: the headcount has risen by 11,000 people since they took office. Cutting the civil service headcount is not this Government’s only broken promise. Last year, they put out a press release promising that they would instruct civil servants to stop what Labour themselves called “wasteful spending”—namely, banning Government-branded merchandise and away days in externally hired venues, rather than using freely available Government buildings.
However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spent £20,000 on an away day at the Cumberland hotel in March. In the same month, the DCMS spent £2,000 on an away day at the British Museum. The following month, in April 2026, the Cabinet Office spent over £33,000 hiring the Hartwell House luxury hotel and spa, and its swanky restaurant with a 20-page wine list, for another retreat for its top tier of civil servants. I am slightly confused that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), admitted that in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), because when I asked the question, I got the response:
“In the calendar year 2026, the Cabinet Office has not held any departmental Senior Civil Service away days.”
The Crown Prosecution Service spent £37,000 on an away day at the four-star Manchester Marriott hotel. The Department for Transport managed to spend £9,000 on an away day at the Foreign Office and £14,000 on one at the HS2 offices. The Northern Ireland Office spent £4,000 meeting in a castle. The Department for Education held an away day for £27,000 at a grade II listed building in Sheffield, while the Ministry of Justice spent another £34,000 on an away day at a theatre.
The Treasury—which we might hope would be holding the purse strings a little tighter—held two away days, with one at the British Museum, and spent £25,000 “excluding VAT”. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero held three offsite away days, two at four-star hotels, costing a total of over £50,000. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade also spent £50,000 on three, including one at the Emirates stadium because no “alternative venues were available.” The MOD and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could not tell me whether they had had any away days, as it would cost them too much to answer the question, so I dread to think how many away days they have had! Unfortunately, the Minister for Women and Equalities has not even bothered to reply to me, so I assume her staff have got lost on an away day to a nice spa hotel.
The list goes on and on, but let me turn to merchandise. The Cabinet Office—which banned all of this—alone spent £4,500 on T-shirts, stickers and commemorative coins. I could move on to No. 10 North, but as we know, it is nothing more than a vanity project.
In conclusion, it is time to bring back common sense and fiscal responsibility. Taxes are at a record high, growth is down, borrowing is higher, debt is up and living standards are down. We cannot keep spending more on the country’s credit card than we earn. Wealth must be created before it can be distributed, by our businesses, our entrepreneurs and those who go to work every day. There is no such thing as Government money; it is taxpayers’ money, and Labour is addicted to spending other people’s money, not creating it. We Conservatives want to see Britain richer, more prosperous and thriving. To paraphrase the excellent point made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, our country is overspent, overborrowed, overtaxed and drowning in an out-of-control welfare system—what a pickle we are in.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I am very happy to contribute to this debate, and it is a pleasure in particular to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).
I welcome this Budget for three reasons. First, it maintains the fiscal discipline that is a strategic imperative, and I think the fact that sterling, the FTSE indexes, and 10 and 30-year gilt yields have remained stable over the last 24 hours is a signifier of that. Given the risks that the UK economy faces—be it barriers to trade, the imposition of tariffs, volatile and rising energy costs, or higher Government borrowing costs everywhere—it is really important that this Budget remains within the fiscal rules. Secondly, it provides families, households and businesses in the towns, villages and cities that make up the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency with genuine breathing space as they manage ongoing cost of living pressures.
Thirty-four thousand households in council tax bands A to D will receive a £100 household energy payment and even more will feel the extension of the electricity VAT cut. Businesses on Queensway in Bletchley and on the high streets of Buckingham and Winslow will gain from the higher small business rate relief threshold rise. Agricultural businesses in north Buckinghamshire will benefit from the extended red diesel duty cut.
However, while fiscal responsibility is an absolute imperative, it should never be an end of itself. The third reason I welcome the Budget is that it does what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor sought to do, which is to back those “bloody-minded entrepreneurs”. It is not just me saying that; business groups such as Startup Coalition and UK Private Capital are, too. Fiscal responsibility enables Governments to help the people building Britain’s next generation of national champions and globally consequential companies. Be those in artificial intelligence, defence, clean energy, life sciences or advanced manufacturing, they are driving economic growth, job and wealth creation, and are ultimately underpinning the sovereign capabilities of the UK.
Growth in every postcode is absolutely the right objective, and that means we need entrepreneurs in every postcode. Today is undoubtedly a better day and a better Britain in which to build a company than yesterday was. When it comes to helping people start a business, raising the trading allowance from £1,000 to £3,000 is a strong signal that people—young people in particular—can realise their dreams here in the United Kingdom. We have known for a long time that scaling businesses is where Britain could do much more and needs to go further quickly. Expanding the capacity of the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, including by deploying £5 billion over the next four years in defence, recognises the role that public capital has to play in acting as a cornerstone investor alongside our deep pools of private capital—all £3 trillion of that.
With all the blood, sweat and tears that go into building a business, we need to give founders a genuine, compelling reason beyond patriotism alone to remain anchored here and to stay here. That is why the founders’ relief is so welcome. I know that many business groups have been arguing and advocating for it across Government and Westminster for some time. We are giving entrepreneurs greater confidence that they can build and scale here and that they will be rewarded. Just as importantly, the relief will strengthen their ability to reinvest their wealth and reuse their expertise and experience in more ventures into the future.
Growth and wealth creation, and fiscal responsibility, are intrinsically linked. Growth is the ultimate stabiliser of the public finances through stronger receipts that will help to reduce the budget deficit and reduce our borrowing costs in the long run. That will give us flexibility to let people keep more of what they earn and invest in the things that are particularly important to us, be they our national security, our schools or our police.
The Budget is a very welcome step in the right direction. There is much more to do, and I look forward to the 10-year plan and the spending review in the long run. I welcome this Budget.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I welcome many elements of the Chancellor’s Budget, including his commitment to fiscal devolution, his promise to end rough sleeping and the additional assistance for people to pay their energy bills, but there were many significant omissions and missed opportunities. Instead of freezing fuel duty, he should have listened to Liberal Democrat calls to cut it. Instead of promising reform to carer’s allowance in four years’ time, he should have delivered it now. Instead of flirting with the EU, he should have committed to beginning negotiations to rejoin the single market and a new UK-EU customs union.
For our young people, the Chancellor has moved away from Labour’s manifesto commitment to equalise the minimum wage and living wage while failing to address the student loan bubble, which is at bursting point, or to scrap his predecessor’s damaging national insurance contributions rise that is keeping young people out of work. For working people, he failed to address wage compression by following Liberal Democrat calls to increase the personal allowance and to raise the higher rate income tax threshold. That reform is vital for the 110,000 Londoners being dragged into the higher tax bracket.
While there are measures in the Budget that can be welcomed, there are many missed opportunities. The Liberal Democrats will push the Government to be more ambitious and to deliver on their promise of providing people with the help they need during the cost of living crisis and with the unaffordably high cost of doing business.
Not enough is being done to support small businesses that are struggling, particularly with the cost of employment. In retail alone, employment costs have jumped by £6.5 billion since the 2024 Budget. Unemployment levels are alarmingly high, with 25% of young Londoners not in employment, education or training. The Government must start making it easier for businesses to provide opportunities, particularly to young people as they begin their working life.
The move to decouple gas and electricity prices is a welcome step, and we welcome the short-term relief that many households will receive to ease energy costs this winter, but the Government have failed to address the issue facing many businesses: the cost of energy for our industrial sector. Our dependence on other countries for fuel makes us all vulnerable to international turmoil. Household energy bills remain a third higher than before the war in Ukraine and the average UK resident and small business is being hit by those rises. The ongoing war in Iran reminds us yet again of the importance of secure and reliable energy sources. The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power.
Make UK sets out the “ruinous effect” that industrial electricity costs have on investment. It has highlighted the continuing lack of action to address those costs and the risks now associated with taking on workers. The manufacturing sector accounts for 2.6 million jobs and 42% of UK exports; the Government must listen to its calls to reduce energy bills much more urgently than the 10-year schedule set out in the Chancellor’s speech. The British Chambers of Commerce and the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation have echoed those calls, highlighting that the energy support available to certain manufacturing sectors does not apply to food and drink businesses.
It is time for the UK to lead within Europe again on security, working closely with our democratic European allies so that we can support Ukraine and our European partners during peace and war. Our trade relations must also be adjusted to reflect the geopolitical realities we face. The Government must remove their self-defeating red lines and be bolder by introducing a new EU-UK customs union. Ministers must take advantage of the upcoming UK-EU summit to maximise opportunities for closer trading with the European Union and mitigate the risks and damage caused by schemes such as “Made in Europe”.
The Liberal Democrats have always championed fiscal devolution, so I welcome that the Budget will legislate for the Mayor of London to set up a successor to the Elizabeth line business rates supplement. Anyone who has used London’s train network recently will acknowledge that it is in need of upgrades. Whether it be persistent cancellations on the District line or the discomfort of using the Central line, commuters in London deserve better. That said, the business rates supplement remains quite a limited way of raising funds and the Government have seemingly constrained it to apply only to the west London orbital and the Bakerloo line extension. So while I welcome the business rates supplement as a step in the right direction, I will continue to champion further fiscal devolution for the capital.
I am concerned that the Home Office and the Department for Transport are set to face funding cuts. While taking into account the caveat that figures are adjusted due to lower employer pension contributions, the Home Office faces £1.2 billion in cuts next year and another £1.2 billion cut the following year while the DFT will lose out on £100 million over two years. Two of the most common issues I see in my inbox are concerns about policing and transport, so that is of huge concern to my constituents.
Lastly, on an issue that the Prime Minister has declared is
“a matter for London and Londoners”,
I come to the question of Heathrow expansion, which is still yet to be answered. The Budget Red Book states that, on Heathrow,
“The Transport Secretary will provide an update as soon as possible”.
If the Prime Minister is true to his word, why does the decision on a third runway still seem to lie in the hands of the Government? It is a white elephant project that does not have the support of the majority of Londoners and must be scrapped.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Yesterday in the Budget the Chancellor’s priorities, and those of this Government, were clear: delivering breathing space for families and businesses in Gloucester this winter in the middle of global headwinds from wars in Ukraine and the middle east, and starting to tackle the big issues facing our country such as defence, social care, and energy bills, to build fresh hope and optimism for the future—a future that delivers real change for Gloucester residents. The cost of living crisis remains the No.1 concern for families and businesses in my city, so I welcome the down payment made by the Prime Minister this summer, reintroducing the £2 bus fare cap, scrapping VAT on electricity bills, and cutting business rates for our pubs. Yesterday I was pleased that the Chancellor went further. The £100 household energy payment will be paid to 50,000 households in Gloucester this January, providing much needed help in the coldest months. Freezing fuel duty and increasing the minimum wage above inflation will help.
The Chancellor acknowledged that those measures alone will not solve the cost of living crisis, but they are a vital first step, with the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan coming later this year, and the spending review next spring. I ask the Government throughout all of that to keep hard-working Gloucester families at the front of their minds when going through those processes. Breathing space is not just for families; it is also needed for the small businesses that are the beating heart of our city. For too long, our local high streets have been punished by an outdated business rates system. By freezing rates in real terms for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and providing that 20% cut for our pubs and live music venues, we are taking decisive action. By increasing small business rates relief, almost 60% of businesses on our high streets will be taken out of business rates altogether.
I also welcome the Government’s new Hope on the High Street strategy, which aligns with the great work done by Andrew Hearne at Gloucester city council on our city masterplan. It is an ambitious plan for our city, and we must be ambitious.
I must draw the House’s attention to the immediate roadblock that we face at home in Gloucester, because Gloucester city council is, to all intents and purposes, entirely broke. Years of mismanagement have forced it to rely on an emergency bail-out from the Government just to keep the lights on. To make matters worse, following a recent vote of no confidence in the leader of the council, the entire Lib Dem cabinet of the council has walked away, and it is now operating without any political leadership whatsoever. My constituents cannot afford for Gloucester’s regeneration to be held hostage by local political chaos and bankruptcy. The city centre desperately needs investment, officers need political certainty, and the businesses of Gloucester need a reliable, functioning partner to unlock the growth that this Budget makes possible. So I ask the Government today: what support can they provide to my constituents to get Gloucester back on track? How can we, at a national level, bypass this local vacuum of leadership to ensure that our city centre gets the investment it so desperately needs, and so that our national growth strategy is not blocked by local government failure?
On growth, I want to ensure that Gloucester businesses truly benefit from our national economic strategy. Small businesses need a reliable place in the national supply chain. When we invest, we must buy local, build local, and grow local, and nowhere is that supply chain more crucial than in our national security. Gloucestershire has a proud, deep-rooted footprint in the defence, cyber-security, and aerospace sectors. I am proud that this Government are fully funding the defence investment plan, and putting ourselves on a firm path to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. I urge the Government to ensure that that historic investment flows directly to innovative SMEs in Gloucester such as Poeton Industries, Avon Metals, Cherry & White and Permali—the very businesses engineering the technologies that keep our country safe.
This Budget fundamentally recognises that the people closest to problems should have the power to solve them. It promises greater control over local economic futures, and it is clear that devolution is the key to unlocking Gloucester’s immense potential. Sadly, due to a lack of consensus from local leaders, Gloucestershire is being left behind. Only one option makes long-term sense for Gloucester, and that is for us to join the west of England combined authority. I am in complete cross-party agreement with Lisa Spivey, the Liberal Democrat leader of Gloucestershire county council, on that. In the meantime we need a Gloucestershire foundation strategic authority to unlock investment in my city, and I ask the Government to meet me to deliver that.
Every decision in the Budget shows that we have shut the door on the reckless, unfunded promises of shadow Chancellors past, and that we reject the dangerous rhetoric of Reform—its Members are again not here—whose pledge to slash public spending in 100 days without any detail would decimate our hospitals, schools, and police. We are choosing a different path. Gloucester has an incredible future ahead of it, provided that we get the devolution and investment we deserve. We can build new council homes, we can rebuild our high streets, and we can finally deliver the fresh hope that our great city deserves.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Defence Secretary opened today’s debate by praising the former Prime Minister and former Chancellor. That may come as a surprise to them both, given that earlier this year the Defence Secretary resigned from the Government, saying in his resignation letter that he could not serve alongside them because of the lack of direction and the drift. It is less than a year since Labour Members cheered and waved their Order Papers at the Budget from the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and it is striking how much continuity there is today with measures that they cheered yesterday, despite being so unhappy with the previous Chancellor.
To illustrate that, I will highlight certain phrases and words we hear from Labour Members on a regular basis, starting with perhaps the most frequent, which is the need to have no austerity. An “end to austerity” is a constant refrain—[Interruption.] I see those on the Front Bench nodding. They might be surprised to see that the OBR report states on pages 21 and 115 that there is an £11 billion shortfall from the year after next for all Departments, other than protected Departments such as Health. The Government have already said that they want to commit to Defence. I do not think the party that stands saying “24 hours to save the NHS” will cut funding to the health service going into an election, but perhaps that is its policy. If not, according to the OBR, Labour will be cutting funding for unprotected Departments by 2.6% in those final three years. There is a paradox about that: only last week, the Defence Secretary came to the House to say that there is urgency in national resilience, yet Departments like the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which would deliver that national resilience, will be the same unprotected ones facing cuts, so Labour Members are cheering a Budget in which there is austerity baked in—[Interruption.] They shake their heads.
Labour Members may have been told by the Labour Whips, “Do not worry—the spending review will fix that”, but having run a spending review, I know that a spending review allocates the funds but does not decide on the quantum. They may have been told, “Do not worry, there will be a election”—maybe there will—but yesterday the Prime Minister was saying the opposite. Either they believe a Budget that has austerity baked in, they think the spending review will fix it, or they do not believe the Prime Minister and think an election will avoid the issue entirely. But it is an odd position for Members who come to the Chamber talking about an end to austerity to then be cheering a Budget where that austerity is in the Red Book numbers.
The second paradox is that Labour Members talk about breathing space. There are policy areas that show continuity with last year’s Budget: the 2p on property income tax is a repeat of last year’s 2p increase—4p in all—with both measures starting at the same time, in April next year. The OBR makes it clear that that will lead to fewer people entering the rental market, fewer landlords and prices going up. The Budget includes a bank tax, again repeating a trick of the former Chancellor, who thought, “If I tax employers with national insurance, it will not go through into a jobs’ tax”, so we have a bank tax on the basis that that will be more palatable. But do not take my word for it: The Times leader on 16 October said it will be a tax on growth, and one of Labour’s favourite advisers, Lord O’Neill, said it will “hobble” growth.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. In the context of the criticism of tax changes for banks, how does he respond to the chief executive of Barclays describing changes along the lines of ones that we have made as “bearable”?
Steve Barclay
Of course it will be bearable for the chief executive because he will not take it from his bonus—he will take it by adding it to the mortgage rates and the loan rates that he charges the hon. Member’s constituents. Does the hon. Member honestly believe that the bankers will take that tax from their own bonuses, or does he think they will pass it on to constituents and consumers? That is exactly what The Times, Lord O'Neill and many others have commented: it is a displaced cost that adds to the constraints on businesses. This Government talk about wanting growth in every postcode, but making it harder for businesses to access capital will make it harder for them to expand. As with the measures imposed on landlords, this approach continues that taken by the previous Government.
There is a lack of consistency in the proposals, even measured against those announced in the Labour conference last month. As the Minister pointed out, at the conference the Chancellor talked about how he was aghast at the idea of debt. Well, the OBR document makes it clear that the Budget measures are adding £8 billion of debt this year alone, on top of the £11 billion of additional debt that flows from interest rates and inflation. [Interruption.] Again, a Government who say that they want to reduce debt have a Budget that is adding to debt in a way that will further constrain the growth in every postcode.
Unfortunately I have run out of time, but I suspect that in a few months’ time, as with the last Budget that Labour Members cheered, once the detail becomes more known and they see how it goes against many of the equities that they say that they stand for, we will find this Budget disowned in exactly the same way as the last one.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
When I was first elected to this place as the proud Member for Glasgow South West, many of my constituents lived in great financial uncertainty: the more than 6,000 kids in my constituency who live in relative poverty; the many constituents who have not had a decent wage rise for over 10 years; and the proud shipyards of Govan that are unable to fill their order books. I am proud that I was part of a Government, and a friend of a Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), who helped to eliminate some of that uncertainty by ensuring the fastest wage growth in a year—it was much greater than any wage growth that happened in the previous 10 years —and by lifting the two-child benefit cap. That took thousands of kids in my constituency out of poverty, and probably benefited the local economy to the tune of £4 million. We also secured the Type 26 frigate contract, which will give certainty to Govan shipyard workers for generations to come.
It is not only in the large policy areas that this Labour movement does its work. It is at its best when, at the ground level, it feels the pain of ordinary people who are trying to get by and are not able to live the life that they were promised by their forefathers. In that regard, I am very proud of the Budget, and the direction that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken, particularly in relation to energy bills. Through this Budget, we are committed to immediately ensuring that 90% of my constituents will feel the benefit of £100 off their energy bills; and 100% of my constituents will be absolved from the need to pay standing charges on their energy bills.
All my constituents will also have VAT eliminated from their electricity bills. No country or Government can insulate their citizens from the pressures of global markets and global conflict, but we can do as much as we can. I believe that we are doing as much as we can on energy bills, and creating the space for people to live more comfortably.
Dr Evans
The hon. Gentleman is talking about doing everything that we can. One way to bring in some funding is through gas and oil tax receipts. Page 94 of the Office for Budget Responsibility report explicitly says that Rosebank is baked in as being granted. Does he support Rosebank?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a quasi-judicial process, and it would be remiss of me to make undertakings on an issue for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that those calculations have been baked in for many years. This is not some new reference to the assumptions in this year’s OBR report, and he knows that very well; I think he is being a little mischievous in his questioning.
Let me return to my principal point about giving breathing space. It is not only families and individuals who need breathing space; it is businesses, including small businesses on the high street. I am really proud that before and in this Budget, we have been lifting many more businesses on the high street out of the need to pay business rates. As hon. Members may be aware, in Scotland, that will not be automatic; it is at the discretion of the Scottish Government. I plead with them to ensure that the Barnett consequentials of that decision translate into savings on business rates for ordinary high-street businesses, including pubs.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an undertaking during the summer to reduce business rates for music clubs and pubs. As far as I know, that has not yet translated into a similar policy statement in Scotland. I know that pubs in my constituency, which are around many of the underground stations in Glasgow—students and others like to do a Clockwork Orange pub crawl—crave and would benefit from those savings. I urge the Scottish Government to pass them on with immediate effect.
Those interventions all make life a little more bearable and easier. I know that some Members think that there is a binary choice to be made between social and personal economic security on the one hand, and our national security on the other, but there is not; one is very much reliant on the other. That is why we are committed to ensuring that our defence spending hits the 2030 and 2035 targets that our NATO allies expect it to. I am proud that my constituency is contributing to the defence of our nation, whether it is through the shipyards and building the Type 26 frigates that will patrol our seas, or through more novel technologies, and drones being designed in my constituency.
Labour Members are proud of investing in defence. Investing in defence is not taboo, contrary to the view that the Scottish Green party and the Scottish National party have sometimes espoused; we in Scotland should be proud that we are at the forefront of defending our nation, and we will always invest in that. I am grateful to the SNP for finally relenting and matching our funding for two defence technical excellence colleges in Scotland, enabling us to defend our nation.
In closing, I will just say that when I speak to this Prime Minister and this Chancellor, I find that they understand Scotland, and they feel the needs of Glasgow South West. The Budget that they have delivered will give us breathing space for today, but also—more importantly—hope for tomorrow.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). The Chancellor has said that his Budget carries through the Prime Minister’s vision, but that there is still much to come, in his 10-year plan and in next year’s spending review, so there is still an opportunity to change fiscal policy in a way that could help the Government to achieve their housing targets, and help councils, developers and communities to revive town centres and bring derelict and long-term empty buildings back into use.
I start by congratulating the Friends of Campsie High Kirk, the first group in Britain to take ownership of an A-listed heritage building through the ownerless property transfer scheme run by the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer. The work of that group has led me to raise this issue today, and I am incredibly proud to have it in Mid Dunbartonshire. It has taken ownership of a derelict A-listed church, with plans to renovate it for community use, but nearly every piece of work that it carries out on the site will be subject to VAT at 20%. Until recently, Scotland’s historical churches could claim back VAT on repairs through the listed places of worship grant scheme, but that scheme has closed, and the fund that has replaced it covers England only. The UK Government say that Scotland’s share of the money has gone to the Scottish Government, yet no fund has been set up to spend it, so even the buildings that could once claim that 20% back are now caught. Will the Minister take this issue up with the Scottish Government, and press for a fund to be created?
It is not just community groups that face this hurdle to restoring our historical sites. Should a developer wish to restore a similar historical building and make it into housing, they would pay VAT at 5% if the conversion qualified, or at the full 20% if it did not. Meanwhile, if it were to demolish the building and start anew, it would pay no VAT on the new homes. The Government’s explanation is that the zero rate on new homes is there to
“stimulate the construction of new homes”,
but it should not matter whether or not a home is new; if any building is lying long-term vacant or derelict, bringing it back into a habitable, eco-friendly condition gives us the same benefit as building a new house. On top of that, restoring a building preserves the character and heritage of an area, saves carbon by reusing existing materials rather than making and transporting new ones, and often meets less local opposition. We all know how difficult it can be to get permission to build a new home, and we all know the impact a derelict property can have on a street.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has told my office that it does not hold figures on how much VAT it raises from building repair and restoration. Before ruling anything out, the Treasury should be able to tell this House how much that tax brings in. With that in mind, I have three asks of the Treasury. First, I urge the Minister to investigate and publish how much VAT is raised each year from the renovation and repair of historical buildings. Secondly, will the Treasury assess the case for treating renovation, repair and conversion in the same way as new build? Thirdly, will it confirm that Scotland will benefit from its fair share of the derelict buildings fund?
Our historical buildings help us make our communities what they are. The tax system should help people to save those buildings and bring them back into use, not charge people more to repair than to build new.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I hold the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan)—he is no longer in his place—in high regard, but I thought it was very telling that he would not take any interventions. The Scottish National party is desperate to paint the gloomiest possible picture of this Budget, but its argument does not hold. The reality is that the Budget is full of measures that will be very widely welcomed, in Scotland and by my constituents.
Measures such as scrapping the standing charges for gas and extending the freeze on fuel duty will be extremely welcome to my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife. I am delighted that the Budget also means that pensioners will see their state pension rise by nearly £500 a year, and that the Government have acted to ensure that pensioners receiving only that income will not have to pay income tax on it.
I make the case again to Ministers for the nearly 850 retired miners in my constituency who are members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I hope that Ministers will act swiftly to ensure that all the funds in the scheme go to retired miners. However, we must also remember the context for every pensioner in my constituency—the action taken to increase their pension, and the action on rising energy prices, which, as we approach another cold Scottish winter, have been a subject of deep concern to my constituents.
The £100 energy payment being introduced for households in council tax bands A to D is particularly welcome. Thank goodness the SNP has actually seen sense on one thing, and is ensuring that this policy from the Government will be implemented in Scotland. In my constituency, nine out of 10 households will benefit. That is vital relief from the rising energy prices that we face because of global economic challenges. That is the real, practical support for families that the Prime Minister promised, and that this Budget delivers.
The Budget not only provides breathing space in tough times; it also sets out investment that brings huge opportunities for the future of our communities in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, with the prospect of skilled work and good jobs for our young people. Along with the Defence Secretary, who gave an excellent speech at the start of this debate, the Chancellor has committed the funding for the defence investment plan. His contract decision that the new dry docks for Faslane will be built not in a foreign shipyard but here in the UK is a wonderful opportunity for the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by this Government. If the new dry docks are built by the skilled workforce at Methil, that will secure the long-term future of the yard and drive its recruitment even higher. Methil is a community with a proud industrial history but high levels of social deprivation; this is a wonderful opportunity for reindustrialisation in our part of Scotland.
It is not only in defence that there is such potential to grow our local economy. We have thriving renewable energy businesses, and the decision to proceed with the Jackdaw project has been widely welcomed in the Scottish energy sector, because it will provide employment in an industry whose workforce will be vital if we are to succeed in making the transition to renewables, and to sustain skills and employment in our energy sector.
The £18 million pledged to the University of Edinburgh to boost our national capacity to design and test our own semiconductor chips is a decision that will be warmly welcomed across the Forth in Fife, where industry-leading companies such as Clas-SiC Wafer Fab and Semefab are based. Their highly expert staff export their products right across the globe. That is another example of how we are taking advantage of the revolution in artificial intelligence to ensure security, and to realise economic benefits for many of our high-tech, high-skilled industries in Scotland.
This is a Budget for breathing space, a Budget to protect our economic stability and a Budget for investment in the future of our communities. I commend the Chancellor for recognising not only the challenges that we face as a country, and offering families respite from them, but the many opportunities that we have to strengthen growth in our economy in the future.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Before I turn to the Budget, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sue Holt, whose death Mr Speaker announced to the House this morning. I am a member and former leader of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation, and I worked with Sue over quite a long period. She was always immensely cheerful and efficient, and her death came as a real shock to us all. I send my condolences.
At least there is one part of the Budget that I welcome: the continuing support being given by this Government to Ukraine. That was initiated under the last Government —indeed, over 10 years ago, long before the full-scale invasion by Russia—and we have continued to maintain it. It is a cross-party matter, so that support is very welcome. One of the reasons it is so important that we support Ukraine is that Ukraine is our frontline, and the threat to Ukraine is not just a threat to that country; it is a threat to all of us. That is why it is essential that we increase our defence expenditure now.
The Chancellor has recommitted to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, but that is still some way off, and we have heard from the Secretary of State for Defence about the immediacy of the threat. It is a matter of some concern that while we are still debating how we will get to 3%, allies such as Denmark, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Norway and Poland are already exceeding that level and planning to spend more. Perhaps one of the reasons we have not yet been able to explain how we will meet the target is that the essential measures to fund it—in other words, addressing the welfare budget—have again been ducked by this Government. We await the outcome of the reviews by the Minister and Alan Milburn, but we have reached a position in which 6.7 million people are now claiming out-of-work benefits. That is creating a situation that is not just unaffordable; it is actually immoral that so many people of working age are out of work and living on benefits.
The situation in this country is that all the economic signals for the long term are heading in the wrong direction. Borrowing is going up. Our national debt already stands at £3 trillion and is scheduled to increase further. Tax levels are the highest in our history. The Chancellor claims that he wants to cut regulation, but we have heard today from the OBR that the Employment Rights Act 2025 will result in unemployment standing at over 5% next year. That situation destroys incentives to work, drives away investment and causes entrepreneurs to leave the country. It is an unsustainable situation, yet nothing in this Budget does anything to give confidence that those things will be reversed.
I will quickly refer to a couple of measures. In the Prime Minister’s first statement to the House, I raised the situation on our high streets, where so many businesses have been hit by not just the increase in business rates, but the increases in national insurance contributions, energy costs and the minimum wage. Although the measure to increase the threshold for business relief is of some small help, it is nothing like sufficient to help those businesses that are struggling to survive. I regret that there was no mention of VAT, a cut to which UKHospitality has identified as a critical measure that could help, because such businesses have to compete with those in countries such as France, Spain and Italy, which levy rates that are half of those here.
I will quickly mention hair salons, which the Chancellor talked about. They often face unfair competition from identical-looking salons next door, where the chairs are rented out and the staff class themselves as self-employed. That is depriving the Treasury of proper revenue while also creating unfair competition. I hope that is something that the Treasury will listen to.
I am sorry that the gambling sector is yet again being used as a cash cow, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. By increasing the tax on gambling yet again, the effect will hit our high streets even harder, because a lot of betting shops are going to be driven out of business.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend has been a staunch defender of Ukraine for many years in this House. Would he agree with what President Zelensky said yesterday, as reported in The Sun, when he advised this Government to prioritise UK defence spending and to do so without further delay? Does Zelensky know something the Government do not?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am extremely grateful to my constituency neighbour for making an excellent point—and for giving me another minute. He is absolutely right that President Zelensky once again has spoken words for the Government to listen to, if only they would. It is absolutely right that we should increase our support for and expenditure on defence.
Finally, my right hon. Friend and I both represent relatively rural constituencies, and I regret that the Budget made no mention of the harm being done to the agriculture sector through the family farming tax, nor did it provide any help to those constituents—I have many, and I know he does as well—who are off the grid and rely on heating oil. They will not benefit from the abolition of the standing charges, yet they have faced huge increases.
Perhaps the only thing to celebrate in this Budget is the fact that the Chancellor did not listen to his Back Benchers who wanted him to go even further, with a wealth tax, a mansion tax and an increase in capital gains tax; long may it continue that he listens to us, not to them.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Budget, and to talk about some of the things that will affect my constituents. This Budget does indeed provide the breathing space needed by families, workers and small businesses across the country, built on the bedrock of fiscal discipline and helping families to deal with high living costs. Most notably, looking at energy costs, over 92% of households across the Blaydon and Consett constituency will benefit from the household energy payment, directly delivering £100 to help households with bills this winter, alongside the extension of 0% VAT on electricity. Many of these houses are of course of poor quality and poorly insulated, so it is particularly welcome. For local motorists, tradespeople and commuters, extending the 5p fuel duty cut keeps daily costs down, and many constituents have written to me about that.
When talking to the North East chamber of commerce recently, I heard that our local businesses were concerned about operating with the current system of taxes. For our high street businesses, the £1 billion business rates package ensures that over 52% of retail, hospitality and leisure properties across the north-east will pay no business rates at all next year, giving independent traders room to plan and to invest. Alongside the 35% business rates relief for pubs, the new guest beer legislation will give local landlords the right to serve locally brewed beers on tap, supporting independent north-east brewers such as the Firebrick Brewery in Blaydon and the Thirsty Moose in Ryton, which have spoken to me about these issues.
Anna Dixon
Like my hon. Friend, I have small breweries in my own constituency, including the Saltaire Brewery, the Goose Eye Brewery and SALT. Does she agree with me that, with rising energy costs, the £10 million annual alcohol duty relief for small brewers is very welcome from the Chancellor?
Liz Twist
There are indeed welcome moves in this Budget, and I know that the guest beer one was particularly wished for.
On regional growth, I warmly welcome the new £1.5 billion borrowing facility for mayoral strategic authorities that was announced yesterday. In Gateshead, these devolved borrowing powers will allow us to move forward with the transformation of the Gateshead Quays development. Backed by £24 million in enabling funding from North East Mayor Kim McGuinness, essential site preparation and infrastructure work can now begin. Once these loans allow us to start investing in full, Gateshead will gain a world-class venue featuring a 12,500-seat arena and an international conference centre. The North East combined authority estimates that this ambitious development will attract over 1 million visitors every year, generate a £70 million annual boost to our local economy and create 2,000 good local jobs.
I want to set the record straight on the international investment summit. The Budget Red Book announces that
“The next International Investment Summit will take place in spring 2027 in Newcastle.”
I must gently correct the record for the Treasury. As the Chancellor announced in his speech yesterday, that major summit will actually be hosted on the south side of the Tyne, right in Gateshead. I look forward to seeing Tyneside on the global stage. As we prepare to welcome global investors, my firm hope is that the investment announced at the summit stays directly in Gateshead and the surrounding area, helping to further fund our local regeneration and economic growth, and benefiting my constituents on the Blaydon side and beyond to provide employment opportunities, so that it will affect the whole of Gateshead, not just the quayside.
There is a little-noticed measure in the Budget on the preventive departmental expenditure limit. I particularly welcome the creation of ringfenced preventive expenditure, which establishes a spending category for early intervention in the spending review. We do not have much detail on that, but I am going to get my bid in quite early. I want investment in preventive measures that affect all Departments in relation to suicide prevention and mental health. This is a really important issue and one that I come back to regularly. I warn those on the Treasury Bench that I will be referring to it many times in future, so that they do not lose the message—if they could take a note now, that would be helpful. Extensive research conducted by Samaritans and Mind demonstrates that every single suicide prevented saves our economy roughly £1.46 million. We cannot reduce lives to figures on a spreadsheet, but that shows that investment in preventive work on mental health and work on suicide prevention is well worth the money.
Across County Durham, 878 local properties will benefit from the real-terms business rates freeze, alongside 377 in Gateshead. To help our young people gain high-quality skills and secure good careers, new apprenticeship brokerage funding and expanded mayoral apprenticeship services will support businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to hire and train the next generation. The derelict buildings fund will help both sides of my constituency, making a difference to our high streets.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) in paying tribute to Sue Holt. I was in Strasbourg with her only a few weeks ago when she was taken ill. It was a great shock to all of us to learn what had happened to her.
I want to cover measures in the Budget that relate to my constituents, the Home Affairs Committee and my constituency, but I realise I have limited time so I will race ahead. It is pretty quick on the Home Affairs Committee side of things, because there was not very much in the Budget about such matters. In fact, there was only one mention in the speech: £15 million over three years for a misogyny prevention fund. We are yet to see what that actually involves, but I worry that priority is being given to perpetrators. Where is the money for victims? A victim-centred approach to violence against women and girls is essential. The Government have already said that £1 billion needs to be spent on tackling violence against women and girls during the life of the strategy, but the Red Book states:
“the government is prioritising £55 million of funding over two years to accelerate delivery of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.”
Again, £55 million out of £1 billion does not sound too much.
On issues that were not mentioned but relate to home affairs, the Committee is conducting two inquiries at the moment. I am interested in the work that the Government are doing on apprenticeships and so on, but I urge them to look at the work the Committee did with Demos—a piece of deliberative democracy—looking at the public’s attitude to work-based immigration. They will find really interesting insights on the need to prioritise upskilling UK workers to take job vacancies, not just looking overseas to fill those roles.
The Committee is also doing to a piece of work on the impact of serious and organised crime on local neighbourhoods. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made some really interesting comments about the high street. It is the case that we have seen the hollowing out of the high street, and the measures that the Government have taken on national insurance, business rates and so on have left a vacuum that is being filled by organised criminality. That is filling our high streets in a way that is inappropriate and that we do not want, so I urge the Government to deal with that issue.
Moving on to issues that affect my constituency, I welcome the £100 for A to D council tax payers. We have a disproportionately high number of properties in bands A to D in Staffordshire Moorlands, so more people will be affected by that than in some other constituencies. However, there was nothing in the Budget for those who rely on heating oil, and they will not benefit from the abolition of gas standing charges. Those people really do need help; the price of heating oil is hideous and, as we come into winter, the numbers that have been quoted to fill a tank of heating oil are astonishing.
Again, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon in commenting that there was nothing about hospitality and tourism. As the Member of Parliament for Alton Towers and other great local attractions, including the Peak Wildlife Park, I know how much they welcomed the reduction in VAT over the summer and how much they want to see that made permanent. There was also nothing for farmers in the Budget. It would have been very heartening if the Chancellor had mentioned something about the family farm tax, to give farmers the respite that they need.
The Government tell us we need to have local government reorganisation in order to benefit from many of the measures in the Budget. As I said following the Minister for Local Government’s statement earlier, if we are going to have a mayor, we do not need to reorganise the structure of our local government as well. Let officials and councillors spend their time and effort on delivering services and let the mayors have the strategic overview. That would be a much better approach.
The Peak Cluster project proposes to enable the cement industry to continue in the Peak district through carbon capture, with plans to transport the carbon to Morecambe bay. This is of great concern. How much carbon is going to be emitted in building the pipelines that will go underneath the Peak district, Cheshire and other areas to get out to Morecambe bay, where the carbon can be put into an empty gas field? Surely, it would just be better to allow the cement industry to continue producing cement in as clean a way as possible in the United Kingdom, without the need to build the pipeline, with all the environmental damage that will cause.
I welcome the comments around new battery storage, and solar farms needing to be connected to the grid to start with. That is a measure that many of my constituents will welcome.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
High energy costs are one of the biggest issues facing both my constituents and the small businesses that our economy needs to thrive, so I am delighted that the Chancellor announced that gas standing charges—which we all know are not fair—will be removed. That comes on top of cost-of-living policies already announced by the Prime Minister, such as removing VAT from electricity—a measure that the Chancellor has now extended—on top of a direct £100 household energy payment eligible for band A to D households. On top of the £150 taken off energy bills at the last Budget, these things add up.
Focusing on energy costs is the progressive thing to do. The poorest 10% of households pay the greatest share of their money on energy, at over 12%. The measures provide support for those most in need: the families, and particularly the children, in poverty in North West Cambridgeshire and across the country. Indeed, the whole Budget reflects progressive principles: 80% of households—all bar the top 20%—will have more money in their pockets from this Budget; the ninth decile breaks about even; and it is only the top 10% that are being asked to pay that little bit more—and it really is only a little more, at 0.1% of their income. That is very much the Labour way.
All the support that we are providing must of course be paid for, and a key part of that will come from delivering growth. And we are delivering growth. Our economy was the joint fastest growing in the G7 in the first half of this year. That comes alongside the news that the IMF forecasts that we are set to deliver a bigger reduction in borrowing over the next few years than any other G20 country. We are one of only two G7 countries to cut our deficit this year, despite all the global headwinds that we face.
In many ways, I feel sorry for the Conservatives, because they have the very difficult job of reading a Red Book full of good news and trying to make it sound bad—[Interruption.] I welcome the discussion in the Budget about lowering business costs, both through business rates relief and freezes. We have heard a lot of criticism that there is nothing in the Budget for hospitality, but about 50% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in the east of England will not be paying any business rates at all. The reforms to regulations will be saving businesses up to £5.6 billion a year if we hit our target.
I encourage the Government to ensure that that also applies to our life sciences sector. I have spoken previously in this Chamber about options for reforming clinical trial regulation such that we save business and the NHS time and money and attract more investment—not necessarily by cutting regulation, but by streamlining it and reducing duplicated effort. An awful lot of different regulators look after clinical trials at the moment, and I think there is a lot of potential to streamline some of that down, save a lot of money and bring more investment into that area.
I will turn briefly to another area I would have liked to see more work on, and something I hope the Government might consider taking forward in the spending review, which is gift aid and the tax exemptions given to charities. There is very little scrutiny over that expenditure, which is sizeable, with more than £5 billion of reliefs for charities in the tax year to April 2026. Of course, the vast majority of charities spend that money well and on good causes, and that is to be commended. However, due to fundamental problems in the law, it is far too easy for organisations that provide very little or no benefit to the public—in some cases, they may even cause active harm—to obtain charity status and, in so doing, claim public money through gift aid and tax exemptions. That fact damages the whole sector and those within it who do such good work.
In July 2025, The Guardian reported that the Kasner Charitable Trust transferred £5.7 million to support an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank. In theory, therefore, the UK taxpayer could have funded an illegal settlement by over £1 million in gift aid through that transaction alone. The fact that that was permissible under our current system clearly shows that major reform is needed, including to Treasury rules, and that significant amounts of taxpayer money could be saved, because that is not an isolated example.
There are many similar organisations—taxpayer-funded charities—that are preaching horrendous misogyny, homophobia and other forms of hatred. This is a monumental waste of our constituents’ money, which we could be redirecting both towards our public services and to tackle violence against women and girls at the same time. I know that that is a priority for this Government; they are showing it in the measures in this Budget, such as the £15 million announced to create a misogyny prevention fund, which will have a real impact.
However, such measures are hugely undermined when the taxpayer is also subsidising major organisations like this. Earlier this week, there was a report of a mosque in which preachers were advising husbands that they could hit their wives. Just yesterday, I became aware of a church with awful posts on its website that deny the existence of marital rape, alongside all sorts of other horrendous misogyny. That church had an income of £5 million, £1 million of which could be taxpayer funding. That has to stop, and I implore Treasury Ministers to consider what options they have to ensure that it does.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Torbay has one very sad accolade: it is the most deprived constituency with a Liberal Democrat MP. The cost of living crisis is therefore close to my heart.
The fact that the Government have reduced fuel bills for some people is welcome, but it is a small step. As the Liberal Democrats highlighted, there were other opportunities on the table that could have helped people with the fuel crisis, which is set to bite really deep come the new year, when those bills go up.
I am only too aware of the challenges that people have getting out and about in a rural county such as Devon. Further support measures that the Liberal Democrats identified were, sadly, left on the table. As our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), said earlier, it is about growing the economy and unshackling ourselves by using what opportunities there are for us; not choosing to keep to those red lines is extremely important.
On the upside, I want to use this opportunity to celebrate the fact that the oldest pub in Torquay, the Hole in the Wall, is set to reopen tonight. I am delighted that my uncle Drew Millin will be performing there on a Thursday and Sunday night—I wish I was going to be home in time to join them.
On a more negative note, like many others in this Chamber, I am disappointed that the temporary cut to VAT that we campaigned for to help our hospitality and tourism industry was sadly not included in the Budget. That opportunity still sits there, and it would give us a boost in a number of different ways. As colleagues have already highlighted, the national insurance hike has also hit that industry. Even raising the level at which it kicks in would be helpful, particularly for those not in education, employment or training and young people by providing those opportunities for their first job in the hospitality industry.
Hospitality is also in fear of the overnight levy. There is an irony in that the VAT rate in Italy, Spain and France is 10%, whereas here it is 20%. Applying an overnight levy is quite perverse unless there is a cut to VAT to put us on more of a level playing field. I have even had Scouts associations that run a campsite in Torbay concerned that Scouts groups and similar youth facilities could be hit by such a levy.
My No. 1 priority as the MP for Torbay is the rebuild of Torbay hospital. It is somewhat disturbing that there is only £190 million in the Budget to support our NHS. That would not even cover the rebuild of Torbay hospital, which is desperately needed. I hope that the Chancellor will continue to push hard on supporting our NHS.
In conclusion, I welcome the changes that have been made, including the taper that is set to be applied to carer’s allowance. That is a significant step in the right direction. However, it is a bit of an indictment on the DWP that there is to be a four-year delay in its implementation. I welcome the approach where the allowance will taper away for every £1 earned over the amount, but surely there is an opportunity to be more generous in the long term as the change comes forward.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I am going to give a slightly different speech today, because I think that what the Government are doing with this Budget shows both a material and moral difference between our two sides. For us on the Labour Benches, it has always been clear—indeed, it is in our founding values—that every single person in this country should be able to live a decent life and that out of that we build prosperity for all. Those on the Opposition Benches believe that only some should be able to afford a decent life—a vision that has made us not just materially poorer but morally poorer.
I have written Budgets in the Treasury and in Somaliland. I have seen really difficult Budgets and, make no mistake, this was a difficult Budget at an incredibly difficult time. We face existential challenges, including an affordability crisis, a burning planet, war in Europe—and all of it coming at the same time. Underneath it all is a question that underlines our politics: will we stand strong together to meet this moment, or will we fall apart divided, weaker and poorer?
We made our choice in this Budget: we will see every single person, family and place do even better than before. Families, workers, business and Government will work in partnership to create prosperity. In this Budget we reduced energy bills so that families can afford the basics, but also because when families have more in their pockets, they spend more down the shops, and that helps their local businesses.
We are helping businesses with the things that they require —roads, skills and investment in energy—and we are cutting rates to give them a bit of breathing space as we go into what we all know will be an incredibly difficult winter. For the Government, it is being able to raise the funds that we need in the fairest way possible and in a way that does not damage prosperity. That is why we have a windfall tax on the banks, who have made huge profits in the past few years, and on oil and gas giants. They are making tens of billions of pounds from Iran and Ukraine, so we are making a choice to use some of that money to help cut bills for people in our constituencies across our country.
We know that this works not just because we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 but because it is what our past tells us. We know that it was Bevin’s alliance of labour and capital that helped win the second world war. We know that Attlee built common prosperity based on common sacrifice, all of it from common endeavour, and Blair and Brown renewed a nation. All that built upon the fundamental ideal that we hold, included on our founding membership card and, indeed, today, that we achieve more by standing together through our common endeavour.
There are those who believe differently from us. They believe that we should allow oil and gas giants and banks to make huge, record windfall profits, leave that there and not try and help every single person in this country. We have also seen that Reform, which supports racist thugs and masked people on our streets, will use those kinds of tactics to distract from the fact that it wants to give its crypto-billionaire mates tax cuts. That is who we stand against and that is the ideal that we stand against on the Labour Benches.
We choose a different path. The British people are better than that—better than the anger and the division, but also better than the penury that leads to. We know, on these Benches, what we have always known and seen throughout our history: that we build prosperity for all; that we stand together when each of us can stand as tall; that a nation is only as strong as each of the people who has a stake in it; and that they have a stake in that nation if life is affordable for all. That is the choice that we have made in our history—in our greatest moments—that was the choice that helped us win a war and rebuild our nation afterwards and it was the same choice that saw us build prosperity in our past and, indeed, prosperity in our present. That is what this Budget represents, that is the choice that we make and every single one of us is so proud of it.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my attention that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a particularly nasty age-related comment during my speech. I wanted to see, first, if that was in order and secondly, if he might like to say that so that his young constituents can hear what he thinks of them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I did not hear any comments in the Chamber and it is not a matter for the Chair—I did not hear it.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I caused any offence, I am sorry, but I was reacting to the fact that the hon. Gentleman effectively said that the people on the Conservative Benches could not read, which I humbly suggest is not very polite.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. That is clearly not a matter for the Chair, but a matter of debate. I ask Members yet again to treat each other with the courtesy and respect that we expect in this Chamber.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). The overriding question after the Chancellor sat down yesterday was, “Is that it?” Most Budgets manage to survive 24 hours before they fall apart; his Budget lasted about 24 minutes before it fell apart, as the Leader of the Opposition eviscerated it, quite rightly.
The verdict this morning suggests that living standards will fall over the duration of this Government and that although over the 2010-2020 period household income increased by 12%, in this decade it is likely to increase only by 2%. That demonstrates that this Government and this Chancellor are making Britain poorer, and we have to remember as well that there are baked-in tax increases from the previous Chancellor that are kicking in now.
I will look at four areas of the Budget where there are missed opportunities. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, there is nothing in the Budget for young people. There are a million young people not in education, training or work. There could have been an opportunity to reduce national insurance contributions for recent graduates under 25, but there was no action. As a result, graduate unemployment is dramatically up. There could have been action on reducing the amount of interest that ex-students pay on their student loans. That was promised but not delivered. On energy costs, a lot of young people in London share houses in bands E to F, so they will get no relief from the £100 drop-in-the-ocean energy payment that is dished out.
There are clearly taxes on savers, taxes on banks and taxes on landlords. That means that rents will go up, which means that young people will end up paying the price. For most landlords, the problem is they cannot sell their properties because of the inflated stamp duty that applies, and therefore the amount of supply will reduce.
I note that smoking or smoking cessation were not mentioned once in the Budget. Unbelievably, smoking cessation in the national health service is being cut when there are still 4.9 million smokers out there who desperately want to quit. They will not get the support under this Government that they desperately need. That costs the economy £53.2 billion every year through lost productivity, healthcare and social care costs, and smoking-related fires. It is a big issue hitting young and old people.
I welcome the extra money to enable every rough sleeper to have a roof over their head. The commitment was, of course, that they would be taken off the streets before Christmas. It has now been watered down—they will be given an offer of somewhere to sleep. At the same time, the number of people who are homeless or rough sleeping is increasing. Far from dealing with the problem, the Government are not addressing it properly.
It is good news that the Vagrancy Act 1824 has been scrapped, and we celebrated that two days ago. There is much more we can do to help people in this extremely vulnerable position. As I mentioned earlier this week, we still await the implementation of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 that I introduced three years ago, which would help prevent vulnerable people from being exploited.
There are concerns straight away on the Government’s moves to bring empty buildings back into use. The key there is who will pay the cost. Where is the money coming from when councils already have overstretched budgets? Dealing with local authorities, the £100 council tax rebate does not fix the core spending issues. For those who follow these things, the average increase in council tax last year at band D was £111, so the £100 that some people will get back will disappear when the council tax increases come in this year.
The problem now at local authority level is that the demand-led services, which of course are not in the control of local authorities, continue to spiral. I welcome the fact that the Government have given a three-year settlement, but it will still not be sufficient, and in many cases it will lead to huge council tax increases and cuts in services. All in all, this Budget is a series of missed opportunities that could have been easily solved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call Adam Jogee, after which I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have already edited out lots of my speech, but I will try to read through my scribbles.
In this Budget, His Majesty’s Government are taking the necessary steps to make everyday life that little bit easier for people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and thank goodness. Those steps and that determination stand in stark contrast with the chaos, instability and nonsense that we see at Staffordshire county council. This week we received news that Staffordshire county council is on to its fourth leader at County Hall since the county council elections in May 2025. It is an uninspiring and unfunny game of musical chairs, and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve much better.
Our community is a great place and is home to good, hard-working, decent people. They deserve every little bit of help announced yesterday to make life that little bit more manageable, and there is much to welcome. I am pleased that more than 40,000 homes in my community will receive the £100 payment, as we have heard from colleagues across the House, to help with their energy bills, and that we have extended the 0% rate of VAT on electricity bills until July 2027. We are finally acting on gas standing charges, and there was more good news on fuel duty, too. We are taking more businesses out of paying business rates by increasing the small business rates relief threshold—important, too, for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in my community. In fact, these changes will mean that around 52% of all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in the west midlands will now no longer pay business rates at all. That will go some way to helping the much-loved and much-used pubs and restaurants in our town centre and communities, as well as boosting our local economy and keeping local people in work.
We saw action on paternity leave, which will make the system fairer—that is excellent. I welcome the £55 million of funding that will be made available to accelerate the delivery of the violence against women and girls strategy—that is important stuff. I look forward to working with the Chancellor and colleagues from coalfield communities to finally deliver the justice that our coal miners deserve. While I will never shy away from my concerns about local government reform and the impact that would have on my community, I am delighted that the Government have announced that a new mayoral strategic authority for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire is on its way. It will bring power, investment and decision making closer to those of us who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and that is to be welcomed.
I have a bit more time left. [Interruption.] It would do a disservice to my constituents not to use the time. Since I was elected, I have seen up close how our local authorities have passed the buck at every stage, and my constituents have suffered because of it. The change to a mayoral strategic authority will give us the opportunity to fix a broken transport system, to invest in our young people and to boost the resilience of our region, all with our local communities at the heart of the process.
This Budget is one part of helping communities like mine recover from years of delay, dither and de-industrialisation. We owe it to the hard-working, skilled people who built our town and the young people who will move it forward to keep pushing for better. We have a proud history, a strong identity and huge potential, and with this Budget, we have begun the journey of reinvesting power and control into communities like mine. I will continue to do everything I can, as Newcastle-under-Lyme’s representative, to make sure that my constituents’ voices are heard loud and proud. There is a minute and 23 seconds back to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
On a three-minute time limit, I call Dr Luke Evans.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I had to check that the Chancellor had said what I thought he had, and it was referred to again today by the Defence Secretary. They said that this is the first 100 days of a Government, with a new 10-year plan. By my calculation, the Government have been in for 847 days, with their third Budget being delivered yesterday, and we are over a quarter of the way through the last 10-year plan. Rather than this being a baby Budget and a fledgling Government, they are more an adolescent Government, and this really is a bum-fluff Budget. It has got wispy bits and patchy bits, but no one really knows what they are, where they are going or even if they should be there. We can see that by the fact that we have 98 announcements within the Budget, which is a record, but the value per project is one of the lowest on record.
When I saw the Budget, I was pleased that there were some bits that I have been working on that have finally come to fruition. First, pensioners are being taken out of paying tax on their state pension. There is also the freeze on fuel duty. Those are in response to things that were warned about, but put in by a Labour Government. The hole was dug by a Labour Government, and they have now had to half-fill it. That is exactly what we see with the NEETs situation.
We have record unemployment of young people, certainly when compared with the EU average, with more than a million people not able to get through into jobs, so what do the Government do? They put on that toxic concoction of tax increases and red tape, and now they turn around and say, “We will give you £3,000 to take someone on.” The Government should get out the way. It would be far simpler to let businesses take on people and grow as they need. The same applies to the hospitality industry and the leisure industry. It is welcome that the Government have made some changes to their rates, but we should remember that the Government took away the support in the first place, put up the rates and added the toxic concoction on top. It is a hole that has been half-filled, and we see that time and again.
We often hear about the money that went into the NHS, but we should remember it was taken away with the jobs tax that hit hospices, care homes, GPs and pharmacies, which are all feeling it. With energy, £100 has been given, but we know that Ofgem says the cap will see a more than £400 increase. We should remember that Labour promised £300 lower bills when it came into office. I hope that we see this beard grow into a full bushy shape. Whether it is Keir Starmer’s continuation or Andy Burnham’s new direction—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to refer to the Prime Minister by name.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I welcome many of the measures in the Budget: policies to lower energy bills and the price of a food shop, support for our high streets, the assurance that every penny of the mineworkers’ pension scheme surplus will go to former miners, and our continued commitment to supporting Ukraine’s defences. The Government are absolutely right to double the fund to end rough sleeping, and the extra £1.5 billion for 10,000 social and affordable homes is very welcome.
I am glad that the Government are tackling this issue with such ambition. However, if we are to reverse 40 years of neo-liberalism, we must apply that same ambition to every area where people are struggling. We have the deepest poverty levels in 30 years. Rents and mortgages, food prices and bills are spiralling, and wages simply are not keeping pace. Despite the increase in funding in recent years, public services are still under severe pressure. We cannot expect people to endure this fall in living standards, and to keep going without, while the super-rich get richer.
I recognise that the Government are in a difficult position as a result of the global economy, but it is their job to shield people from the shocks, and to build stronger protections for the future. That is why we must be bolder in taxing wealth. We could fairly raise billions of pounds to fund our public services, strengthen social security and renationalise essentials, such as water and energy.
I welcome measures to tax banks and raise property income tax, but we must go further and take impactful measures, such as a reform of capital gains tax. The current system encourages people to convert labour income into capital gains, hoard wealth and leave the UK without paying their fair share. This measure could raise £20 billion a year—enough to fund a national care service. We could expand national insurance contributions to cover investment income and partnerships. That could raise £6 billion a year, which could fund higher local housing allowance rates. We could replace council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax, which could raise £5.6 billion a year and leave most people better off. And, of course, we could introduce an annual wealth tax at 2% for individuals who have wealth of over £10 million; that could raise £24 billion a year.
As the Chancellor said, we need fresh hope for the future, but hope cannot come from words alone. We cannot paper over the cracks of a rigged economic system. It is this Labour Government’s duty to fundamentally transform our economy, so that it is just and resilient, and shifts wealth and power back to working-class people.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). It is fair to say that all Budgets are keenly awaited, speculated about and then scrutinised in great detail. Some herald landmark decisions, such as the initial covid response package in March 2020. Others live in infamy, such as the mini-Budget that crashed the markets in 2022. This one is more difficult to categorise, coming as it does at a time when the unpredictability of the White House and Trump’s provocation of foreign wars creates instability in the international markets and for families in the UK, and massive uncertainty. That is why the £15 billion for Ukraine is so important for its defences, for ours, and for Europe’s.
There is much more that I welcome in the Budget, partly because this is not the time for disagreeing for disagreeing’s sake, or point scoring. The people of this country face massive problems with energy prices and the cost of living, and it is down to us to work together to fix them. Any measures to bring down the crippling cost of energy bills, remove the unfairness of gas standing charges and give families a little headroom in the cost of living crisis should be endorsed.
We must remember that while supermarket shelves are filling with luxuries, for too many people, this winter will be about keeping warm and keeping their children fed. Businesses will also struggle, so I was delighted to see that funding from gambling and vape shops will go to support other high-street businesses, and that the Government are asking the banks that the British taxpayer bailed out two decades ago to return the favour.
It will be no surprise to anyone in this place to hear that I heartily endorse the impetus to create a better working relationship with the EU, as well as the £18 million for advanced chip development led by Edinburgh University and the £6 million for Glasgow’s Scottish Event Campus, but I worry, as most Scots here do, that many of the measures in this Budget, which will lead to £600 million of consequentials for Scotland, will disappear into the black hole created by the Scottish Government, given the £5 billion shortfall that their budget now faces.
Yesterday, the Chancellor said:
“This is a Labour Budget for the worker, the sole trader, the parent at the school gate, and the young person desperate to start their first job or…business.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 314.]
Those are the people who will decide which category this Budget falls into. They will decide whether their lives are better for it. When we come out of the “storms” that the Chancellor talked about, we will see whether this tanker, which will take a long time to turn around, is facing in a direction that families will welcome.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
In our era of perma-meta-poly crisis, the decisions the Chancellor has taken to provide our country with a little breathing space will be welcome to many of my constituents. The longer-term question that remains is what we mean by good growth, because, looking back over the last two decades, it has proven perfectly possible for GDP growth to happen, and yet simultaneously for almost everyone’s life to get harder. Our country will drift until politicians can give a meaningful definition of good growth that the whole country can strive for and mobilise around.
Fortunately, we do not have to reinvent this wholly anew for ourselves. John Maynard Keynes, the greatest economic mind our country has ever produced, left us many of the answers we have been fumbling for. Nearly 100 years ago, he warned that a focus on the wrong priorities would keep us
“for ever in the pit of want”.
In other words, chasing the chimera of infinite, exponential increases in consumption completely misses the point of what economic policy should achieve. Since Keynes’s time, there has been nearly a sixfold increase in UK GDP per capita. We have more than enough wealth to ensure that every one of our constituents is meaningfully employed, can afford decent food and is well housed, yet hardship, reliance on food banks and the housing crisis do not just persist but, in many ways, continue to worsen.
When Keynes wrote about the economic possibilities for his generation’s grandchildren, I do not think this is what he had in mind. We may have a growing surplus of AI slop, all the poisonous social media one could possibly want to consume, and the jolly good fun of casino capitalism that does not actually produce anything, but we lack safe, comfortable and genuinely affordable homes for millions of people. We lack food that is both affordable and nutritious for all and, almost everywhere outside London, we lack a public transport network that can reliably get us to where we need to be.
The reason for that economic failure is straightforward: we have not had the self-confidence and determination to mobilise our enormous resources to meet our fundamental problems. Keynes was right when he argued that we already have all the “resources and technical means” to erase economic need in our country; what we have lacked is the organisation to use them. There are literally trillions of pounds managed by UK pension funds and asset management schemes. If we directed just a fraction of that to investing in our actual priorities, our country could finally hop off the nauseating merry-go-round of chasing growth that endlessly forces us to make trade-offs that have brought our natural world to the brink of collapse.
I will end on this. The fundamental fact about all our lives is that they are transient. The promise of consuming more every year than the last is irrelevant to making the most of the time we are each allotted.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Defence Secretary, who opened the debate for the Government, is undoubtedly a versatile and an entertaining politician, but he did himself a little less than full justice in being so casually dismissive of the remarks made by the Labour Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who, for the record, I have found to be thoughtful, knowledgeable and patriotic. He deserves to be listened to, just as his predecessors in the role, including me, were listened to with, I believe, respect by Conservative Governments, even when we were criticising them. Criticise them we did. As long ago as June 2018, the Defence Committee published a report entitled “Beyond 2 per cent”—that is HC 818, for those nerds interested in looking it up—which called for a level of defence expenditure approaching the figure of 3% of GDP, which the United Kingdom still maintained as late as the mid-1990s.
The mid-1990s were six years or so after the fall of the Berlin wall, and when Government Members keep saying, as the Chancellor said yesterday and as the Defence Secretary repeatedly said today, although he did not take interventions on it, that they are proud to be part of a Government who are behind the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, the question we need to ask is this: how much do they think this country spent on defence during the cold war? When the cold war was over, the threat diminished. The threat is now high—as high as it ever was during the cold war.
During the 1980s, as I have said many times, we spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP, calculated by today’s method of calculation, on defence. In June 2025, the Hague summit declaration called for NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, consisting of 3.5% on core expenditure and 1.5% on wider defence-related items. We are already beginning to hear how the 3.5%, or even the 3%, will be made up by creative accounting. Let us bear in mind that 3.5% is to be on core defence. The creative accounting elements, if they are lucky, may deserve to be included in the 5%, but that is it.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I am so pleased to support a Labour Budget that is backing Scotland and backing Edinburgh, despite the best efforts of the SNP to talk down its benefits and talk down my city. In particular, I welcome the announcement, which is of importance to my constituency, of £18 million for a UK advance chip design academy at Edinburgh University. That is how we build hope for the future. Modern iPhones contain at least a dozen chips designed in Edinburgh, and Edinburgh researchers helped to design a crucial sensor used in iPhone cameras, billions of which are now produced worldwide.
Consider this remarkable statistic from historian Chris Miller: last year, in a single year, the semiconductor industry manufactured more chips than humanity had produced of all other manufactured products combined throughout human history. Artificial intelligence might appear digital, but it depends on something profoundly physical: chips, semiconductors and the infrastructure that powers them. We cannot afford to watch from the sidelines while the United States, Taiwan and others lead the field, and thanks to this Budget, Edinburgh will join them in the future.
I have argued for years that Edinburgh can be one of the great powerhouses of the British economy, provided we have a Government who are willing to back its potential. For too long, however, we have had an SNP Government letting us down at every turn. Edinburgh is the local authority with the lowest funding per head in Scotland, and there are more homeless children in Edinburgh than in the whole of Wales. The SNP Government hoard money in Holyrood and starve Scotland’s capital city. Yesterday, we heard a Labour Chancellor reject that, and make the decisions that will help Edinburgh to thrive. Support for entrepreneurs, start-ups, scale-ups and founders will mean that the innovation of Edinburgh researchers pushes us into the future.
The SNP position on Labour’s investment in Scotland is absurd in the extreme. We heard the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) attack the removal of standing charges from bills, despite having advocated for that policy in this Chamber only months earlier. The Scottish Government’s budget is 12.4% higher, even setting aside new responsibilities. Since Labour came to office, we have delivered £18 billion extra for Scotland’s budget. Where has that money gone? Why are my constituents still facing waiting lists, homelessness and potholes? It is because the SNP Government are so keen to look for grievance that they cannot even work out that they have been given more money. Labour is delivering for Edinburgh. What is holding us back are an SNP Government with no plans, no conception of what Scotland’s capital city can do, and no notion of how to use government to improve people’s lives.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), although I suspect that we will have slightly different assessments of this Budget. In my view, this is a thin gruel of a Budget, and with its 98 measures tinkering at tax and spending, it is not un-reminiscent of Emperor Nero in Rome, fiddling while it burned. This is ultimately a Budget of delay: it kicks the big decisions into the long grass; it is anaemic in terms of its assessment and forecast for growth; and it quite simply does not set out a compelling vision for our economic future. That inertia has a cost, which is obvious in two areas.
The first area, of course, is defence. We are living in an increasingly unstable world. It is negligent—a failure of a duty of government—not to properly fund our armed forces. A consequence of having a plan for a road map to 3% of GDP is that there is no strategy whatsoever. I am afraid that the absence of that plan, from this particular Chancellor especially, does nothing to enhance his credibility in front of the British public and the markets. The second area, which I will touch on briefly, is welfare. I will touch on it briefly because there was barely any mention of it in yesterday’s Budget, and yet welfare spending is predicted to go up by £19 billion this year, and total welfare spending is anticipated to be £431 billion by 2031-32. That is utterly unsustainable.
I want to concentrate on a particular hidden tax measure in the Budget. It is buried in section 6.147 of the Red Book, but it has enormous implications for those who are self-employed and pay their tax under self-assessment. I am one of those individuals, from my historical earnings at the Bar and my aged debt. Under the new proposal, individuals will pay their taxes perhaps on a monthly or quarterly basis—it is unclear yet—and some 50% of tax returns will almost certainly be brought forward in terms of when they are paid. The obvious effect for the Treasury is that receipts in year 1 will increase by £1.3 billion and by year 3 that will be £1.8 billion. However, it will be ruinous for the individuals concerned because they will end up paying tax on issues that they have not yet received. It does not reflect the seasonality of payments and it is, quite frankly, a rather silly policy that has been cooked up by those who have no understanding of business at all.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
In yesterday’s Budget, the Chancellor put in place measures that will put money back into the pockets of my constituents in Shipley, support our brilliant independent businesses, and deliver for carers and families across Bingley, Shipley, Baildon and the surrounding villages. This Budget does that without endangering the strong economic foundations that were laid by the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). I echo the Defence Secretary’s tribute to her for her actions to restore economic stability after the Tories’ economic chaos.
Against a backdrop of global uncertainty, the new Chancellor faced a tricky balancing act rebuilding our public services and maintaining fiscal discipline, but this Chancellor and this Budget got that balance right, delivering security at home, with better public services, and security from threats abroad. I echo what other hon. Members have said and welcome the new energy bills breathing space that will give 36,500 households in Shipley a £100 payment this winter.
I am incredibly proud that, after years of campaigning, the carer’s allowance cliff edge will be abolished and replaced with a taper, so carers who earn just a little over the earnings limit will no longer lose their entire allowance. Carers should never be penalised for working an extra shift, so that unfairness ends under a Labour Government. I share our new Prime Minister’s ambition to reform adult social care, to ensure that disabled adults and older people get the care they need. I look forward to the spending review and hope that his ambition will be matched by the Chancellor in the spending review.
Briefly, I would like to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) and her enjoyment of the PDEL, the new protected prevention spend. It may seem a little geeky, but it could prove transformative. Let us stop paying for failure and crisis, and instead invest in early intervention. Just one example of where that could make a huge difference is in hospice and end of life care. If we funded our local hospices, such as Marie Curie and Sue Ryder, that are currently reliant on charitable funding, they could expand community support. This would deliver reductions in inappropriate and unnecessary hospital admissions at end of life, saving money in the NHS and ensuring more people die at home and in the community.
Finally, I welcome the defence spending. I hope that some of the fantastic, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in defence in Shipley, such as Radio Design and Slipstream Engineering Design, can use it to grow the number of high-skilled jobs in my area.
This is a fantastic Budget. It shows that the Labour Government are listening to people in places like Shipley and backing workers, carers and our local businesses.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Chancellor started his remarks yesterday by praising the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). He said:
“She brought fiscal discipline to this country.”
He also said:
“She took the decisions required to boost investment”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 301]—
apparently! However, what he omitted is actually more telling. The previous Chancellor increased taxes on business, crippled farmers with taxes, and ballooned the welfare bill and borrowing. If that fiscal discipline was so great, perhaps she might have been delivering the Budget yesterday.
The Chancellor also talked about giving Britain some “breathing space” on the cost of living and the cost of business. If this is breathing space, he needs to be very careful of a misrepresentation—the Budget was a faulty inhaler at best.
I am particularly concerned by some of the devolution measures in the Budget. There was a lot of discussion about devolution, but Northamptonshire is not being considered at the moment, and we are battling for any provisions around mayors. We are battling to be considered as part of a unit of six, but the Government are looking at Bedford, Luton and Milton Keynes. When so many decisions will apparently be devolved to these authorities, it is important that Northamptonshire has its right place in the discussions. I hope that we can continue to make the case for Northamptonshire to be part of that unit.
The defence of the realm is absolutely essential, and we all know how vital it is that we get to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, but some of the Defence Secretary’s comments earlier were incredibly shocking. Conservative Members asking detailed questions about how we will achieve that spending should not be dismissed or joked about. It is absolutely right that this Chamber is the place where those questions are answered, so I ask that the Secretary of State reconsiders his approach the next time that the Opposition ask such questions.
When the Chancellor was the Secretary of State for Defence, he resigned for exactly the reason that we could not necessarily reach that 3%. All that was mentioned yesterday was a target. I remind everyone that a target is defined as something that we aim for; we need a full-on commitment here and now. The Budget was given a title that mentions “Fresh Hope for the Future” but this is not about hope for the future; this is about the Government delivering. Hope, as they say, is a little like a rocking chair: it gives us something to do, but it gets us absolutely nowhere. Actions speak much louder than words.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
In the short time available to me, I will go through a few things in the Budget that will genuinely help my constituents, as well as a few areas where the Government should go further.
Let me start with household bills. I will certainly not be alone in this House in finding that most of my constituents are genuinely worried about the pressure of household bills. It is definitely welcome that standing charges have been scrapped from gas bills, that VAT on energy bills has been suspended for longer and that a new £100 household energy payment is being introduced. That will benefit 40,000 properties in my constituency alone. That is welcome breathing space, but it cannot be the summit of our ambitions on energy bills or bills more generally. That is why I welcome the long-term direction set out on energy by the Chancellor yesterday. However, I assure my constituents and give fair warning to Members on the Front Bench that I will be asking for more support if bills do not come down quickly enough in the short and medium term.
I welcome the support given to businesses. Nearly half of all businesses in Yorkshire and the Humber will not pay business rates, following the announcement yesterday. Alongside that immediate support for families and businesses, the Budget made some investments in my home city of Leeds, not least the £200 million extra to transform Leeds train station. There is a lot in that, such as a new bridge over the platforms, three new entrances and bigger and better concourses, but when I went through that yesterday with my wife, Alice, she was very quick to remind me that the improvements to the lifts are incredibly overdue, and she is absolutely right. The lifts are so painfully slow that people have to factor an extra 15 or 20 minutes into their journey if they have a pram or a wheelchair. As somebody who has a five-year-old, a two-year-old and another one arriving in a few weeks’ time, I welcome that investment in our lifts, and I cannot wait to spend the money to make them that a little bit faster for anybody with a pram. I also welcome the £15 million being given to Leeds College of Building for its new campus on the south bank. That campus is going to be used by my constituents; it is going to benefit them and give them the chance to start a new career in an area where we already have skills shortages.
In the very short time available to me, I will also say as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire that we were about to put out a report calling on the Government to give fiscal devolution to the regions, to allow mayors to keep more of the tax revenue that we raise centrally. I was very pleased that the Chancellor beat us to the punch with his announcement. I know that the Prime Minister considers Lord Blunkett to be a personal mentor and hero to him, and he has also been a mentor and hero to our APPG, so I will just say that he took what was in our report and gave it to the Prime Minister, and that is how it ended up in the Budget statement. That is my story, and I am sticking to it.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
This Budget comes at a time when conflict in Europe and the middle east —not of our choosing, not of our making—has hit the cost of living hard here at home, while the threats facing our country make investment in defence and national security more important than ever. As today’s debate was opened on the Government side by the Defence Secretary, I want to make a further point, which is that economic security and national security go hand in hand. That is particularly important in my constituency, where the aerospace and space sectors are vital parts of our local economy. Indeed, as I have said many times in this place, over a quarter of satellites in space contain components made in my town of Stevenage.
To have that security in the long term, though, we have to make sure people get through the attack on our cost of living now. That is why this Budget does so much to provide that breathing space, such as helping with soaring energy bills. We have the £100 household energy payment, which will help 36,000 homes in Stevenage and our villages, and the extension of the electricity VAT cut. The lowest-income pensioners will not be paying income tax as a result of this Budget, and our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in Stevenage will benefit from not facing a real-terms increase in business rates over the next two years. Taken together, these measures all help, and it is no good the Opposition belittling any of them.
When it comes to security, as the Opposition have accepted, the defence investment plan is fully funded. That means that our defence industry can now get on with providing the equipment and support that our armed forces need. We in this House are all united in supporting Ukraine, and I am glad that we all welcome the extra support for Ukraine, but the Opposition had 14 years in government, and they lecture us about defence now. In that time, as I have already said, our armed forces were belittled. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) talked about calling on the last Government to increase defence spending, but they never did it, and now the Conservatives say that they will cut welfare. Welfare ballooned under the last Government, and now they say that they are going to cut £30 billion. They have no plans; they ask us for a plan, but there is nothing from them, so why should we believe a word they say?
This is a time to think about providing breathing space for our constituents. I commend this Budget to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. Perhaps I can begin on a consensual note by pointing out that yet again, as we are debating these important economic matters, including the defence of the realm, there is no Member of Parliament from the Reform party present. They have taken no part in this debate at all. We know that they do not do Thursday afternoons, and they certainly do not do defence either.
Mr Francois
No, I think it is because they are desperately trying to find someone—anyone—to go to one of their press conferences.
Now, according to the Red Book, working-age welfare spending will increase to £221.5 billion in 2031-32. That is almost a quarter of a trillion pounds and an increase of over £57 billion since 2024-25. The Prime Minister famously said at the Dispatch Box just a few weeks ago that
“national security…cannot come at the expense of social security.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.]
That really is a segue to what I principally want to say this afternoon.
What the Chancellor announced yesterday was not a detailed programme for how to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but just a plan to have a plan—which is not really a plan at all. He promised to “begin work”—his words—on how this would be achieved by the time of the spending review next year. The Labour Government have already had two years to answer this question, so why do they need a further year now?
When Labour published the strategic defence review in June 2025, all three authors of the review, led by Lord Robertson, a respected former Secretary-General of NATO, were absolutely adamant that the bill for implementing their recommendations was a minimum of 3% of GDP on defence. Unless and until the Government definitively commit to spending that money, it is very difficult for our armed forces realistically to deter a war with any aggressor, and in particular the Russians—not the Trussians!
At the time of the SDR, we were told that that level of detail would be provided in the subsequent defence investment plan. The House was promised this in the autumn, then by Christmas, then by the new year, then in the spring, and it was finally published only in late June 2026. Nevertheless, when the DIP was eventually published, the Government kicked the can down the road for a second time and still failed to provide a definitive date for when, and crucially how, this country would spend 3% of GDP on defence. Indeed, the then Defence Secretary, now the Chancellor, famously resigned, seemingly on a point of honour, because the Government had failed to give a date for 3%. I have here his resignation letter, dated 11 June, and I quote from it directly:
“After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.”
It is also worth recalling that the then Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), resigned in company with him, partly over this and also because of his very severe reservations about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—a wicked Bill—which he famously described as “unfit for purpose”.
Once the previous Prime Minister then fell, miraculously, having resigned as Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) was immediately reincarnated as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, he then found himself with the boot very much on the other foot. Given his understanding of defence, and the solemn terms in which he wrote his letter, it was not unreasonable to assume that, having now seized control of the bridge at the Treasury, he would be ideally placed to meet his own request to name the date for 3% and how to finance it. Otherwise, why did he resign? I am therefore genuinely deeply saddened to see that, yesterday, he failed his own test. All we were given was an offer to produce a plan for 3% in the Government spending review, which will take place next year. In other words, a man who seemingly resigned on a point of honour, when he had the perfect chance to put that problem right, completely ducked it. All that Labour has done is kick the can down the road for a third time.
Our armed forces therefore cannot realistically plan because they do not know how much money they will really have to spend on this nation’s defence, and they are now going to have to wait at least another year before they do. The House need not take it from me; Chris Mason, the political editor of the BBC, in summarising the Budget on the 6 o’clock news last night, said, “The biggest questions this Government still faces, such as the long-term funding of defence, this Budget didn’t answer.”
In fact, it is even worse than that. When the Defence Secretary agreed the SDR, he also signed up with the Treasury for almost £11 billion of efficiency savings. This was a Labour deal—a Faustian pact—between two warring Government Departments, but the effect of those in-year efficiency savings, or “spending cuts” in pub English, is now proving debilitating for our armed forces. The in-year cuts were some £2.5 billion in the previous financial year and £3.5 billion this year, 2026-27.
One of the reasons it took nearly a month to get HMS Dragon to sea was that maintenance cuts occurred under the efficiency savings programme. We now see the vast bulk of the Royal Navy tied up alongside the quayside, partly because of maintenance issues but also to save money. For many months, we had a period in which not a single one of our nuclear attack submarines was at sea. The Minister might intervene and chide me for discussing submarine movements on the Floor of the House, but I am not—I am discussing the absence of submarine movements on the Floor of the House.
We have also seen Army exercises cancelled on Salisbury plain and flying hours reduced for some of our RAF pilots. These are exactly the wrong things to be doing if we are trying to send messages to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, to deter him from further adventurism—for instance, in the Baltic states. Yesterday, the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee—I am afraid I am going to quote him again—excellently summed it up by saying that
“some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.”
He should know.
Yesterday we even learned from the depths of the Budget Red Book that the Chancellor has effectively cut the overall MOD budget by £1 billion in each of the next two years by pocketing reduced spending estimates on MOD pensions for the Treasury, rather than allowing the MOD to retain the cash and spend it on bolstering our defences. The Treasury has described these two £1 billion cuts in the defence budget as an “accounting adjustment”. Well, it is Enron accounting. It is smoke and mirrors, and it only helps our adversaries, not our armed forces.
On defence housing, there is a similar story. I served for some five months on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, and we were told repeatedly that the money for housing would not be raided for short-term efficiency savings. In fact, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak told us in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 18 March:
“The £9 billion has been ringfenced; it has absolutely been secured for defence housing. Nothing in the DIP process will stop us getting on with the job of making these improvements and getting the job done. We have made that commitment to not just the armed forces community but the nation. We have said it in the House, and we will see it through.”
That is completely unambiguous, so imagine our anger when we then saw a letter from the permanent secretary to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, dated 25 September, which said not only that some £850 million of that money will be deferred to the next Parliament, but that an additional £1 billion of upgrades to single living accommodation for soldiers will be deferred as well. What the Government have done is cut nearly £2 billion of that investment in this Parliament, in a desperate attempt to meet exactly the Treasury-imposed efficiency savings target that, for five months, they swore blind to us they would not do.
The Defence Secretary, who opened this debate, neglected to mention the MOD’s £3.5 billion efficiency savings target for this year. He talks about being ready for war within 1,000 days, while at the same time imposing crippling cuts on the operations and training of our armed forces, who are there to deter war in the first place—si vis pacem, para bellum. The Budget totally failed to answer the question of how the Government will actually spend 3% of GDP on defence, and they are listening in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang. This is a dereliction of duty by a Government who will the ends but do not will the means, who talk tough but act weak, who have let down the people of this country and will not defend them properly, and who must be held to account at the ballot box for their abject failure in defence of the realm.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this Budget debate. It is an honour to respond on behalf of the Government.
Yesterday, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that will steer Britain through a period of global volatility and the economic storm that has increased pressures on families and firms across this country. It is a Budget that doubles down on our fiscal discipline, and that strengthens our economic resilience and national security, making responsible choices in an uncertain world. It is a Budget that offers households and businesses breathing space from cost pressures in the here and now, and one that makes critical structural changes that will drive our future prosperity.
Over the course of the debate, the Defence Secretary and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), have rightly emphasised the importance of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, which underwrites every promise this Government make to the British people. As was made clear yesterday, in this Budget the Chancellor has met his fiscal rules, and for the first time this Government are meeting them in the third year of the forecast. The headroom against the stability rule is £15 billion, rising to £22 billion in 2030-31. Last year, we cut borrowing to its lowest level in six years, and the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook confirms that borrowing will fall over the forecast.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will forgive Government Members for taking the advice of the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), with not so much a pinch of salt, but a whole bucket of it, because not only is he the architect of the mini-Budget, but he maintained just a few weeks ago that the mini-Budget, as the Defence Secretary said, contained lots of good things. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor would like to tell us what those good things were. Were those good things the sky-high mortgages for millions of people right across this country, including in my constituency, the disastrous market impact, or the cratering of our international reputation?
Britain’s economic reputation was so badly damaged under the Conservatives that the IMF publicly warned them to change course. [Interruption.] You can tell that they do not like to be reminded of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), does not like that either, because he was one of the mini-Budget’s chief architects and, indeed, one of its most ardent fans. The reality is that the contrast between their approach and ours could not be clearer.
Dr Luke Evans
Talking about structural problems and difficulties, a press release has just come out from the Labour party that says: “Exclusive. Chancellor tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring welfare bills down in this Parliament”. Does the Minister stand by that?
Lucy Rigby
We are reforming welfare, and the Prime Minister has made it clear today—[Interruption.] The welfare Budget ballooned under the Conservative party. The Prime Minister has been very clear today that the welfare bill will come down.
As I have said, the contrast between our approach and the Conservatives’ could not be clearer. The IMF forecast earlier this month that our deficit would be the lowest in the G7 by 2029. Fiscal strength matters because our economic security and our national security are inseparable. That is why this Budget strengthens Britain’s capacity to withstand global volatility. It funds the defence investment plan by reprioritising capital budgets, so that Britain can respond to a more dangerous world. It also strengthens our defence industrial base and supports skilled jobs across the country. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), it also—
Steve Barclay
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Economic Secretary has just said at the Dispatch Box that the welfare bill will come down. The BBC has been reporting, following the Chancellor saying the same thing this morning, that No. 10 and the Treasury have informed the media that that is not the case, and the welfare bill will not be coming down. How do we ensure that the House gets the true position, because it is rather hard to keep up when the message keeps changing?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know full well that it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard his point.
Lucy Rigby
Let me talk now about energy security, because it is part of our national security, too. We are reforming our energy system so that Britain is less exposed to volatility. We will freeze new policy costs on bills, pending a comprehensive cost control framework. We are accelerating investment in the grid and we are procuring clean power only where it lowers bills and can connect properly.
When it comes to our public services, this Government have stabilised spending after years of under-investment by the Conservative party.
Mr Francois
I am sure the right hon. and learned Lady can confirm to the House that she is a Treasury Minister. I have here the press release issued by—the Treasury—which says, “Exclusive. Chancellor John Healey tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy Labour will not bring welfare bill—”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Francois, we refer to him as the Chancellor, not by his name.
Mr Francois
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was reading the press release, but I accept your admonition.
Anyway, it says that the bloke who is in charge of the Treasury has told Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring the welfare bill down in this Parliament and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—to give the right hon. and learned Lady her correct title—has just said that it will. Who is right? Is it the right hon. and learned Lady, or is it her boss? They cannot both be, can they?
Lucy Rigby
The Prime Minister confirmed earlier today that we will bring the welfare bill down as soon as possible. I am very happy to confirm that.
As the Chancellor said yesterday, when it comes to public services we will insist on reform, prioritisation and value for money. That is what resilience looks like: sound public finances, secure energy, strong defence and a state that is able to act when the country needs it to.
As hon. Members have made clear, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), the measures in the Budget will provide breathing room for families and businesses now, while also helping to bring bills down over the long term. We know that energy pressures are not just felt by families but by businesses, too. That is exactly why we are increasing the small business rate relief threshold for retail hospitality and leisure properties, taking around 70,000 more businesses out of business rates altogether. For other businesses in the sector, rates will be frozen in real terms for two years.
We are supporting high streets and the businesses that give them life. We are backing pubs, clubs and music venues. We are reducing the supply-side barriers that firms repeatedly tell us hold them back: energy costs, slow infrastructure decisions, red tape and access to finance. And because of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, all those measures are fully funded.
Anna Dixon
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her closing remarks and for responding to the points raised during the debate. Will she confirm that business rates relief will not apply to the vape shops that are popping up on our high streets and blighting them?
Lucy Rigby
I can.
On that commitment to sound finances, our plan is to double down on the conditions that will allow for the growth that will drive this country’s future prosperity. We are determined that Britain will be an even better place to start a business, to scale it and then to stay. A new founders’ relief will offer a 10% capital gains tax rate on eligible lifetime gains of up to £10 million for founders of high-growth companies. We are doubling the CSOP—company share option plan—limits and we are tripling the trading allowance, too.
Recognising that artificial intelligence is the defining technology of our time—it is already turbocharging productivity—we are putting more than £700 million behind making it safer, more secure and easier to adopt. I am pleased to confirm to the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we will continue to safely adopt AI within the public sector, improving public services and productivity while securing better value for taxpayers.
The Chancellor also talked yesterday about significant change to our energy policy, because we know that affordable, secure energy is a platform for growth. By accelerating grid connection, controlling costs and lowering electricity bills, we will strengthen industrial competitiveness and unlock investment across the country.
We are putting our public finance institutions at the heart of Britain’s growth mission with an additional £20.4 billion of capital for the national wealth fund and the British Business Bank.
To conclude, in the first half of this year, our economy was the joint fastest growing in the G7, alongside the United States. The OBR has raised its forecast for growth this year. Whole economy investment, business investment and productivity are all up. That progress is being tested by global pressures, which is exactly why the Chancellor has delivered a Budget that will steer us through the storm. It is a Budget underpinned by fiscal discipline, it provides support to families and firms now, it will strengthen our resilience, and it will put this country on the better, more secure and more prosperous course that the British people deserve.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Liam Conlon.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 2 November.
Petition
Sodium Valproate
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
It is not the first time that I have had an Adjournment debate on sodium valproate in my 11-and-a-bit years as a Member of Parliament. It continues to be an issue that affects so many, and for which justice still feels so far away.
Given the history of this House debating the topic, I do not intend to spend much time going over the history of the drug, which has been used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder since the early 1970s. For the benefit of anyone who is tuning in for the first time, I will go over the brief facts of what happened. The drug is teratogenic and was known to be teratogenic from the time it was first licensed. Despite that, doctors were initially advised that the risk did not justify
“discouraging a woman who needs anticonvulsant treatment from having a child or changing a satisfactory drug regimen when the epilepsy is well controlled.”
The result has been that we have been playing catch-up ever since, with the Valproate Pregnancy Prevention Programme only being launched in 2018, following tireless campaigning from women affected, such as my constituent Janet Williams—who is in the Public Gallery—and her friend and colleague Emma Murphy.
It is difficult to calculate the number of children exposed to valproate in utero since its 1973 licensing. The Patient Safety Commissioner has made an estimate of around 14,000 for the period from 1972 to 2017 in England. Diagnosis often gets picked up when clinicians, or in some cases parents, recognise facial dysmorphic features. Children born with foetal valproate spectrum disorder can have a wide range of physical and mental health symptoms, including but not limited to weak muscles, visual problems, hearing difficulties, difficulties with balance, social anxiety, low energy, heightened sensitivity to noise and difficulties in regulating emotions. One of the biggest health conditions facing people with foetal valproate spectrum disorder is autism. A significant number also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, dyspraxia, sensory processing disorder and epilepsy.
It can affect children in very different ways. In some of the most severe cases—I know that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has a constituent who is very severely affected—the individual can end up bedbound and very severely disabled. For some children, autism and sensory processing may be more of an issue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for introducing this long-awaited debate. I have a constituent, Karen Buck, whose daughter, Bridget Doyle, was born paralysed, is bedbound and suffers from autism. The reality is that there are many victims out there who suffer from a variety of conditions, as the hon. Lady quite rightly points out—not least spina bifida, which she has not mentioned. The problem here is that legal aid for the court case, which was established to try to get recompense for those victims, was withdrawn some 20 years ago. Unfortunately, although commitments have been made time and again to help these people, these mothers are now advanced in age, and the children they have supported will desperately need support when their lives end. Does the hon. Lady think there is now a need for a proper compensation scheme?
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of his constituent Karen and her daughter, Bridget. I agree entirely that the time is now. He raises an important point that because this scandal has been going on for so long—the drug was first licensed in the 1970s—the babies who were harmed are no longer babies or even children, but adults with disabilities, whose parents are getting older every year. When I speak to those parents, one of their biggest anxieties is about who will look after their children when they no longer can. That is why we need compensation to be paid out sooner rather than later, because it has frankly already been too long.
I turn to the case for compensation. The case for redress from the Government for the families affected by this maladministration has been conclusively made. This is not the first debate we have had in this Chamber on this matter, and there have been multiple reviews on it. In 2020, the Cumberlege review, established by the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, found that
“the state and manufacturers have an ethical responsibility to provide ex gratia payments to those who have experienced avoidable damage”.
These payments should be made to cover costs such as
“travel to medical appointments, respite breaks or emergency payments where a parent has to stop working to cover care.”
I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister for her work on this issue, because she really is a doughty campaigner on this.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I also have constituents affected by the sodium valproate issue. I wonder whether she agrees that it is a double injustice—first, that the parents, Emma and Janet, had to fight to get recognition and change in the prescription of sodium valproate; and secondly, that they have to fight again to get compensation for the very real damage caused.
Cat Smith
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, but I would go further still. For parents of children with additional needs, the last thing they need is to be fighting a national campaign for justice. They already have enough on their plate trying to cope with their child and ensuring they are accessing the support they need without having to run a national campaign, but that has been the reality for many of the parents—primarily mothers—of children who have been harmed by valproate. That is exactly what they have had to go on and do.
I turn back to the history of the reviews into this scandal. The Conservative Government initially rejected the recommendation that I have just set out; however, in 2022, they had a change of heart when the then Health Minister, Maria Caulfield, tasked the patient safety commissioner with providing options for financial redress. That felt like a real step forward for the campaign at that point.
The commissioner produced the Hughes report in February 2024. It reiterated what we already know. It says:
“The Government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate”.
The Hughes report recommended that the Government create a two-stage—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the hon. Member to continue, I would just like to say what a pleasure it is to see the Clerk of the House at the Table for his last ever Adjournment debate.
Cat Smith
The Hughes report recommended that the Government create a two-stage financial redress scheme, comprising an interim scheme and a main scheme, with the interim payments commencing in 2025. Those who are paying attention will realise that it is now somewhat later than that. The commissioner further recommended that the payments be made by an independent body that commands the confidence of patients. That point is particularly important. The patients who have been harmed have lost so much confidence, so it is really important to have an independent body administering the scheme, to give them confidence in it being done properly.
Both the Cumberledge review and the Hughes report stressed the need for speed when responding to this issue. That is to a large extent, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) set out, due to the time and nature of the scandal. We now have a cohort of adults with foetal valproate spectrum disorder whose parents are finding it increasingly difficult to support their needs, due to their own health and care requirements.
Sadly, over two years on from the Hughes report, the Government have yet to formally respond to it, despite a clear recommendation that interim payments were to have commenced last year. The previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), gave a television interview with ITV Granada’s Líse McNally in February this year in which he indicated that he wanted to commence compensation payments before the end of this Parliament. It is therefore troubling that, as set out in answers to parliamentary questions from me and colleagues, the Government’s line today remains that
“a decision to provide compensation has not yet been made.”
I want to touch on the responses that colleagues and I have been getting to our written parliamentary questions, because they are increasingly frustrating. It almost feels as though, when Ministers see a written parliamentary question come in with the word “valproate” in it, a stock answer gets lifted off the shelf and given to Members. Some victims have told me recently that they feel quite gaslit by some of the answers to written parliamentary questions; they keep referring back to the same answer. We really need to make progress on this issue.
Does the Minister understand the considerable distress that such uncertainty and inconsistency causes, and will she today make it unequivocally clear that the Government accept the case for financial redress for the victims of sodium valproate, and put in place a clear timetable for delivering financial redress?
My right hon. Friend is a good Minister and will want to do the right thing, but if she needs any more persuading, she can tune into BBC Two at 9 pm on 9 November and watch “Mums v Big Pharma”, which was produced by the same people who made the programme about the Post Office scandal. It shows the human cost of the scandal for so many families, some of whom are in the Gallery tonight. The programme is the perspective of two Lancashire mams who have absolutely had enough and are fighting for justice. If I know one thing about Lancashire women, it is that when we have got our teeth into something, we tend to stick at it, and we will persevere. That especially goes for Janet Williams, who has been campaigning for justice since 1996. It really is time that justice was brought forward for these victims.
In addition to the conversations I have had with victims of the scandal, I have heard concerns raised by those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who feel that the Government have not engaged as well with victims in the devolved nations. Part of that will be because health is devolved to those nations, but although health is a devolved matter, the regulation of human medicines and medicinal products remains reserved. Those victims, too, deserve to be taken seriously and brought with English victims on that journey towards redress, both financial and non-financial. The Government have previously put in place UK-wide schemes for redress, such as for infected blood, and I know that the Minister is well aware of that. Will the Government therefore commit to working closely with victims from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the devolved Administrations, on this matter?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on behalf of the victims of this scandal. Is she aware of the report from the Public Accounts Committee that makes recommendations about Government compensation schemes? We looked at schemes, including for the infected blood scandal, and our recommendations were that schemes needed to be designed with the victims, and that there should be independence, just as there is in the case of infected blood. I hope that the Minister, in responding, will take note of that report, and will say how such a compensation scheme could be set up that provides quick redress to victims, in the way that my hon. Friend hopes.
Cat Smith
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she does, along with others, on the Public Accounts Committee. That report is right to stress both independence as a means of giving confidence to victims, and schemes being designed with victims. These families have already had so much done to them that it is important, when it comes to redress, that they are part of designing the solution. Part of redress, and of getting justice, is no longer having things done to them, and instead being part of designing the solution.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being late to the debate. The early start caught me somewhat by surprise. As my hon. Friend is aware—she may have touched on this already—the Hughes report is excellent. It gave a blueprint, right down to the amounts involved, for how a redress model could be put in place and facilitated. It has been over two years since the Hughes report. I know that there has been a change of Government, but this Government have been in for over two years now. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Government came forward and accepted the recommendations of the Hughes report?
Cat Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done over a number of years on this issue. She has been a doughty campaigner on sodium valproate, and she has the confidence of many of the victims and is very well thought of. I entirely agree with what she says about the Hughes report. It is a very good report that should have been acted on already. It is frustrating that we have been waiting as long as we have.
There were many things in the report on redress, including on non-financial redress. As part of that, we have the pilot clinics in Manchester and Newcastle, which support children and adults who have been affected by valproate. They are pilots, however, unlike some of the other clinics. In the case of mesh, the clinics are permanent, and they are able to provide psychological support as well. The clinics for the victims of valproate are still in trial, and we do not have any outside the north of England. As a north of England MP, I am very glad that the clinics are local to me, but victims of valproate live right across the United Kingdom, and accessing support should not become a postcode lottery. Will the Government update the House on whether the clinics will be made permanent and perhaps expanded to cover a wider geography?
Finally, will the Minister meet me and victims, especially those from the campaign organisation INFACT, to discuss in detail the Government’s long-term intentions in this area? Many of the victims feel that they have been in the dark about what is happening for an awfully long time. We have been in government since 2024, and the time has come; we can no longer drag our feet. Justice needs to be done, and redress needs to be put in place. The families affected are owed no less than that.
I am so glad that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you, too, have been a doughty supporter of these victims, and I know that you are fondly thought of, especially by those in the Public Gallery, for your support on this. I am grateful for the interventions from Members on both sides of the House. This truly is an issue that cuts across party politics. Regardless of what colour rosette we wear, we cannot fail to see the injustice that has been done to these families. I would like it to be a Labour Government who deliver redress to these victims.
This scandal has been going on since the 1970s. The time for just talking about this has passed—we need to start acting. The families who have been affected are owed nothing less. I hope that in the Minister’s reply, she will give them some hope, because I am told that hope is back. Let us make sure that means something, and let us have some hope from the Dispatch Box tonight.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
May I too say how nice it is to see the Clerk of the House in his place? I pay tribute to him for his long service in this place, and wish him the very best for the next chapter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing this important debate, and thank all hon. Members who have contributed on this sensitive and important topic. We have had important contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). You too, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been a long-standing supporter on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has been working tirelessly for many years on behalf of her constituent Janet Williams and all the campaigners and the families, including Emma Murphy, to whom she referred. We need to ensure that the voices of women and families are heard, and that they are at the heart of our discussions and debates. I agree with my hon. Friend about the perseverance of women, and there is clear perseverance here. I have been very moved by the stories I have heard, including before coming into office, and the more I look into this matter, the more tragic it appears to be. I will watch that television programme on 9 November that my hon. Friend referred to.
As my hon. Friend would expect, since becoming the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, I have been briefed by officials on the Hughes report and the progress we have made so far. Of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and the families affected. I am also determined to make progress on the Government’s response to the Hughes report, and I will of course work closely with devolved Governments in doing that because, as has been said, this affects all parts of the United Kingdom, so we need to work together. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), established a direct line with the Patient Safety Commissioner to start to drive this work forward. I think that was the right approach, and I look forward to meeting Professor Hughes shortly.
I am conscious that it has been more than two years since Professor Hughes published her report, and more than five years since the independent medicines and medical devices safety review was issued by Baroness Cumberlege. We know that the lives of women, children and their families have been profoundly changed. Their voices must be heard as we address these issues with the urgency demanded.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituent Matthew Cox has foetal valproate syndrome. This time last year, he wrote to the Prime Minister. It took several months for him to get a response. He wrote again to No. 10 in March, and I wrote to the Health Secretary in July. There have been no responses, and the response that Matthew did receive was not an appropriate response for someone with learning difficulties. Will the Minister take Matthew’s case away specifically, and ensure that he gets the response he has been looking for? He and his mum welcome the hope that a new Labour Government brought on this; it is essential that we deliver for them.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will of course take that away. As a Minister, I have made it clear that we should respond in a timely way not only to Members of Parliament, but in other correspondence, and in a way in which people can understand what is being said to them. I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point.
Moving on, we are determined to build a system that listens, that hears and that will act, and we need to do that with speed, compassion and proportionality. As someone who has fought hard for the compensation due to the victims of the infected blood scandal, I fully understand the strength of feeling on this matter, and I can also appreciate the frustrations of the families and the campaigners. This is a complex and sensitive issue that requires careful co-ordination across Government.
The support we offer to those who have suffered profound harm must be meaningful and responsive to their needs. The Government are clear that those affected have already waited far too long for answers. While a decision has not yet been taken to provide financial redress, my priority is to drive these discussions forward with greater urgency, while ensuring that any decisions we take are underpinned by a thorough assessment of the available options, with continued engagement across Government. Our discussions so far have considered the scope, affordability and practical challenges of a redress scheme, so I will say a few words about non-financial redress.
Cat Smith
I seek some clarity. The Minister says that the decision has not yet been made, yet a previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), told ITV that he was expecting financial redress by the end of this Parliament. Can the Minister just clarify that, because it seems inconsistent?
Dame Diana Johnson
My understanding of what the previous Secretary of State said is that he wanted to see progress within this Parliament. I am mindful of the Hughes report, which set out clear recommendations around redress, and I have just tried to set out that that is the avenue I am pursuing with some speed, looking at what the options are. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend.
Liz Twist
I know from the Minister’s previous work that she will be conscious of the issues, but we are two years on from the Hughes report, which made it clear that we need to act. This is an important issue, and it feels like a group—primarily of women—are being left to one side to wait their turn or bide their time. Can the Minister assure me that she will be in the Department, making sure that we get a real answer on financial and other redress? I am sure she will be doing that, but we need to see some action.
Dame Diana Johnson
I fully understand and appreciate the frustration, because it has been two years since the report was published. I will do my very best. I know that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, who is in her place, was also looking at what more we could do to speed up matters. I give an undertaking to this House that I will do my very best to make sure that we make progress on redress and all the recommendations in the Hughes report.
Dame Diana Johnson
I can see that my hon. Friend wants me to give way, and I am happy to.
Mrs Hodgson
I know that my right hon. Friend, with her experience of leading the infected blood campaign, is best placed to deliver for all these victims of mesh and valproate—maybe Primodos as well, although that was not covered in the Hughes report. I would like to add one other thing to her list, if I may, and that is payments from big pharma to the health sector. They really do have to be disclosed. At the moment, they are ambiguous and misleading, and lump sum payments can hide a multitude of payments. Does she agree that, to prevent future injustices, it is time for the Government to enact a statutory approach to payment transparency in the health sector?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend and see what we can do.
I want to deal with non-financial redress. It is important to recognise that people need support now. The Department is working with the NHS to put in place a range of measures to support the women and their families, alongside action to strengthen the safe prescribing of sodium valproate. In February, on the second anniversary of the Hughes report, the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), set out how the Department is addressing their needs by improving the clinical services and treatment that patients receive, commissioning further research and initiating long-term preventive measures. I would like to update colleagues on those initiatives.
First, on the improvements to services and treatment, the number of women who have been prescribed sodium valproate has gone down since 2018, although there is a cohort who have already been affected and require specific treatment. We must ensure that our healthcare system is shaped around their needs and experiences. Shortly after the Government came to office, NHS England began operating the foetal exposure to medicines pilot service in hospitals in Manchester and Newcastle, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred. The project is providing multidisciplinary assessments, diagnosis and treatment planning, and its findings will inform the way we do this at a national level.
The proposed extension of the pilot project includes setting up a third site and an independent evaluation of the pilot, because we should not be marking our own homework. That should give us the evidence we need to determine whether a nationally commissioned service could be implemented across England. This approach balances the need to improve support for affected individuals and families with the requirement to ensure that any future national service is evidence-based, clinically effective and financially sustainable.
Bob Blackman
It is good news that the Minister is considering a national proposal. Will she undertake to have a meeting with the long-suffering victims of this scandal, who have been caring for their children for many years without support, in such desperate times, to show her commitment to doing what needs to be done for them? I think she will learn quite a lot from such a meeting.
Dame Diana Johnson
Of course I will. I would be very interested in doing that and learning more, and I am sure my office will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about that.
Secondly, on research and development, we are working with clinicians from the pilot and other experts to see how we can improve the services available to affected patients.
Finally, on prevention, NHS England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have introduced strict measures to minimise valproate exposure during pregnancy, including pregnancy prevention programmes, and prescribing controls and specialist counselling for women who may become pregnant while taking the medication.
Let me close by again paying tribute to all the families whose lives have been changed forever by sodium valproate and the other issues that were set out in the Hughes report around pelvic mesh. I hope I have made clear how determined we are to respond to the Hughes report with the urgency and the compassion that those families absolutely deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I was overseas when the tributes to the Clerk of the House were made last week, so I would just like to correct the Minister: the Clerk of the House cannot be very long serving, because he is clearly an incredibly young man and far too young to retire. I add my thanks to him for all the support and help he has given me in this role.
Question put and agreed to.
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch all electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed in the sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions begin. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally and quickly, without a debate. Date Time Witness Thursday 29 October Until no later than 12.05pm The AA The RAC Foundation Thursday 29 October Until no later than 12.45pm Logistics UK The Road Haulage Association M6toll Thursday 29 October Until no later than 1.00pm Transport Action Network Thursday 29 October Until no later than 2.35pm The Centre for Policy Studies Britain Remade Thursday 29 October Until no later than 2.55pm British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association Thursday 29 October Until no later than 3.35pm Office of Rail and Road National Highways Thursday 29 October Until no later than 4.10pm Wates Construction John Laing Thursday 29 October Until no later than 4.30pm Department for Transport
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 29 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 October;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 23; Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 68; Schedule 2; Clause 69; Schedule 3; Clauses 70 to 97; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 98 to 104; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November.—(Justin Madders.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Justin Madders.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Justin Madders.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No one does, so we will hear evidence first from the Automobile Association and the RAC Foundation—welcome. We must stick to the timings that are in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.05 pm. Will you please briefly introduce yourselves for the Committee?
Edmund King: I am Edmund King. I am president of the Automobile Association and director of the AA Charitable Trust. I am a former visiting professor of transport at Newcastle University, and I have been involved in roads and road infrastructure probably for about 30 or 35 years. I used to be a member of the British Road Federation, which campaigned for better roads in the late ’80s and the ’90s.
Steve Gooding: Good morning, I am Steve Gooding. I am the director of the RAC Foundation, the charitable research body set up by the Royal Automobile Club back in the 1990s to conduct and disseminate research relating to motoring.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
On one level the Bill, particularly on Second Reading and in other narratives that have come out since it was first published, seems to be presented as answering the question: how do you solve a problem like the lower Thames crossing? But it equally has a lot of other provisions—perhaps it is due to badly drafted clauses or perhaps it is deliberate—that seem to allow tolling and road pricing to extend further than the lower Thames crossing. Is that something your organisations are concerned about, and do you feel enough focus has been given to parts of Bill related to everything other than the lower Thames crossing—to the general motorists in this country?
Edmund King: Obviously if you look at the need for the lower Thames crossing—the congestion and the environmental issues currently at Dartford—it is easy to see that some alternative solution is needed. But, as you rightly say, this Bill is not just about the lower Thames crossing; it could allow that finance model with other schemes. It might have been easier if it was concentrated on the lower Thames crossing because then you could have brought in more restrictions and safeguards on tolls for motorists.
As the Bill stands, on the one hand you have the Office of Rail and Road as the regulator for it, and then you have drivers who are the consumers, whether they are individual motorists or heavy goods vehicle drivers. To some extent, there might be a conflict between those two. The ORR has to ensure that the licensee makes money from it so it can be viable, but at the same time, it regulates tolls for the drivers. You could argue that there might be a conflict in that at times.
When we looked at similar schemes before—I did a paper on road miles with an economist, which looked at the broader issue of road pricing—one thing we called for was an independent body to oversee tolling and ensure it is fair. I certainly think that the responsibility of the ORR when it comes to tolls could be strengthened and given more independence within the Bill.
Steve Gooding: Clearly, the Committee will want to look very closely at clause 3, which I think is the key thing here. Yes, we looked at it and wondered whether this was a way of creating a framework that could then be applied to the existing road network and the existing motorway network. Clearly, the provisions relate to the trunk roads—the National Highways roads.
I think the way clause 3 is drafted tightens that down to where capacity is being added, but we want the Committee to look at how much capacity is being added in order to make that a valid use of the powers in the Bill. Is it simply, for example, playing tunes with the speed limits or maybe adding a lane? What is it? In those circumstances, would we really be contemplating transferring sections of the existing national road network over to a private company? I do not think that is the intention, but the intention is not always the actuality.
Greg Smith
Q
“A licence may also provide for the holder of the licence to secure the maintenance, operation or improvement of any other highway”.
Is it the view of your organisation and members that people would expect that to be about an entirely new road or perhaps a dualled road where there is currently a single carriageway, rather than making what many might consider a relatively minor improvement, such as—I do not know whether this is an improvement—adding smart motorway cameras?
Steve Gooding: Our understanding of it, and this is why I think the Committee will want to make sure this is clear, is that the subsections of clause 3 relate back to each other. It is not relatively minor maintenance of itself that would enable the licence to be awarded. In our reading of it, it has to be linked back to enhancement and capacity—but perhaps the Minister will want to make that clearer.
Greg Smith
Q
Edmund King: You can say that in relation to the lower Thames crossing, because in that part you know the two elements—one is the current Dartford crossing; one is the new crossing—and you can look in that area. But if you look at the Bill more generally, it is very difficult to say because we do not know where it will be applied. Clause 3(1)(a) does say
“construction of a highway specified in the licence”,
but we obviously do not know where that highway is or what the competing interests are with housing, the economy, routes and so on. In terms of this Bill, it is difficult to say unless a concrete scheme is being considered.
Steve Gooding: It is within the duties that are being placed on the Secretary of State to consider where these powers will be used: there are duties in relation to having regard to users of the network, for example. It could be made more explicit. After all, we are talking about a national asset here, and if faced with a toll and an alternative, people might well choose the alternative, with negative traffic impacts in the round. That would have to be taken into account.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
Q
There is a narrative that the Bill is a Trojan horse for widespread road charging. We have made it very clear that the operation of this legislation will be for specific and limited circumstances. Is there something more that we can do or say to reassure you that there is no secret plan to widely use this?
Steve Gooding: I certainly do not think that it is a conscious Trojan horse, if I may say that, but having been involved in similar drafting exercises before, one always wants to destruction test whether something could be used in a way that was not anticipated. When one looks at the proposals for the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames, you are bundling the existing crossing into the package, as it were, that the private sector licensee is going to run. One wonders whether there might be other instances where something will be brought into the ambit of the licence that we will not have been expecting or intending at the point of passing the legislation, for which we might need further tightening of clause 3.
Edmund King: Part of the problem with Governments and tolls is their previous record. If you go back to the original Dartford crossing, the tolls were meant to be removed when the bridge was paid for and certain maintenance was put aside; that occurred in 2003, and subsequent Governments have not removed them. Drivers do remember that Governments have rescinded their promises, so there is that mistrust. Having said that, when we talk to drivers about new infrastructure—and about it being new infrastructure, not existing infrastructure—they are much more open to it being tolled because they can see the benefits in time savings, reducing congestion and so on. Certainly with the lower Thames crossing, they can see the benefits from that.
Justin Madders
Q
Edmund King: Clause 83 talks about a stakeholder group being appointed by the ORR even though the chair is approved by the Secretary of State. In a way, if the ORR is the regulator, surely the stakeholder group should be more independent. We would rather see that clause changed so that the Secretary of State appoints the stakeholder group, so that it has a degree of independence. If the regulator appoints the stakeholder group, surely it will say what the regulator wants it to say, so more independence could be built in there.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Steve Gooding: Our starting point would be that the right sort of duties are applied to the ORR in the Bill, in terms of having regard to the interests of road users and customers of this service. Of course, there are certain things that the Bill provides for that we have not seen yet: we do not know what the terms of the licence will be, we do not know what the terms of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR will be, and we do not know exactly the ORR’s template will be. I am well aware that there is always a balance to be struck between what goes into those documents and what could actually be in the Bill. In principle, I think that the protection is there, but in practice, it might be sensible to have a bit more in the Bill and a bit less reliance on the other documents—but until you see the drafts of the other documents, it is quite hard to tell.
Edmund King: Clause 26 talks about tolls being “fair and transparent”. I think that we would like to have seen something built in there about affordability, because they can be fair and transparent, but can people afford them? In effect, the lower Thames crossing and Dartford will have a monopoly position. If you want to cross the Thames to the east of London, they are your choices.
When the M6 toll first opened, it was rumoured that the tolls for HGVs were initially artificially high and that the operators did not particularly want HGVs to cause wear and tear on the toll. I think that question of affordability is important, and it goes beyond cost: if people cannot afford the toll, they will use other, inadequate roads or go the long way around the M25, which is already vastly congested near Heathrow. I think something about affordability should be built in—perhaps linked to inflation; something more—so that the monopoly position cannot be exploited.
Olly Glover
Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
One concern for them is that there might be perverse incentives via the tolling to use one crossing rather than another. Do you have views about how we could make sure that does not happen and what the ORR would need to do in negotiation with the licence holder? Do you have any views about local resident discount schemes, including how well they have worked elsewhere and whether they should be a necessary part of any future arrangement, although that may not be in the Bill?
Edmund King: Those are all relevant questions, even down to the time that the toll applies—is it 24 hours a day or 6 am to 10 pm, as it is currently? Are motorcycles free? What is the resident discount? Could there be a resident discount? We believe that there should be, because frequent users, such as those who live on one side of the crossing and work on the other, are already paying motoring tax in other ways, but is this a tax on jobs? Those issues are vital. It is also vital to get the support of local people, whether they be businesses or drivers. Giving those concessions would help win that support, particularly when we know that the construction period will cause a lot of congestion and adverse effects. Those are all valid points.
Steve Gooding: All I would add is that this is one of the challenges with creating an overarching framework in the Bill rather than something specific to the Dartford and lower Thames crossings. I do not doubt that in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR, there will be explicit reference to the need not to create the sort of problems that you envisage and to set toll levels in such a way that manages the traffic flow between the two crossings, but we have not yet seen that.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Q
Steve Gooding: I cannot point to anything else in the Government’s programme that specifically lends itself to that case. I have found myself wondering whether, having been announced and dis-announced many times, the Stonehenge tunnel might reappear under something like it as another key link on a longer arterial route, but I do not have a list.
Mike Reader
Q
Edmund King: I do not know whether there has to be independent regulation, but there should be a greater degree of independence alongside the ORR. The ORR to date has had much more to do with railways than roads. Yes, it is the overseeing body of National Highways, but I think five of the ORR executives are from railway backgrounds and two are from road. It needs to be strengthened there.
I still feel that there should be, alongside the ORR, an independent body that looks at things such as the level of tolls and feasibility. If drivers are going to be paying a higher toll to use these crossings, if a crossing is not working for some reason—for example, if there are roadworks or incidents that need clearing up—it should be a two-way process and drivers should get money back. If this really is an independent business model, it has to work both ways. Under this regulated model, you could push it a bit further to give that degree of independence. That might be through the stakeholder group and you would then change how it is reported, but I certainly think it would help.
Steve Gooding: The independence is of more importance on the other side of the equation. If the investment world does not have reassurance that tolls will be set at a level that enables it to remunerate its efficient cost, it will be more suspicious. As I have dealt with in my past, historically, the political pressure has been to keep the charges and tolls down. If anything, consumer pressure is greater politically than it is for the regulator. That is why it is important that the regulator has a clear duty on consumer protection, as Mr King and I are saying.
Mike Reader
Q
Steve Gooding: They will certainly want the income—there is no question about that. We are comparing it with the M6 toll—one of very few examples of this in this country—where there is an alternative, free-of-charge route. Here, the operating cost for commercial traffic to go around to the west of London, for example, would realistically make that a much less viable alternative.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Q
Steve Gooding: I worked at the ORR back in the day—
Alison Griffiths
I used to work at RAC.
Steve Gooding: As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that. It would need to build that up. As you say, a lot of the expertise in the ORR today is on railways. Yes, that is engineering, construction and all that, but I would certainly like to see a significant strengthening in the capability of the ORR around some of the specific things about this project and its relationship with the existing crossing.
Edmund King: I agree. I believe the ORR is looking to bring in new skills, particularly in economic regulation and the broader issues, which will be needed. There are similarities between road and rail, but there are also differences and some of the consequences in regulation are quite different, so it will need to be beefed up.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Secondly, this week, the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit on, released a report on the RAB model for Sizewell, which there are concerns about. Do you have a view on that model? I appreciate that you have indicated that the model will not be used elsewhere, but is there an educated view on whether an alternative model might have worked better?
Steve Gooding: On the first point, the Bill is not specific even to the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, so I do not think that it takes account of the other schemes we have talked about per se, other than in the general duty for the Secretary of State and ORR to consider the network as a whole. That has already been raised, but the Committee might want to probe it a bit further.
As for the RAB model, I can certainly see the logic, but one has to start with a decision that the Chancellor does not wish to borrow the money himself. If that is the case, in these circumstances, given where National Highways has got to already with contracting for the construction of the tunnel, this appears to be a sensible model, provided that lessons are learnt from past RAB projects. One of those is about the ability and capability of the regulator to do what it is being relied on to do.
Edmund King: One of the features of the RAB model that is quite hard to get your head around is that it is open ended. There is no finish date. On the M6 toll I know that it is a different private finance model, but it was given a 53-year concession. Under this model, in effect, the concession could be 100 or 120 years unless the licence is revoked. That is quite difficult to get your head around at first, because when you look at the Dartford crossing and the tolls going to the Treasury, this is totally changing the model. We have to be sure that the safeguards are there and built into the model. That is why I think toughening up and strengthening the Office of Rail and Road and bringing in a greater degree of independence is increasingly vital.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Q
Steve Gooding: I hesitate to say what the price is going to be. I suspect it is going to be whatever it costs today to go across the Dartford crossing and some more. Given the anxiety that people quite rightly feel at the moment when looking at the cost of the lower Thames crossing, there must be a question whether it has to cost quite that much. Whatever further pressure can be applied, everything is going to flow from that initial estimate. How the RAB is valued over time will flow from the question of what it costs to build this thing. That is why it is so important at the outset that as much pressure is put on National Highways to keep the costs under control and preferably drive them down. That is what will affect things. Subsequently, some quite big bills will come in for the refurbishment and renewal of the existing bridge and tunnels. Keeping pressure on those is important and that is why, as we keep saying, the pressure from the regulator to press for the efficient cost is so important to the structure working.
Dr Prinsley
Q
Steve Gooding: It is very hard to write it into the Bill. However, there is absolutely the need to keep the pressure up. That is why we have the independent regulator—some entity that is effectively saying, “You can tell me whatever you like about the cost of this, but in my opinion, the efficient cost of it is x.”
In this model, particularly if we are talking about the lower Thames crossing, that first estimate will be derived from the National Highways model, obviously with ORR involvement, but it will not be quite the same as subsequent reviews where it will be entirely down to the ORR.
Edmund King: Currently the cost at Dartford is £3.50 for cars and £8.40 for heavy goods vehicles. It brings in about £130 million a year. If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, on a 120-year concession, that would bring in £15.6 billion. It is estimated that the scheme might cost £11 billion now. People accept that the £3.50 and it is affordable. I think it should be based on that figure with limits built in, whether linked to inflation or something else. It is vital that it is to be affordable for people, not just fair and transparent.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Ben Garratt, Declan Pang and Michael Whelan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Logistics UK, the Road Haulage Association and M6toll. For this session we have until 12.45 pm. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record, please?
Ben Garratt: I am Ben Garratt, interim director of policy and communications at Logistics UK.
Michael Whelan: I am Michael Whelan, general manager at M6toll.
Declan Pang: I am Declan Pang, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Garratt: It is a tricky question. What we know is that the current situation and reliance on the Dartford crossing costs the logistics sector, as well as other users of the crossing, a lot in terms of the congestion that comes from that. The cost of sitting in traffic is estimated at £200 million a year. That is based on the time sitting doing nothing, but does not take into account the wider cost to the logistics sector and supply chains of goods not arriving on time. It is just based on the wasted time of the driver. We also know that reliability, or lack of it, is a cost borne by the sector that is then passed on.
When we speak to our members, they tell us that what they want is a reliable transport system so they can factor in how much a job is going to take—how much time, how many drivers and what they should charge for it—and unreliability means it is much harder to do that. As a sector we potentially have more assets than we need to cover the same amount of ground, which is why it is really important for the sector that capacity increases and why we support, therefore, the delivery of the lower Thames crossing.
In terms of a breaking point it is quite tricky because the reason that the sector has a low margin—between 1% and 3%—is because it is a highly competitive sector. It is a feature of the sector rather than something we would say we complain about. It is because there are lots of logistics businesses all competing with each other to deliver the best price. When there are cost pressures on the sector over the medium to long term, it generally keeps that margin where it is, but it results in the overall cost being passed on to the public. Unless it is priced ludicrously, the risk is more about the overall cost being passed on to the public rather than it breaking the operators, as it were.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Garratt: No, we do not. We would say that the inflationary impact is a balance between the direct input costs—paying a toll, fuel duty and taxes—and the indirect costs of congestion. As a sector, we want to keep those two things in balance, but one of the things that we do want is more investment in the transport network—road, rail and beyond—because some real hotspots are causing congestion and therefore passing the cost on. This is one of them, but it is not the only one.
We need to make sure that is in balance. We are not disputing building this particular crossing, but not building things in general has a cost in itself. It is about making sure that this is fair, and therefore about considering the different ways of paying for it. Traditionally, such things have been done under general taxation, which we all pay for, but given the fiscal situation, we as a sector are not against a toll approach, a private finance approach, for this particular crossing.
This crossing is one heavily used by the logistics sector. For us, it is a key part of the trading route between Scotland, the midlands and the north, and Europe; it is not simply an issue for the east of London, Essex and Kent. We want to see it happen and, as a sector, we are prepared to help pay for it. We just want to make sure that the toll takes into account the different vehicles, and that the different toll rates for different vehicles take the sector into account. The toll should not be based just on the weight of vehicle, and wear and tear; we need to take into account the economic value that the logistics sector provides to the rest of the country. Ultimately, we all pay for that in a way that is slightly different from other road users.
Greg Smith
Q
Declan Pang: The cost and affordability of toll rates is a significant concern for us. As you all know, the majority of those in the haulage sector are small and medium-sized enterprises. Small businesses, many of them microbusinesses, are the major users of the trunk road network, so their interests need to be front and centre of how toll rates are set. At the moment, we also have quite a fragile situation in the haulage sector—a particular rate of mergers and acquisitions, as well as a high rate of insolvencies—and that difficult climate has certainly been exacerbated by higher input costs and fuel costs. That should certainly be considered when the Bill is looked at.
In the Bill itself, we are particularly concerned about the affordability of tolls and the transparency of how those tolls will be set, as well as the wider impact of the financing model. We would very much like MPs to think about and look at how tolls will be calculated, how they might increase over time, and how the ORR, as the regulator, will assess the affordability of tolls, because we do not feel that that is clearly set out, as the Bill stands. Lots of concern is about whether the Government have plans to use the Bill powers to introduce tolls on roads that are currently free. We certainly seek additional assurances on that point from the Minister.
Greg Smith
Q
Declan Pang: Absolutely. The costs of constructing these schemes are essential in terms of reducing the level of tolls. We particularly think that the Bill as drafted is quite open ended in terms of the phrases it uses. As a previous witness said, affordability should be part of it, rather than just “fair and transparent”. We would like to see that included. We are very supportive of Jim Dickson’s amendment on the rates as well. We would like to see more consideration given to affordability for businesses.
Ben Garratt: I agree with everything Declan said. In the assurances space, clause 1 talks about the ORR having regard to economy. That also comes up in other clauses of the Bill. We would like assurances that that includes an understanding that freight and supply chains are a part of “economy”. It is quite a broad term otherwise.
Greg Smith
Q
Michael Whelan: Our specific interest in the Bill is part 7, which will enable us to introduce free-flow tolling. At the moment, on the M6 toll, we have barriers where you need to slow down, stop and pay. Part 7 of the Bill is the first step for us to enable free-flow tolling, which will help my freight and logistics friends sitting to either side of me—they will not have to slow down and stop. That has many benefits, including time savings. The M6 toll is a very reliable route compared with the alternatives, so it further increases that reliability through increased time savings. It will also mean reduced carbon dioxide emissions because of less stopping and starting.
Justin Madders
Q
Ben Garratt: The current situation lacks resilience. The sector uses the Dartford crossing, which crosses east of London, as a part of what I describe as a core route for the whole country; it connects Scotland and the north, the midlands, the south-east and Europe on that trading route, particularly in trading across the short straits, which handle more than half of all goods traded between Britain and mainland Europe. It is a really important part of the network to get right and it is currently overloaded. As we know, it is causing significant congestion, which adds costs. As you have noted, that is not simply an even matter of a busy road; it is also the crossing being closed to allow hazardous goods to cross, which everyone else has to wait for. That has a significant impact across the whole network. It is not sustainable.
That also takes into account the assumption that the crossing is broadly open all the time, but things will need repairing over their lifetime. Across the rest of the transport network, there is the structures fund and National Highways is focused on other structures that will need repairing at some point. We have a resilience challenge as well as a costs challenge because of that capacity issue.
Declan Pang: We absolutely need to increase the resilience of that particular route as well as the whole road network. Vehicle miles are increasing and congestion is forecast to increase, so this is a problem we have to get ahead of. That means making sure we can increase trunk road capacity.
Justin Madders
Q
Michael Whelan: I can only really talk about the M6 toll; I will not be broader than that. What our customers pay for—they choose to pay; there are alternatives they could choose—is reliability and travel time saving. Interestingly, we have recently seen that HGV growth on our road is up more than 50% compared with pre-covid numbers. That is predominantly because of the reliability that we offer. We have also found that the freight industry in particular finds savings in terms of lower fuel costs, time and making deliveries on time.
In terms of where toll money goes, we are 100% privately funded; we do not receive any funds from the Government. The money goes first of all to the Government. Like every other good law-abiding citizen, we have to pay our taxes and we do. Then it goes into maintenance, and because we are owned by pension funds, at the end of the day the residual money actually goes back into pension holders’ pockets. It is a cycle of pension investors cycling around the money. I hope that answers some of your questions.
Justin Madders
That is very helpful. I wonder whether the other two witnesses have anything to say from the other side of the road, so to speak.
Ben Garratt: It is a challenging calculation. Look at how much the logistics sector is currently paying to cross the Dartford crossing: it is about 40% of the road use but it is more because HGVs and larger vehicles pay more than that. We can assume they are paying over £100 million a year to cross it, as a rough calculation. The cost of congestion to drivers is about £200 million a year. We can add on to that—we do not have the numbers, but we know beyond that is the cost to wider supply chains and the cost of unreliability. We can make an assumption, thinking about the experience on the M6 toll, that the sector would rather pay up front for reliability than pay during the day for a lack of reliability, knowing that the costs for that are much bigger than the £200 million because of the impact across supply chains.
Declan Pang: The most important thing for our members is reliability. They want reliability and consistency of journey times. Congestion can be very unreliable, which drives a significant amount of cost into the supply chain, so that is, first and foremost, the most important consideration. Clearly, if we ended up in a situation in the future where we had multiple tolled routes, the cumulative impact of that situation would be deeply concerning to us, but I appreciate that the Bill is looking specifically at the lower Thames crossing.
Olly Glover
Q
Ben Garratt: There are features of the Bill about which we are not seeking amendment but seeking reassurances. For example, it must be ensured that there is a strong regulator for establishing the scheme and monitoring it going forward. That relates to the licensing conditions too. Therefore, we see value in there being a Bill setting a broad framework and including the regulator in that, rather than potentially doing things how they have been done in the past in the sense of having individual schemes. We would seek reassurances about the strength of the regulator in that space, and that it will think about freight and logistics when it thinks about economy.
We have heard from Michael about how the sector is voting with its feet—
Justin Madders
With its wheels.
Ben Garratt: With its wheels, indeed—in terms of using a toll road to improve reliability in that space. The risk of rolling this out to other roads was highlighted earlier. We would have concerns about that. That is why I mentioned that this is a particularly important route for UK trade. We would not want to see the powers in the Bill used to push out tolling much more generally without new capacity. There is language in the Bill about associating it with new capacity, and again, we would seek further ministerial reassurances that the Bill is focused on that and not widespread tolling.
Declan Pang: I would just add, in relation to the role of the ORR, the stakeholder group needs to be strengthened much more in terms of how it is described at the moment. There is no statutory requirement for a representative of freight and logistics to be in the group. Really, it is quite vague as to who would be sitting in it. In theory, you could have representatives from toll companies or from the DFT, for example, and exclude any industry or road users. Clearing that up and making the governance of that much clearer is vital. I agree with the previous witness who talked about having a more independent role for a stakeholder group, which would make it much more impartial.
Ben Garratt: We would concur with all of that.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Q
Ben Garratt: It may be that there is a market dynamic around the M6 that means it is working reasonably well, in that there is a good alternative route that is not always congested. I assume that Michael would feel that they are playing in a competitive environment. Logistics businesses, as we said, are often choosing to use it. It is a slightly different situation in other parts of the network when the current crossing is full a lot of the time, so it could be more of a distress purchase, let us say, to use the alternative route. Therefore it is important that it is regulated and that there is a role for the regulator in ensuring fairness, which the broader market might not necessarily apply in all parts of the network.
Declan Pang: The role of the regulator is certainly very important. As part of the process we need an independent element to that and to strengthen the role of the stakeholder group as an independent group.
On the specific aspects of the Bill that relate to toll amounts, clause 25 talks about classes of road vehicle in respect of which tolls are payable. We have some concerns about how that might impact different types of haulage operation and HGVs, which may disadvantage certain types of businesses. That is an example of something that we think needs to be a bit more consistent, given what we have with the M6 toll at the moment.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Michael Whelan: In terms of economic benefits, the best way to look at the M6 toll is to consider the fact that 50,000 vehicles use it every day. If it was not there, the M6 and surrounding network would be quite a mess. As a result of the M6 toll, we have seen significant investment into the region. Numerous businesses have invested in logistics sites up and down that corridor—for example, there is a massive Amazon site near us. That also creates jobs for the region. I will not go through it all; please refer to the pre-reading that I know you all have.
In terms of part 7 of the Bill, which we are specifically interested in, as we see it, as it is an existing road, the ORR regulations do not apply. If they were to apply, that would have a significant impact on our concession agreement, on investors and, in particular, on lenders, who have all invested into the roads. Having this conversation is important, but for us it is a separate issue.
Declan Pang: On the RAB model in particular, we are supportive of any measures that will be brought forward to increase road building and capacity, and efforts in that regard. We think that RAB gives some certainty to the market around providing investment opportunities.
In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring. As a proportion of what it does as an organisation, its role from a roads perspective is smaller than the rail element, and that is probably reflected in its level of engagement with the sector as it stands. The Bill would reflect quite a significant change in its level of responsibility, and we would want to be sure about the capability and capacity for it to take on that responsibility.
Ben Garratt: I want to expand on something Michael said about the wider benefits. Understandably, the logistics sector invests where there is transport capacity and junctions, from where it can then access the rest of the country. Particular parts of the road and rail network have a lot of logistics clustered around them. It is also about having good journey times between large conurbations.
We can definitely see, in other parts of the country, what we would say is artificially less logistics investment than there should have been, because of transport constraints in parts of the network. It particularly affects the north-west, where it is more of a rail issue. A lack of capacity on the west coast main line leads to more modern logistics being clustered further south than maybe it otherwise would be. There is a real economic benefit for the country in getting the capacity right.
Jim Dickson
Q
Ben Garratt: I think it would inhibit economic growth. Thinking about the modal shift piece, using the right modes for the right kind of journeys in our logistics system is really important, but it is not simply about getting more off congested roads and more on to rail. Rail can play a particularly strong role, as you would understand, where there are railway tracks that connect to ports and are bringing in containers. As this area gets congested, I do not think that would automatically lead to the logistics sector switching to rail, because of the lack of rail connectivity.
It could, over time, lead to less use of the short straits and more use of container shipping but, really, those dynamics are shaped by where the goods are coming from in the world. It would largely just be a bottleneck. It would increase the costs, over time, of exporters connecting to new markets. The current situation will invariably be inhibiting businesses from thinking about going to export, because it has an effect on the costs. We want to see that resolved. In short, it would be bad for the economy if it did not happen.
Declan Pang: We are very much behind it and we are grateful for your efforts in campaigning for it. We are pleased to see that the development consent order was approved. It is already having a significant impact on the economy, given the level of congestion. It is vital that we get it delivered.
Jim Dickson
Q
Michael Whelan: We fully support that and are looking at it as an industry—some operators of toll roads have come together to discuss that. Having one account makes a lot of sense, particularly for freight and logistics organisations. On top of that, interoperability can be expanded into other things, such as signage. Anywhere else in the world, toll roads will have a unique colour or symbol. That is important, because it helps to make sure there is some consistency and knowledge for the customer of what they are approaching, such as about when to pay. When it comes to free-flow tolling, it is important that people understand in advance what the rules are. Hence, we fully support part 7, with some minor amendments that we would like to see to clauses 92 to 94. Those are outlined in the pre-reading, but I think we might have run out of time to go through them now.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Q
Michael Whelan: We have done that. About two and a half years ago we put in place a new toll system—we spent £20 million on it—and that enabled us to introduce new toll pricing. We reduced prices for locals to £4, and we have held that there for the two and a half years. We have not increased it. That is something we are conscious of and have actively looked at, as well as having new products, some with discounts and some without. Interestingly, the account product that does not have a discount is our most popular one.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Michael Whelan: It provides an easier way to get a receipt. It also provides the ability to drive through what we call our breeze lanes, on which the gates will open automatically if your account is in good status.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Ben Garratt: Our sense is that the way in which the Bill is drafted is relatively strong. That is why we are seeking assurances on the record, rather than amendments. We do not want it to be used as a Trojan horse to spread this across the country, but there is a particular case for it on this particular route. Given the wording at the moment, to have assurances would be proportionate.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Ben Garratt: Again, it would be good to get an assurance that that will not be the case, but that is not our reading of the Bill at the moment. That does not mean that others could not interpret it differently at some point, when looking at it in the future. That is why we are seeking a strong assurance that this is about adding actual new trunk road capacity and not doing things like what you just said.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Declan Pang: We are concerned about how the Bill could be applied to introduce tolls. We want greater reassurances from the Department about that. Clause 81 in particular gives the Secretary of State the power to direct any road to be made a trunk road, so we are concerned about what could be brought into scope. We want greater reassurances.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Ralph Smyth gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Transport Action Network. We have until 1 pm for this session. Will the witness briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Ralph Smyth: My name is Ralph Smyth and I am here on behalf of Transport Action Network. I have about 15 years’ experience, including influencing the Infrastructure Act 2015 and serving on the National Highways strategic design panel and seeing some of the schemes that we are discussing today, as well as working on road freight decarbonisation projects.
Greg Smith
Q
Ralph Smyth: It is a very good question. I point first to the second national infrastructure assessment, which was published three years ago. That said that by the end of 2026—so where we are now—the Government should publish an integrated strategy for road and rail. If you can see how you are going to improve the rail links and the road links, that would join up better and give confidence about where there should or should not be, for example, a change to the roads.
The other dimension is the local angle. We have heard recently in the media about how mayors might be given more of a say on water, for example, but the Bill goes in the opposite direction. It actually weakens or removes the mayoral input on transport. Transport has been the totemic issue of devolution and, oddly, the Bill removes that. A special new category of highway is created that is not subject to something called the network management duty, which is about joining things up in long-term planning and in short-term operations, such as where there is disruption. My concern is that for some of the schemes talked about, like the lower Thames crossing, it is going to be difficult to attract the private sector to invest without making it easier—for example, without reducing the risk of mayors getting in the way or trying to promote a railway line that would actually abstract some of the traffic.
Greg Smith
Q
Ralph Smyth: I would not want to leave out the rural areas where there are perhaps not mayors.
Greg Smith
Absolutely right—do not leave the rural areas out.
Ralph Smyth: Quite. The problem is the bigger context and the discussion about rewiring the state. That is talking about removing consultation, so simply a duty to consult to give your views might not be worth much.
The problem is that it needs to make economic sense for the investors. The M6 toll did not make a profit for 20 years. You are going to have to tilt this, particularly for very big schemes like the LTC, to make it attractive for investors, and that could mean making things less affordable for drivers and there being less involvement for mayors, despite transport being one of their big issues.
Greg Smith
Q
Ralph Smyth: The tipping point depends on the sector and the type of journey. For discretionary journeys, like seeing a relative, a sudden increase in toll might have an impact quite quickly. If you are commuting and doing the same journey every day or if a haulage firm is doing the same routes, it might take longer for a response to happen. As we are talking about tipping points, I will also talk about climate change, because some figures from the Environment Agency have shown that by 2050—not long after some of these roads might be built—about half the UK transport network will flood regularly. That obviously means a lot of disruption and a lot of increased costs for the operator or owner of the assets. Those things will also affect, given where we are going, our use of roads, railways and everything else.
Greg Smith
I am mindful that this is a shorter session, so I will stop there.
Justin Madders
Q
Ralph Smyth: That is correct, yes. It is almost like an area that devolution has forgotten. We hear about the importance of roads; we heard about that from the previous witnesses, so it does appear a bit odd that there is not much there. One thing is that currently there is a duty, whether you are a local highway authority—county councils and so on—or the strategic highways authority, which is National Highways at the moment, to co-operate, but this Bill will create a new type of private highway authority and it will not join up. Some of the schemes that have seen funding withdrawn in road investment strategy 3 are very close to urban areas, and if they were funded via this route, that would not be an integrated approach and would be very different from what we are hearing about for the railways, where the Government have talked about the need for a single guiding mind.
Olly Glover
Q
Ralph Smyth: Very much so. There is the issue of crowding out. If there is certainty that there is going to be a road scheme, that makes it harder for a mayor or someone else to promote an alternative, such as a tram or a rail or bus upgrade. After this meeting, I am taking part in the mass transit taskforce, where perhaps those issues will come up.
Mike Reader
Q
Ralph Smyth: We heard a lot about regulation in the previous session. If you look at Ofwat and Ofgem, their income comes from lots of different companies. Whatever you might think of some of the water companies, at least that means diversity of income. You can compare that with the ORR. With nationalisation, now—or soon—all the money will be coming from the Department for Transport. It is similar for much of the road function. That is about National Highways. We are talking about only a very small bit if there is going to be only one toll scheme. If you put yourself in the shoes of an investor, would you be confident that that was an independent regulator if pretty much all its business came from one person—the Secretary of State for Transport?
Mike Reader
Q
Ralph Smyth: I am not sure how much difference there is. The problem is that if you build an expensive road scheme with a regulated model, you can want to make it affordable, but at the end of the day, there will need to be a return for the private investor. There is the theory and then there is the reality that this is not a way of creating new money. It is either going to be paid out of public funds or, if it is going to be a regulated system—as other witnesses have said, many of the roads do not have alternatives, but it is hard to see how a regulator can really make much difference.
Mike Reader
Q
Ralph Smyth: On investor certainty, the problem is that that assumes that traffic will keep growing, but, as I covered in the written evidence TAN submitted to the Committee, the latest ONS forecasts say that from about 2055, the population of the UK will be going down. I heard the Minister say that demand will only increase, but if demand starts to go down, it is a very different picture. That will mean that each user will have to pay more per journey, so it could lock you into higher, unaffordable charges.
Jim Dickson
Q
Ralph Smyth: I may struggle to persuade you on this within the 15 minutes allotted.
Jim Dickson
Give us a summary.
Ralph Smyth: I was interested to hear other witnesses say that if it was not built, it might mean a shift in some of the trade routes to help to rebalance away from the overheated south-east. If you want to read more, there is a report by TAN on what the alternatives are. I would be happy to send that to the Committee, if it would be helpful.
The Chair
As there are no further questions from Members, I thank Mr Smyth for his evidence. That brings us to the end of this morning’s sitting.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Wheeler.)
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Thursday 29th October 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Today we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
New Clause 35
Core protection: protection claims and protection status
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of the Immigration Acts.
(2) A protection claim means a claim made by a person that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom—
(a) would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, or
(b) would otherwise cause them to face a real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of nationality (or, where they do not have a nationality, the country of their former habitual residence), in circumstances where they would be unable or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), serious harm means—
(a) the death penalty or execution,
(b) unlawful killing,
(c) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or
(d) serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict,
which is inflicted by an actor of serious harm mentioned in subsection (4).
(4) The actors of serious harm are—
(a) the State;
(b) any party or organisation controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State;
(c) any non-State actor, if it can be demonstrated that the actors mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), including any international organisation, are unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection against the serious harm.
(5) The Secretary of State may refuse a protection claim under subsection (2)(b) on the grounds mentioned in Article 1F or Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention (commission of crimes etc).
(6) A person qualifies for protection status if they would be able to make a successful protection claim; and a person has protection status if the Secretary of State has decided to allow a protection claim made by the person.
(7) The Secretary of State may revoke a person’s protection status.
(8) The Refugee Convention means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.”.—(Anna Turley.)
This new clause, together with the clause inserted by NC36 and the Schedule inserted by NS1 would replace clause 21. This new clause and the provision in the new Schedule aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 36
Core protection: amendments
“(1) Schedule (Core protection: amendments) contains amendments that are consequential on or otherwise related to section (Core protection: protection claims and protection status).
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision that is consequential on or otherwise related to section (Core protection: protection claims and protection status).
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular—
(a) amend any legislation so as to change references to human rights claims or asylum claims to references to protection claims;
(b) insert, amend or remove references in any legislation to ‘protection status’, ‘protection claim’, ‘human rights claim’, ‘asylum’, ‘refugee’, ‘humanitarian protection’ or any related terms;
(c) confer rights and impose obligations or requirements on any person (including the Secretary of State) in relation to a protection claim or protection status.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act,
(as well as amending or revoking provision made under such primary legislation).
(5) In this section ‘primary legislation’ means—
(a) an Act,
(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,
(c) an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation.”.—(Anna Turley.)
This new clause introduces the Schedule of amendments which are consequential on, or otherwise related to, the new definitions of protection claim and protection status in the new clause inserted by NC35. It also gives a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Negotiations on UK participation in the EU Migration and Asylum Pact
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commence negotiations with the European Union and any such other relevant authority with a view to the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union’s Pact on Migration and Asylum.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the progress of negotiations under subsection (1)—
(a) within one month of their commencement, and
(b) every six months thereafter until negotiations conclude.”.—(Mr Paul Kohler.)
This new clause would require the Government to open negotiations with the EU on UK participation in the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The new clause would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union on UK participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.
Dangerous small boat crossings were sporadic and rare before Brexit. In diverging from European immigration policy, we have weakened our ability to deal with this crisis. We removed the deterrent of collective enforcement and lost access to the Eurodac biometric database. Being outside the EU is the single biggest pull factor driving this crisis. Failed asylum seekers in the EU know that the UK is a second bite at the cherry, because without access to the EU’s biometric database, we have no idea who they are or whether they have already been refused asylum by our neighbours.
Without a watertight returns agreement, we have no way to send asylum seekers back to the safe countries they passed through before arriving in the UK. A report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford found that, in interviews, migrants in northern France often cite the departure from the Dublin accord as a reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, particularly if they have already been refused protection in the EU.
Chris Philp admitted in a leaked audio recording that just before the Conservative Government exited the EU transitional arrangements, his Conservative colleagues realised that Brexit meant losing the Dublin agreement—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for some time. As he will be aware, we refer to colleagues by their constituency seat, not by name.
Mr Kohler
I apologise. The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said that they realised they could no longer
“rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.
In spite of the Home Secretary’s statements to the contrary in the recent Home Affairs Committee evidence session, the Prime Minister was quoted in The Times as saying
“the small boats crisis has arisen in the last 10 years because we lost that returns agreement”.
There seems to be a belated admission—in No. 10, at least, if not in the Home Office—that Brexit has exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration to this country.
We cannot continue to be on the outside looking in. The security needs of our border demand closer alignment with Europe.
The Home Secretary has signalled her desire to negotiate access to the Eurodac database, and we are asking the Government to go further in working with our European neighbours by joining the migration and asylum pact. Our new clause would mandate negotiations to join the pact, so that we can share the benefits of European collaboration on immigration. Although Border Force has had some success in reducing dangerous crossings, there will always be a market for criminal gangs to exploit unless we join the EU’s comprehensive framework. Does the Minister acknowledge the potential for the migration and asylum pact to deliver more effective border security, or was the Prime Minister wrong to draw attention to the negative impacts of Brexit?
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke at length about the returns agreement, but it is not simply a returns agreement. At its heart is a so-called solidarity mechanism, under which member states either accept asylum seekers relocated from other states or pay contributions instead. Joining it would mean the United Kingdom accepting people we did not choose, under rules we did not write, ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the opposite of taking back control.
The Conservative borders plan takes a completely different approach. We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime resources. That is co-operation, and it does not require us to hand control of our asylum system to Brussels.
The Liberal Democrats have shown clearly during this Committee that they are not capable of being serious about controlling immigration. They will say that the pact will let us return people to the EU, but the price is relocation quotas and EU jurisdiction, and the evidence from the pact so far is that returns between member states remain very limited indeed. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to join the pact or its solidarity mechanism.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank hon. Members for tabling the new clause and for their thoughtful contributions to the debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that deeper international co-operation is important. That is why the Home Secretary is in regular contact with her counterparts across Europe, including in France, Germany and Belgium, and we are continuing to establish a more comprehensive relationship with Europe as a whole. However, I remind him that irregular migration is not an issue limited to EU nation states. That is why we as a Government are looking even wider and being even more ambitious: not only tackling the issue when it emerges within European territories, but working upstream to prevent the vile trade of organised immigration crime in the first place.
For example, in August 2025 we signed an agreement with Iraq to bolster efforts to deter small boat arrivals. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and increase returns. In August this year, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time needed to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. Those are just some examples of the importance of that broader co-operation and partnership. My hon. Friend the Minister for Migration and Citizenship also attended this year’s Berlin process meeting of Interior Ministers in Montenegro in September. It was a fantastic opportunity to strengthen international police co-operation and develop a joint response to cross-border security challenges not only with our EU counterparts but with representatives from the western Balkans.
I agree that international co-operation is an essential strand of our overarching strategy to tackle illegal migration, and one that I am keen to highlight is bearing fruit. As hon. Members will know—I will say it again, just for the record—small boat arrivals have decreased by more than 40% compared with this point last year. I am not claiming that the job is done—far from it—but we are taking a holistic approach to this issue, of which the Bill is one part. However, the Government will not support the new clause.
I want to pick up on a couple of the points the hon. Member for Wimbledon raised about the impact on returns and about Eurodac. We continue to work with our European partners on the shared challenge, including on returns, but joining the pact would not guarantee increased returns, and our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers real returns outcomes.
Eurodac is a matter for the EU, not a unilateral UK decision. Eurodac is one example of a pact measure where our participation is not legally possible without EU agreement, and the Eurodac legislation makes that clear. Access to asylum data could, of course, help identify individuals who have previously claimed protection in an EU member state before travelling to the UK, but it is for the EU to decide whether it wishes to extend access to third countries. In the meantime, we are strengthening practical co-operation with European partners, including through intelligence sharing and our observer status in the European Migration Network, which delivered on a key PM commitment from the UK-EU summit, and I will come on to say a bit more about the work we are doing on that.
Going back to the new clause, participation is not a straightforward proposition. The pact is not a single agreement that third countries can simply choose to join. It is complex collection of EU legislative measures, many of which are designed specifically for EU member states and Schengen countries. There is no established model for third-country participation, so any form of UK participation would require agreement from the EU and significant EU and operational change before extensive negotiations could commence. The pact is still being implemented across the EU and has been in application only since June this year. Member states are working to implement it, with the EU rightly focused on making it work for its own member states. That is a significant challenge, particularly for frontline countries that are facing the greatest migration pressures.
Anna Turley
I would not want to get ahead of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others will be having at that summit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are clear that greater co-operation and international partnership are crucial for us to manage the big global challenges that we face of immigration, migration and illegal migration. We believe that co-operation is the solution, not the problem, but it is about making sure that we do that in the right way that works for this country within our sovereign powers.
We should also recognise that irregular migration still existed while the UK was part of the EU. Closer co-operation with our European partners is important, but experience shows that no single agreement or institutional framework can solve this challenge on its own. Under previous Dublin arrangements when in the EU, the UK become a net recipient of transfers between EU member states, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, largely as a result of family reunification provisions, so we cannot pretend that UK participation in EU frameworks solves all migration challenges.
However, we will of course continue to work closely with our European partners. As I have said, illegal migration is a shared challenge, and co-operation is essential, but it would be a mistake to suggest that simply signing up to the pact would provide a quick or automatic solution. There is no silver bullet, and I am afraid that the new clause is unworkable in practice. It would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union, but Parliament cannot legislate for the EU to agree to such negotiations with us. Whether discussions take place, and on what basis, ultimately depends on both parties and is not for the UK to unilaterally dictate. It is therefore right that the UK retains the flexibility to pursue the forms of co-operation that best serve our national interest and respond to rapidly evolving migration challenges.
The Government’s approach is clear: we will pursue practical co-operation with European partners wherever it advances the UK’s interests and delivers operational results. As the Prime Minister set out, we are already working with the EU to strengthen co-operation on migration, border security, data sharing and tackling the criminal gangs that profit from human misery. Our objective is not to focus on a single mechanism but to build a stronger and more effective long-term partnership with the EU on shared challenges, including illegal migration. That builds on the progress we have already made since the UK-EU summit in 2025, and I am looking forward to further partnership and co-operation with this year’s summit. For those reasons, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
Mr Kohler
I am saddened by the responses from both the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who do not see that this is a collective problem that we must work on collectively to address. Beginning negotiations would help us to start that process and to not sit in isolation, as we do now. I will press the new clause to a vote, because it is important to make it clear that we think the Government should be negotiating with the EU. The Prime Minister says that he wants to negotiate on many issues. This is a particularly important issue and, let us remember, one that was caused by Brexit, as the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also one that can be solved by closer collaboration with Europe.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I was grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response on the previous new clause, even though she did not agree with me. I hope new clause 7 will help her to address the evidential issues she referred to and examine whether entering the pact would be more sensible for the UK.
The new clause would require the Government to conduct an annual cost-benefit analysis of the UK’s bilateral immigration and asylum agreements and arrangements. The assessment would consider the costs and outcomes of each arrangement against the cost of the UK’s participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
How much does the hon. Member think that undertaking an annual cost-benefit analysis would cost, given that we are outside the EU, and who would bear that cost?
Mr Kohler
I think we all believe in evidence-based policy making, and we need to do things such as cost-benefit analysis. To argue that one cannot do a cost-benefit analysis before making any policy change is not a solution; it ends up meaning that we just guess. We have to actually plan policy.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The hon. Member said that he believes in making evidence-based decisions, but he is unable to say what it would cost to make this change. If that is his belief, can he explain what the cost of the new clause would be?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend not find it a bit rich that Members of the governing party are talking about the cost of a cost-benefit analysis, when earlier clauses and amendments—such as on the implementation of a new training scheme and getting people up to speed—have already been included in the Bill, with no assurances from the Minister about exactly how much they will cost?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I agree that the Government quite like cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps they could do a cost-benefit analysis of the hon. Member’s proposal for a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to support it. That is just a suggestion.
Melanie Onn
There is a serious point here, but I also recall the hon. Member schooling all of us in this Committee on the importance of interrogating line by line, rather than giving grand, broad political speeches. I am simply asking how much he thinks his proposal would cost. He has brought it to the Committee for us to consider, and that is a reasonable question.
Mr Kohler
The hon. Member is simply repeating herself and taking party political positions. The Bill has many policy positions and clauses without cost-benefit analyses. The Liberal Democrats believe in evidence-based politics. I realise that Labour Members simply like to take positions that look good to the red wall, but we are actually trying to move things forward.
Melanie Onn
I take the hon. Member’s point about other clauses in the Bill. Has he at any point queried or questioned the Government about the costs, given that he is part of the Opposition?
Mr Kohler
We are trying to push forward a cost-benefit analysis. As I said in my first intervention in this Committee, we do not use Committee stage well when we sit like this—pretending we are in the Chamber—and get into party political arguments with each other. The House should address how we use Committee. We should sit as a Committee, discuss things and really enter into line-by-line scrutiny. I have covered that before, so I will not bore the hon. Lady with it any more.
I have now utterly forgotten where I had got to, so I will start again. In fact, I had not yet said this bit, and it will goad the official Opposition even more, I suspect: the Liberal Democrats enjoy talking about the European Union. We make no secret of the fact that closer relations with the bloc would go a long way to resolving the small boats crisis and illegal immigration. However, it should not be a question of ideology or party political posturing; it must be a question of what works and how much it costs. The Government talk about reducing pull factors for migrants, but they seem unwilling to face the realities. Ensuring a coherent international approach to irregular migration is the single most powerful weapon that the Government could utilise to reduce the pull factor. I suspect that Government Members secretly agree with that.
I understand the Minister’s reticence about new clause 6, but understanding the costs of joining the migration and asylum pact would enable us to do a value-for-money comparison with the current bilateral deals that the Government have made and are negotiating.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The hon. Member’s new clause proposes a cost-benefit analysis of each bilateral immigration and asylum agreement or arrangement in force. How many individual agreements are we are talking about?
Mr Kohler
I will start with one: since Brexit, the Government have spent more than £1 billion on the agreement with France. We do not yet know the costs of intelligence sharing with Belgium, so I cannot give an answer on that. However, those deals fail to recognise that people who seek asylum are desperate. Sadly, making the French coast a more difficult place from which to embark pushes asylum seekers towards longer, more dangerous routes. Small boat departures from Belgium used to be rare, but that has changed since the start of 2026. There were 32 attempts to launch small boats from Belgium between January and April of this year, of which five were prevented. In comparison, there were just two launch attempts in the whole of 2025. We believe that agreeing a deal with the entire bloc would be more effective in preventing dangerous small boat crossings, by implementing a deterrent that encompasses all of Europe.
I take the Minister’s point, however. We do need some evidence, which is why the Liberal Democrats suggest a cost-benefit analysis. New clause 7 calls on the Home Secretary to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bilateral arrangements, to compare their costs with the estimated costs of joining the pact. Does the Minister acknowledge the benefits that that information could yield? Hon. Members have shown that they are interested in the answer, so let us give them the answer. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks.
Blake Stephenson
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wimbledon be so supportive of rejoining the EU—I think we have all learned something this morning. We have also learned that the Liberal Democrats feel that that would be a silver bullet to fix all these issues. Yet still the hon. Member comes forward to ask for a cost-benefit analysis to prove it. His statutory duty to benchmark every bilateral agreement against the EU pact is designed to build a case for joining the pact, not to improve returns, and for that reason, the Conservatives oppose it.
Anna Turley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for his new clause. I understand the case that he is trying to make. He is trying to build his evidence base to persuade us to join the EU pact, but, despite his earlier efforts, I am afraid we will not support his new clause.
We agree that migration co-operation should deliver clear operational benefits, represent value for money and be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Indeed, that is already the case. Relevant spending and significant proposals are assessed under the established appraisal, assurance and accounting officer requirements. Ministers rightly expect officials to demonstrate that policies are deliverable, affordable and capable of achieving their intended objectives. I remind colleagues that we have already published an impact assessment for the Bill. I appreciate that there are details still to be refined, but colleagues will find in the impact assessment information that I hope will support their understanding of the Bill.
I want to be clear that the value of migration co-operation is complex. Some agreements help to deter irregular migration, and some help to change behaviour and prevent dangerous journeys from happening in the first place. Those benefits can sometimes be difficult to measure directly, but they are no less important when considering the overall value of an agreement. Equally, the Government are not lacking in transparency. We regularly publish information on major migration partnerships—for example, we have published details of UK-France co-operation under the broader framework of the Sandhurst treaty and subsequent agreements, including funding commitments, operational activity and strategic objectives. UK-France co-operation is also subject to regular strategic review by the French Government and the UK Government.
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause goes considerably further, however. It would require the Government to publish an annual assessment comparing our existing bilateral migration agreements against a wholly hypothetical model of UK participation in the EU migration and asylum pact. We do not believe that that is a sensible or proportionate requirement. The pact is an internal EU framework comprising 10 separate legislative measures. The UK is not seeking to participate in it, and there is no established mechanism through which non-EU, non-Schengen countries such as the UK can do so.
That means that there is no settled understanding of what the legal route to participation might be, what obligations it might entail, what operational arrangements would be required, or indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said, what costs might arise, yet the new clause would require the Government to produce an annual assessment based on assumptions and theories about all those issues, about which we would have no information. Any such exercise would be inherently speculative. It would require officials to assess a theoretical arrangement that does not exist, using assumptions that cannot be verified and for which there is no established evidence base.
The new clause also appears to rest on the assumption that participation in the pact would somehow replace the UK’s existing network of bilateral migration arrangements and partnerships. There is no reason to believe that that would be the case. EU member states, operating within the EU’s common asylum and migration framework, continue to maintain bilateral arrangements with third countries to support returns, migration management and broader co-operation. The need to engage directly with countries of origin and transit does not disappear because a country participates in the EU system.
At the same time, many of our migration partnerships are about far more than asylum processing or returns. They sit within broader bilateral relationships, helping us to tackle migration pressures at source, disrupt organised immigration crime, strengthen returns co-operation and support wider foreign policy objectives. Participation in the pact would not remove the need for many of the agreements that the new clause seeks to assess. In practice, the UK could find itself maintaining a significant proportion of its existing partnerships, while also incurring additional costs associated with participation in the pact itself.
The new clause also takes no account of the cost of pursuing that proposed participation. As I have already highlighted, negotiating any bespoke arrangement with the EU would require significant official resource, extensive discussions with EU institutions and member states, and potentially substantial legislative and operational change. At the same time, the pact is still being implemented across Europe. Its impacts, costs and benefits are still emerging, and it will take time before there is a clear and reliable evidence base from which lessons can be drawn.
Against that backdrop, requiring officials to construct and maintain an annual assessment of theoretical policy that the Government are not pursuing would not represent good value for money. As I said—and I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon understands my values and intentions here—the Government are committed to deeper co-operation with European partners on tackling illegal migration. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Prime Minister has set out that Europe is our neighbour and that stronger co-operation with our European partners is essential to tackling these shared challenges. That is why we will be using our engagement with the EU, including the forthcoming summit on 20 November, to pursue practical co-operation on border security, organised immigration crime and improved information and data-sharing, where that supports our national interest. However, none of that requires participation in the pact. We reject the suggestion that joining the pact is the only route, or the necessary route, to achieving these objectives. Our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers results, not a hypothetical arrangement whose terms, costs and obligations cannot be known. For those reasons—
Melanie Onn
I am sorry for interrupting the Minister’s flow. Does she recognise that we have managed various agreements with the EU without signing up to various pacts?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are proud of those arrangements. The hon. Member for Wimbledon referenced agreements with Belgium; we are co-operating with all our partners on the frontline of illegal migration.
Anna Turley
I think the number is around 1,200, but I would have to check the exact figures. That deal was a really important opportunity to pilot the idea of safe and legal routes. We learned a lot from that pilot, and it was disappointing that it could not continue, but we are taking what we learned from it further in our discussions and conversations with other countries.
Mr Kohler
Does that not show that these bilateral arrangements are not sufficient and we need a collective approach? That deal cost a lot of money, but not many people went back via that route. We need to take a collective approach to this issue, because the problem is shared across Europe.
Anna Turley
I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said today, but he is right on that point. There is opportunity for broader co-operation on many of these fronts, which is why we will continue to explore co-operation. However, signing up to these restrictive pacts would limit that opportunity. I think we have the best of all worlds here: not only can we have direct negotiations with other countries, but we can scale up things such as the one in, one out deal when we think there is potential to do so with other countries. On that note—
Blake Stephenson
I caught the Minister just in time. She described the one in, one out scheme as a “pilot”. I do not recall it ever being described as a pilot when it was launched. Can she unpack what the expectations were, what was delivered and why the scheme has been cancelled?
Anna Turley
I will abide by the Chair’s ruling, but I am happy to pick that up with the hon. Member later and send him plenty of information backing up the statement that it was a temporary arrangement.
On that note, I will not detain the Committee any further. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.
Mr Kohler
The Dublin accord—our previous arrangement, when we were in the EU—was a success. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South made clear, the previous Conservative Government did not realise until the last moment the problems that would be caused by no longer being in the Dublin accord after Brexit. The Minister is right to say the accord’s successor is only just starting—I understand that—but at some point we must make a decision on whether to join it. A cost-benefit analysis would surely be useful. We will again press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would establish a new Department for immigration and border security, transferring the immigration, asylum and border security functions of the Home Secretary to that office. The Home Office is a large organisation, and its functions are various: immigration and borders, passports and security, counter-terrorism and homeland security, policing and crime, drugs and alcohol policy, and public protection. Serious questions must be asked about the capacity of any single Department to handle all those responsibilities.
Those concerns manifest when Department inefficiencies become clear. The average wait time for an asylum decision has come down substantially since Labour took office, but over a quarter of cases still take more than a year to process.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Of course, we all want an efficient, fair, secure and sustainable asylum system. I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging our really good success recently, but how would setting up a new Department help us to speed up those processes and get the asylum system back under control?
Mr Kohler
As I have said, we believe that the Home Office is too large and cannot focus on all things for which it is responsible. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the disaster of asylum hotels. Why was that a disaster? Because the Home Office was not concentrating on that particular issue. It signed contracts that made millions for businessmen but did not help asylum seekers at all.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way again. We have cut asylum hotel use by 50% since we have been in charge, so we are already having success with the Home Office as it is.
Mr Kohler
But that mistake was made because the attention of the Home Office was diverted to other issues at the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member looks at me quizzically, but a mistake was made. Yes, the Government have started to solve that mistake, but asylum hotel numbers went up by 8% last year, so the idea that they have just gone down and down is not accurate.
The new clause would create a new Government Department that could put its entire focus on effective immigration policy. It would produce an annual immigration plan—subject to scrutiny and a vote in Parliament—setting out how the Government will deliver a fair, controlled and effective system. It would also work across Government to develop long-term workforce plans for public services and critical national infrastructure, ensuring that migration policy is designed in tandem with investment, domestic skills and training, to strengthen our services. This plan would ensure that British people and services finally get a system built to work for them—a system based on evidence that works across Government and different sectors to deliver better public services and a growing economy.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart.
I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea.
I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities.
The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that
“A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration”
should be
“taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.”
On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have
“joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services”
to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says:
“The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”.
Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms.
The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were
“designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”,
and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do.
The current work and remit of the Home Office
“covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”.
I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that
“the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.”
Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future.
Despite repeated attempts at reform,
“the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,”
with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes:
“The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”.
It says:
“The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”.
I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.
Anna Turley
New clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, sets out the desire for a new Government Department for immigration and border security to be established, and for the transfer of all the Home Secretary’s immigration, asylum and border security functions to that new office. I have to say that I really admire the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Wimbledon for attempting to reshape Whitehall through an amendment to a Bill—it is impressive, and I will do my best to respond to it. I appreciate that it is a thought-provoking new clause that of course warrants broader discussion.
Mr Kohler
I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire that, because the Home Office is now beginning to solve one of the problems it caused for itself, that somehow proves that it does not make mistakes. It makes mistakes because it does not have the bandwidth. The Home Office signed asylum contracts it did not even read, which incentivised providers to spend money, and surprise, surprise, the providers did spend money. Why did the Home Office make that mistake? Because it was not focusing on that issue at the time—it does not have the bandwidth.
As the Minister anticipated, the new clause is a probing amendment. We will not be pushing it to a vote. However, I am sure that I am not telling too much of a secret by saying that I suspect the Home Affairs Committee will be addressing issues such as this in the not-too-distant future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Refugees: Anti-Homelessness Taskforce
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a taskforce (‘the Taskforce’) to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees.
(2) The purpose of the Taskforce is the elimination of homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees in the United Kingdom.
(3) The Taskforce must include representatives of—
(a) the Home Office;
(b) the Department for Work and Pensions;
(c) local authorities;
(d) non-governmental organisations with experience of or expertise in working with and supporting asylum seekers; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of seeking to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees, the Taskforce must—
(a) work to ensure that the work of different services involved in facilitating the transition out of asylum support of asylum seekers and refugees is coordinated;
(b) work to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees granted core protection status are promptly provided with essential documents;
(c) develop and oversee arrangements for the early identification of persons at risk of homelessness following the grant of protection status; and
(d) keep under review the appropriateness of the length of the period during which a person may occupy asylum accommodation following a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection (‘the move-on period’), including by considering evidence on the extent to which persons are successfully moving into work and settled accommodation within that period.
(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after the establishment of the Taskforce, and annually thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the work of the Taskforce;
(b) the evidence considered under subsection (4)(d) on the move-on period, and any recommendations made by the Taskforce; and
(c) any changes made, or proposed to be made, to the move-on period or to related policy as a result of the work of the Taskforce.
(6) In this section,
‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided under sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”—(Mr Kohler.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce, whose stated aim is preventing homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce whose stated aim is to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees. The Prime Minister has, to his great and huge credit, made ending homelessness a priority, but why, then, is the Minister pursuing the measures in this Bill that contradict such a noble aim? We have already seen that the refugee tax and core protection introduction risk exacerbating the precarity experienced by refugees with settled status.
In December 2024, the Government doubled the grace period refugees were given to move out of Home Office accommodation to 56 days. They did that, as they stated at the time, to provide refugees with more time to find alternative accommodation, reducing the risk of homelessness and putting pressure on overstretched council housing services. The Home Office has now reduced the grace period to 42 days, which would increase such pressures. The longer move-on period was shown to be effective. According to the Refugee Council, an estimated 1,000 refugee households in England avoided homelessness in 2025 thanks to the increased time they had to begin rebuilding their lives in the UK. I am concerned that a reduction in move-on time would lead to increased refugee homelessness, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has seen any data on refugee homelessness levels since that reduction in the grace period.
The issue of a shorter move-on period is compounded by systemic issues identified by the Refugee Council. Those include refugees receiving documentation in stages instead of all at once, delayed access to e-visas, local authority uncertainty on refugee entitlements and challenges of low digital literacy. Those challenges require a tailored approach, which is why our new clause would establish a taskforce to combat refugee homelessness. It would be responsible for co-ordinating the different services, moving people out of asylum support, ensuring that people who are granted refugee status get their essential documents promptly, identifying those at the greatest risk of homelessness and monitoring the impact of changes to the move-on period.
Asylum has become a politically charged issue, but we cannot lose sight of our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. We must ensure that move-on initiatives deliver. The National Centre for Social Research found that constraints of systemic housing shortages and the concurrent roll-out of e-visas were holding us back. It made recommendations that included restoring the move-on period to 56 days, better data sharing and strengthening the support on offer. It would be within our taskforce’s remit to ensure that those recommendations are properly implemented. Having a body dedicated to protecting homeless asylum seekers is a way to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities and action those recommendations.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member for Wimbledon has described the real pressures on councils across the country. When people are granted protection and leave asylum accommodation, many present as homeless, and local authorities across the country pick up the cost. However, in our view, a statutory taskforce will not solve that. The root of the pressure is the number of people arriving and the time that they spend in the system. Fewer arrivals and faster outcomes would do far more for councils than any taskforce.
We will not support the new clause, but let me ask the Minister a question, building on the one that the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked. What is the current move-on period after a grant of protection, and what assessment have the Government made of the cost of refugee homelessness to local authorities throughout England?
Anna Turley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this issue through his new clause, because it is a big priority for this Government, as he alluded to. I want to put it on record that I and the Government support the notion that no one should be sleeping rough. As the Prime Minister has set out, ending homelessness is his No. 1 priority.
As Members will be aware, in the immediacy, the Government have committed £442 million to ensure that everyone who is sleeping rough is off the streets by Christmas. That feeds into the wider £4.4 billion being invested in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years. This combines immediate accommodation support with longer-term settled housing and intensive support for people who have experienced prolonged rough sleeping. The Christmas ambition is the first phase of that wider effort. It is a programme of practical delivery and, as I have laid out, it is not one that depends on establishing a separate statutory taskforce.
Looking beyond the Christmas delivery plan, the Government are already taking a cross-Government approach through the national plan to end homelessness in England and the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping. That group brings together work on housing, health, employment and transitions out of public service with regular monitoring of delivery. A separate taskforce would duplicate existing co-ordination arrangements rather than address the practical barriers that people face.
We recognise that newly granted refugees can face particular challenges. Asylum move-on liaison officers, where present, explain next steps, signpost housing and benefit support, liaise with local services and escalate barriers. They provide practical help with navigating the transition. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked what the move-on period is: it is currently 42 days.
We regularly review the role of the liaison officer model to ensure that it meets the needs of users and to reduce homelessness among newly recognised refugees. This includes exploring earlier, targeted housing advice before an asylum decision, and working with accommodation providers to improve the quality and timeliness of information given to local authorities when asylum support ends.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that there is sometimes a lag in us being able to publish statistics on that, but I am hopeful to be able to share statistics with hon. Members shortly. In June this year—these are the latest published figures—there were 99 people sleeping rough in this country who had left asylum support in the last 85 days. Our internal data suggests that the numbers of people leaving asylum support are extremely low, but, as I said, information on that will be published.
We are working closely with other partners and charity organisations, including Migrant Help, which offers positive move-on advice to all supported newly granted refugees through the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract. That includes guidance on accommodation, finances and employment, and support for individuals to integrate into the UK when Home Office support ends.
As we have discussed a lot during the Bill’s passage, it builds on the “Restoring Order and Control” statement that the Home Secretary made, and it is essential if we are to restore control to our immigration system. As the Committee will know, core protection is a key part of that, and will simplify the current system of protections. That will of course be shared in due course.
Mr Kohler
I thank the Minister for her answer. On the basis of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for asylum applicants to take up employment while their application is being determined where it has been over three months since the application was made and no decision has been made.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the ‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—(Mr Kohler.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to enable asylum seekers to take up employment, if it has been over three months since they applied.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where—
(a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and
(b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application.
(2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must—
(a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person;
(b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary;
(c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom;
(d) persist until—
(i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or
(ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and
(e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months.
Mr Kohler
Our proposal to allow refugees to begin working after three months waiting for a decision would generate five times more revenue than the misguided debt levied on asylum seekers by earlier provisions in the Bill. It would have an instantaneous effect and generate a much more positive financial outcome than that immiserating proposal, both for the Home Office budget, which is under strain from the ballooning asylum bill, and for the Treasury’s tax receipts.
In 2022, the Labour party acknowledged that the current 12-month waiting period should be halved, yet the Government refuse to pursue this common-sense policy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has modelled the macroeconomic effects of lifting the ban. According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP.
Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work. These effects are well documented; the longer someone is out of a job, the harder it is for them to get one. A study of Swiss asylum seekers found that, for each year they are prevented from working, their future employment rate falls by 4 to 5 percentage points. Furthermore, preventing refugees from working only drives greater numbers of people towards the black economy. Instead of pursuing policies that improve prospects for asylum seekers, the current path serves only to increase state dependency and enrich criminality. We must remember that if this country works for refugees, refugees will work for this country.
The argument that giving asylum seekers employment rights will encourage further illegal immigration is well worn but ultimately unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little to no role in people’s destination of choice, whereas factors such as language and familial relations are far more influential. The Government’s position is disputed by their own Migration Advisory Committee.
Indeed, asylum seekers come here in spite of the fact that our working regulations are a complete outlier in comparison with other states. EU law requires access to work after six months at most, while Canada allows it immediately and the US after six months. Even Denmark, which is always held out as being quite hard-line on immigration issues and undocumented migrants, allows it after six months. A three-month limit would be in line with our allies and may incentivise the Home Office to improve the efficiency of its decision making.
Allowing refugees to work after three months would be worth £437 million per cohort, which is five times the cost that would be recovered with a £10,000 payment scheme. Importantly, the public support this measure. Lift the Ban research found that 71% of the public agreed that people seeking asylum should have the right to work. Ultimately, people who work while they wait for an asylum decision are more ready to support themselves when they get status. This is good for the taxpayer, good for the asylum seeker and good for the country.
Blake Stephenson
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would give asylum seekers the right to work after three months, and the Green party’s new clause 24 would give them an automatic, unrestricted right after six months that lasts through every appeal. We oppose both new clauses.
People who enter the UK illegally should not be able to claim asylum here at all. The new clauses go in the opposite direction. They would make the UK a more attractive destination for people deciding whether to pay a smuggler to cross the channel. Everybody wants to reduce pull factors so that we can reduce dangerous crossings, and I am afraid that the new clauses would introduce additional pull factors.
I will keep my remarks brief and just ask the Minister a question. How many asylum seekers currently have permission to work, and what assessment have the Government made of the effect that earlier work rights would have on the number of claims?
Siân Berry
The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work.
As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim.
It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other.
More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape.
The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees.
Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high.
Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work.
Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening.
In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work.
Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP.
Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety.
In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clauses, and I am grateful for the discussion. As we have heard, new clauses 10 and 24 would significantly change the Government’s policy on the period before asylum seekers can seek permission to work from the Home Office, reducing that period to three months and six months, respectively. New clause 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would go much further and grant asylum applicants and their adult dependants an automatic and unrestricted right to employment and self-employment after six months of waiting for a decision on their asylum claim—a right that would continue until the claim and any appeal had been finally determined.
Hon. Members will know that those who claim asylum are not normally allowed to work while their claim is considered. They may instead receive accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. Under our current policy, asylum seekers may be eligible to apply for permission to work in the UK where their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own. Where permission is granted, employment is restricted to jobs on the skilled worker occupations at regulated qualifications framework level 6 or above.
To respond to the question of the hon. Member for Wimbledon about legal entrants, it is important to flag that all legal entrants are prohibited from working. Some individuals who claim asylum after being here legally retain the right to work throughout their claim. An asylum seeker is allowed to apply for permission to work after 12 months, as I said, if they have not received a decision and will be employed in a high-skilled job. On the statistics he asked about, the Home Office publishes a vast amount of statistics regularly. The numbers for those who have permission to work will fluctuate constantly, as people move in and out of the system quite rapidly. Our focus has been on ensuring that people receive an initial decision on their claim as quickly as possible.
Mr Kohler
I am saddened that the Minister will not move on that point. The Labour party, when out of power, supported this proposal. As my party knows, supporting something when out of power, but not when in power, is not a good message to send to the electorate. The dignity of labour is important, and work is important to the ability to integrate into the community. The new clause would also make money for the Treasury. Why is work a pull factor for the UK but not for every other country? Why are we such an outlier? No answer has been given. The existing policy simply excludes migrants from society. It makes them vulnerable to the black economy and the criminals who frequent it, and simply does nothing to improve the lives of people, many of whom will be granted asylum. I am saddened—as I suspect are many Labour Members in their hearts—that the Government will not concede the point.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Stuart. I did not withdraw new clause 24. Am I allowed to press it to a vote?
Siân Berry
Of course!
New Clause 11
Refugee family reunion
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for refugee family reunion in accordance with this section.
(2) Any changes to the immigration rules included in any statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1) must come into effect after 21 days.
(3) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(4) A statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
(5) In this section—
the
‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971;
‘refugee status’ and
‘humanitarian protection’ have the same meaning as in the immigration rules;
‘family members’ include—
(a) a person's parent, including an adoptive parent;
(b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) a person's child, including an adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;
(d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child, read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
(iii) physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) risks to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
‘adopted’ and
‘adoptive’ refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules.” —(Tom Gordon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tom Gordon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the immigration rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. The family reunion route was paused on 4 September 2025, with a stricter system promised from spring 2026 still not in place, as we discussed earlier in Committee. So I ask the Minister: if the Government announce a new settlement route, will there be a new family reunion route, too? We want to see the details of the resettlement scheme announced with this legislation. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure we end up with the tens of thousands of people, predominantly women and children who used to use the family reunion visas, able to access it.
I meet many people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, from victims of genocide such as the Yazidi people to people who came through the Afghan route. Quite often the distress and additional trauma that is caused by having been separated from their families compounds the issues that they are already trying to grapple with.
With the new rules set to come in under this Bill, there will be issues around refugees being able to hit the income thresholds so that their family members can come with them. That is the purpose of this new clause and I would welcome any news or updates from the Minister further to the questions already put during the course of this Bill Committee.
Blake Stephenson
New clause 11 would require the Government to restore refugee family reunion within six months, but I understand that it also widens definitions to include children up to the age of 25, which was not in the hon. Member’s opening remarks, so I hope I am not mistaken.
We oppose this measure. Family reunion, as proposed in new clause 11, would add a further reward to a successful illegal crossing. Every grant would bring the prospect of encouraging a wider family member, and it would create a well-known incentive for families to send one member ahead, sometimes a child, on the most dangerous journey of all. We all want to stop and limit dangerous journeys. Safe and legal routes should be for people from regions of conflict who we choose to help, as we have done for Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. There should not be a reward for illegal and very dangerous crossings. We will not support the new clause, but can I ask the Minister to tell us when the Government intend to publish their replacement for the suspended family reunion route, as I think she intimated they would in the previous debate, and whether the intention is for it to be capped?
Anna Turley
New clause 11, tabled by the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, seeks to reopen the refugee family reunion route and greatly expand eligibility to wider family members. The Government took the difficult decision to suspend the refugee family reunion route in September 2025. That was done in response to immediate pressures placed on local authorities and public services by the rapid rise in arrivals in recent years.
The family reunion route had grown exponentially, placing significant and unsustainable pressures on local authorities and public services. Grants rose from approximately 5,500 per annum between 2015 and 2022 to more than 20,000 in the year ending September 2025. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we cannot have a situation where families are sending men on dangerous journeys, through other safe countries, to reach these shores with the intention to bring their families. We are extremely keen to prevent that. We want to ensure that there is a sustainable route for families that are genuinely fleeing war and persecution to come to this country, and that was not it.
Suspension remains in place while we are developing the wider reforms to the family migration system. I know that colleagues are on tenterhooks, and I wish I could expand on that further, but I can assure them that they do not have very long to wait at all—as I am sure they can see from the increased media frenzy around these issues. I will not pre-empt the Home Secretary’s announcements, but I reassure colleagues that those announcements are well on their way and they do not have long to wait.
The system we want to see will be fair, controlled and sustainable. The Government recognise the importance of family unity and the distress that separation can cause. We also recognise the contribution that families can make to helping refugees integrate. However, we must ensure that our approach takes account of the capacity of communities to support those arriving.
I want to be clear that suspension does not mean that family members have no way of applying to come to the UK. Other family routes remain available where people meet the relevant requirements, with provisions such as fee waivers available, and a consideration of any exceptional circumstances where an individual may not meet the criteria set out in those routes. In addition, applications under the suspended route that were submitted before the suspension came into force continue to be processed.
New clause 11 would go considerably further than simply restoring the previous arrangements. It would require the Government to establish a new and expansive refugee family reunion scheme within six months, and prescribe a significantly wider group of qualifying family members, including parents, siblings, unmarried adult children and siblings up to the age of 25 and other unspecified family members. This is highly likely to lead to considerably more people arriving than ever before, without any necessity for their sponsor to support them.
The new clause would also cut across established routes that already make specific provision for these relationships, including Appendix Child Relative for vulnerable children joining a close relative with protection status, and the Adult Dependant Relative route for adults requiring long-term, personal care. Those routes contain carefully designed eligibility, dependency, care, maintenance and accommodation requirements. The new clause risks creating an overlapping route for the same cohorts without specifying any safeguards that would apply, potentially undermining the workings of our wider family migration system.
The new clause would further enable children to sponsor their parents and siblings, which is something that was not possible under the previous route. We must consider the incentives that such a change would create. If a child reaching the UK alone could subsequently provide a route for other family members to join them, there is a real risk that smuggling gangs could exploit that expectation, leading to more children being sent on dangerous journeys, including on small boats. That would put children at greater risk of abuse and death.
The proposals tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should also be considered together. Amendment 54 would have provided that requirements being imposed must demonstrate that arriving family members could be suitably supported and accommodated by their sponsor. Together, these proposals, if accepted, would pre-empt the Government’s ongoing work that I have mentioned on our future family migration framework by constraining our ability to consider refugee family reunion alongside the wider reforms that we are making. It would be premature to prescribe the outcome of that work in the Bill. They are also likely to lead to a large increase in arrivals, which would further exacerbate existing pressures on local authorities and public services.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should consider how the consequences of such a surge in arrivals, if these proposals were enacted, would be managed. Where would families live if suitable accommodation had not been secured? Who would meet their immediate needs if their sponsor could not support them? Do we expect already stretched local authorities and public services to support those arrivals? If children are allowed to sponsor, as he proposes, a child cannot be expected to obtain a sufficient income or secure suitable accommodation for an arriving family, so who would meet those needs? What assessment has he made of the additional resources that would be needed, and how does he propose these costs should be met?
Those responsibilities simply cannot be left for local authorities to resolve after families arrive. They have practical consequences for homelessness services, temporary accommodation, children’s services and school places, as well as the local people who rely on those services. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.
Tom Gordon
I welcome the Minister’s words about us hopefully seeing something coming forward soon. I gently suggest that if we had something a little more concrete, we might not have needed to table new clauses such as this. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Minister has said. As I said before, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we will hopefully invite someone from the Minister’s Department to speak to us. I am sure I can press the point further there, so with that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 29th October 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The usual housekeeping rules apply: electronic devices should be switched off and there should be no food and drink in our sittings, except the water provided. If colleagues are kind enough to make any speaking notes available to Hansard, that will facilitate its work.
New Clause 1
Strategy for the provision of 150,000 new social housing dwellings a year in England
“The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for the provision of at least 150,000 new social housing dwellings in England in each financial year for the following twenty years.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 34—Brownfield sites social housing development strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for prioritising the development of brownfield sites for social housing.
(2) The strategy published under this section must include—
(a) measures to accelerate planning approvals on brownfield sites for social housing, and
(b) incentives for regeneration of derelict urban land for the purpose of social housing.”
This new clause seeks to require the Government to publish a strategy for prioritising brownfield land for social housing development.
New clause 4—Local authorities: borrowing restrictions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations remove relevant restrictions on local authorities to enable borrowing for the purpose of building or acquiring social housing.
(2) When determining the definition of ‘relevant restrictions’ under this section, the Secretary of State must pay due regard to the need to—
(a) retain restrictions essential to the management of the economy and local authority finances; and
(b) remove restrictions that place undue limitations on the ability of local authorities to provide sufficient social housing to meet local need.”
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. New clause 1 would require a strategy for the provision of 150,000 new social homes a year in England, which is the Liberal Democrat target. We welcome the Government’s commitments so far to funding and supporting the delivery of social homes, which are of key importance—in fact, we welcome those proposals a lot more than some of the planning system proposals for private housing development, but the focus of the new clause is on social homes. However, we need a significant target. So far, the Government have not set a statutory target, or indeed any clear target at all. The National Housing Federation and Shelter estimate that 90,000 more social homes are needed per year. Why did we go to 150,000? Because social homes should not be for just the most excluded, desperate and challenged in our society; they should be for working people in low-paid jobs.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I hesitate to ask the hon. Gentleman a slightly difficult question so early in the proceedings; he is a very nice man and does a very good job. He has previously said that national housing targets should not be dictated by Whitehall, that the Government’s housing targets are over the top and that a targeted approach to housing is unreasonable. Does he not agree that what the Government are doing is in line with his previous comments, and that it will achieve more social and affordable housing by overhauling the funding mechanisms for housing and by breaking down the planning barriers? That is a better approach, as he would previously have agreed himself.
Gideon Amos
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question about the details of Liberal Democrat policy, upon which I shall be delighted to expound. The challenge I was making is that the Government’s overall target for homes is mainly for private homes, so we have situations in Taunton where thousands of homes will be imposed on a community that will not be able to afford them or have any access to them. They will not be for local people.
Those targets come alongside the planning reforms, which seem to celebrate a confrontational approach—I think the Labour party called it a “blockers versus builders” approach. The notion that that will somehow lead to more community acceptance of housing development is wrong-headed. That is why we believe that the overall housing target needs to be based on household projections, as it once was, rather than on the current standard method. However, we would stick rigidly to our target of 150,000 social homes.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about housing targets. I remind the Committee that we are interrogating the Bill. One of my criticisms of the Bill is that the forecast for new, additional houses, certainly in the impact statement, is to some extent inaccurate. Can he speak to his disappointment that the Bill does not create the new houses that he and his party clearly want to see?
Gideon Amos
To be fair to Conservative Members, which is something I do not often say, they raised the point in earlier sittings that there is too little in the Bill to secure the delivery of social homes—the really affordable homes that we need to see. That is why our new clause 1, the very first amendment that we tabled, would insert such a target into the Bill.
Let me return to the objective of the delivery of social homes. The Budget gave an extra £1.5 billion to the programme, which is incredibly welcome.
Gideon Amos
I almost echo the “Hear, hears”. However, that money would struggle to add about 1,000 social homes per year to the current 18,000, which is the closest thing to a target that we can divine from the Government’s policy announcements—about 18,000, 19,000 or maybe 20,000 a year. We need a whole lot more than that. The National Housing Federation and Shelter believe that we need at least 90,000 a year. The current level of ambition really is not high enough. I encourage the Government to focus their attention less on issuing thousands more planning permissions. We need planning permissions to keep coming through, but since we already have a million plots with planning permission not built for private housing, they should focus their attention instead on the delivery of social housing and on setting a target—if not this one, a target of some sort.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was going to come on to this point, but what practical steps would he suggest for his Liberal Democrat local government colleagues? I think it is fair to say that they do not have the greatest reputation for approving housing developments in their areas. He has, admittedly, said that he is more in favour of social home building than private dwellings, but what practical steps would he take to encourage his local government colleagues on his target?
Gideon Amos
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, which anticipates the Liberal Democrats being in government and in a position to ensure delivery of housing. I point him to Eastleigh council, which has taken over a development of 2,000 homes not being delivered by its developer. It has made it a local authority development and is now driving it through. I recently went down to visit Liberal Democrat-run Cornwall council. The previous Liberal Democrat administration set up a housing company that is building 180,000 homes a year—sorry, I mean 180; I wish it were 180,000—and is using the profits from that to build social rent homes.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in my constituency, where we are building 400 council homes on the North Taunton estate and have retained our council housing stock. Sadly, because of right to buy, it is not the 30,000 units it used to be—it is now only 6,000 homes—but we are doing what we can. My colleagues in Somerset council are bringing new council houses to parts of Somerset for the first time in a generation. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the activity of Liberal Democrat authorities on the ground.
New clause 1 would set a target of 150,000 social homes a year, which would something for the Government to aspire to. If not that target, what target will the Government set and when? The new clause does not require that many to be built; it is not a money resolution. It would simply require the Government to publish a strategy for what would be required to reach the target. If the Government are serious about the housing crisis, they should have no objection to setting a target of this kind. In our manifesto, we set an allocation of £6 billion a year towards that achievement. I appreciate that it would take a number of years to reach 150,000.
In the interests of time, I will move on to new clause 4, concerning borrowing restrictions on local authorities. I will give some “Hear, hears” to the Government for the Prime Minister’s words about reviving council housing and delivering a lot more of it, though I fear there are more words than pounds in his pronouncement. Shelter has commissioned research from Savills examining the impact of the housing revenue account debt on councils’ ability to build new social homes. The research found that writing off HRA debt could unlock between 190,000 and 284,000 dwellings.
Shelter also recently published research with Pragmatix Advisory that assesses the economic and financial case for cancelling HRA debt and investing in social housing. The central conclusion is that the policy would be compliant with the Government’s fiscal rules, while generating a substantial long-term economic benefit of £140 billion over a 60-year timeframe. My colleagues in Somerset council told me that if were not for the Government’s self-financing debt rules, they could build out another 630 council houses on top of the ones that I outlined to the hon. Member for Rugby.
I appreciate that the costs of writing off that debt would be significant—I am sure that the Minister has made that point—but if the Government will not write off all that debt, will they write off some of it? In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats put an extra £2 billion a year into this area. Will the Government put in £2 million to write off some HRA debt? It is important to get councils building again. Those that have their housing revenue account maxed out have the political will, and in many cases the experience, to do so, but they lack the necessary financial headroom. If we want to get councils building, we need to look seriously at the HRA debt.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my new clause 34. I regret that my pointing out that the Bill will not create a single new social home appeared to get under the Minister’s skin on Tuesday, but the fact is that the Bill does not create any extra housing. That is not a surprise, as it comes from a Government who have built just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of their time in office. None the less, it is simply not good enough.
Moreover, in the places—few and far between—where the Government have tried to get Britain building, that has nearly always come at the cost of green belt protections, despite the fact that research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could swiftly be 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.
Deirdre Costigan
The hon. Member talks about the importance of building on brownfield land first. That is certainly the policy of this Government. Would the hon. Member agree that although the previous Government professed to want to focus on developing brownfield land, they did absolutely nothing to make that viable, whereas this Government are putting money into the brownfield land release fund, which will help to clean up that land? Those are steps that the previous Conservative Government absolutely failed to take.
Gareth Bacon
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but we are looking forwards, not backwards.
Gareth Bacon
The hon. Lady says that the Government are making brownfield land development more viable. Where are the signs of that? There is no development happening. Development in this country has ground to a standstill under this Government. That malaise did not start under this Government—I will accept that criticism—but it is most certainly being exacerbated by this Government. They are doing nothing to turn back the tide. In fact, they are pushing it further.
Those 1.41 million starts would amount to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which seeks to require the Government to publish a strategy for prioritising brownfield land for social housing development.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak in support of new clause 34, which is about prioritising brownfield for development. We always hear from the Government that they want to protect the green belt. I often laugh when they say that, because there is nothing in legislation: they never want to put anything on the face of the Bill or issue anything to protect the green belt.
Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has found that 1.4 million brownfield sites have been left unbuilt since 2007. As I said on Second Reading, that number is rather close to the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, which they have all but admitted they will not meet.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I am slightly worried to say that I agree with an Opposition Member, but I share the hon. Member’s frustration at the fact that there are many homes, often on brownfield sites, that have permission but have not been built. I see that in my constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, from my experience of speaking to landowners and developers, the reason why those homes have not been built is that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the financial models of those schemes, and that the Building Safety Regulator and the roll-out of new regulations, including second staircase rules, under the last Government stymied and slowed down development and changed the viability.
Fundamentally, in the hon. Member’s patch and mine, Conservative councils are taking far too long to approve development on brownfield sites, if they ever do. Again, that is pushing against viability. This Government have taken measures on all the things I mentioned. Does the hon. Member not agree that it is slightly rich for the Opposition to claim that this Government are somehow responsible for those homes not being built out more quickly?
Lewis Cocking
I am slightly bewildered. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who invited me in a debate in the Chamber to visit a pub in his constituency. I did not take him up on the offer, but maybe I should have, because I could have corrected him on a lot of the things he has just said. I am slightly bewildered by the nonsense that has just been spoken.
I was a council leader. The planning system is not why these houses do not get built. When I speak to developers in my constituency, lots of them say that it is now difficult to employ people because of the day-one employment rights that this Government have brought in. Lots of businesses speak to me about the increase in national insurance contributions. The Opposition have a plan to take £50,000 off the cost of building a new home, which will include social homes and increase the supply. This Government have done nothing to increase supply; all they have done is attack local councils for giving out planning permission. Local councils get punished when they do not have a five-year land supply, which is something that they have very little control over. The Government need to do much more to develop brownfield sites.
John Slinger
I very much like and respect the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that education and health resources, for example, in towns—where brownfield sites invariably are—are often relatively busy or full up, and face real challenges and pressures? Other conurbations such as villages, which admittedly do not have all the transport links that make town brownfield sites the most prominent in the planning system—let us not forget that they are prioritised by this Government—also need additional housing and social housing. Quite often, when I talk to people in those villages, their pubs and schools are struggling because they do not have enough people who want to use them.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words; I have great respect for him too. He makes an interesting point, but it is a wider issue than that. It is about appropriate development in the right place, followed up by infrastructure.
I agree that brownfield sites are usually in the centre of towns. As I said on Second Reading, we are all fed up with driving past sites with all the hoarding up. The sites have planning permission: either they have gone through the planning committee, and the local council has said, “Yes, we will give permission based on these circumstances,” or unfortunately it has not, but permission has been won on appeal. It creates a certain feel in a town centre when someone goes down and sees all the hoarding up on the brownfield sites.
In the heart of my constituency, in Cheshunt, we have a care home waiting to be built. It is a long-overdue facility in the local community that we really want to see built, but it has been left empty for years and years, and we just see the hoarding up. It creates a real sense of loss of pride in a place when someone goes down to the town centre and sees site after site like that. We have sites in Hoddesdon that got planning permission in 2014 and have only just started moving through this process.
Lots of things affect house build-out rates, but this Government could do much more to give powers to local councils to get these brownfield sites off the ground, because there are thousands of sites across the country that have planning permission but remain unbuilt.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?
Lewis Cocking
I know that the Minister has a lot of expertise in this area. One example is that when standard planning permission is issued, a developer might get three years to build. As we have seen in my local area, that does not necessarily mean that something gets built; it just means that they have started on site. That could be digging a hole or building the first wall; nothing is actually produced at the end of it. I would like councils to have a “use it or lose it” power, which would mean that someone cannot necessarily finish building just because they have started digging on site.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?
Lewis Cocking
I think we have to explore all options. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. We all have brownfield sites in our constituency that we want used to meet the social housing targets and bring down waiting lists.
Unfortunately, the Bill talks about stopping the right to buy. I just want to put it on the record that if we do that, the people who bought those houses will still be in them. Those people, and the waiting lists, will not magically disappear if we get rid of the right to buy.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, as always. I welcome the Conservatives’ move towards “use it or lose it” permissions. I assume that they agree that “lose it” should mean the compulsory acquisition of sites that have not been built out within a reasonable period, as the Liberal Democrats argued during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Otherwise, what does “lose it” mean? How does it have effect?
Lewis Cocking
As I say, we need to explore all options, and I want brownfield sites to be built out first. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. That means looking at how to use areas that have planning permission and have already gone through the planning process—areas in our town centres that residents drive past all the time. The Government need to look at those sites, because there are loads of unbuilt planning applications; we have all had consultations and spoken to our residents about them. All options must be on the table.
We see this in our constituencies all the time. People come to see me at my local surgery to ask why a site has not been built out. We desperately want a care home built on a brownfield site in the middle of Cheshunt town centre. It would be good if the Government gave local councils tools to enable those sites to get built out quicker.
Patrick Spencer
I think it would be appropriate to remind the Committee that the purpose of new clause 34 is to force the Government to bring forward a strategy for utilising brownfield sites. It is not about bouncing Opposition parties into make policy on the hoof; it is for the Government to come up with ideas. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that his point is that the Government should bring forward a strategy to indicate their intent?
Lewis Cocking
Absolutely. New clause 34 says that the Government must bring forward a strategy for brownfield sites, which could include a multitude of options. When they do so, the Opposition will look at the benefits of all the items in the strategy, which could include a “use it or lose it” power. That is one example that the Government could review to see what could happen.
The new clause is about using brownfield sites first. I do not think that anyone disagrees with that, so it would be good if the Government accepted it. If they do, the Bill might actually be about building more social housing. At the moment, it does nothing of the sort.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 34, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ exchanges, and I have to say that I do not see what is particularly contentious about my hon. Friend’s proposal. It is not unreasonable to focus on the development of brownfield land first, as the previous Government did. We should therefore have a strategy to draw the strands together as we look towards the future. However many more years of this Government we have, the power is in their hands to do this. I do not see what is contentious about doing what my hon. Friend’s new clause proposes.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rugby, but I have a counterpoint to his point about development on brownfield sites. My constituency has a couple of towns in it and is right on the edge of Leicester, but it goes way up into rural north-east Leicestershire. The reality is that the developments on the edges of the towns or nearer the city often work most effectively, because there are bus routes and there is access to more schools, shops, businesses and employment opportunities.
The challenge that we face locally is that in Leicester city, which has a Labour mayor and which I go through on my way from the station to my constituency, there are undeveloped, unmodernised and un-utilised brownfield sites or commercial sites that have fallen into disuse. Nevertheless, the mayor says that he cannot meet his housing targets and has therefore farmed them out to the rural areas in the county. That means a significant amount of development on the edges of villages—often with no bus route or only a sparse service, a full village primary school and a GP practice serving a whole range of rural communities—that are unable to meet the needs of the additional development. The pressure on local services is a real challenge. I have been pushing for a long time to see whether, when these applications are brought forward, there is a way of having “i” before “e”—infrastructure before expansion—so that at least we know the services are there.
There is one big challenge that previous Governments I served in did not solve, and which I suspect this Government will struggle to solve, because it comes down to the viability of development. We can, and local authorities do, ask developers for capital contributions for those services, but often the problem is the ongoing revenue cost of running them. That means that we can get an extra room in a surgery, but will the local NHS integrated care board be willing to fund the salary costs and commission extra GP practice services?
Danny Beales
Perhaps I am going to get in trouble, but once again I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Member says. It is frustrating that the future benefits of infrastructure have not often been realised because of the funding models in place. Local leaders and local mayors have said, “The case is clear for this infrastructure: it will unleash housing and growth,” but to get that capital they have to go to the Treasury to make a business case, with begging bowl in hand. It takes too long.
This Government are changing that. The Budget yesterday gave significant new powers to mayors: in London and around my patch, they include the tax increment financing scheme for Euston, the Bakerloo extension and a number of other projects. The Government are looking to give mayors a greater share of business rates and taxation to invest up front in infrastructure and the benefits of growth to come. Are the Government not doing exactly what the right hon. Member is saying should happen?
Edward Argar
I hesitate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time, but no, they are not doing that, certainly not in my constituency. There is a Mayor of Leicester, but there is no mayor of Leicestershire, so we do not get any of the benefits. The Minister’s colleague—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—will make a statement in the Chamber in about 20 minutes, so he may be about to change the position, but currently we do not have those benefits.
A lot of the challenges around service provision are not addressed by what the Chancellor set out yesterday. Take the NHS funding model, for example: in my area, the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care board is having to make in-year savings to live within its financial envelope. We have GP practices that are full—one practice in Melton Mowbray has 37,000 patients on its books—and yet the ICB says it sees no reason to expand to meet the need. The development has not happened yet in Melton, so it will not expand until the need is demonstrably there, by which time a whole range of people will have moved into the new development but will not be able to get on the list for the surgery, or will be waiting a very long time. I am not saying that this is a challenge that suddenly appeared in July 2024. Governments of all political complexions have grappled with it. I have a lot of time for the Minister; I hope this issue is on his radar.
On brownfield sites, the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington should not be contentious; it is a sensible approach to draw together all the different strands of work that the previous Government did to push the development of brownfield sites. Let me give a few examples. The national policy planning framework had a clear focus on the issue. We required local authorities to publish reports and registers of available brownfield sites for development. We reviewed permitted development rights and changes in use class rules to make it easier for commercial sites to be repurposed for development into housing. Alongside that, we put £4.3 billion into the housing infrastructure fund and £550 million into the brownfield housing fund. That is tangible investment to persuade and support local authorities to prioritise brownfield first.
The problem in my patch is that the Labour Mayor of Leicester simply did not do it. We can see the brownfield sites everywhere, and we can see the development being pushed out into the county because the city has failed to do what it needs to do.
My hon. Friend’s modest amendment would compel the Government to draw together all the strands of work that the previous Government did, and that this Government are also doing, into a clear and coherent strategy that would prioritise brownfield sites much, much more and would give local authorities and others the means, the support and the policy back-up to make this work a genuine reality on the ground. I will finish by simply emphasising my support for my hon. Friend.
Patrick Spencer
The reality is that when one serves with such an august group of gentlemen, one’s own speech gets slowly whittled down after they have made theirs. However, these are pet projects of mine, because as I said earlier, I am one of those on the Committee who represents a rural community, and in Suffolk we have seen the reality of building houses in areas that are just not suited to it. We have had a number of major weather events over the past 10 to 15 years, and I have not read a single section 19 flood report that did not identify urban sprawl and house building in rural areas, on floodplains or on low-lying land as a major contributor to massive flooding risks in rural England.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston mentioned, many homes built in rural areas are not near schools, transport infrastructure or high streets. These are not houses that young people want to move into. I use this anecdote all the time, but in my village, which is in the middle of nowhere, we have had 30 units built on the side of the town. Not only are they too expensive, but we do not have any of the utilities that the young people we are trying to solve the housing crisis for want. At the same time, I have Ipswich in my constituency, and it is a mine of brownfield sites.
The new clause could be a huge opportunity for the Government to align their social housing policy with their broader economic agenda of empowering regions, because our economic future is in towns and cities. That is an inevitability: it is where the jobs will be made and where the growth will happen. That is where educational institutions—those anchor institutions, which are so important for the long-term economic viability of these towns—are based. That should not come as a surprise to hon. Members here representing Rugby, Wolverhampton and Durham. The Members for all those places would say, “We want jobs, young people and institutions that embed economic growth, and”—critically—“affordable homes to sit beside them.” What is the point of a thriving town without affordable housing?
John Slinger
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the need for social homes—and for affordable homes, although we are talking about social homes here—exists not only in our towns, but in our villages? If we are to deal with the long-standing problems with the high cost of homes on the private market, we will need social homes across the range of conurbations in our country.
Patrick Spencer
We would not argue against that statement one bit. I am not trying to expunge social tenants from rural England. Suffolk is not just a load of farms and tractor driving; we have a lot of working-class towns. We need social housing, but we are talking about the future of social housing, the future of our economy and the future of our dynamism. We have always moaned jealously about the French, the Germans and the Americans for having dynamic economies with engines of prosperity outside the capital city, while we are stuck with a unimodal economy that is so rooted in London—it is crazy that I am making the Prime Minister’s arguments for him from the Opposition Benches, but anyway.
Surely this is an opportunity. If we are going to build 50,000 to 100,000 or 150,000 homes, and if we are going to tackle the 1.3 million people who are stuck on the waiting list for social houses, why do we not make sure that that is aligned with our responsibility for economic growth? We are all bored with hearing from experts, friends and family members about the lack of joined-up policymaking across Government. This Bill, which is not an inconsequential Bill but is one piece of a wide patchwork of legislation, is a good example of how we can align with a wider economic agenda that we can all get behind.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today.
Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp. Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so.
I turn to new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised. We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building.
In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic. A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.
Gideon Amos
We shall certainly be setting that out prior to going into government. The Minister makes an extensive argument that 150,000 is not the right target. Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that a minimum of 90,000 are needed per year. What is the Government’s target?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence.
In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove.
I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward.
On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so.
Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy.
On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.
Gideon Amos
Simply put, a target of 150,000 homes per year would not be a meaningless review; it would set the target that, so far, the Government have not put in place. The Minister welcomes our encouragement to challenge them to go further on social housing, so we will do so by pressing this matter to a vote. I encourage the Government to come up with a target for the number of social homes that they intend to produce.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
The hon. Member for Orpington has indicated that he wishes to press new clause 34 to a Division. For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with this arcane process, let me explain that although new clause 34 was grouped with new clause 1, the Division on it will happen later in our proceedings. It will not be forgotten.
New Clause 2
Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy
“Before section 121(A) of the Housing Act 1985 insert—
‘Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy
(1) A local housing authority in England may make a determination that the right to buy does not arise in relation to dwelling-houses in its area.
(2) A determination under subsection (1) may apply to—
(a) all dwelling-houses within the authority’s area, or
(b) dwelling-houses of a description specified in the determination.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed by a local housing authority in making a determination under this section.’”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 53—Regulatory inspection at tenants’ request—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision enabling tenants of a registered provider of social housing to request an inspection of their dwelling by the Regulator of Social Housing.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) the proportion of tenants required to support a request,
(b) the grounds on which a request may be made, and
(c) the circumstances in which an inspection may be refused.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This probing new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the new clause, which stands in my name and in the name of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. Regulatory inspection of housing associations is particular to where there has been bad practice or responses to tenants have been poor. I acknowledge that most housing associations do an excellent job and fulfil a vital role in delivering the social homes that we need. However, where they are particularly bad or fail to deliver an adequate level of service and repairs to tenants, the Regulator of Social Housing may eventually carry out an inspection, but only years after tenants have been disadvantaged and not served.
Deirdre Costigan
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 3 is very similar to the official Opposition’s new clause 53, which I believe they describe as a probing amendment. I have a probing question for him. How does he see things moving beyond the changes that the Government have already brought in, on a cross-party basis? Awaab’s law will allow tenants to report problems with repairs and have them dealt with by their housing provider within a very short timescale, and it will enable them to sue for breaches or go to the ombudsman. On top of that, there is the new right in the Bill to manage provision, which will allow tenants to get rid of the repair provider completely and bring in their own. How does he see his new clause moving things beyond that? What gap would it fill?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Lady makes some excellent points about measures that we have supported; Awaab’s law is one of them, as is the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We certainly welcome the new standards to which tenants will have access. The import of this new clause is that it would cover a much wider range of poor practice: across a whole estate, for example, rather than individual dwellings, or indeed across all of a registered provider’s homes.
The regulator already inspects registered providers, but, as I say, its inspections tend to come after the scandal is all over—after things have been running for years and after tenants have complained, had recourse to complaints mechanisms and so on. Our new clause would allow tenants, where a reasonable percentage of them have signed up, to trigger an inspection by the regulator at an earlier stage. That would make it a proactive power of inspection, rather than making tenants wait until the end of the process for the regulator to look into it. Of course, there are details to be worked out, such as what we mean by an estate, which is why we made provision in the new clause for regulations, to be approved in this place, to set out those more detailed arrangements.
Fundamentally, this is about giving social housing tenants an extra lever: a power to bring in the regulator, where that is justified, to carry out an inspection in a proactive way. It is a constructive new clause and is tabled for that purpose. I am delighted that the Conservatives have followed suit with something similar; we could even be persuaded to vote for their new clause in the unlikely event that the Committee does not agree to ours today. Our new clause stands on its own merits. It would give an extra lever to social housing tenants, some of whom are really badly served by their housing associations. I commend it to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers.
The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary. It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.
In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight.
In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Does he believe that the Regulator of Social Housing has enough powers to deal with the issues that he describes? That is just me, in a good spirit, asking a genuine question about how he thinks it is operating.
Matthew Pennycook
I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour.
Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed.
On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards.
The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Gideon Amos
I wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Review of access to social housing for rehabilitated offenders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the level of access to social housing for rehabilitated offenders.
(2) The review must assess—
(a) whether current allocation schemes give sufficient priority to rehabilitated offenders seeking to resettle in the community,
(b) the adequacy of provision for rehabilitated offenders with vulnerabilities or other needs arising from their offending history or period of custody, and
(c) the effectiveness of existing support in assisting rehabilitated offenders to access and sustain social housing tenancies.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the extent to which rehabilitated offenders are able to access social housing.
Gideon Amos
The new clause stands in my name and in the name of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. The run-up to Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day is the appropriate time to consider and take account of the needs of service personnel and veterans under the Bill. About 3% of rough sleepers are veterans, according to the No Homeless Veterans campaign. Government research found that 2,180 veteran households were assessed as at risk of experiencing homelessness. One of the most significant reasons for that is post-traumatic stress disorder, which obviously affects many veterans, and one in three veterans are also disabled.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the provision of social housing for former members of the armed services. To anticipate the point that this is simply a review, surely no group can be more important to review the performance of social housing for than our veterans and those who have put their lives at risk for our country.
I shall speak now to new clause 12, which also stands in my name and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, rather than having to sit down and stand up again—a great tradition in this House. New clause 12 is on reviewing access to social housing for rehabilitated offenders. There has been a staggering 26% year-on-year increase in the number of households requiring homelessness support due to leaving care, custody or hospital.
When it comes to rehabilitated offenders, the last thing we want are offenders whose rehabilitation is not sustained or supported due to their having nowhere to live. One in 10 of those sleeping rough were recently discharged from an institution. That is a massive number. We need to do better by those who need that support. One in six prison leavers had no fixed abode on their first night in 2025-26. About 1,000 a month were released to rough sleeping in 2024-25, up about 40% in a year. I therefore respectfully submit both new clauses to the Committee for consideration.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively.
We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life. New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance.
Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households. Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year.
With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Gideon Amos
New clause 5 is not a burdensome amendment; it is a review of access to social housing for former service personnel. I hear what the Minister says about the Government keeping these matters under review, but surely a Social Housing Bill should commit to supporting our veterans and armed service community in this way. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the requirement for wheelchair-accessible social housing. Social tenants are worse served now than they were in terms of access to wheelchair- accessible housing. In 2022-23, a third of wheelchair users in the social sector were placed in homes that were neither accessible nor adapted, according to Age UK.
The planning system is also something of a postcode lottery. Only 170 out of 311 local plans set targets for wheelchair user homes. Nationally, one wheelchair-accessible home is planned per 538 people; the south-west plans one per 810 people; London plans one per 210 people; and the north-west plans one per 2,006 people. The NPPF does not require any M4(3), which relates to homes that are wheelchair-accessible under the building regulations. It leaves it to local plans to assess need, and we have already seen how this is something of a lottery.
London already has a 10% requirement in its local plan, which proves that 10% is achievable. The Minister may say that this is a matter for devolution, so that local communities rather than central Government can decide, and that councils are free to follow that example. However, we say that a minimum floor of 10% is reasonable, and it has been considered by a previous Government. We respectfully submit that 10% of new social housing should be wheelchair-accessible.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause.
The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need. In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas.
Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent. Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes.
In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance.
For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.
Gideon Amos
I hear what the Minister says, but we have had these expressions in guidance and policy before, and we are still a long way from having suitable provision for wheelchair-accessible homes. With the leave of the Committee, I will therefore press new clause 6 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Zero-carbon standards for new social housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require that all new social housing dwellings constructed in England are constructed to a zero-carbon standard.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Gideon Amos
I appreciate that we are in the meat of the main new clauses that I and the Liberal Democrats have tabled, but this one is particularly important, given the experience we had in the summer. It is about the mitigation of overheating and cooling standards—the cool rule, as we would term it.
The new clause would require that where passive measures are not sufficient to achieve a reasonable level of cooling in new social homes, there is active cooling to supplement that passive cooling, sufficient to achieve a temperature of around 21°C during periods of high external temperatures.
We have had an extraordinary summer, have we not, Sir Roger? We witnessed five heatwaves. Cobra was convened. People died in overheated homes. We approved the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 just last week, adding excess heat to the prescribed hazards that social landlords must address. The Bill is an opportunity to ensure that new homes do not end up in the same state as the homes that I have described.
The initial responses to the requirement for active cooling are the energy considerations, and perhaps considerations relating to the urban heat island effect. When one examines both of those, it becomes absolutely apparent that we need active cooling in our homes, given the change in climate that we have had.
On the energy consumption, let us remember that we paid, I think, £260 million to generators of solar and wind energy this year to turn off that generation of electricity and to stop using it. We have surplus electricity being generated, particularly in the hotter months in the summer, which we are not using and cannot use. In fact, there is an argument for electrification in a whole range of other fields as well, so that that electricity can be used and the renewables industry can be recompensed for generating it, and we are not using taxpayers’ money to turn off that ability to generate electricity. There is therefore no shortage of electricity for active cooling, which we desperately need in our homes.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents.
Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation regardless of their tenure type. The accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met.
The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold. Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.
Gideon Amos
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow. To clarify, the new clause proposes active cooling only where that temperature cannot be achieved otherwise. The priority of passive measures would continue with this new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate.
As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues.
The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027. It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit.
That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit.
The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.
Gideon Amos
On new clause 7, the cool rule, I appreciate that, as the Minister points out, there is no prohibition on active cooling being used in new homes, but the fact is that we need to secure cooling. We cannot just leave it so that only the most luxury accommodation has cooling in the extremely hot summers that we are having. Just as we have habitable standards for space, daylight and heating, we need a statutory standard for cooling. If it does not come today, I believe it will come, so I wish to press new clause 7 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we come to new clause 10, I remind Members that where a lead amendment is grouped with others, they do not need to seek permission to speak to those other amendments. Only the lead amendment is moved at that time, but Members may speak to any of the amendments grouped with it. If they are reached, and if a Division is required, that will take place later in the proceeding. I said it was arcane, and it is.
New Clause 10
No reduction in social housing secured through planning permissions or obligations
“(1) A local planning authority must not agree to any modification or discharge of—
(a) a planning obligation entered into under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or
(b) a condition attached to a planning permission,
where the effect of the modification or discharge would be to reduce the number or proportion of dwellings secured as social housing under that obligation or permission.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to any planning obligation or planning permission entered into or granted before, on, or after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am incredibly heartened by your experience of Parliament, Sir Roger, and your statement that you find it arcane. If you find it arcane, I can only imagine how those of us who came into the House only recently find it, so I appreciate your clarification.
I will speak briefly on the new clause, really to highlight the frustration that many people feel when they see social housing quotas reduced. That frustration comes from seeing quotas promising a certain level of genuinely affordable housing for local people go through the planning system and be negotiated, only for the applicant to re-negotiate that consent, argue viability and, as frequently happens, remove all affordable housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) brought to my attention the example of an exception site that included around 40% social housing. The permission was in place, but as the Government’s new standard method renders nearly all authorities unable to meet their five-year housing supply, the Government’s inspector had no alternative but to remove all the social housing from that permission on appeal and revert it all to private housing.
The Government’s new standard method has created a free-for-all. An exception site that was granted permission only because it would deliver social housing is now entirely private market housing, which local people in Cornwall will not be able to access or benefit from. I think communities are very frustrated at seeing such consents undermined at later stages. The new clause seeks to rectify that by preventing social housing numbers from being argued down, and I respectfully commend it to the Committee on that basis.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end.
The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites. At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward.
We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units. It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states:
“Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.”
Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received.
The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House. As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for engaging on all these amendments, including this one. My question is whether he and the Government recognise that, as in the example I cited, most authorities in southern England cannot meet the five-year housing supply because of the standard method, and that, as a result, social and affordable housing is being removed from planning permissions. Are the Government concerned about that? Are they doing any assessment of how much this is happening?
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites.
I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment. Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward.
If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions.
Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73. Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing.
The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes. We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes.
However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling.
It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery.
I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate the Minister’s correct analysis that there is a balance to be struck with individual sites, and I accept that. There is a direct link between the standard method and the loss of social housing. The standard method, having been introduced, means that most local plans now cannot meet their five-year housing supply, which means that most of them are no longer effective.
Therefore, if a developer presents an inspector with a site that has both social housing and private housing, the inspector will be forced to conclude, on the section 73 application to amend the plan, that there is no longer an exception that justifies social housing, because all the sites have to come forward, and they all have to be market housing. That is the effect of imposing the standard method and rendering so many local plans no longer effective.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.
Gideon Amos
That is very generous of the Minister, and I will take up the offer by writing to him with the appeal decision. That is now a completed decision, so it would not involve Ministers interfering in any way. He will be able to see the effect, and I think we need to understand how much that is happening across the country, if we are losing social homes all over. On that note, I will press new clause 10 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 29th October 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
We will now hear oral evidence from the Centre for Policy Studies and Britain Remade. We have until 2.35 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Ben Hopkinson: I am Ben Hopkinson, head of housing and infrastructure at the Centre for Policy Studies.
Sam Dumitriu: I am Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at the campaign group Britain Remade.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Clearly, this is a Bill of two halves: there is the specific stuff on the lower Thames crossing, and then it is a pretty open-ended book for other projects going forward. Can I have your initial assessment of whether this is the right model to solve both the question of getting the lower Thames crossing built and issues relating to future trunk road projects that may be required or identified in the country? Will it actually deliver value for the motorist and haulage businesses using the scheme? Do we even know that it will deliver to certain metrics? No one can give us an answer yet on what the toll would be on the lower Thames crossing, for example.
Ben Hopkinson: We have quite serious concerns about the regulated asset base model. This will certainly be the first time it is been used for roads. The main issue is that there are quite limited incentives for cost control within a regulated asset base. If you are the private contractor, you have significant incentives to increase the capital expenditure on the regulated asset base to make it as large as possible, because that means you get as large a return on your investment as possible.
The organisation standing in the way of that is the Office of Rail and Road in this case, and it has never overseen a RAB before. It would not even be able to look at other organisations or regulators that have overseen a RAB for roads, because there are none internationally.
We have a better model through concessions. France has built more miles of motorway this century than the UK has in total. It has done that with the private sector working through concessions. Under a concession, there are strong incentives for private contractors to keep their costs as low as possible, because it directly impacts their bottom line, which is completely the opposite for a RAB model.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Hopkinson: The Bill is focused on delivering a RAB model. It is a completely different set-up to use a concession model. There is a second challenge with RAB in so far as the Department for Transport does not really bear any of the costs either. That is why you get it doing things like banning diesel construction vehicles for the lower Thames crossing. That is a policy goal it has otherwise that does not actually lead to a better overall road. It is an example of “everythingism”, where it has plenty of different goals, none of which is necessarily delivering the best road project for motorists at a very reasonable cost.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Hopkinson: I do not have a specific number for it, but it is a regulation that might lead to a different form of construction than they would have chosen were they going purely for value for money. Across the piece, the lower Thames crossing has been racked by planning delays, which I am sure we are all aware of. It was designated a national priority project in 2011 and it took 14 years, 360,000 pages and £300 million to get planning approval. That all adds cost. When the project started going through, it was projected to cost about £4 billion. Then international events got in the way and it is now projected to be over £10 billion. Moving quickly saves costs. Our slow planning system has been a real driver of added cost here.
Sam Dumitriu: Cost control is one of the most important issues here. If you look at road building generally, the big problem in the UK is that we have a very large construction cost premium. Britain Remade has looked at 345 infrastructure projects across the world, of which 121 were road projects. On average, the UK pays about 65% more to build a given mile of road or railway. It is a bit less for road on average, but when you look at more complicated projects like the lower Thames crossing, it tends to creep back up.
Many people often dismiss our problems around infrastructure as a problem of too little money going in, but over the past five years or so—a period that includes covid, but also years either side of it—we spent about £308 per head on Government public infrastructure investment. In France it is more like £271 and in Germany about £251. When you account for that cost premium, we end up getting about £180 of what the French or the Germans would get. For me, that is the No.1 problem.
About £300 million has been spent on the planning process for the lower Thames crossing. If you add together the world’s longest road tunnel, which was built in Norway, and a tunnel built 282 metres under the sea, you just about reach that. They are building much more complicated projects for much less. You can talk about how it is more difficult to build due to UK geographical or geological issues, but fundamentally, just those front-loaded costs make it very difficult to build anything cost-effectively. Because of that, there is a risk that this model is adopted as a way of taking some of those costs off the books without the right level of scrutiny.
Greg Smith
Q
Sam Dumitriu: One thing is that a lot of major road projects have been cancelled recently. The first road investment strategy was much more ambitious than the ones that followed. That was partly due to covid, but now we are out the other end, we see reduced ambition on road building. Road maintenance has gone up a bit, which is positive, but at the same time, we are not building the projects.
It is important to look at which projects are appropriate for tolling; bridges and tunnels make perfect sense. In America, lots of additional lanes that have their own toll are built. Based on our geography and the amount of road infrastructure we have, you probably could not do that—when you are adding a super-fast lane on a seven-lane motorway, that works; it does not really work here—but clearly there are lots of bottlenecks and opportunities to finance things via tolls.
The question we have to ask is, as fuel duty revenue declines, because people are switching to electric vehicles, will there be the same impetus to put money into the roads? Currently, motorists do not get a very fair deal: they pay a lot in tax, but they do not see the same return in road building, as the money tends to go into the general pot. You might want to, say, hypothecate that revenue—that is one thing—but road user charging gets around the question of politicians attempting to use infrastructure money generally to put it towards your primary, day-to-day spending, whether that is on the NHS or £100 to deal with the cost of living, et cetera.
There needs to be some way of insulating long-term infrastructure funding from those, and that is the advantage of tolling. The problem is that motorists will only bear or accept it if they are confident that they are not being hit by all these other taxes and are getting something genuinely new in return. I do not see many motorists complaining about the Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels being tolled, because they have new infrastructure and congestion has fallen. It would be different if an existing road were tolled without a noticeable improvement.
Ben Hopkinson: There is nothing inherently wrong with road user charging. It is quite sensible that the people who use and get the benefits of an infrastructure asset pay towards its construction and maintenance. The challenge is that we already have quite high fuel duty, and it is more than solely the combination of carbon output and what we spend on roads and maintenance. If fuel duty were solely for mitigating the externalities of carbon emissions, combined with the upkeep, maintenance and addition of roads, it would be around 35p, rather than the about 52p it is now, so fuel duty is already higher than the economic impacts of roads and emissions.
If you kept fuel duty where it is, or cancelled out the 5p cut—the scrapping of which is perennially promised—and added road user charging on top, that would be quite a significant burden for motorists to bear. But ideally, new infrastructure would be funded through some form of road user charging. The people who drive get the benefits, so that is only fair.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
Q
Ben Hopkinson: I am well aware that there are safeguards and that the regulator is tasked with ensuring that there are not runaway costs. However, the ORR has never done this before. No regulator has ever done a RAB for a road before. There is a real risk that if it sets the return too high, motorists will pay significantly more, but if it sets the return too low, then no one will want to invest.
While in theory the model makes a lot of sense, I am a little worried about the practicalities of the ORR accidentally setting a rate too high or too low. In other sectors where rates are set by regulators, there are often risks, especially when there are macroeconomic shifts—higher interest rates, for example. Regulators are sometimes slow to update to that. There are concerns there. With a concession model, as used in France and around the world, there are much better incentives for contractors to keep costs down because they are the ones bearing them, not the potential motorists.
Justin Madders
Q
Ben Hopkinson: Well, there is a bit of control. There is also the market pushback; if tolls are set too high, people simply will not use the new asset. In that circumstance, the private constructor bears the revenue risk of it being set too high. There is also the overall agreement that the concessionaire strikes with the state initially.
One other concern that I have about the RAB is that there is not necessarily a sunset clause. In France, it is very common for roads to return to public ownership after about 60 or 70 years. There is a chance here, under the RAB, that there is no sunset and so they are permanently away from state ownership. I know that the Bill does provide for some sunset clauses if they impose them, but that is not the default here. That is another concern that I have about the RAB model.
Justin Madders
Q
Sam, you spoke about the planning delays and have set out the significant costs and delays because of that. In terms of the lower Thames crossing, is it your understanding that those risks are now past?
Sam Dumitriu: In general, it appears so. However, we have seen some cases for example, in energy infrastructure, where you can have a development consent order passed and construction under way, but then encounter further planning-related delays.
For example, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is potentially the most expensive nuclear power station that the world will ever see. One of the issues is that, after spending around £700 million on fish mitigations, it is still in the process of trying to get the permit that unlocks the final phase of construction. If it does not get that permit, it then has to apply for a DCO variation, so there can still be planning risk even if you address the up-front challenges. Hopefully some of the changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 around environmental delivery plans—if they start being rolled out much further than the initial pilot—and potentially also changes to judicial review, which can delay some of these things as well, will address those.
In terms of the point about safeguards, there is one reason to be slightly less pessimistic than Ben. One advantage with the ORR that you do not have with Ofgem or Ofwat is that in National Highways you have a state-owned body with access to cost information. What you tend to see with these other sectors is more opaque, because it is fundamentally people in industry paying very expensive economic consultancies to produce lengthy PowerPoints to tell you how much something should cost. If you have National Highways building toll projects funded via RAB, you have that information, which should allow you to see through some of the perhaps excessive claims on cost that you can see in other sectors. That is a positive, but you still have the fundamental problem of the RAB, which is slightly less incentive to keep costs down unless you have very good information and a regulator that is very on it.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Ben Hopkinson: I completely agree that the UK has a long historical challenge with delivering infrastructure cheaply and quickly. HS2 is the most expensive railway ever built, and the Bakerloo line extension will be one of the most expensive underground lines ever built. Tramlines are double the cost here compared to other European countries. We have the most expensive nuclear power plant ever built. There is a real long-term failure to build infrastructure quickly and cheaply.
On the Bill, it is good that we are getting private financing in, and that will help ease some of the burden on the state, when we are already pushed up against our fiscal limits. As I have mentioned, I have a little concern about the incentive structure, especially insofar as the private constructor has incentives to escalate costs as much as they can get away with under the ORR. A concession model might work a little better.
Sam Dumitriu: One of the important things when it comes to infrastructure delivery is ensuring you have a pipeline of projects, you know what you will build next and you can plan appropriately. We have many reasons why, in the UK, those pipelines get knocked about. Sometimes you have a road that you want to build, and everyone wants it built, but someone has brought a lawsuit against the road and it is delayed by a year. That makes planning for that really challenging.
One of the other problems is that sometimes those delays mean that you get pushed into different funding windows—the Treasury can reopen conversations about value for money, especially when in every Budget someone is trying to squeeze things into the fiscal rules and moving things from one period into another period, and cost-saving measures that are really delays. Those things tend to happen, and have happened for ever.
One thing that was really impressive under the last Government was the road investment strategy approach, which essentially said “We will set out a strategic case for all the big roads we want to build, we will give a pot of money and then we will give a delivery body the freedom to execute that.” The freedom to execute was slightly constrained by the planning system and all those delays, but fundamentally that is a very good approach. The challenge comes when the money is not quite there from the public purse, in part because the fiscal situation is tighter, but also because different choices are being made. In that case, private finance can fill the gap and ensure that you have a much more stable pipeline. I am in favour of that aspect and I think that will speed up delivery.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Ben Hopkinson: It is a good question. First, in the French example, I am well aware that it is quite expensive to drive on a French motorway. On the other hand, they have many more miles of motorway, and if it is too expensive you can take the equivalent of an A road for certain journeys. Judging by the number of people who drive on French motorways, I think people are generally willing to accept the costs, especially given that they have built many more miles of motorway just this century than we have in total.
I could be proved wrong if it works really well, but the main challenge with the RAB model is the sheer uncertainty of whether the ORR is up to the task and has the right staff in place. It has never done this before. I know there have already been some concerns about capacity issues and general commercial experience within the ORR. I would be concerned if the private sector had large commercial control and contract teams and the public sector did not have them and was out-negotiated. That is certainly possible if civil servants are not able to properly push back on price increases.
I think the fundamental incentives in a RAB model are not right for delivering one-of-a-kind, unique pieces of infrastructure. It works a lot better for infrastructure that has very clear unit costs—for example, the cost of laying 100 metres of pipe. That is good because a regulator is clearly able to understand how much 100 metres of pipe costs to lay and can apply that across its base, whereas the cost of one lower Thames crossing is up in the air. Some additions from the private contractor might seem sensible; they might get away with that. Having a more environmentally friendly construction process certainly seems sensible on the face of it, but that also adds cost. I would want to be reassured that the ORR is up to the task and has both the capacity and the know-how to properly understand the arrangements it is entering into.
Sam Dumitriu: You mentioned price gouging. It is important to work out what the main risks are. Roads are, in most cases, natural monopolies, and the best thing about being a monopoly is a quiet life. It is not necessarily that you have all these opportunities to gouge your customers; it is that the lack of competition means you are not forced to adopt cost-saving measures, or become more customer-friendly and so on. You might have a situation where various people are claiming quite high margins or they are being aggressive in that sense, but the UK has the other problem, where people are not on it around costs. They are not working out what the best structure is to ensure that costs keep falling.
On Ben’s point, one possible way of resolving the issue is quite a radical reform that is probably beyond the scope of the Bill. I have always wondered whether it makes sense for the UK to have Ofgem doing RAB regulation for energy networks, Ofwat doing it for water, the ORR for road and rail and Ofcom for telecoms, or whether it makes sense to have a specialist economic regulator that deals with the costs of natural monopoly networks. That would have a bunch of advantages. It would potentially resolve some of the revolving door problems that you might see. It would also ensure that there is a similar expertise and a standard approach. You do not want varying approaches between all the regulators, because that suggests that they are doing something wrong when you have essentially the same economic problem to solve. As I say, however, that would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Q
In a situation such as we have at the moment, where diesel is at £2 a litre and the sustainable version another 50p on top of that, costs are going right up not only for the build, but for the corporate budgets of the haulage companies and for everyday individuals, who have to manage their household budgets. If the cost goes up to a level beyond the right balance of pricing that is commercially viable for the operator, or absorbable for the family or the business, what happens?
At the moment, I am worried about a white elephant across the Thames. In such circumstances, in the end all the costs would get absorbed by the taxpayer and this model goes up in smoke. I am keen to hear from you how concerned I should be about that and what alternative models there are elsewhere.
Ben Hopkinson: The ultimate backstop is the Exchequer. Already the Exchequer has had to bear the cost of bringing the lower Thames crossing through planning. I think it is expected to spend about £3.1 billion on the lower Thames crossing even before private investment is brought in. If we have a circumstance where the toll is not paying back what is necessary and the private body that has financed the road falls into difficulty, the Bill states that the Exchequer is able to top up or provide payments, guarantees or low-cost loans. The backstop is therefore ultimately the taxpayer, combined with higher charges for motorists on the road.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Ben Hopkinson: I am not sure if that would be an appropriate thing for the Bill itself, but trying to make the project as low-cost as possible will definitely be appropriate as we go on to construction and working with National Highways and whatever private company wins the contract. That will be about ensuring that the Office of Rail and Road is set up properly to oversee the costs that are being put through.
Sam Dumitriu: It is worth remembering, however, that the families who may pay higher tolls to cross either the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, in the absence of a lower Thames crossing bear very high costs, too, as does freight traffic between two of our major ports. The crossing is crucial to the whole wider freight economy—there are really big problems there. I think it is worth remembering that the projects should be made a priority and that, ultimately, they need to get built.
Alison Griffiths
Q
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Thomas McLennan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. We have until 2.55 pm for this panel. Could the witness please introduce themselves for the record?
Thomas McLennan: Hi, I am Thomas McLennan. I am the director of policy and public affairs for the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association.
Greg Smith
Q
Thomas McLennan: Thank you for the question. For wider context, we have more than 1,000 members, and between them there about 4.6 million vehicles, representing about one in 10 cars, one in six vans and one in six trucks on UK roads. Our members own those vehicles, but other people use them. Right at the core of the problem with almost any measure or change of this scale is the technical detail. Perhaps that is not as interesting as the macro questions around how things are funded and so on, but it is what really impacts us and everyday users.
We have seen in a number of major changes in how road funding and wider funding happens, such as the eVED scheme, that the technical detail has not been considered up front. That has led to huge stress for the sector and potentially administration bills in the hundreds of millions of pounds. We want to see, in any change of this scale, especially if it will encompass an expansion of barrierless charging to more current barriered toll operations, that technical detail is guardrailed in right from the start.
At the end of the day, what we want to see is good user experience, as well as good business experience for both our members and their customers. It is in no one’s interest to have a system that is bureaucratic, challenging and leads to abrasion, when you are reducing the barriers to reduce abrasion and exactly that kind of thing. If you are just moving it elsewhere, it does not really meet its purpose. We are keen to see that this is as technically guardrailed as possible to make sure that end customers have a good experience.
Greg Smith
Q
For example, here in London, we have the congestion charge. It is dressed up as an environmental scheme, but we all know it is just road charging. Equally, other schemes are popping up. Arriving at my party’s conference in Birmingham, I remember saying to a passenger in the car, “Quick, panic—look up whether I have to pay a charge for this new clean air zone”—or whatever it might be. Is one of the things you are looking for in that answer something that simplifies the experience of the British motorist across schemes built under this model, as well as everything else?
Thomas McLennan: Short answer: yes. The long answer is that consistency is key. A lot of the burden in this model, and in any of these charging models, falls on the registered keeper. On your point, Greg, of needing a passenger to pay, not everyone has a passenger. There are lots of instances where people do not pay and there are inconsistent lengths of time that you have in which to make that payment—it might be 24 hours or six days. There might be an inconsistency in the ramping up of charges if you do not pay, or in how that charging is structured and the portals that you can use—it is all varied.
If you can create a national framework for individual specificity—I am not saying that everyone has to be exactly the same in what they are delivering, but you need to have the same guardrails and structure that enable someone to have consistency of experience. That would enable fleets to advise their customers, who might be someone running grocery stores across the country or a tourist who is arriving at an airport in the north or the south, and to train their staff to be able to give consistent advice and experience. Having every scheme with its own approach could be deeply challenging.
Greg Smith
Q
Thomas McLennan: That is a very good question. I am afraid we have not done that modelling, but we can look into it. The more pernicious point for us is that the more points of friction you have in your usership, the less likely you are to be able to make the usership work for you. We have unfortunately seen that even in great measures, and in London the level of friction has meant that some car club companies had to fold. It is challenging to operate where you have a split, with every borough having its own rules—all of those interactions have been deeply challenging. With more consistency, we can have a strategic vision on how to deliver within that framework. That is a much stronger approach to enable the investment from ourselves and the customers to be able to keep mobility moving in this country.
Justin Madders
Q
Thomas McLennan: We have had very mixed experiences with barrierless charging, so I do not think we can give a pure vision on that right now. We have had some use cases where currently there is not even the ability to transfer liability to someone who has hired a vehicle—the operator does not allow it. Then there are other instances where you can do bulk uploads, the system works really well and it is effectively smooth sailing.
What we always see is that the removal of barriers means a lot more penalty charge notices. That obviously makes sense, because previously you had to pay to get across, and then the barrier is removed and lots of people do not pay, so there is a sharp increase in penalty charge notices. All of our members have reported that to us.
The question is what happens after that. The inconsistencies mean that you can then have a duplicative effect of enormous administrative burdens on everyone involved, which have to be paid to make that work. We would say that if we are going towards barrierless charging from the get-go, which we understand has congestion benefits and so on, it needs to be done so that you do not shift the burden of someone paying at the barrier downstream to someone then having to figure out how to transfer liability or chase up on that, removing people’s ability to challenge the fines because they have just been paid, and so on. We need to look at all those things in the Bill from the start and structure them there.
Justin Madders
Q
Thomas McLennan: I have a concern that there is too much emphasis on downstream consultation in the Bill. We want to see a requirement to enable things such as the transfer of liability in the Bill because that has not been consistent in the market to date. We need to see that embedded from the start.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witness for his evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Will Godfrey and Matt Palmer gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Office of Rail and Road and National Highways. We have until 3.35 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves briefly for the record?
Will Godfrey: Good afternoon. My name is Will Godfrey, and I am director of economics, finance and markets at the Office of Rail and Road. I am leading our preparations for the licensing arrangements and the regulatory framework that you have under consideration today.
Matt Palmer: Good afternoon. I am Matt Palmer, and I am the National Highways chief exec for the lower Thames crossing.
Greg Smith
Q
Given the significant new responsibility that the Bill will give to the Office of Road and Rail in particular, is the organisation suitably equipped to take on a new licensing regime? Does it have a skills base that has looked at other parts of the world or other sectors that have adopted a RAB model? Does it have the necessary interactivity with road users to ensure that early projects do not end up with more teething problems than anybody would have wanted? I am not saying that anybody would want teething difficulties, but we know that that happens when big change comes about.
Will Godfrey: We do not underestimate the significance of this work. It is important work, and it builds very significantly on the experience that we have from both rail and road. Our interactions on the rail side cover publicly and commercially funded infrastructure, and managers and operators. I could refer to a number of examples, including the work that we do on price controls on the high-speed link down to the Channel tunnel, and interactions with international passenger operators looking to expand operations there.
On the road side, we obviously have experience as the monitor and the organisation responsible for holding National Highways to account. We are certainly looking to build on the engineering, economics and finance operations. We also have consumer policy experience across both road and rail.
I started out in economic regulation just over 25 years ago. I have worked in the water sector, and I worked in telecommunications for a number of years, including overseeing the arrangements that led to the roll-out of superfast broadband, among other things. A number of colleagues have worked in other sectors, spanning aviation, water and others.
Your question about the risk of teething problems is well placed. I am confident that we have the lead time to build in the necessary arrangements and resourcing to get ourselves ready for the new arrangements. One of the important things to bear in mind is that the regulator’s role takes place once a licence has been awarded. A licence for the lower Thames crossing—the first scheme that will be enabled by the Bill—is some way off yet. The process for awarding that licence currently sits with the Government, but we are in discussion with the Department about our future resourcing to deliver this work.
Greg Smith
Q
Will Godfrey: There are two parts to that question. One is where we are at with, for example, the lower Thames crossing. There is a lot of debate about the risk of cost overruns and so forth, but this is not a new project; it is already significantly advanced. There has been significant work, and perhaps Matt will talk to it in a moment, on preparation—literally the groundwork—to get this project ready, so it is not a completely new project. That comes with the advantage of some teething issues already happening.
In terms of the ORR’s capability, we are working closely with the Department to look at the arrangements that might apply to, for example, licensing. This is an important point I want to stress: the Bill gives us the duties and powers that we want to see, but the really important thing for making a lot of these schemes work is that the licensing arrangements are the right ones, and that you have the licence conditions in place to hold the company to account properly and scrutinise its delivery not just on construction but on operation, its approach to tolling and so forth.
In terms of having the resource in place to do that, I am currently working with a small team. We are looking at the suite of skills and capability that we anticipate needing across, for example, corporate finance, supporting the stakeholder group—that is an important part of the Bill—and the engineering and operations capability. I am confident that we have the lead time to get in place the team that we need. We are in discussion with the Department about the resourcing necessary to secure that.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Palmer: I am an historic mega-project constructor. I have done many big projects across the world and in the UK. Let’s talk about diesel and its cost. It is part of lower Thames crossing’s requirements, which were set in 2022, for us to construct to carbon neutral, and actually, it ends up with us being in line with the sixth carbon budget. That has been a requirement in our project. We have executed it. It is in part of our development consent order. It is required now by law and by statute through the development consent order. The vast majority of our diesel is being replaced by HVO, for which we are currently paying £1.70 per litre.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Palmer: We pay £1.70; our contractors do not pay VAT on it. It is marginally over a current diesel cost, but we ran a competitive process and it was competitively bid.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Palmer: It is comparable to diesel. Actually, the total operating cost of some of our equipment that we are starting to bring out is cheaper. The electric kit is actually cheaper per total operating cost, which is what you would experience in your EV and so on.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Palmer: No, it does not. That is why we are using HVO and electric.
Greg Smith
Q
Will Godfrey: Matt has covered the construction side of things. Was there a part of your question about licensing arrangements?
Greg Smith
Yes.
Will Godfrey: In terms of the construction of this particular project, as I say, the way you hold the company to account relates to what is in the licence, and it is important to draw a distinction between what is in the development consent order and what is in the licence. The regulator’s role is not to hold the company to account on the DCO—that remains subject to the separate process for the scrutiny and delivery of that.
What the ORR would be doing under these arrangements is holding the company to account on the licence itself. The first price control settlement, if you like, would be set by the Department as part of a competition toward the first licence. Those would set the commercial terms—the expectation around allowed revenue and so forth—and then the ORR would come in as the regulator at the start of the price control and hold the company to account against that, by monitoring and scrutinising the delivery against the relevant milestones on the construction.
Justin Madders
Q
Matt Palmer: The lower Thames crossing has been developed in detail over the last six years. Our development consent order fixes that scope very tightly; we cannot build any more or any less, so the scope is very well known. We are now running at 90% designed, so we literally are fully designed, and it has been competitively bid for. It is operating—we are currently on site with 3,300 people—and operating well against that very defined scope.
It is, I am afraid, just a simple road. My colleagues back at base will kick me for that, but as a project it is a simple thing to build. We are not building a complex signalling system or a control system for a nuclear power station; we are just building a simple dumb asset. As for our ability to control that, control on road construction is historically very good. If you take a similar project, which would be something like Thames Tideway, a similar RAB-based model, it is another simple dumb asset—that is no disrespect to my colleagues who built that. These are simple projects to build. They are large, but they are simple, and we know how to build them in the UK. The cost control on it is predominantly driven by the fact that we know what we are building and what it costs.
Justin Madders
Do have anything to add, Mr Godfrey?
Will Godfrey: I would reiterate the point that the development consent order tightly defines the scope of what is being delivered. As Matt said, the project is already well advanced.
There are a few other points to bring up. Getting the cost forecast right, which underpins the allowed revenue for the first control period, is really important. That is the baseline against which you are holding the company to account. The instruments thereafter are what you specify in the licence, and that is really important to get right. That is not stuff you put in the Bill, but it is really important that you get it right in the licence and that you have the right incentives for the privately financed entity to deliver against that schedule. You need to make sure that the balance in the allocation of risk is right and that end users are ultimately protected from the risks of cost overruns.
As I say, this project is fairly well advanced already; it is not like we are talking about starting one from scratch.
Olly Glover
Q
Will Godfrey: I think the ORR’s role, as envisaged in the Bill, would not be to advise on those questions. That would be more of a question to address to Government. It is perhaps relevant here that it is important to take account of the risk-adjusted cost of financing. You have already made the point about whether things are on the balance sheet or not. Another point to bring in is the certainty around the funding and delivery arrangements. RAB-based price controls are a commitment to a certain cycle of, typically, five-year reviews in which you set the funding requirements, the price control limits and what is delivered in that period. You reset each time but the point is that it is not potentially subject to Government reopening the arrangements for the funding, which is sometimes encountered in other publicly funded arrangements. I think that is as much as I am able to say. That is more of a question for Government.
Olly Glover
Q
Matt Palmer: If you talk specifically about the lower Thames crossing, its strategic case is incredibly strong and it was introduced by Government to be built because of the broader economic benefit for the country. There is a mixture of models that the Government could choose to fund it. There was a discussion about concessions and RAB-based models earlier. They will all carry the same carrot and stick for driving cost performance. In the end, it is the Government’s decision to bring a project forward. If it is of a strategic nature then this Bill will allow you to fund it.
Olly Glover
Q
Will Godfrey: One distinction I would draw with the Railways Bill is that that Bill was so significantly concerned with the creation of Great British Railways, which will be responsible for something like 75% of all traffic on the network—not quite the whole market but a very significant proportion of the market. People are therefore understandably keen to see what arrangements are in the licence for that entity. This Bill is enabling and economy-wide. Clearly, the main project that we are talking about currently is the lower Thames crossing, but in principle several other licensed entities could be out there. That is one distinction that I would draw.
As to whether a particular licence is essential to inform the scrutiny of a Bill, my feeling is that the Bill gives you, as a regulator, the kind of duties, functions and powers that you would expect. On the licence, clearly there is work to be done there, but one advantage is that the licences will be put out to competitive tender. That provides a different level of scrutiny from the arrangements under the Railways Bill, in which the licence is awarded to GBR as the given entity that will receive it.
Tristan Osborne
Q
“There are, however, likely to be gaps such as those relating to construction phase price controls, project specific
I know you said that you had confidence in that area, but that report was published just last month. Can I get some clarity? Are you saying that the report is not entirely right and that you are confident that the three aspects it raised will be covered going forward?
Will Godfrey: We very much welcome that independent review of the ORR. It is always helpful to have that sort of outside-in look and scrutiny.
On what it describes as gaps, the other point that Dr Richard Judge brought out was that we are not building from scratch, so this is about providing incremental capacity. I think he was right to draw out those areas as ones where you would want to make sure that the gaps have been filled by the time you are past Royal Assent, the first licence has been awarded and you are into the start of the first price control, which is a long way from today. The point I am making is that, from the discussions I have been having with the Department, I am reasonably confident about being able to resource what I would describe as incremental gaps, rather than starting from a blank sheet.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
Q
Will Godfrey: At the heart of the regulator’s responsibilities would be furthering the interests of current and future users. Those are exactly the kind of considerations that would be at the heart of how you approach the regulation, how you set up the instruments—I am referring specifically to the licence—and how you then hold the company to account against that licence.
For the first control period, in the case of the lower Thames crossing, the licence would be awarded by the Department, so the particular tolling structure and the level of tolls would be set through that competition for the first licence. Thereafter, the way that the ORR operates is that the code that the ORR would be responsible for creating on the approach to tolling arrangements will clearly be important once you are past that first point.
My feeling is that the arrangements necessary to provide protections to end users around, for example, tolling and toll shocks and so on feel about right to me in the enabling legislation. What is really important is what goes into the licence and what we put into the code, and then how the company responds. I hope there will be a virtuous circle, in which there is a clear signal of what is expected, we hold the company to account, it delivers and implements it, and we then take the feedback from the market. I do not know if you were anticipating a different concern, but I will pause there in case I have not answered your question.
Shivani Raja
No, that is fine. Do you have anything to add, Mr Palmer?
Matt Palmer: I think it is beyond my scope—National Highways is here as an operator and a constructor. I think Will has probably answered the question properly.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Q
Matt Palmer: I think all of us recognise that annualised costs on major projects, especially mega-projects, are very difficult to deal with. They drive perverse cost behaviours, where you are trying to fit into a 12-month window, and the Government are currently moving, with the mega-projects piece, towards more of an envelope-type conversation. This is just another extension of that. You end up with a cost envelope that you are working within, with a driven timeframe that you have to deliver to, which then allows the flexibility to execute at the right time—depending on the weather and so on. It is that flex that you need in order to execute efficiently. If you are constraining yourself on cost to a budget every year, which is common, it does drive cost. This model gives you the flex that allows you to drive an efficient construction project.
Mike Reader
Q
Matt Palmer: The base cost of the scheme—the cost without inflation—has been fixed since 2020. The great thing about a development consent order is that the scope is fixed. We are still building 52 bridges, 22 km of road and 4.3 km of tunnel. The cost difference between now and previously is essentially driven by inflation. You have got great cost control sat there inside the direct consent order. Our contracts with our contractors then drive to that same scope and control, and there is a pain/gain share: they get into pain if they exceed and they get incentivised to deliver below, which is normal with any project of this scale.
Mike Reader
Q
Will Godfrey: I hope my earlier answers go to some of that. If your question is specifically about the scope of what you were just asking Matt, it is important for us that the arrangements around what will be LTC Co. and its relationship with its contractors, and in turn what it is allowed to charge to end customers, is not a simple pass-through-type arrangement. That is really important.
You need to make sure that there are the right liability caps in relation to the pain/gain sharing. Are those at the right level? Has LTC Co. or any company licensed under these arrangements—let us concentrate on the LTC example—got the right incentives to be able to control the relationship with the contractors? Through the licence and the price control arrangements we need to create arrangements in which there remains that discipline to control those costs, so it is not a set of arrangements in which, beyond a certain threshold, end users are ultimately on the hook for cost pass-through.
The importance that the Bill places on efficiency in the economy and that being at the heart of our duties is something that we would take really seriously and very much welcome. It gives us the authority to be able to act on getting to those kind of price control licence arrangements. Of course, as I said earlier, the first price control arrangement would be set by the Department through that first competition for the first licence. In terms of how we operate on it thereafter, we would look to make sure there is not just a simple mechanistic pass-through in the event that costs overrun, whether for inflation or other cost shocks.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Q
Will Godfrey: I think “without any level of scrutiny” is something I would take issue with, certainly as I would see the arrangements working. We have had good discussions with old colleagues of mine at Ofwat about the arrangements they had, for example, for the Thames tideway tunnel. There, both the rhythm—by which I mean the frequency of reporting, monitoring and scrutiny of costs during construction—and the importance of having a dependable, expert, independent technical assurer on the costs are really important for making sure you have that right level of visibility and scrutiny. I would question the nature of unchecked costs. I am not denying that cost pressures would arise, but that is the whole point of having arrangements like an independent technical assessor.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Will Godfrey: I will go to both costs and schedule. There are instruments that you can bring in through a licence—such as cost-sharing rates. The point I was trying to make earlier is that you do not necessarily design a price control—at the moment, if there is a cost shock, it just goes through to end-user prices, so cost-sharing arrangements are one example. You can also bring in thresholds to make sure that the company is incentivised to remain on schedule as well.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Will Godfrey: Before we get to that point, it is worth bearing in mind whether there are other potential investors willing to buy out the company that is struggling. There may be particular reasons why—maybe it was not well managed or well financed. There is the potential in principle for someone to come in through normal mergers or acquisitions and take responsibility. In the event that the company is really struggling against a particular settlement, that is a challenge for a regulator to manage. There are certain provisions on the limit, where things ultimately are pushed to the point of non-recoverability, which are envisaged within the Bill.
One of the jobs of the regulator is, first, getting that first price control settlement right. As I say, at the moment that is being set by the Department, but getting that projection on the allowed cost is key—get it right at the start. Then, that rhythm of regular monitoring is really important to make sure that you anticipate that point. What you do not want to be doing, particularly with a construction project like this, is to get to that point with some element of surprise. What you need to do is keep that regular rhythm of monitoring and scrutiny, so that you can act before you get to that point that the company has nowhere to go.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Will Godfrey: At certain points it is possible that a regulator could introduce things like cost limits, beyond which there was then a redetermination of a price allowance, but not necessarily one that was a simple “costs have overrun by CX, therefore tolls increase by the same amount.” It would not be an automatic pass-through; it would be subject to that efficiency and economy test.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
Matt Palmer: We are moving at pace. The Chancellor at the last autumn Budget—not this one—announced funding to get us to private finance, and we are well into that. We are moving at pace. There is a misunderstanding that we have not started. We have very definitely started: 2,000 people are on site, we have 14 sq km of land and there is a lot of mud at the moment, I am afraid. We are moving well and at pace. Our target is to get a tunnel boring machine, which will be the largest in the world at the time, in the ground in 2028, which will line up roughly with when we go to private finance. All of that is contingent on the fact that we need the legislation through to allow us to get the equity to move on thereafter.
Jim Dickson
Q
Matt Palmer: The logic is that the economic benefit of the scheme is great. Not only does it solve the problem in the local area; it is a national-level project, so we move at pace, we start the construction and we take a lot of the difficult, time-consuming activities like land assembly—putting plots of land together—and that is what we are doing at the moment. All of that enables a much more stable platform for investors to come in.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: In construction in the UK, about two thirds of our constructors use HVO as standard. For a project, you will find that a number of constructors bid with HVO—it is just in the costs. That is the case with lower Thames crossing. Two thirds of our contractors bid with HVO.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: But we have never—what I am saying is that we went to market and asked them to build us a project. They did that with HVO as the base bid. We did not see the cost with diesel.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: We did not go out with a diesel-based product because the market typically comes forward with an HVO product.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: I think I have explained myself. They are comparable. £1.70 is what we are paying. I have been clear that that is what we are paying for HVO at the moment.
Alison Griffiths
As I say, when I asked each of these sources specifically about construction projects—I have not asked them about retail; I asked them about construction—they have been clear that there are substantial additional costs to using HVO. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Forsdyke and Andrew Truscott gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Wates Construction and John Laing. We have until 4.10 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Andrew Truscott: I am Andrew Truscott. I am the chief executive officer of John Laing, which is a global investor in infrastructure projects. We are a 178-year-old UK business. Our specialism is investing in greenfield projects, by which I mean projects that go through the construction cycle. We have delivered about 180 greenfield construction projects across the world over the last 25 years.
Roger Forsdyke: My name is Roger Forsdyke. I am UK operations director for Wates Construction. Wates is a business privately owned and incorporated in 1897, and has been working in infrastructure and house building since then.
Greg Smith
Q
Andrew Truscott: We applaud the use of RAB in this regard. Why? This is a complicated project. Listening to the previous panel, the feature of RAB that feels very relevant to LTC is the ability to have intra-cycle changes, subject to the way that, in particular, traffic operates in the future.
I am speaking purely from an investor perspective, so please excuse me; I look at Tideway as a really well delivered project, from an investor perspective, and a similar model was used there. The model used at Heathrow has also been relatively successful. Being totally transparent, when we first started talking to Government about this project, I felt that a more traditional concession model might be more appropriate, but the way in which the project is now being procured, and in particular the addition of the bridge, means that the RAB model looks really very interesting and, I would probably argue, more attractive from an investing perspective.
Greg Smith
Q
Andrew Truscott: Yes: uncapped construction cost risk being transferred on to an investor. I am being overly simplistic, so please excuse me, but that is something that we would not do, and I would argue that we are a relatively good proxy for investors of our type. Some work and some thought need to go into how to manage that cost overrun risk.
Echoing the comments from the previous panel, this is a well thought through project. We applaud the way it has been developed. Hopefully it can be delivered on time and on budget, but of the 180 projects that we have delivered, I can probably count on the fingers of one hand how many actually have been. As a contractor, an investor or a Government, all stakeholders have to be prepared for the expectation of cost overrun. Asking an investor to take uncapped cost overrun into its accounts does not necessarily mean that it is a terrible outcome; it just means that I cannot price equity.
Greg Smith
Q
Andrew Truscott: Plan for the worst, and really plan for the worst around cost inflation. It was interesting listening to the Chancellor yesterday. Every element of the supply chain and the cost is increasing globally for all these sorts of projects. Plan for the worst and plan for an expectation that, unfortunately, even though it is not the intention, you will end up with a project that costs more than you expected it to on day one.
Greg Smith
Q
Andrew Truscott: Again, I will focus on cost for a minute, and then I would love Roger’s view because he is at the coalface; I am just a simple investor in my ivory tower.
What is important is that there are mechanics in the construction process or the construction phase that incentivise contractors to stick to budget as much as they can. Again, credit to the way in which the Bill is written and the way LTC is being procured—this idea of cost sharing and certain elements of cost being shared between contractor and Government and rolled into RAB. Having those sorts of features that really—no disrespect to Roger—hold the contractor’s feet to the fire in terms of cost control are very sensible. These projects can be delivered on time and on budget. We have just finished the North East Link project in Melbourne where we tunnelled under the Yarra, which is quite a complicated river. We did it on time and on budget.
Greg Smith
Q
Roger Forsdyke: It is about responsibility for outcomes, and Andrew is right: put it where the responsibility lies. As a contractor, we are in control of only some of the process. I often think the contractor is being presented with all the risk, when the design, the planning and the procurement are in some other court.
For me, the most important thing is to get the planning done, so that you do not start before you are ready. A lot of projects start under pressure, without the outcome and the scope having been fully detailed and the risk apportioned correctly. You have to look at the stages that we need to go through so that, when we put a shovel in the ground, the scale and scope have been determined. In the majority of cases, cost overruns come from uncertainty, which is often there before we start work; things have not been properly nailed down with the appropriate parties. Yes, hold the contractor’s feet to the fire, but there are other parties and elements: the designers, the ecology—all the other things that go into a proper, well-delivered project. There needs to be some measure of accountability there also. Often, at the other end of the contract, we find that being transferred—not necessarily fully realised—into the contractor’s risk. That is where you get problems.
Greg Smith
Q
Roger Forsdyke: Potentially. It is a question of appropriateness. If it is blanket HVO—well, there is some plant, some stuff, you need to use diesel for, so it is a question of appropriateness for me. There is an uplift in use of that type of fuel—HVO. If that is a key stakeholder requirement and the public purse can afford it, it is something that should be done, but those are decisions outside a contractor’s position.
Greg Smith
I appreciate that that is outside the contractor’s position. That is why I came with the question.
Roger Forsdyke: That is not a variable cost to me; it is just an additional cost. The risk comes from variable costs that I cannot control.
Greg Smith
Q
Roger Forsdyke: I think you have answered your own question.
Greg Smith
Fair enough.
Andrew Truscott: There is only one thing I would add, and this is a bit naughty, so apologies. You are building a road; people have diesel cars that drive on the road. One of the things that we at John Laing do is this. We own toll roads; we own availability roads all around the world, and we couch our stage 1 and stage 2 emissions on each of our roads with a path to net zero in 2050. The one thing we cannot control is the vehicles that run on the roads that we build. We can control the operations and we can have input into the way they are built, but ultimately these are polluting events, because people drive diesel and petrol cars on them.
Olly Glover
Q
Andrew Truscott: My biggest concern about this project is the ultimate cost to the end user. That is a piece of maths that we all, collectively, need to get right, because we cannot end up with a wonderful project that unfortunately saddles the user with an uneconomic toll for the next 50 or 60 years. How can we manage that? We can manage it by, obviously, trying to keep the cost of construction as low as we possibly can. Other things in our toll roads and our businesses globally include dynamic tolling, where we encourage road use by differentiated pricing depending on the time of day—I would love to explore that with the Government at the right time—and differentiation for different types of vehicles. I think there is a way of getting the end users’ experience to be a little fairer than if there was just a flat toll.
In terms of the overall costs and delivery, obviously, the cost of financing at the moment is as high as it has been in my career. That is a factor that we all have to be aware of. I am sure you guys all know this, but infrastructure is a diversifier in pension fund portfolios. We are a spread to the risk-free investor. That is how we calculate our returns, so unfortunately, as risk-free rates go up, the expectation of the returns on our capital also goes up.
Innovation around how we can collectively deliver a financing package against that backdrop that is as cheap and deliverable as possible is also quite important. How do we do that? Certainty of outcome, high-quality regulation and ensuring that everybody who commits capital understands the limits of their capital and is therefore able to calculate their returns accordingly.
Olly Glover
Any thoughts from you, Mr Forsdyke?
Roger Forsdyke: Not on the subject of financing; it is outside my experience.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Andrew Truscott: I would slightly reject your first statement, if I am honest. As an infrastructure investor, we provide, candidly, the lowest cost private capital that is available across the world. If you are attracting John Laing and people like us, I can guarantee that you are getting the lowest cost of equity capital that you can possibly attract and therefore the risk transfer needs to be accordingly appropriate.
I will slightly repeat my opening comments: when we first started interacting with DFT about this project, I was quite nervous about the RAB model. I am not a RAB nerd; there are lots of RAB nerds, and I am not one. RAB can be incredibly complicated, and it can take a huge amount of time to drill down. There is not a regulator. There is an awful lot of work that needs to be done. Am I nervous that that is going to take longer than it should do or could do? Yes, I am, but again, credit to DFT and the Treasury, they seem to be well on track. Maybe the better answer to your question is that we as investors will need absolute certainty—and I mean absolute certainty—about what that regulatory model is, who the regulator is and how that regulation is going to work before we will put in a dollar, a pound, or a euro—whatever currency you like.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Roger Forsdyke: It is really interesting that you say that from your experience it is the commercial pressure. The most important thing in the tendering process is to have measurables beyond just the cost. If it is first past the post, you are destined to push the price down to the lowest-quality bid, which often creates the problems you are describing and that we described earlier. You have to look at how you will measure the quality of the tenders in real terms, beyond the cost of the lowest bid. I do not think that is regularly done effectively, so you end up with cheap materials, optimistic programming, optimistic budgeting and all those things just to get to a price that is probably optimistic in the first place. That echoes what Andrew said.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Roger Forsdyke: I think so. If you have gateways where you build the price through detailed submissions, you can then control it. You do not want uncontrollable cost and excellent quality, but you need to create some gateways through the process so that you can control the quality as you go through. That is my experience. Those sorts of two-stage processes create the best outcomes.
You then have to make sure there is no undefined scope. As you cross the line to secured and the responsibility moves to the contractor, you do not want any change. That is sometimes very hard to achieve, but it is a really important step. It is often, “Oh, we just need to get started,” and the pressure of starting often means that the project will start prematurely, before the scope is defined. That is where the optimism bias goes in—the provisional sum might be light or whatever—and then you end up with escalation, notwithstanding the delays to resolving the issues themselves.
Andrew Truscott: I do not have a huge amount to add, because Roger has put it beautifully. I will just say one thing, and he can kick me under the table: contracting is a hard business. They do billions of pounds-worth of revenue for 2%, 3% or 4% margins—it is hard—and there is therefore little scope in their business models for mistakes. They will always enter into these sorts of projects with an expectation that mistakes do not land at their desk, because otherwise they go bust, and they have done globally.
Again, credit to the way LTC is being procured. I think separating church and state a little bit—separating equity and financing from contracting, rather than having one single proposal—is arguably a way of getting more certainty around deliverability than amalgamating all those elements into one. Where we have seen material cost overruns, it tends to be in the big projects where one single solution is given to a customer. We have been looking at a lot of US projects recently in the road space where single projects— equity, traffic and revenue, as well as construction—are lumped into one big unit and presented to a customer, who then tries to aggregate and always aggregates to lowest cost, and that is not always the right solution.
I am giving my previous panellists an awful lot of credit today, which is wonderful. I think disaggregating elements could be a way of managing that risk and that cost and delay overrun quite well.
Jim Dickson
Q
Andrew Truscott: Hopefully not.
Jim Dickson
In terms of investor attractiveness, how would you rank the scheme globally against other schemes of similar size, or other comparable schemes? Do you think we are set to have a competitive and very interested set of players looking to bid?
Andrew Truscott: It is a really good question. I will try to keep my answer brief, because I could bore you for about a month on this.
The short answer is that the big attention for the main global contractors—of which there are, let us be honest, a handful—is currently on the US. The US is undergoing a big programme of what they are calling managed lanes projects, which are about upgrading existing roadways to be either tolled or semi-tolled or managed. I am sure you have not seen Ferrovial or Cintra—all the big Spanish contractors are very focused on the US. Australia is sporadic but yes, there are some large projects—not necessarily transportation projects—that are attracting interest from investors and contractors in Australia. In Europe, you can count it on the fingers of one hand. Actually, that is where LTC may get more attention, as a consequence of the lack of other available opportunities.
However, this is a big project. This is a big equity cheque and there will be an awful lot of investors who say—well, I am certainly yet to meet the investor who will be able to write a single cheque for the entire amount. My guess is that this will come down to pools of consortium of capital, very much like those that ended up being on Thames Tideway, who come together because the amount of capital required is just so huge.
Do I expect it to be competitive? Unfortunately, yes. Do I expect you to have 10 to 15 single-asset bidders all vying to buy 100% of the equity? Not in the slightest.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Andrew Truscott: Not for the contractor; for the investor. Sorry—if I said “contractor”, I meant “investor”. Apologies. I do not care about the contractors. [Laughter.]
It is not because we do not understand and price risk; that is what we do for a living. It is just that I cannot go to my investment committee and, when asked, “Okay, Andrew, what is the maximum amount of equity you are going to put into this project and therefore what is the return you are expecting to get on it?”, give the answer, “I don’t know.” That is not a conversation—well, it could be a conversation, but it would be the last conversation I have with my investment committee.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Andrew Truscott: Again, I am getting well over my skis, so apologies, but it is about being smart. I am not just suggesting that this all lands on the country balance sheet, whether it is the National Wealth Fund taking excess risk above a certain threshold and therefore becoming an equity investor as a consequence, but it would be sensible to be smart and think innovatively about how to cap the number, so that I can then go to my investment committee and say, “This is the amount of capital we’ll commit, with any excess being provided by somebody else in exchange for an economic interest.” Rather than trying to give answers, I would say that being thoughtful and innovative about how that cap can be constructed is definitely worth putting on the agenda.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Andrew Truscott: I think it will.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Andrew Truscott: I cannot speak for the entire investment community, but I can repeat what I said earlier. I think we are fairly typical—I mean, we are brilliant, but we are fairly typical—and an uncapped equity commitment is almost impossible for us to write.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Justin Madders MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Minister. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. Will the Minister please briefly introduce himself for the record?
Justin Madders: Good afternoon. I am Justin Madders, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Transport.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: We are pretty clear that it is not a backdoor to road pricing. The hon. Member may have an amendment that he thinks will deal with that, but I can assure him that we have gone through extensive discussions with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on this. I refer him to Logistics UK’s evidence this morning. They said that they thought the Bill was relatively strongly drafted in terms of closing the loopholes.
It is probably worth saying that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bill’s intent is also important. My statements on the record on Second Reading, probably a number of times in Committee, I imagine, and today will all be relevant should, at some point in the future, a future Secretary of State want to do something that is clearly outside the scope and intention of the Bill. I will say, again, for the record, that this Bill does not provide a backdoor for widespread tolling.
The Bill is creating an additional financing option for major strategic road infrastructure, specifically for trunk roads in England. It is deliberately a framework because, rather than legislate for one individual project, it is possible that there may be more suitable projects in the future, but that does not mean—I want to be clear—that this will become the default model for road investment. Any future use would need to meet the requirements of the Bill and be considered on its own merits. As Steve Gooding from the RAC said this morning, I am happy to confirm that, at the moment, there are not any other schemes that are being considered for use under this Bill.
It is important to say that the Bill narrowly defines when a licence can be granted: for a new road, a capacity-enhancing improvement or the continued operation of a road that has been previously licensed under this regime. This is about major strategic infrastructure; it is not about, as in the example the hon. Member gave, putting in tolls when a new camera or something is introduced. That clearly is not the case. Some of the evidence earlier also suggested that our geographical constraints would make that very difficult anyway, even if that was what we wanted to do, which, I will state again for the record, is not the case.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: I am afraid I am going to disappoint you. We are not going to give figures for tolls for a nine-year window in advance, because that will be part of the ongoing analysis and development of the project and part of the discussions with potential investors. We are clear that the Bill will set out the framework for how that will work. It is about the economic and efficient costs of provision. It is very clear that we believe tolls must remain affordable and they must represent good value for road users. Future projects would be undertaken on the same basis, so although I cannot give any figures in pounds and pence, I can give assurances that there will be sufficient restraints in place to ensure that this is not an unlimited blank cheque for increased tolls for evermore.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: I thought the evidence from National Highways was very clear on that. It is saying that there is not an increased cost as a result of that. It also said very clearly that this was a requirement set in the development consent order in 2022, when your party was in government. I am not entirely sure where you are going with this.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: I would gently push back and say that, rather than evidence from people who are not working on the project, or from ChatGPT or whatever the source—
Greg Smith
The market, Minister.
Justin Madders: We had very clear evidence from National Highways that this is not having an overall impact on costs. I am happy to provide further information. I will ask it to put something in writing about the detail of that. You will be aware that this Bill is scheme agnostic, so it is not appropriate for such restrictions to be placed in the Bill, but I am happy to facilitate a further conversation, because I understand you are concerned about that.
Jim Dickson
Q
Justin Madders: I understand why you ask that question. The Bill sets the framework for the RAB model, and that will establish the independent regulator. Its remit is clear, and it is there in the first few clauses of the Bill: to take account of the interests of road users. There will be fair pricing, transparency and long-term sustainability as a result of that. You will also be aware that there will be a stakeholder group in which users will have the opportunity to feed in. We have a pretty robust set of reassurances that I hope will satisfy you and your constituents.
Olly Glover
Q
Justin Madders: First, as it made clear, the Treasury will not fund the totality of the project, so we have to look at other models. There are different views about how that would work. If we want to compare it to the private finance initiative, which has been the major funding source for a number of crossings in recent years, costs under the RAB model tend to be lower.
Clearly, we have an independent regulator that will, as I have explained and you have heard in evidence, be able to limit cost recovery, to make sure it is economic and efficient. There will be regular requirements set out to review that under the licence. Ultimately, the Government will not be left, as they would be under PFI, with repaying a debt over many years. That might be off the balance sheet, but it still ends up coming to the taxpayer.
Olly Glover
Q
Justin Madders: As this is a road, the Office of Rail and Road seems to be the appropriate regulator.
Olly Glover
Q
Justin Madders: There is a different approach because this is a different situation. This is the regulated asset base model, which is about a long-term investment, balancing the interests of users and investors and having a strong regulator that understands the sector. As we have heard, the ORR is already working on it. That is absolutely the right balance to make sure this delivers for everyone.
Olly Glover
That is an interesting answer, because railways also have both users and investors, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. I will happily let other people come in now.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Again, speaking to the investor spokesperson today, they said that regulatory certainty was absolutely critical for them. I want to understand the operational capabilities, the engagement between the DFT and the ORR, and whether or not we will have that structure and that robust regulatory regime in place, and how confident you are about that.
Justin Madders: I am confident about that, because that is what the Bill intends to do. It sets it out very clearly. We have heard from the investors that that certainty will be a very attractive opportunity for the long-term investment we are seeking to deliver. There will be a need for some additional capability and capacity in the ORR, but I was very impressed with the evidence we heard today. It is very much on top of this, but there is much more to be done, and the Bill will enable it to do that.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Justin Madders: I am not too familiar with the factors he takes into account when investing, but my advice from officials is that the soft market testing that has been taking place has shown a lot of interest in this. He also said in his response that there would be quite a lot of people who would be looking to invest in this. That conversation is ongoing.
Having the legislation on the statute book will actually help give more certainty to investors. Clearly one of the reasons why the project has already started is to de-risk it to some extent. All the indicators I am getting are that we are putting this in a strong position to attract investment.
Douglas Lumsden
Q
Justin Madders: I do not think that this is covered by the Bill anyway, but I will certainly take it away to see if there is anything to reflect on. I assure you that this would not be proceeding if there were no interest in investment.
Mike Reader
Q
Justin Madders: I think it will. Obviously the Treasury decision on how this is going to be funded is driving us in a direction where we have to secure private investment. I think the model gives us the opportunity to give the investor certainty over a long period. Clearly, guardrails in there will protect users as well, but as I say, the indications I have had so far are that the long-term nature of the project and the way in which it has been de-risked make it an attractive proposition.
Mike Reader
Q
Justin Madders: As I probably made clear, the Bill is scheme agnostic, so an amendment to require a certain type of fuel would not really help us at all. Look, we have had quite a lot of evidence and, as a Committee, we should take confidence in the measures that are in place to ensure that the costs are kept under control.
Mike Reader
Q
Justin Madders: I suppose, to pick up from one of the witnesses, I will reference the fact that the road investment strategy—which was started by the previous Government —has set us up with a very sustainable model to develop these large projects over a longer term, giving confidence to the supply chain to keep control of costs and to deliver on time and within scope. I think that National Highways is now very well skilled at doing that, which should give us all confidence.
Mike Reader
Q
Justin Madders: The tolls will ultimately be part of part of the licence, which is covered by the Bill—
Mike Reader
Q
Justin Madders: That will be part of the licence conditions, and probably a little too specific for the Bill. Obviously, there are safeguards in the Bill about the things that will need to be considered by the operator.
Mike Reader
Q
Justin Madders: Yes, we are happy to do that.
The Chair
As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the Minister for his evidence. That brings us to the end of the sitting. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday 3 November to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Michael Wheeler.)
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Major Trauma Centres: Helipads
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and I say a big thank you to all the hon. Members for coming along today. I particularly thank the Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who has kindly agreed to step in and answer the debate, the subject of which is not her direct responsibility.
What always unites us is the fact that we come together on things that we see as good and necessary, and I am sure that everyone here would say the same. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to debate this important issue relating to our urgent and emergency care system—hospital helipads, the barriers that can prevent them from being used when needed, and the case for a strategic national policy. The Minister already knows that I have three asks, but the main one is to have a strategic national policy. I welcome the Government’s 10-year health plan, and I hope that such a policy will be part of it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Cornwall Air Ambulance undertook almost 1,000 missions last year, many in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. The front helipad directly outside the emergency department at Treliske hospital, which is the only general hospital in Cornwall, was closed in March 2023 and patients have since faced longer transfers, despite assurances that the rear helipad would be upgraded. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must accelerate a permanent solution so that lives are not put at risk by avoidable delays?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right to underline that issue. I understand that he has a very dispersed community, and an air ambulance in that location can shorten journey times—I will mention this in my speech in relation to an issue back home. A journey that maybe takes an hour and a half by road can be done in 15 minutes in an air ambulance. That 15 minutes can save lives. An hour and a half in an ambulance fighting to save the person in the back sometimes just does not work.
I thank the Members who are here to support this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for air ambulances for bringing this important issue to Parliament in the past, and I am happy we can have this debate today for them. I acknowledge the work of Air Ambulances UK, which provides the APPG’s secretariat, the HELP Appeal and the University of Liverpool’s flight science and technology group in developing the evidence underpinning this work, alongside the UK’s 21 air ambulance charities and the wider group of stakeholders who have contributed their expertise and support. I also thank Air Ambulance Northern Ireland for what it does. I can vouch for the air ambulances and the lives that they have saved. As I will explain later, I know people who live today because of AANI and the quick response of staff.
When someone is critically ill or seriously injured and needs specialist hospital care, can we be confident that the receiving hospital has the facilities they need that will be available when required? The same question applies during a major incident, as we have seen on several occasions this summer in my constituency and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when hospitals needed to respond to a sudden surge in demand. For too many hospitals, that cannot be taken for granted.
Air ambulances across the UK play a vital role alongside the NHS in bringing specialist clinical teams to patients and helping transport them to the hospitals that are best equipped to treat them. That relates to an ask I have of the Minster, and I have shared that ask with other Members of the same mind. Across the United Kingdom, air ambulance charities attend an average 137 missions each day. For 365 days of the year, that is what they do. An estimated 23,248 helicopter missions take place annually, at an average cost of £4,748 per mission. That gives us an idea of the work they do, but there is also a cost factor, which is an important part of the debate. Those 137 missions, 365 days a year, represent around £110 million in annual costs.
Behind those figures are patients, families, clinicians and crews working in extremely difficult circumstances, but it is also important to recognise how these services are funded, and that is part of this debate. The UK’s 21 air ambulance charities operate independently of the NHS and receive no day-to-day Government funding, but the people of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are incredibly generous. The charities rely on some £200 million in public donations each year to provide lifesaving pre-hospital care.
Despite that fact, public understanding of the independence of air ambulance charities remains limited. Research done in 2025 by Air Ambulances UK found that 53% of the public did not know that these charities operate independently of the NHS. However, they still depend on reliable NHS infrastructure, including hospital helipads, to transfer patients to the care they need. Their ability to deliver a consistent service is therefore affected by NHS infrastructure and operational arrangements beyond their direct control.
This is the thrust of the debate: when a helipad is unavailable, has restricted operating hours or cannot operate safely, additional challenges can arise in getting patients to the right place at the right time for treatment to save their lives. In some cases, staffing arrangements or restrictions outside normal operating hours can limit access even when a helipad already exists. This is an urgent and emergency care issue that requires co-ordinated leadership from the Government and the NHS.
I want to be clear that this is not a call for every hospital to have a 24/7 on-site helipad. I recognise that in Northern Ireland. I was asked by one of the officials whether we want a helipad in every hospital. No, we do not, but we want one at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast because that is the No.1 accident and emergency hospital. It has the surgeons, doctors and care available, and from a regional point of view, that is what I am after. Decisions must reflect clinical evidence and operational requirements. We need national leadership and a consistent policy framework to support safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site hospital helipad access whenever there is a clear clinical and operational need, which must be informed by evidence.
I will focus on three practical areas: a national policy and implementation framework, or road map, to address inconsistent provision and establish a data-led approach to safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access; clearer NHS standards and stronger planning safeguards; and a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund to support urgent infrastructure needs that cannot be met through charitable funding alone.
The APPG for air ambulances has launched a report, and I have no doubt that the Minister has had a chance to look at its recommendations. I commend the APPG members, some of whom are present, for what they have done in outlining the case for safeguarded, 24/7 on-site hospital helipads at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals.
Some hospitals need infrastructure improvements, and hon. Members will speak to that. Others face restrictions in operating hours, while some require further assessment of their clinical and operational needs. Although solutions may differ for the helipads in each hospital, they should be considered within a consistent national framework. One thing we hope to come from this debate is a national framework within the NHS 10-year plan, which I very much welcome—indeed, everyone in the Chamber does. Although the report provides an initial assessment of major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, the need for a national approach extends well beyond those sites.
Air Ambulances UK’s assessment of 47 major hospital sites, updated on 10 September 2026—about six weeks ago —illustrates the scale of the issue. Six sites, or 13%, require priority action, while 16 sites, or 34%, require further action or monitoring, and 25 sites, or 53%, were assessed as being in a good position. That means that 22 of the 47 sites assessed were identified as requiring priority action, further action or monitoring. That is the target that we hope to achieve. The wider picture should be considered as the national policy develops. Air Ambulances UK’s 2026 public survey found that 83% of respondents supported a national policy to ensure that major hospitals can receive air ambulance patients at any time via an on-site helipad.
I will tell the story about my introduction to Air Ambulance NI and the wonderful people who work there. I live in a village called Portaferry at the bottom of the Ards peninsula, where the AANI service is the thin line between life and death. If a child in Portaferry suffers a critical trauma or a sudden, life-threatening medical emergency, a blue-light ambulance land journey to the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children takes well over an hour, done safely and in the best road conditions, with no cars in front or behind. In a paediatric emergency, when every single second dictates a child’s survival and long-term recovery, a 60-minute delay on a winding rural road is a luxury that those families simply do not have. I know some of the families in the Ards peninsula whose children’s lives have been saved by the presence and response of Air Ambulance NI. When it comes to transferring a vulnerable child to the regional trauma centre in less than 15 minutes, they can do it—an ambulance on the road cannot.
We cannot allow this lifeline to be taken for granted. Securing robust, long-term funding for the air ambulance service is not a bureaucratic policy debate or something that will divide us in this Chamber. It is a moral imperative to protect the lives of our children in the most rural corners of Strangford. It is not just somebody being injured on a farm or having a road traffic accident; that can happen, but it could be a boating accident where the air ambulance comes to the rescue. Some of the air ambulance team are in the Gallery, and I thank them for all their information and comments.
I will refer next to Bristol. Given Bristol royal infirmary’s role as a regional paediatric major trauma centre and a specialist children’s hospital, the case for operating its helipad 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, should be properly assessed against clinical and operational need. That is important for all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Any policy must recognise the particular needs of major trauma centres and specialist hospitals while taking a broader view of the hospital helipad network across the United Kingdom.
Many other hospitals have helipads that support emergency transfers and wider patient pathways. A national policy must recognise their contribution and ensure that their operational requirements are not overlooked. The framework should provide a consistent way to assess clinical and operational need, taking account of each hospital’s role, local circumstances and the consequences of restricted access. That means identifying where clinical and operational need justifies 24/7 access and understanding the barriers that prevent it, whether that relates to infrastructure, restricted operating hours, staffing or out-of-hours arrangements. Sometimes, it can be about planning issues relating to the safety of the helicopter coming to the helipad in the hospital. That may impact on the situation.
Decisions should be based on robust data. That would allow the Government and NHS partners to prioritise action proportionately, rather than adopting a blanket requirement for every hospital. The policy should identify where new infrastructure is required, where existing facilities need improvements, where operating arrangements create barriers, and where facilities need stronger protection from surrounding development, as I was saying. In England, the NHS 10-year health plan and the medium-term planning framework of 2026-27 to 2028-29 set out ambitions to improve care, reduce delays, strengthen productivity and support more integrated services. I welcome that—it is good news, and how could anybody not welcome it? That is the sort of programme and strategy that we want, but the new hospital programme and the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy also provide a wider context for modernising and planning resilient infrastructure.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Alec. I benefit from Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance and the Great Western Air Ambulance. They are both fantastic, but they have raised concerns with me about existing helipads that they may not be able to use in future. Will the Minister—I ask him through the hon. Member for Strangford— consider whether there needs to be some protection and development of the town and country planning direction 2002 so that flight paths are protected from development and infrastructure? It is not just the new hospitals that we need to be concerned about; we need to make absolutely certain that existing helipads can be accessed by the air ambulances.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right; that is the thrust of my contribution. I know that others will make contributions on that issue, including my colleague on my left, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire).
Helipad provision should be considered as part of delivering on wider ambitions. Reliable access could support more direct transfers to appropriate special care, help to avoid unnecessary additional road journeys and ensure that hospital infrastructure reflects clinical and operational needs. As the hon. Lady mentioned, being operational means that helicopters need a free and safe path to where the helipads are. That is particularly relevant for major trauma networks, but also for the wider network of hospitals that receive air ambulance patients and contribute to emergency care.
I am conscious that other Members want to speak, and I want to ensure they have ample time to do so. I have three asks of the Minister. Will the Government commit to working with NHS partners and Air Ambulances UK to develop a national policy and implementation roadmap for hospital helipads, using clinical and operational evidence to identify where safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access is needed, and address the inconsistencies in provision that we unfortunately have across the United Kingdom? We all know that the purpose of this debate is to come up with solutions, so we look to the Minister to help us to achieve our collective goals.
The Bristol example demonstrates that having a helipad does not necessarily mean that patients can access it at all times. Improvement is needed. Operational arrangements must be considered alongside the physical infrastructure. Where 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, we should expect the practical arrangements required to deliver it, including staffing, safe operating procedures and out-of-hours availability. That would help to ensure that the presence of a helipad translates into reliable access where patients need it.
There is also a need to protect existing and planned helipads from surrounding developments that could compromise safe operations. The planning around helipads and the flight paths for helicopters is an integral part of that. The Government should work with NHS England and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review whether current planning arrangements provide sufficient protection and whether stronger safeguards are needed. That should include considerations to change the town and country planning direction 2002. That is not the Minister’s responsibility; as so often happens, other Departments need to feed into this issue.
This is not about preventing development; it is about making sure that development can proceed in a way that does not impact unfavourably on air ambulances and helipads. It is about ensuring that planning decisions properly consider the operational requirements of hospital helipads and their role in supporting emergency care. Planning authorities and Departments should help to protect those facilities and provide greater certainty for hospitals that are planning for the future.
My second ask is: will the Government work with the NHS and MHCLG to establish clear expectations for hospital helipad provision and availability in the NHS estates standards and commissioning arrangements? That includes addressing staffing, restricted operating hours and out-of-hours barriers where 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, and strengthening planning safeguards to protect existing and planned helipads.
The Helicopter Emergency Landing Pads Appeal provides charitable funding for the vast majority of local hospital helipad projects and has made a vital contribution to developing and improving infrastructure. However, charitable funding cannot be expected to meet every urgent or emerging requirement. Charities should not be left to address every infrastructure gap through fundraising alone. The Government must—hopefully they will—consider establishing a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund, which would enable air ambulances to make the health delivered in the NHS even better. The funding could help projects that address barriers to safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access where that access is clinically and operationally necessary. The fund should complement the HELP Appeal’s work, not replace charitable investment.
Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a national emergency hospital helipad infrastructure contingency fund to support urgent, evidence-based infrastructure requirements, including essential upgrades or new facilities, where safe and reliable 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary, but where charitable funding cannot meet the need? The Government do not need to start this work from scratch; the APPG has done much of the hard work already. Its report and recommendations have established an initial national picture of provision at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, and have identified areas requiring further action. The Government’s next stage can build on that evidence and help to form a broader national approach that also considers other hospitals with helipads.
Lots of the spade work has been done. Air Ambulances UK represents and supports the UK’s 21 air ambulance charities. The HELP Appeal also brings considerable experience of supporting hospital helipad projects and understanding infrastructure funding requirements. Both should be involved alongside NHS organisations. They all want to do the same thing and have the same objective, so we should bring them all together—they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I believe that there is an opportunity to do this collectively. They should be involved alongside the relevant Government Departments to ensure that the resulting policy is evidence-led, proportionate and capable of being implemented and monitored. The objective should be a practical framework that recognises the difference between hospitals, identifies where action is needed and ensures that the contribution of the wider hospital helipad network is not overlooked.
While major trauma centres and specialist hospitals are a clear priority, the wider network of hospitals with helipads must not be overlooked either. The UK’s 21 air ambulance charities provided lifesaving care through public donations, but their ability to transfer patients depends on NHS infrastructure, which they do not control. There is a wider emergency care issue that requires Government and NHS leadership, and we need a data-led national policy to identify where safe, reliable, 24/7 on-site access is clinically and operationally necessary. It needs to address the gaps in provision, strengthen the NHS standards and planning safeguards, and support urgent infrastructure needs where charitable funding cannot meet the need.
In conclusion, this sector has provided substantial evidence and stands ready to help. I thank the Minister for all that she does for health and the campaigns that she has led over the years, which I have been honoured to support. I urge her to work with the NHS, Air Ambulances UK and the HELP Appeal to turn this debate into a practical, sustainable policy and implementation roadmap. I look forward to hearing other Members’ speeches and the Minister’s response.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. I am grateful to be able to speak today.
As the Member of Parliament for Truro and Falmouth, I know at first hand how indispensable our air ambulance services are to rural and coastal communities across Cornwall and the south-west. The reason I came to Cornwall was because I was married to a naval pilot who came to fly search and rescue planes for the Navy there. I remember one incident when I took my newly born baby to the crew room to eat broken biscuits with the crew. I went to the bathroom and when I came back, the baby was lying in the middle of the floor on his own—they had all gone out for a shout. That was quite a thing. Of course, that is no longer part of the Navy’s job, and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about the charities that do this amazing work now.
The coastal and rural nature of Truro and Falmouth gives my constituency its beauty, but also makes it dangerous when someone injures themselves. When a critical incident occurs in Cornwall, whether it is on a rural road, a cliff path or one of our farms, the speed with which a patient can get to specialist clinical care can absolutely be the difference between life and death. Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State about fuel resilience and operational safeguards for our air ambulance charities. The basis of that message remains the same today: our air ambulances are an essential component of NHS emergency care pathways, and their operational needs must be treated with the seriousness and national policy support that they deserve.
Cornwall Air Ambulance is so well supported by the local population—it does a fantastic job—and now has two helicopters that have been fundraised by the local population, because we realise how crucial it is to our communities. That is why I strongly support the call in this debate for a consistent national policy to establish safeguarded 24/7 on-site helipad access at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals across the UK. In Cornwall, we have seen considerable local progress and investment in the Royal Cornwall hospital at Treliske. However, key challenges still remain locally, in ensuring that outstanding infrastructure works and the access routes at Treliske are concluded without delay, and in ensuring that operational access and refuelling, both on site and at bases such as Cornwall Airport Newquay, are fully supported and future-proofed.
When 83% of the public expect major hospitals to be able to receive air ambulance patients at any time via an on-site helipad, we cannot rely on a patchwork of local arrangements or leave critical infrastructure recommendations unfulfilled due to administrative transitions in trusts, for example, or highways authorities. A national policy will provide much-needed clarity on safeguarding helipads from surrounding planning developments, standardise how 24/7 clinical need is assessed and help to unlock target funding when charitable support needs national backing. That would have a lifesaving impact in Cornwall’s rural and coastal communities. This is about equality of access, removing unnecessary transfer delays and ensuring that wherever someone falls critically ill in our country, the air ambulance crew can land safely on site, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. To conclude, I urge the delivery of a consistent national policy to safeguard vital landing sites and ensure that our air ambulance crews can continue saving lives across Truro and Falmouth, Cornwall, the south-west and the entire country.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this vital debate.
The Cornwall Air Ambulance is a vital service for many of my North Cornwall constituents, many of whom live over 50 miles from their closest major hospital, and I am extremely proud that it is headquartered in my constituency—it was great to see its second helicopter recently. The air ambulance is critical to accessing uneven terrain that ambulances simply cannot drive over or reaching the most remote areas, ensuring that nobody is locked out of lifesaving care because of where they live. That is particularly vital in my North Cornwall constituency, with our vast moorland, rocky cliff lines and many remote villages. It is essential that we ensure that our emergency services are equipped to manage the rurality of our region, ensuring that urgent lifesaving care is not based on a lottery postcode.
The Cornwall Air Ambulance is on the frontline of getting people who may otherwise be stranded for hours to hospital for lifesaving treatment. It is also equipped with medical equipment and personnel who can save lives at the scene of an emergency. Cornwall’s Air Ambulance chairman David Richards has described the air ambulances as “flying doctor services”, offering far more than just transportation. I want to briefly highlight two cases that demonstrate the invaluable service that Cornwall’s Air Ambulance provides.
In my North Cornwall constituency, 15-year-old Lewie received lifesaving care from the Cornwall Air Ambulance after falling from a cliff in Bude and becoming trapped in an inaccessible cove in the cold water. Lewie was hypothermic and drifting in and out of consciousness. He had suffered severe injuries, tearing two ligaments in his wrist, breaking his hand in three places, his thumb, right elbow and right ankle, shattering the left side of his pelvis, breaking two of the seven plates in his neck, five of the 12 plates in his back and several ribs, suffered a punctured lung and lost half a kidney. Lewie credits the Cornwall Air Ambulance with saving his life that day, stating:
“I wouldn’t be here without them”.
After Lewie was winched to the clifftop by the coastguard, critical care paramedics onboard the air ambulance helicopter were able to administer pain relief, apply a pelvic binder and transfer him safely into the helicopter. While flying to the hospital they gave him high-flow oxygen and intravenous fluids because he had low blood pressure, reduced oxygen saturation and a weak pulse. Lewie’s story demonstrates just how effective the Cornwall Air Ambulance is at not only transporting critical patients to the hospital but ensuring that they make it to the hospital in a stable condition.
Three-year-old Mia became unresponsive amid a sudden seizure while on a family holiday in Cornwall. A helicopter with two critical care paramedics and a doctor was able to land in a nearby field. Mia received lifesaving treatment on the roadside because her condition had worsened and she had suffered a second prolonged seizure while her family tried to rush her to the hospital. Mia’s mother Carissa later said:
“I believe that Cornwall Air Ambulance saved Mia’s life that day and I don’t know what we would have done without them…You really don’t know how much Cornwall Air Ambulance do and how much they are needed until it is you that needs them.”
Representatives of Cornwall Air Ambulance have told us that they are deeply concerned about the delays to the works to aid access to the rear helipad at Royal Cornwall hospital, Treliske, in Truro. The delay has severely affected the service that Cornwall Air Ambulance can provide to people across Cornwall who rely on its lifesaving work. With the Treliske A&E helipad closed, landings now take place at the rear helipad and require a transfer by road of around 400 metres to the emergency department. That obviously introduces delays and safety risks in what are often life-critical situations for patients being flown in from across the region. It entirely undermines the strength and efficiency of our brilliant air ambulance service.
Additionally, increasing traffic and footfall around the site, including from nearby housing developments and additional car parking, will continue to place more and more pressure on the already constrained route. I and my Cornish MP colleagues, including the two in the Chamber for this debate—the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—have argued that there is a strong case for targeted transport interventions to ensure that patient transfers are as swift and as safe as possible. We have called for measures to be implemented that could provide secure, reliable access for ambulance transfers, including a safe road crossing from the helipad to the hospital.
Cornwall Air Ambulance has stated that the prolonged delays and more complex routes for transporting patients have imposed operational challenges on clinical teams, creating an additional burden that teams delivering critical urgent care should not have to face. It has said that improved collaboration between the NHS and regional air ambulance charities could help to create a more seamless process, increasing resilience to challenges through shared resourcing and more cohesive long-term planning.
Will the Minister please commit to call for more systematic and formalised collaboration between NHS teams and air ambulances, to ensure more cohesive and seamless care for patients arriving at hospital via air ambulance? Will she commission a report into the collaborative frameworks of the nation’s air ambulance charities and their work with the NHS? Such a report should engage with regional charities and air ambulances across the UK to explore potential partnership structures. Finally, will the Minister please work with Cornwall Air Ambulance, Cornwall council and others to ensure that a safe crossing can be installed between the helipad and Treliske hospital?
On behalf of my constituents, I place on record my thanks and admiration for the whole team at Cornwall Air Ambulance, including the tireless clinical staff and the incredible volunteers and fundraisers. It is an incredible service that, quite unbelievably, does not receive any Government funding.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who represents a beautiful part of Ulster, on securing the debate. I thank him for doing so and for his keen interest in debates that I have secured in the past. I have one in Westminster Hall next Tuesday on train services; I hope to see him there.
When somebody is seriously injured, every minute matters. For people living in or visiting the most rural parts of my Cannock Chase constituency, getting to the right hospital can already mean a long journey. Air ambulances do an incredible job: they bring expert care to the people who need it most, often in the most frightening circumstances imaginable.
My husband’s family have personal experience of this because, 20 years ago, when my niece was just a year old, she came down with a nasty pneumonia infection. It got to the point where she was in a critical condition and doctors said she needed to get to A&E as quickly as possible. I think there was some trouble on the roads that night, so she was taken by air ambulance from Evesham in Worcestershire all the way to the Royal Stoke university hospital. She had to be in hospital for a few weeks after that, such was the severity of that infection, but the air ambulance undoubtedly saved her life that day, and she lives to tell the tale as a brilliant 21-year-old.
In January, I went to the Cosford airbase, headquarters of the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity. I met its CEO, Hanna Sebright, and one of my constituency predecessors who is working with them. I heard about the challenges that the sector faces. Air Ambulances UK’s review has identified significant gaps in hospital helipad provision across the country. Royal Stoke, which serves many of my constituents, has been given an amber rating, meaning that further action is needed. New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton has been given a red rating, meaning that priority action is required. That is genuinely concerning for patients.
New Cross does not currently have a hospital helipad, which means a patient who needs urgent specialist care might face a long journey by road, or air ambulance crews might need to fly them further to another hospital, as was the case for my niece. Every extra minute matters, so the longer a crew spend getting from one hospital to another, the longer they may be unavailable to help the next person who needs them.
We have seen a similar problem at Birmingham children’s hospital, which provides specialist major trauma care for children right across the west midlands, including Staffordshire. There is no helipad at the hospital, meaning that children brought in by air ambulance need a further road transfer, just like that described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), typically adding 10 to 15 minutes to the journey. That is despite the fact that the hospital sits right next to Queen Elizabeth hospital Birmingham, which has a helipad.
For families facing what might be the most frightening day of their lives, those are precious minutes. In some cases, crews from Staffordshire might need to consider flying a child to Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool, because that often offers a quicker route to getting the care they need. I am very concerned about that. These are hospitals that people across my region and in the wider west midlands rely on at the worst moments of their lives.
Where a helicopter cannot land directly, patients might need to be transferred. As we have heard, that can have disastrous consequences. For someone with, for example, a serious head injury, major trauma or another life-threatening condition, this is the time we should be doing everything we can to save their life. I think about my constituents in our rural villages who are already likely to be further away from emergency services. They deserve the same confidence as anyone that, if the worst happens, everything possible is being done to get them the right treatment quickly.
I know how strongly people in Cannock Chase feel about access to healthcare. We have lost our minor injuries unit, so local people know what it means when a service they once relied on is no longer there. That is one reason why I am really pleased to see this Government’s focus on improving access to healthcare, including through neighbourhood health centres, because bringing services closer to people’s homes really matters. I welcome that ambition.
However, we also need to think about what happens when someone needs emergency treatment that cannot be provided locally. Our neighbourhood services must be backed up by hospitals that can receive patients quickly day or night. A helipad that cannot be used around the clock can leave a gap in that journey, and when an emergency happens at 2 am, a patient cannot wait until the hospital’s facilities are fully up and running.
I appreciate that not every hospital has the same needs. We have heard very different cases from across the country, but we should have a clear understanding of which hospitals need helipads, which need improvements to their helipads, and which have facilities that cannot be used at all hours. We also need to make sure that recommendations are followed through. If an assessment identifies a problem, there should be a plan to address it, rather than the same concerns appearing in report after report, which we have seen for many years.
I too have a few questions for the Minister, which echo some of what she has already heard this debate. Will the Government look at a clearer national approach to hospital helipads, so that hospitals and the NHS trusts that look after them know what is expected of them when it comes to access around the clock? Will the Minister work with relevant trusts to look at the concerns raised around Royal Stoke and New Cross, and make sure that any necessary improvements are properly considered? Will the Government look at how essential helipad improvements might be funded where charities cannot meet the full cost?
Nobody wants to think about the moment in which a family member is seriously injured and an air ambulance has to be called, but those moments do happen. When they do, people need to know the system is ready for them. For my constituents in Cannock Chase, particularly those living in rural communities—or those in trouble in the forest itself—this is about knowing that that distance will not count against them when they need urgent care.
We are right to focus on bringing more healthcare closer to home, but we must also make sure that, when people need specialist and emergency treatment, there is a clear and reliable route to get them there. Thanks to air ambulances, that is often the case—they often step in and do incredible things for our constituents. If they can save someone’s life, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to make sure that a hospital is ready for them when they arrive.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate, which is very timely because exactly this issue is affecting my local hospital. I want to tell Members about it, but I first want to set the scene by reiterating some of the things that other hon. Members across the House have already said. When someone is critically injured, every single minute—in fact, every single second—counts. Air ambulances, with an average journey time across the country of 17 minutes, can get patients seen by specialist doctors and nurses as quickly as possible. That is why it is critical that major trauma centres have helipads that are open 24/7.
Tessa Munt
I went out with the South Western ambulance service to a cycle accident in my constituency, where a young man had fallen off on a road and was unconscious. When the air ambulance came, the doctors on board were able to stabilise him. I then went with him in the ambulance to the hospital in Bath. Air ambulances can sometimes stop the progression of injuries as well as take people to hospital. They are brilliant.
Marie Goldman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Air ambulances have specialist expertise on board, so they do not just provide transportation; they provide lifesaving interventions along the way.
The advantage of the speed of an air ambulance can be completely lost if it cannot land on top of a hospital. Broomfield hospital, run by the Mid and South Essex foundation trust, is the main hospital that serves my Chelmsford constituency—it is not in my constituency, but it is just outside it—and it has a helipad. I pay huge tribute to Essex and Herts Air Ambulance; the crews and the communities that fund it are doing absolutely phenomenal work. However, when I met representatives from the air ambulance, they told me that every day when they do their briefing to the crews, they hold their breath a little bit and roll their eyes, because they know the answer to the question, “Will Broomfield’s helipad be open for long today?” is usually no.
Frustratingly, I have tried to persuade Mid and South Essex foundation trust to work with Essex and Herts Air Ambulance, Air Ambulances UK and the HELP Appeal to implement a solution—which does exist; it is just about getting the will for it—but I have met with so much reluctance from the hospital trust to do that or even to have meetings and listen to the problem. I get pushback and pushback, and it is incredibly frustrating. That is one of the reasons why we need to have national leadership on this issue. Although we can individually try to influence it, sometimes we just get pushback.
I know that hospitals and hospital leaders are under lots of constraints, but the solution seems so obvious when we already have a helipad at Broomfield hospital. Yes, it needs upgrading, but there is a solution for that, and yes, it needs to be staffed, but there is a solution for that. Getting pushback from the hospital itself is incredibly frustrating. I should say that Broomfield hospital is a major trauma centre, and its helipad is listed in the APPG report as one that needs to be open 24/7—but it is not. The hospital also has a specialist burns unit, so it is part of the national asset list. Of course, with burns, like so many other things, the speed of treatment is incredibly important.
When Essex and Herts Air Ambulance helicopters cannot land on top of the hospital, they have to go elsewhere. Their alternative landing site is Chelmer Valley high school, which is a few minutes down the road. There is a lot of traffic around the hospital a lot of the time, which adds to journey times, but landing there also means that an ordinary ambulance has to come to meet the helicopter. That takes up the time not just of an air ambulance, but of an ordinary road-based ambulance.
There were 12 or maybe even 14 road-based ambulances queuing up at the A&E department at Broomfield hospital just a few days ago. Members will know that we are not awash with loads of ambulances. If an ambulance’s time is being taken up unnecessarily—or necessarily, as it turns out, but it should not be the case—by having to meet an air ambulance, then it is not available to do other work. That ambulance transfer is also estimated to cost anywhere between £200 and £600 per journey. That is crazy. We are throwing away money when, if we just got the helipad at Broomfield open 24/7, it would be so much better.
Burns patients sometimes do not even end up coming to Chelmsford; they end up going to Thames Valley instead, which I find ridiculous. We also need to think about national security and the assets that are around London. Broomfield is not very far from our capital city. If there were a major incident in London, Broomfield hospital, just outside Chelmsford, would surely be one of the centres asked to respond, so having its helipad open would make so much sense.
Other hospitals in the east of England—I am an east of England MP—are also in the report, such as Addenbrooke’s, which has a red rating because it has serious problems with 24/7 access. It is the only major trauma centre for more than 6 million people, and yet new building on its own campus is set to make its helipad inoperable. How mad is that? We have invested in a helipad, and then we are saying, “Oh no, let’s just build some more houses around it and stop it operating.” That does not make any sense whatsoever. We have invested public funds in this, and we are wasting them.
The scale of the problem is set out in the APPG report and by the hon. Member for Strangford, so I will not go through all of it. I know that others have highlighted rural issues, but this is not only a rural problem: none of the three London hospitals assessed has 24/7 helipad access. My word, what are we doing? Why does this access matter for patients? It matters a lot: a Kent, Surrey and Sussex study identified five extra survivors for every 100 patients treated at a hospital with a 24/7 helipad. That is a pretty good case for doing something about it, surely.
We have talked about planning and the Government’s position, but we need central data so that we understand exactly what is going on. The APPG has actually done loads of the hard work, as has Air Ambulances UK. I want to massively thank the air ambulance crews, and the public for funding them. Members across the House have said that this should not be a matter of charitable funding alone. We do, but should not, rely on the charitable sector to step in all the time for these sorts of things. Yes, the sector can help, but it should be helped by Government as well.
Air ambulances are obviously experiencing the increase in fuel prices, which is massively putting up their costs. London Air Ambulance’s fuel costs have gone up by 116%. That is huge and so difficult; think of the extra fundraising that needs to be done to cover it. We need to step in and make sure that all the fuel being used is taking patients directly to hospital, not elsewhere. What would the Liberal Democrats do? We would integrate air ambulances into the NHS emergency response through a national commissioning framework, while keeping their charitable fundraising status. That would expose and fix exactly the problems that I have mentioned. Of course, we also need to end ambulance handover delays, but helipad access is a very specific problem.
I have some questions for the Minister. Will the Government collect and publish 24/7 helipad data for every trauma centre? Will hospital helipads be safeguarded in planning, like aerodromes are? Specifically, what is being done to keep Addenbrooke’s helipad operational? That is a really important question for the east of England in particular. Will the Minister help me get the helipad at Broomfield hospital open 24/7 as well? If she or one of her colleagues would be willing to meet me on that subject, I would be very grateful. Will the Government also publish how many air ambulances are at risk of closure or of cutting services because of the challenges they face?
I want us to recognise that hospital helipads are absolute lifelines. Survival should not depend on whether a helipad happens to be open at that time of day, or on where people live, and yet that is what is happening at the moment. Patients—our constituents—deserve better.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec, and to be speaking on behalf of the official Opposition in this debate called by everybody’s friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—the Member of Parliament above all others for whom the term “indefatigable” could have been coined. It is a very important debate, and I commend him on the clarity of the three asks that he has put to the Government; we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
On an average day, air ambulances undertake 137 missions. We have heard in the debate about the great work of air ambulances across the country. The hon. Member specifically mentioned their work at Strangford lough at the end of the Ards peninsula. It is a part of the world that he knows I know well and is a very good illustration of the importance of being able to move people quickly when the roads are slow to pass.
In my constituency of East Hampshire, we are very lucky to have a fantastic team at the Hampshire and Isle of Wight air ambulance, which can reach almost anyone in Hampshire or on the island within 10 minutes from take-off from its new airbase and headquarters at Southampton airport. They have flown 907 missions so far this year. In the single month of August, their doctors, pilots and paramedics responded to 250 missions. During the August bank holiday weekend, the teams were deployed eight times a day on average, coming to the rescue in the aftermath of car crashes, cardiac arrests and accidental injuries.
I know all Members join me in commending the work and generosity of air ambulance charities and their supporters. The supporters are very important. As a number of colleagues have mentioned, air ambulances are not part of the national health service; they are charities. Yet, as the hon. Member for Strangford highlighted, most people do not know that they are independent from the NHS. I hope that this debate plays a part in addressing that lack of awareness.
Fundraising is a vital activity for air ambulances. It costs the Hampshire and Isle of Wight service £17,750 a day to keep their vital service operational. They are particularly creative fundraisers—from the clothes recycling points and the charity lottery to “brew for the crew” coffee mornings and the “dash in the dark” and many corporate and commemorative fundraising initiatives. I commend everyone involved with the Hampshire service and with air ambulance charities right across the country for their amazing—indeed, in many cases, lifesaving—efforts.
In code red cases, where there is a medical emergency such as cardiac arrest or internal haemorrhaging, the minutes saved by air ambulances can really make the difference between life and death. When a patient has suffered skeletal head, chest or abdominal injuries and local hospital facilities are not sufficient, air ambulances can fly the injured to major trauma centres that would take a long time to reach by road. Of course, for this to work, hospitals need suitable helipads for crews to take off and land, and here lies the issue that we are discussing today.
Research from the all-party parliamentary group for air ambulances—I thank those who support that group, some of whom are with us today—highlights that access to safeguarded on-site hospital helipads is inconsistent across the country. More than a third lack either 24/7 access or an operational helipad. When helicopter transfers are not possible, it then costs hundreds of pounds in secondary ambulance transfers, with delays to care leading to longer hospital stays and more intensive treatment.
In 2019, Health Ministers allocated £10 million to nine ambulance charities supporting air ambulance services to move towards 24/7 operations and improve seven airbase facilities. During the pandemic, we provided £6 million of emergency funding to air ambulance charities to help them with the pressures they were then facing.
Members often speak about postcode lotteries and it is a phrase that has come up again today. Given the nature of the incidents that air ambulances respond to, patchwork coverage really can make the difference between life and death. It is one of the most sharply important postcode lotteries to address. Since taking office, what have the Government done to reduce unwarranted variation in emergency care by place? Specifically, what are they doing to provide the reliable infrastructure that air ambulances need?
A written question was posed to the Minister in the other place asking whether the Government had considered a contingency fund to secure future helipad provision. The response was that a fund was not under consideration and NHS organisations must consider competing priorities within available resources. Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care underspent its capital departmental expenditure limit by some hundreds of millions of pounds in the last financial year? Was any of the underspend considered for helipad projects?
We talk about prioritising within available resources, but overall, people working in the health service note that available resources are reducing. Integrated care boards are pencilling in cuts to services and NHS trusts are planning to axe many jobs. Yesterday’s Budget deepened the cuts to the NHS to around £1 billion of capital cuts over the next four years. Can the Minister tell us what the impact of that will be? Which programmes will be cut and, specifically on the subject of this debate, what are the implications for helipad capital?
To ensure that no good deed goes unpunished, this Government decided to reward air ambulance charities with a new jobs tax. For every employee on average earnings, air ambulance charities, alongside others of course, must pay an extra £900 to HMRC. Is the Minister willing to raise the plight of air ambulances with Treasury Ministers? Does she think it is wrong that money that has effectively come from charitable donations should have to be diverted to help pay for the cost of the previous Chancellor’s mismanagement of the public finances?
As colleagues have noted, air ambulances are also suffering the consequences of soaring energy prices. The cost of aviation fuel surged more than 80% this spring, adding tens of thousands of pounds to air ambulance charities’ annual fuel bills. Earlier this summer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) wrote to the Government asking Ministers to ensure that air ambulances are included in fuel resilience planning and recognised in NHS emergency services fuel access arrangements. Can the Minister update Members on actions taken by her Department since receiving that correspondence?
The Government rightly have high ambitions for the health service: reduced ambulance times, shorter hospital waits, faster discharges. We of course share those ambitions, but there is a huge gulf between where the NHS is now on some of those key performance indicators and where we all want it to be. The National Audit Office estimates that 1.2 million patients waited between 12 and 24 hours in A&E last year. NHS waiting lists have been climbing, with the number of trauma and orthopaedic cases with a decision to admit higher than at the time of the change of Government.
Charities providing critical medical transport are having to cope with the weight of the extra taxes from the Government on top of those pressures from high energy prices. In this debate, Members from across the House have called on the Government to act by putting forward a clear framework and road map for hospital helipads, establishing clear standards for NHS estates and exploring options for financial support so air ambulances can afford to stay in the air and keep saving lives. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Strangford for the clarity with which he set out his three asks.
I urge the Minister to listen to air ambulance charities, their supporters and all those who are delivering high-quality emergency care. We look forward to her response.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate—he must contribute to more debates than any parliamentarian I have ever come across—and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important role that hospital helipads play in supporting urgent and specialist care. My hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, who has responsibility for this policy area, is always happy to meet Members, in particular the hon. Member for Strangford, and I know she will look at Hansard to read the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Strangford is a long-standing supporter of air ambulance services. He has regularly talked about their importance, particularly for rural and coastal communities, where the geography can make it harder to reach patients quickly. In his excellent opening speech, he paid tribute to the important and vital work of the air ambulance service in Northern Ireland. I too recognise its invaluable work.
I also recognise the work of the air ambulance charities around and across the United Kingdom, which provide a vital service helping seriously ill or injured people. Across England, air ambulance charities carry out more than 50,000 missions each year. I am very grateful to everyone who works and volunteers in the sector, and to the communities that support them. As a Yorkshire MP, I have to give a shout-out to my local air ambulance—Yorkshire Air Ambulance—for its brilliant work.
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) asked about the Royal Cornwall hospital. Although decisions on capital investment are a matter for local NHS systems, I understand that work is under way to look at options to improve the air ambulance access at the hospital. I also understand that the hospital is investigating alternative options so that coastguard helicopters can land safely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about the necessity of the service in rural and coastal areas. She and a number of other Members raised fuel resilience. We routinely engage with air ambulance charities on contingency planning, and as part of that we have addressed fuel resilience. The Government will continue to work with fuel suppliers to make sure that essential services are supported.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) said that Cornwall Air Ambulance is based in his constituency. He brought the whole debate to life when he talked about 15-year-old Lewie, who suffered horrific injuries, and about how the service saved his life. He also talked about how important the service was when three-year-old Mia had a seizure. I send my best wishes to them both—I am sure all Members would like to do the same—and I hope they have made good recoveries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) gave the example of a family member—I think it was his niece—who needed an air ambulance. I was pleased to hear that she is now 21, and hopefully she is in good health. There were some very good contributions to the debate. I heard what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) said about Essex & Herts Air Ambulance, and the issues with the local hospital. I will relay those points to the Minister for Secondary Care.
I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members and the all-party parliamentary group for air ambulances. The points are well made. In June, the APPG published its report making the case for safeguarded 24/7 on-site hospital helipads at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals, which is a very good piece of work.
We all accept that getting seriously ill or injured patients to the hospital quickly matters. Air ambulance teams work alongside NHS ambulance service and hospitals to provide specialist care at the scene and help patients to reach specialist treatment quickly. We also need to think about what happens when the aircraft reaches the hospital. If direct landing is not available, a patient may need an onward transfer by road ambulance, which can add time to the journey and place additional demand on ambulance vehicles and crews.
Alternative landing sites are an important part of resilience when a hospital helipad is unavailable, so clear local arrangements are needed to minimise delays. Hospital helipads therefore have an important role to play, but the current picture is not the same everywhere. Helipad provision has developed locally, over many years. There has not been a single national approach setting out where helipads should be provided, what the provision should look like and how it should be funded.
Currently, responsibility for hospital helipads sits with local NHS organisations, working with planning, aviation and local authority partners. Decisions about investment, including improvements to allow night-time operation, are generally made locally, as part of a wider NHS estates and capital planning programme. But I recognise the arguments made today that we need to look again at whether those arrangements remain right for the future.
NHS England has identified challenges, including changing aircraft and aviation standards, secondary ambulance transfers, and differences in landing infrastructure. Work has also started to strengthen safety arrangements. Following the tragic incident at Derriford hospital, NHS England worked with His Majesty’s Coastguard, the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority to strengthen assurance. Sites are now required to have a named accountable manager, a site-specific risk assessment and a helipad operating manual. Chief executives have been asked to confirm that appropriate safety standards are being met.
NHS England continues to work with the air ambulance sector and regularly meets the DFT and Air Ambulances UK. It also takes part, when needed, in the onshore surface landing group, which brings together organisations including the Civil Aviation Authority, the DFT and the devolved nations.
I want to be clear about what we are doing next. I am pleased to announce that the Minister for Secondary Care has instructed the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to scope a strategic review of air ambulance resilience, including hospital helipads and landing sites. That work is starting, and I do not want to pre-empt what it may find or any recommendations that it may come up with. It will give us the opportunity to look at current landing facilities, onward transfers, future clinical and aircraft requirements, and the condition of existing infrastructure.
The hon. Member for Strangford rightly recognised that different hospitals have different clinical needs, geography, landing arrangements and planning constraints, and that the same solution will not be right for every site. I agree that any future approach needs to be proportionate and informed by clinical and operational need.
Let me turn to the concerns, raised by a number of hon. Members and the APPG, about the impact of the planning system—
Jim Shannon
I want to clarify one wee matter. First, I very much welcome the national review that the Minister has described. On some occasions, there are issues with planning. Will the national review be able to address specific issues and ensure that, where there may be planning objections, there can be an arrangement to ensure that helicopters can safely access helipads? We would not want to see planning holding that up.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will set out the position on planning. The Government share the concerns about the potential impact of new developments on the operation of hospital helipads. That is why our new national planning policy framework, published in August, makes it clear that existing public services should not face unreasonable restrictions on their operation because of development that takes place around them.
The framework is clear that where a new development could be affected by an existing activity nearby, the impacts should be identified and suitable steps taken to address them. It also gives substantial weight to the benefits of new or improved public service infrastructure, including healthcare facilities. Work is happening on that now, and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss it further, we will be able to facilitate that.
Work is happening on aviation standards, too. The CAA’s civil aviation publication 1264 provides guidance on the design and operation of hospital helicopter landing sites. This matters, because safe access depends not just on having a landing site but on whether an aircraft can use it safely. The guidance is not currently mandatory, but the DFT and the Civil Aviation Authority are working towards the formal regulation of hospital landing sites, which is currently expected around 2028.
NHS England and the DFT are also working to build a clearer picture of which hospital landing sites comply with the existing guidance. Currently, helicopter operators make their own decisions about where they can safely land. That can depend on things such as the aircraft being used, the weather and the obstacles around a landing site. The DFT is working with NHS England, the CAA, the air ambulance sector and His Majesty’s Coastguard on those issues. There is obviously much more work to do, and I absolutely recognise the concerns raised in the debate and through the APPG report.
The Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), asked about capital spend in previous years, and I will have to write to him about that. On his comment about announcements in the Budget, our contribution to the defence investment plan, including at the extended level set out yesterday, will avoid impact on frontline NHS services, patient safety, investment in technology and the delivery of the new hospital programme.
Ben Maguire
I am pleased to hear about the review the Minister has announced. Can she give us any sense of a timeline for when that review might conclude?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am not the Minister for this policy area, but I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care what information might be available about timescales. I understand Members’ interest as to when the review might conclude.
We have had a useful debate and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for bringing the debate before the House. I again thank the APPG’s members and the air ambulance sector for all their continued excellent work.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) set the ball going with his contribution. He referred to the 600,000 people in and around his constituency and the need to have the helicopter and air ambulance available. The Minister was kindly in her positive response to that intervention.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) referred to safe routes for air ambulances coming into helipads. She rightly set the marker down in raising the impact of future development. Again, the Minister responded to that point, and we thank her for that.
I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for her contribution. She shared personal knowledge of how her local air ambulance is an essential part of the NHS, and spoke about quality of access, planning and development.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) referred to the air ambulance headquarters in his constituency. He is doing extremely well for the air ambulance. He spoke of access to uneven terrain, clifftops and dispersed moorland, and described it as the “flying doctor service”. That is what it is.
The hon. Gentleman also gave two supreme examples of how the air ambulance saved young 15-year-old Lewie and three-year-old Mia. My goodness, if we ever need a story to illustrate the case, it is the examples Members give from their constituents. Those are lives saved. I could give similar examples of my own constituents —all Members probably could—because we all know people who are alive and walking around the streets in our constituencies today, still with their families. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He also referred to better NHS and air ambulance co-ordination, with partnership structures in place. All those things are incredibly helpful.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) shared examples from his own life, including the supreme example of his niece, who is alive and well today because of the air ambulance. Examples like that convince us all of why we are here and the importance of these debates. He also referred to country roads, how different hospitals have different needs, how we need clearer approval for helipads and how trusts need to work together with the air ambulance.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) shared the problems she is having with her own trust. She said that the NHS should work better with the air ambulance. I always say that it is our job to find solutions, and the hon. Lady referred to solutions. Helicopters need helipads. It can often be a problem for an ambulance to reach an incident safely by road, but there would be no need for that if there were a helipad. The hon. Lady gave the figures for that too.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), is always very kind with his comments. We are all here for the same purpose: to try to help our people. His air ambulance service has flown 907 missions this year, including eight times in one day. My goodness, them guys are on overtime, if there is any in the air ambulance, though there probably is not. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated the cost of running the service in his constituency. We need a plan for helipad funding in the next year. To be fair, the Minister gave the shadow Minister some of the answers he sought. We appreciate that. He also requested a clear standard and financial support.
I will move on to my conclusion, Sir Alec. I am mindful that although I have 14 minutes to speak, usually we only get two minutes to wind up no matter how long is left, so you have been very kind. I thank the Minister incredibly much for her positive response. I do not want to give her a big head, but she always tries to encourage us all. We come here as MPs to fight battles on behalf of our constituents. That is the job that they task us with. I am always at peace whenever a Minister gives us some of the answers that we sought, and today, the right hon. Lady did that.
The Minister referred to the importance of air ambulance charities across England, and the 50,000 missions flown each year. She also referred to fuel resilience for air ambulances, and the ongoing discussions among air ambulances and the NHS. On air ambulance access to helipads and the national approach, work has started to address some of the outstanding improvements. The Minister then gave us the one that we really hoped for: the national review of air ambulance services, their resilience and helipads. We thank her for that.
The Minister referred to the new planning policy framework, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall sought the timescale; although not responsible for that, I know that the Minister will seek to get a timescale. Whenever I go to a meeting, whether it be with the roads service or hospitals, they always tell me what they are going to do and I say, “When will it happen?” That is the question. Today, we ask, “When will it happen?” but we have been very privileged to have had such a responsive Minister. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. As always, I thank the civil servants who keep the Ministers right, and I thank the Hansard Reporters for their patience with this boy from Northern Ireland who speaks at 100 miles an hour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres.
Ofcom
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role and effectiveness of Ofcom.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Ofcom’s mission is to make communications work for everybody. According to the Ofcom website, it helps people to get the most from their post, mobile, broadband, landline and online services, as well as
“keeping an eye on TV and radio.”
Yet as our methods of communication have broadened and the pace of technological change has increased, I have become increasingly concerned that Parliament has repeatedly given Ofcom new responsibilities without first asking whether it has the powers, resources or institutional culture necessary to fulfil those it already had.
In preparation for this debate, I spoke with Citizens Advice, which raised concerns that Ofcom’s principal duty to further the interests of citizens, in relation to communications, and consumers, in relation to markets, creates a bias against intervention, meaning that action to protect consumers is often delayed, limited or treated as a last resort. I will focus on four areas: broadcasters, scam calls and messages, broadband infrastructure, and—I apologise, as this is the third parliamentary debate on this in a week—Royal Mail. Although those areas appear different, they all point to the same question: does Ofcom have the powers, appetite and focus to fulfil the role that Parliament expects it to?
As we know, UK broadcasters are rightly respected around the world. Although the media landscape has become more complex, any organisation wishing to operate on television or radio must be subject to Ofcom regulation. The Ofcom broadcasting code is not optional, and it exists to protect the public from harm. Section 2 of the code covers harmful and offensive material, and section 3 covers content likely to incite crime or disorder. Those sections are crucial. We have all seen what happens when dis and misinformation published online or on TV spills over into violence in our communities. Just last year, Ofcom found that GB News breached the code by broadcasting discriminatory misinformation that linked LGBT people with paedophilia, yet only a year later, we see further investigations being made into similar GB News content that makes highly offensive claims about LGBT people. The fact that such behaviour is occurring again, on the same channel, so soon after regulatory action raises serious questions about whether that intervention was effective in the first place.
Section 5 of the code covers impartiality and accuracy. Constituents regularly raise issues on that, and, I will be honest, those are not related just to GB News. Some people believe that the BBC has a left-wing bias, while others believe that it has become increasingly right wing— some might say that that suggests the BBC has got it about right. I have found myself shouting at the TV, particularly during certain programmes, asking why the outrageous comments made by one commentator or another have not been shown. I am regularly asked why the activities of certain parties that have only a handful of MPs seem to get disproportionate coverage, and whether the media are now more interested in ratings than in impartiality on current affairs.
But I am afraid that allegations made against public sector broadcasters such as the BBC pale into insignificance when compared with the regulation of GB News. A recent investigation, involving experienced journalists and specialists in the field, reviewed GB News’s output and found repeated examples of content that they considered inconsistent with the Ofcom code, yet in many cases, no regulatory action had followed. A former Ofcom director of standards said:
“This was a test case for how Ofcom regulates broadcasters on due impartiality. It has failed that test.”
He went on to say:
“It now appears that Ofcom has abandoned any pretence that meaningful regulation of broadcast content is still being maintained.”
That criticism deserves to be taken seriously.
In 2024, Ofcom investigated GB News’s use of politicians as presenters, and concluded that politicians presenting news
“risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news.”
In its response, it warned that repeated breaches could ultimately lead to sanctions, including fines or the loss of a broadcast licence. And yet today, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who has been notified that I intend to refer to him, is advertised by GB News on its website as a presenter offering viewers the latest news, opinion and analysis. That appears to conflict with rule 5.3, which states:
“No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes”,
and rule 5.9, which says that
“presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.”
The hon. Member is also a shareholder in the channel and has received significant payments from it—this is all in the public domain. Even the channel’s founding chairman, Andrew Neil, has publicly questioned why Ofcom permits the arrangement. So I ask the Minister: what discussions has she had with Ofcom about the effectiveness of the broadcasting code, and will she consider launching a review into whether sitting MPs or political party leaders should be permitted to present news and current affairs programmes at all?
I realise that this is a slight jump in tone, but the same questions about enforcement arise when we look at scams. I welcome the recent fine imposed on a telecoms provider for failing to prevent the misuse of telephone numbers, and I recognise the work that Ofcom has done to block scam messages in transit. However, my constituents continue to suffer due to the failure of Ofcom to enforce. Melchior from Broadstone receives scam calls from people claiming to be police officers, using genuine police station telephone numbers. Neil from Canford Heath reports receiving up to five scam calls every day from people pretending to be from Government bodies. Judith lost thousands of pounds to rogue traders before a kindly neighbour intervened to help her. Another constituent, Paul, lost more than £60,000 to a romance fraud, where he believed he was communicating with Kate Beckinsale before he sadly died.
My constituents are rightly asking why ID spoofing remains so prevalent when the technology exists to verify and authenticate communications. Five years ago, Ministers pointed to developments in the United States—in fact, it was the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) who wrote to my constituent saying that they intended to look at systems in America and bring them over here—yet residents continue to lose money and there does not seem to be any progress. Can the Minister explain what progress has been made through the migration to digital telephony, which concludes in January, what evidence exists that scam tracing is now improving, and how Ofcom intends to enforce protections more effectively in the years ahead?
That brings me to the issue of connectivity. Although Ofcom’s figures show considerable improvements in gigabit broadband, the headline statistics mark the reality in rural and coastal communities. The most vulnerable of our residents are often the most digitally disconnected. Some are unwilling or unable to use broadband and internet, and it is important that we do not leave them behind, but when someone chooses to be digitally connected, they cannot be priced out of the market simply because they live in a rural area. People in rural communities such as mine are isolated when the wind blows or because their property is in a small hamlet, or even because, as I heard this week, it is the “last property” in the line in a village.
According to Ofcom’s data, gigabit-capable broadband is now available in 88% of homes and businesses, with 4 million premises still without coverage. I recognise the significant improvement since 2020, but in some areas, properties have been dropped from the edge of a gigabit scheme, with the alternatives being simply laughable. Residents living on rural lanes between Wimborne and Sturminster Marshall were missed out of the scheme and told that they can get a voucher from Building Digital UK to spend on a commercial connection. That left them with two problems. The vouchers have been suspended in Dorset for at least the last two years, and even when they are available, no commercial provider will provide internet to six properties if the UK Government-sponsored provider does not feel that it is viable either.
In Pamphill and Shapwick, the local church warden has just been quoted £4,000 plus VAT by BT Openreach to install broadband because they need a pole—a pole that will serve only one building because it is the last building before the river. The irony is that there is already a pole there, but BT’s failure to maintain its infrastructure means that it has decided to pass the cost on to the customer, which in this case is a church with about 20 people in the congregation.
What is Ofcom doing to make sure that small rural communities can get the broadband availability they need? These small communities often do not have a bus, mobile service or even a village shop, so when they need help, the only option they have is the internet.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has outlined some of the problems that her constituents are having with BT. I want to be kind to BT if I can, but I have to be honest as well: BT falls short. An organisation that does exceptionally well is Fibrus. Over the last couple of years, although it has had almost 200 complaints, it has genuinely sorted out 199 of them—I am not making that up—and it is doing its darndest to sort out the outstanding one. BT unfortunately falls short every time. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that and I will highlight it as well.
Vikki Slade
I will share a similar tale of the failure to sort out a problem. In August, the village of Bloxworth, which has only about 80 houses and has poor mobile signal, no bus and no shop, was cut off completely when a tree took down their BT Openreach infrastructure. Despite allegedly having a 48-hour service standard, the repair took more than a week to complete. Residents were not even contacted and were later told that they should have been contacted by their individual provider, which is ridiculous. When the water goes down, the water board is responsible and when the electric goes down, it is the infrastructure provider—Scottish and Southern Energy in our area—that is responsible, not OVO or Octopus or whoever provides the electricity. In a data age, with resilience being much of the Government’s focus, it is utterly ridiculous that the main provider of infrastructure is allowed to pass on the responsibility and not communicate. It is somewhat ironic that when the communication goes down, there is radio silence.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about villages. In my constituency, a number of villages do not have a shop or a bus, and so on, but they did have the public switched telephone network. Ofcom has overseen the switch-off of that old copper network infrastructure, but it has not placed an obligation on Openreach to communicate with the people who are losing their telephony. Does she agree that it is not too late in the day for Ofcom to put Openreach on the hook for communicating with people who are about to lose their copper network?
Vikki Slade
I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened because that is apparently the root of the problem with my church. BT Openreach sent out an installer who was able to deal only with copper, but that is all being turned off in January, so he went away again. They came back and said, “You need someone with fibre,” and then they came back and said, “Oh, the pole’s not good enough. You need to replace the pole, but you have to pay for it.” The requirement to have fibre is because of the BT Openreach plan to turn off the PSTN and go on to the Voice over Internet Protocol, yet BT Openreach demands that the customers pay the costs because it has not prepared for that. You could not make it up.
Are we still on track to turn the PSTN off in January, and what consideration has been given to those people who are still on the emergency systems? What will be done to make sure that BT Openreach is not passing on unfair costs to people who did not ask for that change in the first place? On resilience, what are the Minister and her team doing with Ofcom to ensure that the issue of communication is included in the plan for national resilience, and how is Ofcom holding the telephone companies to account when they pass on the costs?
I could not possibly complete a debate about Ofcom without mentioning the post. I am aware that there have been two recent debates on the subject and I would be here for as long as it takes my residents to get their post if I shared every story with the Minister, but I must repeat the comments made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) at the end of Monday’s debate. As chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, he talked about giving Ofcom until November to show that it is improving its performance.
My residents tell me time and again about the length of time between their deliveries and how, miraculously, when someone on their street goes down to the delivery office to challenge the missing mail, bundles turn up in elastic bands. It is simply not credible that they all turned up on that very day. When I write to Royal Mail about this, I, and I am sure hon. Members alike, get a templated reply that basically feels like gaslighting. It never answers the question. I know, because I have spent a couple of shifts down at the sorting office, that local sorting offices have to tell their regional offices which frames did not get delivered. They have to report when vehicles break down or staff do not turn up for shifts. Royal Mail has the data about why that post is not being delivered; it just chooses not to share it with us or its customers. My question is, is it sharing it with Ofcom?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a really important speech about many of the ways in which Ofcom’s regulation touches everybody’s lives, especially through Royal Mail—I am sure she will be aware that I am doing some work in this space. A number of other Labour MPs and I spoke to Ofcom at a meeting just last week where we asked what other powers it needs. Fines are clearly not working: the fines that Ofcom is levying on Royal Mail are not leading to any improvement. I was really disappointed at the response, which was that Ofcom has not really thought about what other powers it needs. Does the hon. Member agree with me, and with the Business Committee, that Ofcom really needs to think about what other powers it needs to regulate the market more effectively? It is failing to, currently.
Vikki Slade
The hon. Member is absolutely spot on. We know that the Minister is raising our concerns, but we need Ofcom to have the right powers, and we need to know what powers the Minister is seeking to give Ofcom if the situation persists.
I have to share one other example to do with the post. I recently had a problem in the village of Sturminster Marshall, where they had no post for two weeks and a flood was blamed. I surveyed them all; I had 159 replies, and 149 of them shared their horror stories about Royal Mail. Royal Mail blamed the flood, but the flood happened at the end of the two weeks for which they had been waiting. If Royal Mail will not be accountable to us and tell us the truth, and if it is hoping that we will not notice, that prompts the question of what other things it is saying that could be misinterpreted.
Jim Shannon
I cannot let a Royal Mail comment go by without speaking on behalf of my constituents in Strangford, who have problems with mail delivery on a daily basis. Some of that delayed post unfortunately includes hospital appointments, bank statements and things that they have to action. Does the hon. Lady agree that Ofcom’s capacity to effectively oversee Royal Mail needs to be reassessed? It is very clear from the examples that she and other Members have given that it is just not up to the job.
Vikki Slade
The hon. Member comes to my point about whether Ofcom is fit for purpose and needs to be broken up. He mentions the fines for people getting their bills late and missed hospital appointments, yet there is no real compensation scheme for customers. My train is 15 minutes late on a weekly basis—I am sure you will agree, Sir Desmond, as I think you use the same line. I do not think that there has been a week in the past year where I have not arrived home at least 15 minutes late at least once, but there is delay repay. If someone’s post is weeks late, they cannot go down and get any sort of claim from the local delivery office. Perhaps if there was, Royal Mail would take a little bit more action.
Finally, today Ofcom released its recommendations for the most effective way to implement the social media ban. We know that that will be complicated and controversial. We know that it is the biggest issue of our time, really. Yet the job has been given to Ofcom. With everything that we have talked about, it is not lost on me that we are adding another very complicated and controversial thing when there is no evidence that Ofcom is able to manage.
Under the new Prime Minister, a new Minister for AI has been created, recognising the importance of dividing up some of these jobs to groups who can focus on the big issues of our time. Perhaps this should be a watershed moment for Ofcom too. Throughout the debate, I have raised four very different issue: broadcast impartiality, scams, broadband access and Royal Mail. They all point to the same concern. Ofcom is increasingly being asked to regulate some of the most powerful organisations in our society while protecting some of the most vulnerable people. Yet again and again, constituents encounter a regulator that appears reactive rather than proactive, cautious rather than assertive and too often willing to accept poor outcomes for consumers.
I ask the Minister to commit to a formal review of Ofcom’s powers, duties and enforcement framework, including whether its current structure is fit for purpose. If consumers cannot rely on the regulator to challenge broadcasters, tackle scams, secure connectivity or hold Royal Mail to account, it is not enough to ask whether they are doing their job. Parliament must also ask whether it has given Ofcom the tools to do it.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, I think for the second time this week. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate. She made a critical point in her final remarks about the effectiveness of Ofcom and whether we are overdue a review. It is 26 years since Ofcom was set up, and the changes in modern communication that we have seen in that time have been profound. It is a very valid point.
Before entering Parliament, I worked in mobile telecommunications for 13 years. During that time, I saw how Government policy and regulatory frameworks shape competition, investment and consumer choices and outcomes. One lesson that I took from that experience is that spectrum policy matters enormously. Spectrum is not simply a technical issue for regulators. It is one of the most powerful tools available to support competition, investment and innovation in mobile.
Back in 2000—I am that old—the UK’s 3G spectrum auction demonstrated that point very clearly. Competition sat at the heart of the then Labour Government’s policy. The result was a highly competitive mobile 3G market that encouraged substantial investment in infrastructure, rapid innovation and major benefits for consumers. Over time, and I am afraid to say particularly due to the decisions taken in the early 2010s by Conservative Ministers, that competitive landscape shifted. Spectrum holdings that were held for the use of mobile data became increasingly less equal, and the opportunities to strengthen genuine infrastructure competition were missed. As a result, some of the benefits that came from a competitive 3G market were lost.
Much is said about competition in telecommunications, and rightly so. Consumers can choose from a wide range of broadband and mobile providers. That competition helps drive innovation, service quality and value for money. However, we should not confuse retail competition with infrastructure competition. True competition depends not only on the number of brands selling services, but on competition between the networks that underpin those services. Without effective infrastructure competition, consumers might appear to have plenty of choice, but what they do not have is plenty of coverage—certainly not in rural areas such as my constituency.
Spectrum sits at the heart of that challenge. It is a finite national asset, on which every mobile call, message and wireless data connection depends, and the way it is allocated has a profound impact on investment coverage and long-term market structure. Ofcom, therefore, has a critical responsibility to ensure that spectrum policy promotes genuine competition, supports investment and delivers benefits to consumers in every part of the country, including rural and hard-to-reach communities. Spectrum policy should strengthen rather than simply reinforce the position of the operators that already hold significant advantages in low-frequency spectrum in particular, which is critical for delivering rural and indoor coverage.
However, I do not believe that responsibility rests solely with Ofcom. Spectrum is one of the most valuable public assets this country possesses. Decisions about how it is used shape competition, investment, innovation and coverage for decades. Those decisions should be informed by a clear national strategy set by Government. We have long-term strategies for transport, energy and digital infrastructure. There is a strong case for a clear, long-term spectrum strategy that sets out how spectrum allocation will support economic growth, innovation, network resilience and genuine infrastructure competition.
Infrastructure competition is not, on its own, enough. We must also look at the resilience of our mobile networks, because mobile connectivity is now an essential service. People rely on it to access banking, public services, transport information, employment and emergency assistance. Businesses rely on it to operate, communicate and serve their customers. When networks fail, the consequences are no longer merely inconvenient. Outages can disrupt livelihoods, affect public confidence and leave people unable to access services on which they depend. That makes Ofcom’s work on network resilience critical. Mobile operators must be expected to maintain robust infrastructure, communicate clearly with customers when problems occur and learn lessons when failures happen.
Resilience should not be treated as an aspiration; it should be a core obligation. However, currently, it is left simply to Ofcom guidance. Reliable mobile connectivity is now part of our critical national infrastructure. It underpins growth, services and everyday life, and the public rightly expect networks to be dependable. I ask the Minister: is guidance on something as critical as mobile resilience sufficient? Should Ofcom not instead require the mobile networks to have back-up power to their mobile masts? That does not have to be permanent back-up; it could be a fleet of electricity generators that can be taken to masts in the event of power outages. I do not believe guidance is sufficient.
My second question is: do the Government believe that citizens and consumers, which Ofcom has a dual duty towards, would benefit from a clearer national spectrum strategy from Government working alongside Ofcom? Thirdly, does the current regulatory framework provide sufficient tools to promote infrastructure competition? Ultimately, consumers need more than a choice of provider; they need confidence that the networks on which they depend deliver the coverage they need, that they are resilient and reliable, and that Government, regulators and industries are working towards a clear, long-term plan to fully utilise one of the most important assets our country has.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this timely debate.
I want to focus on Ofcom’s role as the regulator of postal services. That is a different aspect from its work ensuring that news is impartial or keeping our young people safe online, and therein perhaps lies the problem—it is being asked to be a jack of all trades and, as a result, it is the master of none. Earlier this week, I spoke about the effectiveness of Ofcom during a debate in the Chamber on Royal Mail, and I have come here today to reaffirm that argument.
Since 2022, Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £5.6 million, then £10.5 million, then £21 million for failing to meet its targets. In the year to March 2026, only 75.7% of first-class mail arrived the next working day, against the target of 93%. Ofcom opened an investigation into that failure on 1 June. Nearly five months later, we are still waiting for the outcome. Meanwhile, the targets themselves have been lowered, to 90% for first class and 95% for second class, and second-class deliveries have moved to alternate weekdays. The public are being asked to accept a reduced service, measured against easier targets, from a company that has not even managed to meet the old ones in years.
In May, the Business and Trade Committee concluded that Ofcom is failing as a statutory regulator, and that its approach has for years failed to deliver the step change in performance that the public deserve. Part of the problem is that fines are simply not a deterrent. The law allows Ofcom to fine postal services up to 10% of turnover, but its largest penalty is a small fraction of that, and every penny goes to the Treasury. Nothing reaches my constituent who missed a hospital appointment because the letter arrived a day after the actual appointment. Where is their opportunity for recourse?
At the moment, Royal Mail’s own complaints process is aimed at the sender of the mail and is all about compensating them for the cost of postage by giving them books of stamps; it does nothing to compensate recipients of mail for the consequential losses from that mail not arriving on time, which can be significant. Aside from missed appointments, there can be financial issues, and we had an example where someone had received a court summons too late, which obviously had very serious consequences.
If a constituent makes a complaint to Royal Mail and they are not happy with the outcome, they cannot go to Ofcom and make a complaint about the individual case. We have been told that Ofcom will not look into local cases and will look only at the picture across the country as a whole. We need a regulator with teeth, legally binding penalties that can actually change a business’s behaviour, automatic compensation and a proper complaints system. A regulator ready to use its powers could solve this problem.
I have raised this issue in questions and letters to Ministers, but each time the response is essentially a regurgitated, “This is a matter for Ofcom.” However, Ofcom’s powers are set by this Parliament, and I do not believe they are working, so Ministers have a responsibility to intervene. Either Ofcom’s postal powers and its approach must be fundamentally reset or its responsibility for postal regulation should move to a dedicated independent regulator that will take it seriously.
Surely, that is what Ministers must now be considering. If the Minister stands here today and again tells us that Ofcom is an independent regulator, and Royal Mail a private company, so nothing can be done, it will be utterly embarrassing. Where are the Government’s teeth? Are they seriously taking the same lacklustre approach as Ofcom?
I have two direct questions for the Minister. First, do the Government accept the Select Committee’s conclusion that Ofcom is not effectively regulating Royal Mail’s performance? Secondly, will the Government commit to a review of Ofcom’s postal powers, including whether those powers would be better held by an independent postal regulator? Too much time has been spent bringing Royal Mail’s failures to Ministers’ attention. They have heard enough. Will they now act?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow three excellent speeches, with which mine will overlap to some extent.
Ofcom’s role is vast. It has grown exponentially since it was set up in 2003, and it now has in its clutches online harms and the whole minefield of regulating social media, but my focus today will be on broadcasting. Parliament decided that—uniquely—broadcast news should be impartial, and it is more important than ever that the airwaves provide a vital counterbalance to the partisan, clickbait world out there online.
Arguably, nowhere can Ofcom’s ineffectiveness be seen more than in that most glaringly obviously anomalous broadcaster of them all, GB News—the telly wing of the Reform party. Some of these criticisms apply similarly to its close bedfellow, Talk TV and radio.
The Communications Act 2003 laid down the law, quite literally, on impartiality in “news in whatever form”—those are the actual words used. Sections 319 and 320 set out the Ofcom broadcasting code. However, GB News and Talk TV and radio flout these rules daily, and they make no pretence at all of objectivity. This question has already been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): what other channel would platform a serving MP and party leader—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who has been emailed—with a regular show? That would not happen anywhere else. Other hosts include ex-MEPs from what used to be called the Brexit party and a Reform MP, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who has also been emailed. It is all part of a one-sidedly right-wing roster; Jacob Rees-Mogg is as leftie as it gets.
On the rare occasions when airtime is afforded to someone from the other side, they are set up as a punchbag to be pilloried. Let us remember how Gary Lineker was pulled up for his tweets. BBC directors general have always insisted that their presenters leave their politics at the door, but there is no such rule for GB News. In fact, to have right-wing politics appears to be a prerequisite to be a presenter. Look at the subject matter: rape gangs, small boats and Muslims—the Reform party’s greatest hits.
Section 2 of the Ofcom broadcasting code spells out the duty to protect the public from “harmful and/or offensive material”, section 3.2 explicitly forbids “hate speech”, and section 3.3 stipulates:
“Material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, must not be included in”
broadcast television and radio services, yet all those occur daily on these Ofcom-regulated services, in contravention of the rules.
Manifold examples exist. Some have already been mentioned. In January, GB News host Josh Howie said that
“the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons…includes paedos”.
What! Ofcom received 70,000 complaints and ruled that GB News had breached its broadcasting code, but after an on-air apology there was no further action. In June, right-wing influencer Based and Bougie claimed on the channel that gay men are “more prone” to “sexual deviancy” and “child sexual assault”. Ofcom received 3,000 complaints and opened a formal standards investigation to which there is no conclusion yet. In July, Caroline Farrow, a well-known anti-gay rights and anti-abortion activist, stated that pride
“is not about gay rights”
but has become about celebrating “bestiality” and “paedophiles”. Ofcom received 12,000 complaints, and we are still waiting. Those are not examples of rogue guests; they are people invited for their extreme views in the age of clickbait.
The story is the same with presenters. On Talk radio last year, Mike Graham stated of dinghies that we should
“destroy them, set fire to them, flamethrow them, do whatever you want with them.”
There is no published Ofcom action. It has twice upheld complaints against that anchor, but there are no published financial penalties or statutory sanctions. This August, Talk radio presenter Kevin O’Sullivan spoke of the
“infestation of thousands and thousands of illegal migrants in our country”.
Ofcom decided after assessing it that there was no breach.
We know that similar remarks have been made by Reform politicians after ITV’s secret filming led to resignations. In normal life, public figures who make or are associated with inflammatory or hateful remarks face professional, social and organisational consequences; with Ofcom, don’t hold your breath. In fact, as its remit has expanded, Ofcom’s published investigations have shrunk; there are fewer and fewer, and long delays. In 2019 there were 142 editorial cases, but by 2025 there were just 36, and decisions in recent years have been glacially slow.
How can Ofcom justify this steep decline and abject lack of urgency, accountability and transparency? Why do these channels feel so able to act with impunity? There is a clear pattern, and unless Ofcom imposes meaningful sanctions to prevent recurrence, it is just going to happen again and again. Clearly, Ofcom is not doing its job. It is not feared and breaches just seem blatant.
Ofcom was once an arm’s length regulator, but it has turned into a curious mixture of free-speech warrior, drum-banger for those lot and passive complaints handler. It often says, “People didn’t complain in the official form, so we are not doing anything about it.” It has defended at all costs channels that style themselves as disruptors but are actually echo chambers lazily putting out the same old content.
In April 2022, Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was interviewed by a husband-and-wife couple of his Back-Bench MPs. It all looked very cosy, but Ofcom took no action. Even when Ofcom found that an interview with the Chancellor on the same show—they had a regular show at the time—breached its due impartiality rules, as the programme had failed to present an appropriately wide range of alternative perspectives, no fine was issued. What is the point when broadcasters know that there will be no consequences?
What is Ofcom’s answer to all this? We had the new chair, Sir Ian Cheshire, before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee the other day, and he said that Ofcom’s critics should
“set up a left-wing version of GB News.”
What? That fails to understand the problem. I must say that Stewart Purvis and Chris Banatvala, the original founders of Ofcom, did not like the way they were named in that response. Sir Ian said, “Stewart and Chris should make their own left-wing show,” but they have never been political. They just want the truth—they want proper journalism—and they had genuine criticisms. Parliament did not legislate for due impartiality to be achieved by balancing one unbalanced broadcaster with another—one partisan with another—so that response smacks of ignorance and arrogance.
I hate to say I told you so, but when Lord Michael Grade did his pre-appointment hearing for chair of Ofcom—I have been on the Committee for that long—I said that his outspoken opinions on the BBC and other culture war issues meant that he was politically partisan. He went through and served his term, and now we have this other one, who is described by the Financial Times as a “City grandee”. He is on £120,000 a year for a three-day week—not bad, is it, to get work like that? He told the pre-appointment hearing that he would take these criticisms seriously, and that he would make it his priority, but like all these regulators, once he got his feet under the table, he appears to have gone native. He is reinforcing Dame Melanie Dawes, the chief executive officer—who is apparently on half a million pounds and is reportedly connected to The Daily Telegraph—whose usual standard answer is, “I do not accept that.” That was the answer that we got the other week, sadly.
Sir Ian said he would look at the blurred distinction between news and current affairs, which is how GB News gets around the requirements. He said that he would make it an immediate priority. He made all these solemn promises to the Committee, but none of it has happened. In fact, the remarks suggest that he does not understand the regulatory framework that he is responsible for overseeing. He said that he would look into politicians presenting shows. I had to say back to him that if a leftie GB News happened and it was as unbalanced as the real thing, I would be the first to complain.
This is not about left and right; it is about right and wrong. Andrew Neil, whom the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, resigned from GB News, describing it as the “biggest mistake” of his 50-year career, because of its descent into bizarre conspiracy theories and its love for the nuttier end of politics. He is no leftie, but he is a journalist, and journalism seems to have been lost in all this lazy opinion stuff that is pumped out.
Ofcom—what is it good for? It is supposed to be a communications watchdog, but it feels overly reactive, ultimately pointless and toothless. Why does this matter? Like everyone in the Chamber, I have been deluged by correspondence from constituents who want a social media ban, so it is all the more important that Ofcom effectively regulates the broadcast world. This is not Fleet Street; these are public service broadcasters. Ofcom should create a safe space for the young online and offline, because the two coalesce and overlap to a great extent. Young people get their news from feeds. Our news media environment has changed—it is far beyond the “One”, the “Six O’Clock” and the “News at Ten”. When Ofcom was first conceived in 2003, social media was not even a glimmer in anybody’s eye. Nobody would have imagined it. The internet still made a noise—that sort of funny sound. In the years since we have seen the influence of traditional broadcasters disrupted by online news and the two things are intertwined.
Ofcom must pull its socks up. There is no incompatibility between freedom of expression and impartiality, but the Ofcom-created rule seems to have been fabricated by some of the right-wing elements within it: under the spurious divide between news and current affairs, a politician cannot read out the news but they can front a current affairs show. In the Boris Johnson era, that divide seems to have been retrofitted on top of the Communications Act in order to green-light GB News, Talk radio and their ilk. They are not public service broadcasters by any stretch of the imagination.
For Ofcom to effectively function, there must be rules and consequences when the rules are broken. Ofwat has abjectly failed because it allows the cowboys of Thames Water to leave a burst water pipe through the summer in my seat, put in place a hosepipe ban for the rest of us, and put a fee on our bills. Ofsted was named in a coroner’s report as a factor in the suicide of a headteacher. Ofcom too is a regulator with which we can find a multitude of faults—maybe its brief has become too big. Presumably my hon. Friend the Minister will know more, but it is probably unfashionable for Governments to create more players on the regulatory playing field. Even so, the world has changed and regulation must keep up. In the meantime, it would appear that the woefully inadequate Ofcom is a regulator that is simply not regulating.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate. We have heard some very good speeches that demonstrate the sprawling remit of Ofcom. As has been eloquently demonstrated by everyone who has spoken in the debate, the size of that remit is, to a large extent, the reason Ofcom is not proving very effective as a regulator. Whether we are talking about Royal Mail, broadband access, the landline switchover, online safety or broadcasting standards, too many people feel that they are being let down. Too often Ofcom appears slow to act, reluctant to use the powers available to it, and unable to provide the robust enforcement that the public expect.
I want to focus most of my comments on one of Ofcom’s largest failings: its failure to protect children from online harms. By Ofcom’s own admission last week, there has been no significant change in the severity or frequency of instances in which children encounter harmful content since the children’s safety duties came into force in July 2025.
Each hon. Member in this debate has heard deeply distressing accounts from constituents, including parents, carers and young people, about the damage caused by content that young people should not have seen online. It is striking that young people themselves often understand the problem better than those who regulate it. In evidence given to Ofcom for its report on the Online Safety Act, one 16-year-old said:
“we need the algorithms to recognise how dangerous these things are, because it only pushes things for them to go viral, it doesn’t consider the safety.”
That young person has identified the heart of the problem: left unregulated, social media companies will continue to prioritise engagement and profit through addictive algorithms. That is why we Liberal Democrats called for a parliamentary review within the first six months of the Act, and why the Government must urgently implement film-style age ratings for harmful social media platforms, which should consider not only the content but the risks posed by addictive algorithms, in order to better protect children online.
I am conscious that Ofcom today announced its recommendations for age verification ahead of the under-16s social media ban, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Although Ofcom has set out options including banking-based checks, photo ID or digital ID, it has made it clear that the onus is on social network providers to come up with their own solutions and comply.
Keeping young people safe online is essential and we cannot do that if we expose their personal information to big US tech platforms. Leaving social media companies free to choose their own methods incentivises the most intrusive checks, undermining trust in much-needed online safety regulations. As I will set out, the problem with Ofcom allowing social media companies to choose how they comply is that Ofcom does not appear to have the resource to audit companies where risk is identified and then actively enforce high standards. We cannot squander the opportunity to make the internet safer through poor implementation. Ofcom must go back to the drawing board and ensure that age verification is effective, proportionate and privacy preserving, because the reality is simple: social media tech giants do not care about our children’s safety; they only care about how they can profit from them. If we do not act, they certainly will not.
The response to the Grok scandal last year illustrates that perfectly. When Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, was used to generate sexualised images of children and women, we Liberal Democrats called for an immediate temporary business disruption order to shut down the site and protect victims. Instead, Ofcom’s investigation dragged on—amazingly, it remains ongoing to this day—while the material continued to circulate. Action was taken only when public outrage forced the platform itself to act. That raises an important question: if Ofcom was unwilling to use its strongest powers in that case, when will it use them? I am not confident that Ofcom has learnt from the incident or that it would use a business disruption order if a similar incident occurred again.
Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has the power to impose financial penalties of up to £18 million, or 10% of global turnover. Ofcom publishes press releases announcing headline fines against non-compliant platforms, but it does not publish data showing how much of those fines is actually collected. It was only during a recent Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee session that Dame Melanie Dawes, chief executive of Ofcom, revealed that of the 11 fines issued since March last year for breaching the Act, only two have been paid. If nine out of 11 fines remain unpaid, that raises serious questions about Ofcom’s effectiveness and suggests that fines are not acting as a meaningful deterrent.
That is why we Liberal Democrats believe that Ofcom should publish clear data not just on how many fines are issued, but on how many have actually been collected and how long enforcement really takes. Parliament and the public deserve to know whether these powers are working in practice. When platforms facilitate the creation or circulation of illegal material, including child sexual abuse material, Ofcom must use all its powers to stop that material from spreading and immediately issue a business disruption order to shut down the platform.
Those concerns about enforcement extend to broadcasting regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) laid out. When MPs and members of the public write to Ofcom flagging systemic breaches of the broadcasting code, including racist language, disinformation and partial coverage, they are routinely met with a refusal to open a formal investigation. That was also the case when my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) —the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—asked for an investigation into coverage by GB News, a broadcaster that is repeatedly let off the hook despite clear breaches of the broadcasting code.
As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said, the chair of Ofcom, while giving evidence to the DCMS Committee last week, suggested that a left-leaning alternative could combat GB News—you couldn’t make it up. That is such a problematic statement, which not only acknowledges that GB News is not politically impartial, but reveals that Ofcom does not believe that the solution is to regulate properly. If a broadcaster is failing to meet standards of due impartiality, the regulator’s job is not to hope that another broadcaster can balance them out; the regulator’s job is actually to regulate. We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our Britain into a version of Trump’s America, but I fear that is the way we seem to be going.
Misinformation and partial news must be tackled, so either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them. At a time when misinformation spreads rapidly with alarming consequences, and trust in our political system is increasingly fragile, effective and impartial regulation has never been more important.
In conclusion, we Liberal Democrats have serious concerns about Ofcom’s ability to enforce its regimes overseeing the Online Safety Act and the broadcasting code, as well as a number of other examples that been referenced, such as Royal Mail, broadband and the landline switchover. We believe that the Government must take those concerns seriously and assess options to increase Ofcom’s effectiveness.
I am very happy to echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for a review. We think that options could include splitting Ofcom into two regulators: one to regulate online and broadcasting content, and the other to regulate communications infrastructure. They could also include the creation of a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, which we have been calling for. The public deserve a regulator that acts swiftly, enforces consistently, puts safety first and instils trust in the public.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing today’s debate. This is a really important topic, and it is clear how passionate she is about it. I really enjoyed her speech and I would love to see her on GB News, creating some of the balance that she was talking about. In fact, a number of Members here would contribute to that important balance, so I look forward to seeing them all on there at some point.
Before I get into some of the detail that has been raised today in compelling contributions, it is important to recognise Ofcom’s extraordinarily broad remit. From broadcasting and telecommunications to postal services and online safety, it regulates communication services that impact British consumers every day. Independent regulation in all those spheres is important. It is right that we should take this opportunity to consider whether Ofcom is delivering on its statutory duties and is well placed to take on the additional responsibilities allocated to it, particularly given how important they are. Across Ofcom’s considerable remit, we often hear the same concerns: the regulator is too slow to act, too reluctant to intervene and too often unable to secure meaningful improvements. We have heard that across the board today.
Broadcasting is the area of regulation that Ofcom is best known for. Ofcom’s broadcasting code requires that news be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality, and significant mistakes should normally be acknowledged and corrected promptly. It also makes it clear that, save in exceptional circumstances, politicians must not act as newsreaders, interviewers or reporters in news programmes. Those are important safeguards. The public should be able to trust that the news on their screens is being reported accurately and without editorial bias.
That said, there is a really important nuance: “due impartiality” was never intended to mean the rigid allocation of equal airtime for every point of view. Ofcom’s rules recognise different programme formats and the importance of context. The exchange of different opinions and political views is both legitimate and healthy when done in line with the code. But rather unsurprisingly, Ofcom finds itself walking a fine line. The regulator must be robust when rules are broken, but without becoming so restrictive that broadcasters shy away from difficult subjects or controversial opinions, and those rules must always be applied consistently, regardless of a broadcaster’s political outlook. The perception that the rules are enforced inconsistently can be as damaging to public confidence as a lack of enforcement.
Ofcom says that it closed nearly 66,000 broadcasting complaints last year and found breaches in 14 cases, following 25 investigations. Those figures demonstrate activity, but tell us much less about whether the final decisions were fair or effective. Interestingly, I can find no record of Ofcom issuing fines where politicians have been involved in reading the news, despite the code’s clear position on that and some high-profile examples. I therefore ask the Minister, bearing in mind the regulator’s operational independence, whether the Government are satisfied with its regulatory performance in respect of broadcast. Are they satisfied that Ofcom, in performing its duties, strikes the right balance between impartiality, accuracy and freedom of expression?
I turn now to online safety. Ofcom’s responsibilities are growing rapidly, particularly when it comes to protecting children from online harms. That is an immensely important area. We will all be aware that Ofcom has reported under section 63 of the Online Safety Act 2023 that it found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful content during the first nine months after the new children’s safety duties took effect. This is an early measure, and we know that some platforms have introduced stronger age checks since; none the less, that initial report is disappointing and concerning. I hope the Minister will update us today on her view on the recommendations in the report and what further actions the Government are considering, if any.
Enforcement in the online sphere can be incredibly challenging. Giving evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this month, Ofcom’s chief executive said that only two out of 11 online safety fines had been paid. In the case of 4chan, it was fined £520,000 in March for breaches, including failing to introduce effective age checks to stop children accessing pornography. Its US lawyer responded to demands for payment with an image of an AI-generated hamster. Unfortunately, that example shows how difficult it can be to enforce against overseas entities, putting Ofcom in an extremely difficult position. I would be grateful if the Minister gave her views on the type of enforcement action that should be taken in these difficult cases, such as last-resort business disruption powers, and whether she would like to see those powers used more.
Let me turn to social media restrictions for under-16s, an area where the Government have done the right thing, albeit belatedly and following huge pressure from the Opposition and the public. Ofcom is expected to oversee compliance here and has acknowledged the challenges posed by circumvention, including through VPNs, and told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it will need additional resources for the task. I hope the Minister can respond to that directly by outlining what assessment the Government have made of Ofcom’s staffing, technical expertise and current enforcement capacity. What lessons are being learned from Ofcom’s work on existing online safety duties, and what measurable outcomes will the House be able to refer to in 12 months from now to ultimately judge how effectively Ofcom has discharged this important new function?
I mentioned Ofcom’s extremely broad remit at the outset, and it would be entirely remiss of me, in my capacity as the Member for Reigate, not to acknowledge its responsibility as the regulator for postal deliveries. Royal Mail is ultimately responsible for running its network, but it is painfully clear to my constituents that repeated fines from Ofcom have done very little to secure the reliable service that we should all expect. I recall a Government Member decrying Ofcom as “utterly toothless” on postal services when we considered this issue earlier in the year. He is certainly not alone in taking that view, as we have heard many times over in Members’ contributions today. When the Minister speaks, I hope we will hear about how we can ensure that sanctions from Ofcom meaningfully translate into more letters arriving on time. Otherwise, really, what is the point?
Before I finish, I want to draw attention to the Public Accounts Committee report of 11 September, which identified the critical role that regulators such as Ofcom play in ensuring that vulnerable customers and those struggling financially are better supported. Its report specifically recommends that regulators need to do more to ensure take-up of discounted social tariffs and other support for consumers on lower incomes. Fewer than 9% of eligible broadband customers are on social tariffs and only a third of customers are aware that they even exist. More urgency from Ofcom could create scope for a more joined-up approach that would avoid customers in vulnerable circumstances having to repeat personal information to multiple service providers. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the recommendations in that report.
That final point brings me back to the purpose of today’s debate. Whether it is ensuring impartial news, children’s safety online, reliable postal deliveries or affordable broadband, Ofcom’s effectiveness has real consequences for the people we represent. Its operational independence is important, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability. As we continue to expand the regulator’s responsibilities, I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government can measure its success and what more can be done to ensure that Ofcom delivers the improvements that the public rightly expect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again this week, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). I do not think we have faced each other across the Chamber, so it is great to see her here today.
The range of issues raised today shows how important Ofcom’s work is to people’s everyday lives, whether that means getting a phone signal, staying connected, having a broadband connection that works, knowing that their children are safer when they pick up a phone or go online, or, of course, having their post delivered. Ofcom’s decisions affect people all across our country. As the UK’s independent regulator for the communication industries, Ofcom’s principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, promoting competition where appropriate. Ofcom helps to ensure that people can access reliable communication services, that broadcasters meet appropriate standards and, increasingly, that people, particularly children, are protected from online harm.
Given that Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been wider or more significant, it is understandable that today’s debate has covered a number of topics, and I will attempt to speak to each of them in turn. I am pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety, and I will relay the issues raised in this debate to him directly.
As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, broadcasting is probably what Ofcom is most well known for, and that is where I will begin. Broadcasting regulation has existed in the UK for 100 years. Since its creation in 2003, Ofcom has had the vital role of regulating the UK’s broadcast media, helping to ensure that TV and radio audiences are protected from harmful material. Through legislation, Parliament requires Ofcom to draft and keep up to date the broadcasting code, which sets out clear rules and guidance including the protection of children and ensuring that the broadcast of news remains accurate and impartial. Through the Government’s media Green Paper, we are considering how to ensure that Ofcom continues to have the right powers to protect audiences and regulate TV services into the future. All Ofcom-licensed broadcasters are subject to the broadcasting code and are Ofcom-regulated. When it comes to news, that means that news in whatever form is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. When broadcasters may have breached the broadcasting code, we of course expect Ofcom to investigate promptly without fear or favour.
I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to comment on ongoing cases, but a question was raised about politicians presenting television programmes. Ofcom’s broadcasting code sets out that politicians may not
“be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified.”
The Government have expressed concerns about the blurring of fact and polemic and about politicians presenting programmes that could reasonably be interpreted as news or current affairs. There is a clear rationale for strengthening these rules. We are currently considering a range of options to tackle this issue and will set out more information and a decision in due course.
I will take away the point that a couple of Members made about communication regarding complaints to Ofcom. A number of people gave examples of Members of Parliament writing to Ofcom and not feeling that they got an acceptable letter or communication back. I will certainly take that to the Media Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about prominence measures—[Interruption.] I thought she was going to intervene; I am about to answer some of her questions. Our “Watch this space” Green Paper sets out two distinct prominence regimes to safeguard UK media online. The first is prominence for trustworthy news. In an era of infinite online information, quality journalism is vital to holding power, including the Government, to account. We want social media platforms to make reporting from high-quality news providers easy to discover. This is not about censorship; it is about defending a free, pluralistic press across the political spectrum. We have not finalised the criteria for trustworthy news and will continue to engage with the sector as we develop proposals.
The second is prominence for wider public service media content on video sharing platforms. From children’s programmes to culture, that content reflects our national story. Our preference remains for sector-led, voluntary agreements on fair commercial terms. The consultation closed on 31 August. Officials are currently analysing the responses, and no final decisions have been made on the regulators.
A number of Members spoke about postal services. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is an independent regulator responsible for postal services. That includes regulating Royal Mail as the UK’s designated universal service provider, and mandates that major parcel companies including Amazon Logistics, DPD, DHL, Evri, Parcelforce and Yodel must have clear complaints procedures, accessible contact channels, defined timelines and trained staff. The Government do not have a role in its regulatory decisions on postal services.
The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for too long. The Minister for the Future of Work was in the Chamber earlier this week during a debate on Royal Mail performance —indeed, I think an hon. Member said that there have been three such debates this week. We value Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability for the outcomes it delivers. Business Ministers recently met the regulator, and they agreed that more needs to be done to tackle persistent service issues. Ofcom is currently concluding its investigation into the company’s 2025-26 performance. We will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail to ensure that our constituents receive the service they are entitled to.
A number of questions were put to me on additional powers for Ofcom. The Government expect Ofcom to use the full range of its existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal services. The Secretary of State reaffirmed the importance of Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator in an appearance at the Business, Innovation Science and Trade Committee on 20 October. He was clear that the Government would be pragmatically considering any future requests for additional powers where they are needed.
Vikki Slade
Can the Minister confirm whether those powers might include compensation and a formal complaints system? It seems quite ridiculous that when someone’s mail is not going anywhere, the only thing they might get is more stamps.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly interesting point, and I will certainly reflect that to the relevant Department. She will appreciate that I cannot be drawn on even the creative policy ideas that she puts to me today, but she has put that on the record, and I will make sure that the relevant Department hears about it.
Online safety is one of the defining issues of our time. The internet has changed how we live, learn and connect, often for the better, but there are clear challenges and dangers that come alongside that. I would like to quote the Secretary of State on this issue:
“This is not the first time in history that new forms of technology have upended society. But what is unique to this moment is that that technology has been developed almost exclusively in the private sphere – so I want to be clear that there is a central role for government in shaping that technology for good.”
Through the Online Safety Act, Parliament gave Ofcom the responsibility of delivering that, and it is right that this House asks how it is progressing. The Government have asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy and present it to Parliament so that its priorities and outcomes can be properly scrutinised. Additionally, Sir Ian Cheshire, the Ofcom chair, is reviewing Ofcom’s enforcement capability, and we will consider his findings carefully. If more changes are needed, we will not hesitate to act.
Ofcom’s role will grow further with our decision to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s—a decision shaped by the more than 116,000 responses to our consultation. Enforcing both the Act and the ban must be Ofcom’s top priority, including robust action against circumvention. The first social media regulations will be laid before Parliament by the end of the year. I am sure that the Media Minister would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further, and particularly the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, who raised a number of points on this. I will ask him to reach out to every Member who has attended the debate, and, if Members would like to, I am sure he would be happy to meet them.
Moving on to issues around telecoms, there was a specific question on the closure of the PSTN. That is on track for 31 January 2027. Hon. Members spoke about the difficulties that some of their constituents face in getting a reliable broadband connection, and they are right to raise that. National coverage matters, and I have seen that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s regulatory regime has facilitated significant investment and growth in the fixed telecoms market. As of January 2026, gigabit broadband coverage stands at 88%. Ofcom’s telecoms access review, published in March this year, provides a stable regulatory framework for the coming years, and continues to support competition and investment across the sector. This infrastructure is critical to households and businesses alike and underpins the delivery of essential public services.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised a number of concerning issues in her constituency around connectivity, particularly around rural broadband. I will ask officials to look into the specific points she raised. The Government are committed to ensuring at least 99% gigabit broadband coverage by 2032, including in rural areas.
Dr Huq
I am grateful to and have a lot of time for the Minister—she has helped me sort many constituency issues. The issue of broadband is not just a rural thing. In my seat, Ealing Central and Acton, which is in London in zones 2 and 3, we have appalling broadband. We have been told that fast fibre will be rolled out, and it would be great if the Minister looked into that. Also, is the distinction between news and current affairs being looked at? It is something that seems to have been invented in the last 10 years for GB News.
Stephanie Peacock
I will reflect my hon. Friend’s second question to the Media Minister, but she is absolutely right that broadband is not just a rural issue. When I was the shadow Media Minister, I did a visit to central London that explained some of the issues around broadband connectivity. We want the whole of the UK to be connected.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of scam calls and texts. I have seen tragic and difficult cases of that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s work to tackle scam calls and fraudulent text messages is an important part of its consumer protection role. It has introduced measures to block calls originating from abroad from using UK mobile numbers and to disrupt scam mobile messages. Those will come into effect in 2027. Alongside the Government’s 2025 telecoms fraud charter and wider fraud strategy, those measures will help to protect consumers. Of course, criminals continue to adapt their tactics, and we expect Ofcom to continue using its powers effectively as the threat evolves. The hon. Lady gave a specific example from the USA; I will raise that with the Media Minister and ask officials to write to her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke in detail and with great experience about the issue of spectrum. Spectrum policy should not be considered in isolation from the Government’s wider objectives for growth, resilience and national capability. The Government sets the strategic direction for spectrum principally through the statement of strategic priorities, while Ofcom independently carries out its statutory functions. Our approach is clear: spectrum management should support investment, competition and innovation while helping to ensure the connectivity and services that the UK relies on are resilient. We keep both our approach to spectrum and the wider regulatory framework under review to ensure that they remain fit for a rapidly changing communications market. My hon. Friend asked a number of other questions; I will make sure she gets a letter from the Media Minister—he is going to be busy following this debate.
It has been a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on this important issue. In conclusion, Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been broader or more important. From supporting growth and investment to promoting competition, protecting consumers, strengthening network resilience and implementing online safety regulation, it occupies a central place in the UK’s regulatory landscape. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate and to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for securing it.
Vikki Slade
We have done very well to debate for an hour and 15 minutes with so few of us in the room. The passion that has been shown and the scope of issues with Ofcom shows how important this matter is. I remain concerned about the capacity of Ofcom to deliver on such a wide range of services and I hope that when the Minister reviews this debate, she will think about extending powers in the media Green Paper and potentially giving a separate role to the postal regulator. I would like to thank everybody for their fantastic speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role and effectiveness of Ofcom.
Written Statements
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local SEND Reform Plan Outcomes
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Every child and young person should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, whatever their needs or circumstances. This Government inherited a SEND crisis, and we are determined to fix it. The Government programme of SEND reform is intended to deliver a more inclusive system that delivers for children and families—one that identifies needs early and provides the right support at the right time. Local leadership and strong partnership working will be central to achieving that ambition. It was against this backdrop that, in March 2026, this Government commissioned all local area partnerships to develop and submit a local SEND reform plan jointly with education, health and care partners.
I want to express my thanks to all local partners for the engagement and dedication that they have demonstrated through this process.
The Department for Education, working with Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England, has reviewed all submitted plans against a consistent quality assessment framework shared with local area partnerships at the point of commission.
Today I am confirming the outcome of that process.
The plans of 139 local area partnerships have been approved upon first submission. This includes both areas with a strong track record of SEND delivery and those where improvement is still needed to secure better outcomes for children and young people. Approval of a plan is not an endorsement of current performance; it reflects the Government’s assessment that the plan has met the required threshold for approval and provides a credible foundation for accelerated delivery. Over 90% of local area partnerships—covering almost every part of the country—have now set out how they will improve support for children and young people with SEND in their local area.
Approval of a local SEND reform plan is a condition of payment of a local authority’s high needs stability grant allocation. The grant will meet 90% of each local authority’s high-needs-related dedicated schools grant deficit and forms a central part of the Government support for local authorities as we move to a reformed SEND system.
Local area partnerships with approved plans must now move swiftly from planning to delivery, implementing their commitments with pace and securing tangible improvements for children and young people with SEND and their families. Approval is a starting point for delivery, not an indication that that further improvement is not still required. Where performance remains inadequate, we will take decisive action. I will shortly publish improvement notices for a number of local areas, setting out the improvements required to strengthen delivery and secure better outcomes for children and young people with SEND.
Twelve local area partnerships’ plans were originally deferred pending revision and resubmission. We have made enhanced, hands-on support available to these areas, focused on helping the partnership to respond to the identified areas for improvement within their plans. We expect these local areas to resubmit their plans by 30 November 2026. Two local areas have already done so, and their revised plans have subsequently been carefully assessed and approved.
Government officials, together with SEND and financial advisers, will continue to engage closely with local partnerships throughout this process. Local areas whose plans have been approved, but where concerns about their delivery capacity and existing performance remain, will receive closer oversight and support focused on helping the partnership translate their plan into sustained improvement and better outcomes for the children and young people with SEND in their care.
As local areas move into accelerated delivery, officials from the Department for Education, Department of Health and Social Care and relevant NHS England teams, working alongside expert advisers, will continue to support and challenge local authorities and integrated care boards. Local delivery will be kept under regular review through the Department’s local area SEND performance and delivery framework. The framework brings together evidence on outcomes for children and young people with SEND, local partnership readiness and capacity, and progress in delivering each local SEND reform plan. We will publish this framework later in the year, setting out transparently how local performance and improvement will be assessed.
Each area’s overall assessment will determine the level of monitoring, engagement and support it receives and, where necessary, the intervention required. All local areas will attend a quarterly review with officials to consider progress against their commitments, the steps that they are taking to strengthen partnership maturity and early evidence of improved experiences and outcomes for children, young people and families. My Department will also use quarterly data on local area progress and dedicated resources to closely monitor performance across the country. We will not hesitate to intervene where local delivery is failing to secure the outcomes children and families should expect.
Delivering this ambitious reform will require sustained collective effort across local government, the NHS, education providers, central Government and the wider sector. We will work alongside local area partnerships—providing the support, investment, challenge and national leadership needed to turn local plans into lasting change—and continue to put the experiences of children, young people and their families at the heart of delivery. Together, we can build a more inclusive, responsive and sustainable SEND system that earns the confidence of children and young people with SEND and their families, and enables every child to achieve and thrive.
Full details of high needs stability grant allocations have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-stability-grant-2026-to-2027
Areas with approved local SEND reform plans
Barking and Dagenham and NHS North East London ICB; Barnet and NHS West and North London ICB; Barnsley and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Bath and North East Somerset and NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB; Bedford and NHS Central East ICB; Bexley and NHS South East London ICB; Birmingham and NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB; Blackburn with Darwen and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Blackpool and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Bolton and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and NHS Dorset ICB; Bracknell Forest and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Brent and NHS West and North London ICB; Brighton and Hove and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Bristol and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB; Bromley and NHS South East London ICB; Buckinghamshire and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Bury and NHS Greater Manchester ICB.
Calderdale and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Camden and NHS West and North London ICB; Central Bedfordshire and NHS Central East ICB; Cheshire East and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Cheshire West and Chester and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Cornwall and NHS Cornwall and The Isles of Scilly ICB; County Durham and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Coventry and NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB; Croydon and NHS South West London ICB.
Darlington and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Derby and NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB; Derbyshire and NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB; Devon and NHS Devon ICB; Doncaster and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Dorset and NHS Dorset ICB; Dudley and NHS Black Country ICB.
Ealing and NHS West and North London ICB; East Riding of Yorkshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; East Sussex and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Enfield and NHS West and North London ICB; Essex and NHS Essex ICB.
Gateshead and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Gloucestershire and NHS Gloucestershire ICB; Greenwich and NHS South East London ICB.
Hackney and NHS North East London ICB; Halton and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Hammersmith and Fulham and NHS West and North London ICB; Hampshire and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Haringey and NHS West and North London ICB; Harrow and NHS West and North London ICB; Hartlepool and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Havering and NHS North East London ICB; Herefordshire, County of and NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire ICB; Hertfordshire and NHS Central East ICB; Hillingdon and NHS West and North London ICB; Hounslow and NHS West and North London ICB.
Isle of Wight and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Islington and NHS West and North London ICB.
Kensington and Chelsea and NHS West and North London ICB; Kent and NHS Kent and Medway ICB; Kingston upon Hull, City of and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; Kingston upon Thames and NHS South West London ICB; Kirklees and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Knowsley and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB.
Lambeth and NHS South East London ICB; Lancashire and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Leeds and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Leicester and NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB; Leicestershire and NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB; Lincolnshire and NHS Lincolnshire ICB; Luton and NHS Central East ICB.
Manchester and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Medway and NHS Kent and Medway ICB; Merton and NHS South West London ICB; Middlesbrough and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB.
Newcastle upon Tyne and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Norfolk and NHS Norfolk and Suffolk ICB; North East Lincolnshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; North Lincolnshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; North Northamptonshire and NHS Northamptonshire ICB; North Somerset and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB; North Tyneside and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; North Yorkshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; Northumberland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Nottingham and NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB; Nottinghamshire and NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB.
Oldham and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Oxfordshire and NHS Thames Valley ICB.
Peterborough and NHS Central East ICB; Plymouth and NHS Devon ICB; Portsmouth and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB.
Reading and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Redcar and Cleveland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Richmond upon Thames and NHS South West London ICB; Rochdale and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Rotherham and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Rutland and NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB.
Salford and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Sandwell and NHS Black Country ICB; Sefton and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Sheffield and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Shropshire and NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB; Solihull and NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB; Somerset and NHS Somerset ICB; South Gloucestershire and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB; South Tyneside and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Southampton and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Southwark and NHS South East London ICB; St Helens and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Staffordshire and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB; Stockport and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Stockton- on-Tees and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Stoke-on-Trent and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB; Suffolk and NHS Norfolk and Suffolk ICB; Sunderland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Surrey and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Sutton and NHS South West London ICB; Swindon and NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB.
Tameside and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Telford and Wrekin and NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB; Torbay and NHS Devon ICB; Tower Hamlets and NHS North East London ICB; Trafford and NHS Greater Manchester ICB.
Wakefield and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Walsall and NHS Black Country ICB; Waltham Forest and NHS North East London ICB; Wandsworth and NHS South West London ICB; Warrington and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Warwickshire and NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB; West Northamptonshire and NHS Northamptonshire ICB; West Sussex and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Westminster and NHS West and North London ICB; Westmorland and Furness and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Wigan and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Wiltshire and NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB; Windsor and Maidenhead and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Wirral and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Wokingham and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Wolverhampton and NHS Black Country ICB; Worcestershire and NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire ICB.
York and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB.
Areas with approved local SEND reform plan following revision and resubmission
Cumberland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Liverpool and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB.
Areas with deferred local SEND reform plans pending revision and resubmission
Bradford and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Cambridgeshire and NHS Central East ICB; Lewisham and NHSE South East London ICB; Milton Keynes and NHS Central East ICB; Newham and North East London ICB; Redbridge and NHS North East London ICB; Slough and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Southend-on-Sea and NHS Essex ICB; Thurrock and NHS Essex ICB; West Berkshire and NHS Thames Valley ICB.
[HCWS431]
Water Company Performance Publication
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Today, for the first time, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate are publishing a joint water company performance insights report. This reflects the Government’s drive for more integrated regulation of the sector, leaving companies with nowhere to hide poor performance. Alongside the environmental performance assessment for 2025 and operational performance report for 2025-26, it gives the public an overarching picture of how their water companies are performing and makes clear where companies are failing to deliver for the environment. Joined up scrutiny means companies can no longer point to progress in one area to distract from failures in another.
The findings show why change cannot wait. Poor performance is unacceptable. Pollution remains far too high, with too many serious pollution incidents. Only one company achieved the top four-star environmental rating, and four received the lowest one-star rating—the chief executive officers for these companies will not be eligible for bonuses under the new rules we have introduced. Too many customers still face avoidable service failures. Improvements in some areas do not excuse persistent failings elsewhere. While drinking water quality remains high, and though there has been progress on some customer and environmental measures, performance in other areas continues to fall short.
I am demanding answers from underperforming companies. Ministers will visit companies with the most serious pollutions to see what actions they are taking to prevent them happening again. We will call in chief executives to challenge failures and scrutinise delivery of vital infrastructure improvements. My message to the sector is clear: cut pollution, tackle leaks, improve customer service and deliver the infrastructure needed to secure future water supplies. The record investment approved for 2025 to ’30 must translate into visible improvements for customers, communities and the environment—not more excuses.
We have strengthened regulators’ enforcement powers through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Companies that fail must face consequences, including fines and prosecutions where performance falls short. But accountability today must go hand in hand with lasting reform. Our forthcoming 10-year plan for Britain will set out stronger public control over water, underpinned by a strengthened Water Bill. The Secretary of State has already set out her expectations for the next price review to deliver better value for money for struggling households. More joined-up regulation now is part of building a water system that protects the environment, secures supplies and earns back the trust of the people who pay for it.
[HCWS433]
New Safe and Legal Sponsorship Routes for Refugees
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
In November 2025, the Government published the restoring order and control statement, which committed to tackle the vile smuggling gangs who seek to exploit our borders with no regard for human life and to reform the asylum and immigration system. Alongside bringing order and control to the immigration system, we must do this fairly by providing sanctuary to those in genuine need and reducing the pull factors for illegal and dangerous journeys.
The UK has a long-standing history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution from around the world. The UK is a compassionate country, that lives up to its international obligations and saves the lives of those fleeing war and persecution.
The Government are continuing this tradition by creating new safe and legal sponsorship routes. New named community sponsorship, refugee work and refugee study routes will create safe and legal pathways for refugees to come to the UK, enabling communities, universities and employers to identify refugees they wish to sponsor. By connecting refugees with communities, universities and employers that are ready to support them, the routes are being designed to promote successful integration from arrival.
These routes will be capped and controlled, with the number of arrivals based on community capacity to sponsor refugees. The Government expect arrivals of UNHCR-approved refugees across the new routes and the existing UK resettlement scheme to number in the hundreds at first, but this will grow into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall.
Applications will open today for organisations to be accredited as lead sponsors for the named community sponsorship and refugee study routes. Applications for the refugee work route will open in spring 2027. Lead sponsors will play a key role in the new routes, acting as intermediaries between the Home Office and sponsor groups and providing assurance that sponsor groups are delivering positive outcomes for refugees, communities and our country. Lead sponsors will be responsible for engaging and onboarding sponsors, assessing the suitability of proposed sponsorship arrangements, submitting applications to the Home Office and providing ongoing support to sponsor groups. The Home Office will continue to conduct appropriate security checks on individual refugees and make all immigration decisions.
To be accredited as a lead sponsor, organisations will be required to demonstrate that they are a registered UK charity or community interest company based and operating in the UK and have appropriate policies and procedures in place to undertake the lead sponsor role. They will also be required to demonstrate they have the capability, resources and networks to deliver the lead sponsor role.
The routes will initially operate from Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Uganda. To be eligible, refugees will need to be outside their country of nationality, and to have been present and registered with relevant authorities or UNHCR in one of these seven countries before 1 October 2026. The Government are introducing the new routes in phases, starting in a limited number of countries to establish effective delivery arrangements.
The first arrivals through these routes are expected in autumn 2027. The new routes will enable refugees to come to the UK and provide them with an opportunity for a better life. However, it is imperative that these routes are only used to support refugees with a genuine need for protection to resettle in the UK. This is why we will work in partnership with the UNHCR who will assess refugees through established processes. All refugees who are identified will be required to meet identity, security and eligibility requirements and have suitable sponsorship arrangements in place to be granted status.
Further details of the new routes, including refugee and sponsor eligibility requirements, will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS434]
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
This Government are committed to a fundamental rewiring of a system that for too long has seen power held in Westminster and Whitehall, rather than with people and the places where they live, work and invest. Strong and sustainable local government is the foundation of our rewiring the state agenda.
Reorganising 21 two-tier areas across England will impact nearly a third of the population of England and last for generations to come, so it is important that we consider our approach and decisions fully, and plan for the long term. On 7 September, the Secretary of State therefore announced that we were undertaking a review of the local government reorganisation programme to make sure that the process was robust, and that it meets the priorities of a new Administration and the new Prime Minister.
Since we made that announcement, I have listened closely to a wide range of voices from the local government sector and those that care about it—from local leaders and sector partners, to mayors and Members of Parliament. I recognise the strength of feeling about the decisions announced so far, both from those who raised concerns about them and from those who support them. While there remain different views about the right outcome for each area, I am grateful for the constructive way in which places have continued to engage with me and my officials.
I know the announcement has had a significant impact on local councils, councillors and staff across the country, and I am grateful for the patience they have shown throughout this process. I recognise that the review period has not been easy, and I do not take for granted their continued commitment to the long-term work needed to fix the foundations and put local government in the best possible position.
Above all, I have heard a clear message from colleagues: you want clarity about what happens next and what it means for your area. Today, I want to provide that clarity and set out the way forward for each area.
Review: phase 1
I am pleased to report that the first phase of the review is now complete.
Working with the Secretary of State and officials, I have interrogated the key pillars and framework underpinning the local government reorganisation programme, including whether the existing unweighted criteria set in February 2025 and its objectives continue to support the policy priorities of the new Government.
I have concluded that the basis of the programme is robust and that the existing criteria against which proposals have been submitted were both correct on their own terms and continue to support the Government’s policy agenda.
Single-tier local councils are a key enabler of the rewiring the state agenda. Stronger, more sustainable unitary councils will support more effective partnership working between local, regional and central Government and better outcomes for economic growth, building the houses local people need, helping reform public services, and empowering local communities. They will be strengthened further by new measures brought forward in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, for instance on neighbourhood governance and community ownership.
Following this initial phase of the review, I can therefore confirm that the Government remain committed to delivering local government reorganisation and that we will continue to move forward with the programme based on the existing criteria, which I hope gives confidence as we move ahead.
Throughout this phase of the review, Ministers and officials have heard from leaders and officers from all corners of the local government reorganisation programme, as well as key local government stakeholders. I know that consensus on the outcome in every area is not possible, but I have heard that more can, and must, be done to recognise the demands being placed on council leaders and senior leadership teams; to make sure councils feel supported to deliver such important changes including in relation to disaggregation; and to build consensus on how we deliver this programme and the timetable in each area.
I am clear that central and local government work best when we work in partnership and I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that this Government are an active partner that local government feels able to rely on.
Review: “minded to” decisions
I am now able to set out a timeline for concluding the final phase of the review across the 20 areas in the review other than Surrey and confirming the outcome for each.
I hope this will give local councils the certainty they need to plan ahead, while giving us the time necessary to complete our consideration of each individual area.
I have considered carefully whether outcomes should be announced together or as decisions are reached. I have concluded that councils should not be asked to wait unnecessarily once the consideration of their area is complete. We will therefore inform councils at the earliest practical opportunity, meaning that some areas will receive an outcome before others.
First, I am now able to give further clarity in respect of five of the 14 areas with decisions taken in July. In these areas, the proposals received, their merits, and all relevant evidence and views have been carefully considered against the existing criteria.
Following this consideration, we are minded to implement, subject to a representations process and parliamentary approval, the following proposals:
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove: Two unitary proposal submitted by East Sussex county council, Eastbourne borough council, Hastings borough council, Lewes district council and Rother district council—with the boundary change requested by Brighton and Hove city council, with the exception of Falmer parish.
Gloucestershire: One unitary proposal submitted by Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council, and Tewkesbury borough council.
Oxfordshire: Three unitary proposal submitted by Oxford city council, including the adjoining area of West Berkshire council—with the boundary change Oxford city council requested alongside the proposal.
Warwickshire: Two unitary proposal submitted by North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council.
Worcestershire: Two unitary proposal submitted by Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council.
It should be noted that the Secretary of State has recused herself from local government reorganisation decisions in the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove invitation area, so I will take decisions there.
These five areas are receiving letters setting out the rationale for why we are minded to proceed with these proposals. Before we take our final decision, there will be a minimum period of three weeks, during which those interested may make further representations to me. I will shortly confirm the start and end date for this representations period and I will also set out how councils and interested parties can make representations. Any final implementation decision would also be subject to parliamentary approval. To be clear, the previous decisions in these five areas made in July 2026 are today withdrawn.
For the remaining nine areas where decisions were also announced in July 2026, we will consider these areas further in the next phase of the review, with more detail set out below. To give councils clarity on the status of the existing decisions while we do that, the Secretary of State and I today are also withdrawing the decisions announced in July 2026 for the following areas:
Derbyshire and Derby
Devon, Plymouth and Torbay
Hertfordshire
Kent and Medway
Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool
Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland
Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire
Nottinghamshire and Nottingham
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
For the avoidance of doubt, all options and proposals in these areas will remain under consideration as part of the review.
Review: next phases
I now turn to the next phases of the review and those 15 remaining areas due to have a “minded to” decision:
The nine areas listed above where decisions have now been withdrawn;
The four areas—Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; and Suffolk—where decisions were withdrawn in September; and
The two areas—West Sussex and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—where decisions have not yet been taken.
I believe it is right to take a structured approach to the review and give each area the serious and deep consideration it deserves given the significance of these decisions.
As I have set out above, we will seek to inform councils at the earliest practical opportunity, meaning that some of these 15 remaining areas will receive an outcome before others.
We commit to coming back to this House with updates on outcomes in another set of areas by Christmas—and I commit that we will work to ensure that every area will have an outcome by early next year.
Elections
In September, we set out that the review meant that elections scheduled to take place in May 2027 would go ahead to existing councils. This remains the position for all 20 areas covered above. In those areas, the timetable is for elections to new councils to happen in May 2028 followed by vesting day on 1 April 2029.
Capacity and transition funding
I recognise the impact and costs of ongoing uncertainty and delay, which I have also considered in the initial phase of the review.
I understand that areas will have incurred costs associated with local government reorganisation in good faith.
For areas where new unitaries were previously announced, we will pay 50% of the £900,000 of transition support per new unitary, based on the number of new unitaries in the initial announcement. This funding is guaranteed and will be paid in the coming weeks. It is not contingent on the outcome of the review. For Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, where no decisions have been previously announced, we will instead pay £500,000 to each area.
When final decisions are made, we will pay the balance of the £900,000 of transition support per each new unitary, taking account of funding already paid to its area, as well as £150,000 of supplementary funding per new unitary for leadership capacity and continuity in children’s services, adult social care and public health.
Committee system
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 sets out that all councils operating the committee system must transition to a leader and cabinet executive by 29 June 2027, except where they are “protected” or secondary legislation has been made under which they would be dissolved.
The Secretary of State has discretion to extend the deadline for transition by up to one year. She may do this if she considers it likely that secondary legislation to deliver local government reorganisation will be made in relation to a council during the one-year period between 29 June 2027 and 29 June 2028.
This would include where a “minded to” decision on local government reorganisation is made envisaging legislation to implement local government reorganisation in an area within the extension period.
The purpose of allowing extensions in legislation is to ensure that councils undergoing local government reorganisation would not have to move from the committee system to a leader and cabinet executive shortly before being dissolved. This remains the Government position.
City status and ceremonial matters
We recognise the pride, history and identity that sits behind our cities and counties which is why we will work with areas to make sure city status and any ceremonial rights are preserved following reorganisation. City status and ceremonial matters play a valuable role for pride of place in our local communities. These issues have been raised by local areas and Members of Parliament for some time, and we recognise that this is an important programme of work. Subject to any final decisions taken on reorganisation, we will work with places to protect their city status, by reviewing all available options and relevant precedents, including bringing new legislation to this House where it is necessary to do so, and likewise, for any ceremonial matters currently held by councils that would be abolished.
Next steps
I have committed to this being a full, considered review, and to giving colleagues in councils and local people clarity on their future as soon as possible. I recognise the tension between these two objectives but would like to reiterate my appreciation to colleagues across the House and within local government for their ongoing patience as we progress this review. I will keep the House updated on progress.
As before, this review and update does not impact Surrey, where the new West Surrey and East Surrey councils will go live in April 2027.
[HCWS432]
Investigatory Powers Commissioner: 2025 Annual Report
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. the Lord Leveson of Liverpool. This report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and the Technology Advisory Panel for 2025.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, as outlined in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This oversight encompasses the inspection and authorisation by judicial commissioners of the use of these powers by over 600 public authorities. This includes the intelligence and security services and law enforcement agencies.
Overall, the report provides a positive assessment of the use of investigatory powers during the reporting period, finding that they continue to be exercised in accordance with the IPA 2016 and other relevant legislation. Lord Leveson notes the strong commitment to compliance demonstrated by those authorities within his remit, and their constructive engagement with IPCO’s oversight regime. While the report identifies a number of issues and areas for improvement, he is satisfied that our agencies and departments are working with IPCO to address them.
Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of investigatory powers is vital for national security and public safety. This report demonstrates the high quality of oversight of our intelligence and security services and public authorities’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are among the strongest and most effective in the world.
Alongside its core authorisation and oversight functions, IPCO took on a significant additional responsibility in 2025: leading the independent investigation into the Agent X case following the High Court’s judgment. Lord Leveson and his team have delivered this important work while continuing to discharge their day-to-day responsibilities to the highest standard.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Lord Leveson, the judicial commissioners and the IPCO team for their hard work throughout 2025. Their professionalism, dedication and unwavering commitment help to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in the oversight of investigatory powers.
In accordance with section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify both Houses that there is material considered too sensitive for the open report, on which I have been briefed separately. The contents of this open report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.
I will be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers, as required under section 234(8) of the IPA.
[HCWS430]
Carer’s Allowance: Call for Evidence Responses
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
On 7 July 2026 the Government launched a call for evidence on the modernisation of carer’s allowance. We received more than 3,805 responses, and I want to thank everyone who responded and shared their experiences.
Today we are publishing the findings of those responses which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/carers-allowance-call-for-evidence. Alongside research into the impact of the increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit in April 2025 to match 16 hours at the national living wage which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carers-allowance-increased-earnings-limit-evaluation
The findings are varied, but there is broad consensus around the need to modernise the treatment of earnings and to reduce the risk of overpayments. These findings— alongside those of the Sayce review into overpayments of carer’s allowance linked to earnings—have informed the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of work to remove the cliff-edge earnings rule in carer’s allowance once the necessary infrastructure is in place. This will include changes to automate earnings data, and to provide greater predictability in how earnings are treated in the calculation of carer’s allowance.
We are providing regular updates to the Work and Pensions and Public Accounts Committees on progress in implementing the Government response to the Sayce review and will keep Parliament informed of progress with these longer-term reforms to adapt carer’s allowance to modern patterns of care and work.
[HCWS429]
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Rochester
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: AI Sector
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of current business confidence among small and medium-sized enterprises in the AI sector and what actions they are taking to encourage investment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s core evidence is the AI sector study. The 2024 study found that SMEs make up 96% of UK AI firms, and nearly 90% of firms surveyed expected revenue growth within a year. To encourage investment, the sovereign AI fund, backed by up to £500 million, invests directly in British AI start-ups, alongside free compute through the AI research resource, Innovate UK’s £130 million growth catalyst, and a £100 million R&D procurement scheme.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Answer and welcome the announcements in yesterday’s Budget in support of AI. Across a kaleidoscope of initiatives, the Government announced a total of about £600 million. To put that into context, JP Morgan advises that US hyperscalers driven by AI investment this year alone will invest $697 billion. There is a fundamental difference between investing in AI technology and enabling British businesses to benefit from it. That is where we need to focus. I declare my interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance, a grouping of over 300 British AI tech SMEs that are searching for support from the Government. With the new programme for local funding on AI adoption worth £30 million and focused on Yorkshire, does the Minister recognise the risk of creating a two-tier AI economy where larger businesses and those in selected regions benefit while others fail?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday’s Budget announcement demonstrates our commitment to turning AI ambition into practical outcomes. Alongside the £700 million in wider AI investment, we are providing, as the noble Lord has mentioned, £30 million for locally led AI adoption partnerships, starting in Yorkshire, and £60 million for an AI pathway fund. These initiatives will help businesses overcome adoption barriers, build skills and improve productivity. Working alongside local leaders in the industry will ensure that funding delivers measurable benefits for British businesses across the country.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. The Government talk of sovereign AI but continue to award their biggest data and tech contracts to US hyperscalers. What share of public AI procurement is intended to go to British SMEs under the new UK supplier definition?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord, says but I say again that our £100 million R&D procurement scheme will help British start-ups develop innovative solutions to government challenges. We are making government a smarter, more accessible customer and creating procurement opportunities for smaller firms instead of favouring established suppliers. Through the sovereign AI fund, we are also supporting early start-up procurement, enabling innovative businesses to demonstrate that technologies generate revenue and attract private investment.
I encourage noble Lords to visit local university science and technology hubs and see innovative AI companies. I was up in Manchester yesterday and there I saw young people and exciting projects. Perhaps noble Lords could go out to university science parks and be encouraged by what is being developed in this country.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government’s support for, and adoption of, an open source AI framework could greatly reduce the barriers to entry for smaller firms and accelerate investment, particularly if this could be done in partnership with allied nations across the world?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. That is why the British Business Bank has £25.6 billion in financial capacity to support smarter and smaller businesses, including £4 billion in growth capital specifically for innovative research-intensive companies. The sovereign AI fund works alongside the bank, including co-investing in a company called Ineffable Intelligence, a London-based artificial intelligence research lab. Meanwhile, the National Wealth Fund, with £27.8 billion to deploy, is mobilising private investment in AI infrastructure, including a guaranteed £202 million to support various AI companies.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the register. I too welcome the investment in AI in yesterday’s Budget. AI presents a significant opportunity for businesses to innovate, attract investment and grow our economy. However, it also risks widening the existing gender gap in skills, pay, innovation, leadership and investment. Our own research found that 43% of young women entering the workforce are concerned that AI will replace them. We also know that only 2% of funding from venture capitalists has gone to all-female founding teams. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking, in partnership with businesses, to ensure that women have equal access to AI skills, AI-enabled employment, and opportunities for innovation, leadership and investment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am very proud to co-chair a women in industry taskforce. I work with women leaders every day to encourage them to start their businesses, especially in tech. I am sure my noble friend will appreciate and welcome yesterday’s Budget, in which the Chancellor said that he will work with the Women in Tech Taskforce to find ways that women founders can access available finance. If we empowered women in tech in the same way as men, it would generate £300 billion for the economy. We must support women tech founders.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have a nice, short question: AI investors have told the Government that energy costs are the barrier to investment here, so can the Minister say why yesterday’s Budget found room to cut tariffs on gherkins but not cut the energy costs holding back our AI capacity?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord should read the entire Red Book. We are supporting AI companies in many ways. As far as data centres are concerned, we are ensuring that our national grid is linked up to them. At the same time, we are supporting the entire AI ecosystem, in every aspect of a company within that system. There is a lot more to do, and we are doing it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, back in 2017, the Made Smarter Review identified that a major impediment to SMEs adopting the then-available technology was the management’s expertise and knowledge, particularly around digital issues. Putting his Small Business Minister hat on, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what the Government are doing to enable those small businesses that could grow using AI to get the expertise they need to do so?
Lord Leong (Lab)
As Minister for Small Businesses, I spend every day talking to businesses of all sizes, including small AI start-ups. We must ensure that small companies have access to finance to start their business. At the same time, we need to encourage young people to take up AI skills. We are committed to training 10 million young people in AI skills and, so far, 2.2 million have completed programmes.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I commend the Government for their investment in Isambard 1 computing at Bristol University, which I gather has now had approaches from several hundred SMEs to use its computing power, which is one of the fastest processors globally. What plans do the Government now have to install Isambard 2, which I understand Bristol University would welcome and would increase even further the United Kingdom’s compute power?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. We have to invest not only in compute power but in quantum. The Government have set up their programme whereby they will mobilise investment through the sovereign AI fund to invest in some of the supercomputers across the country.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is not just a matter of government resources. Many enterprising businesses are now coming into this field. I welcome the work going on in Yorkshire at present, to which the Minister referred. Surely, though, this is to do with even greater encouragement by government of those who are investing, to try to make that sure academia is heavily involved and that all the businesses that are raring to go to develop and innovate in AI are able to do so with full government encouragement.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The Government are absolutely encouraging universities and academics to support the Government’s programme on AI. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I have spent the last couple of weeks visiting various universities and science and technology hubs. All of us should really welcome the exciting start-ups being set up at these university science parks. The UK is not short of innovators and we have a pipeline. We will likely see some of our innovators be unicorn companies.
Gwyndod Project
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Gwyndod Project on civil nuclear employment in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
Great British Energy-Nuclear is continuing to drive forward Gwyndod, the UK’s first small modular reactor project. Great British Energy-Nuclear and Rolls-Royce SMR entered contract earlier this year and are now undertaking design work to progress the Gwyndod SMR project on Anglesey in north Wales. The project, which represents the most significant industrial investment in north Wales for a generation, will support up to 3,000 skilled jobs on site at peak construction, and thousands more across the supply chain.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Project Gwyndod indeed presents a unique opportunity to create thousands of skilled jobs, to transform local communities and to help Wales become a world leader in nuclear technology and its supply chain, but to achieve that ambition, we must also invest in the infrastructure and connectivity of that region, including an upgrade to the A55. What steps are the Government planning to take to ensure that this project is not held back by the current deficiencies in infrastructure?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
Of course infrastructure is vital, and I recognise the point the noble Baroness makes about Wales becoming a world leader and her commitment to Wales. This Government support the development of infrastructure very strongly, as has been evidenced on many occasions. The Government will work in partnership with the Welsh Government to deliver better transport in north Wales. This was demonstrated by Transport for Wales increasing the number of trains on the north Wales coastline by about half in May. In its planning for the delivery of the Gwyndod project, Great British Energy-Nuclear will consider the infrastructure required.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, we have in the NHS a network of cyclotrons, which produce loaded medical isotopes. What we do not have is reactor-based production of isotopes, so we import 80% to 90% of those isotopes from abroad, with supply chains often precarious. This means that our patients, particularly cancer patients, have delays in getting their treatment. The Welsh Government produced a good business plan for reactor-based production of isotopes in Wales, at a cost of £400 million and lasting 70 years. If Wales is not an ideal place, maybe the Government will consider Scotland—but when are we going to have such reactor-based production?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised a very important point. I would always support the performance of devolved Governments in the UK, and I note the point he makes. I understand there have been discussions on the Project ARTHUR proposal with the Department of Health and Social Care, though there has not been any formal commitment to a specific project. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to ensuring resilient medical radioisotope supplies and making use of diverse international supply chains, alongside greater UK manufacturing capability. Wider funding, including through the £520 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, has been made available to support UK manufacturing. However, I note the point he has made about Scotland and his other points, and I will ensure they are communicated to the relevant departments, because if it is raised in Parliament in this manner, it matters to departments and they should pay attention to it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in Scotland, as my noble friend knows, Hunterston and Torness are coming to the end of their lives shortly, yet new nuclear in Scotland is opposed by the Scottish Government. I know that the UK Government do not want to upset the Scottish Government. However, since energy is a reserved area, is this not exactly an area in which we should use our sovereign powers and overrule the Scottish Government?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
That was interesting and challenging, as ever, from the noble Lord. I do not know how well people know this, but I am not really on record as being frightened to upset the Scottish Government—I do not think they would have that view, either.
The noble Lord raises a very serious point. There have been discussions about nuclear power in Scotland. The Green Party had a debate at their conference, and it has resisted it, unfortunately, and the SNP has stood against it. They have missed huge opportunities to contribute to the development of clean energy in Scotland and across the UK. They are also turning their back on huge opportunities for investment and infrastructure development, and the development of skills. Of course, we have high standards of safety and security, overseen by independent regulators, and we have made enormous progress on this. The SNP has been very backward in its attitude, so I will use every opportunity I can to pursue this issue with the SNP Government—and I am not frightened to do so.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we very much welcome the progress that has been made on this important project at Gwyndod. I ask the Minister to give some further information on the skills pipeline needed. We recognise that there is the opportunity of 300 apprenticeships and 3,000 jobs, but what action are the Government taking to ensure that local Welsh residents, including Welsh speakers, are able and empowered to apply for these jobs and that they turn into long-lasting opportunities?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
It is really important to make the point, too, that Wales must be part of this. Often, we have seen projects in the past that have not emphasised that connection to the local community, and we must take those opportunities to do that—so I agree with noble Earl’s emphasis on that. Also, as the Chancellor, John Healey, said yesterday, we must make investment work twice, and we need to make sure we do that in the energy department too, so we get a skills bonus as well as a delivery bonus. We agree that it must represent the most significant industrial investment in the region in Wales for a generation. As I have said, it will support 3,000 jobs. There is a nuclear skills plan, focused not simply on growing the nuclear workforce but on creating a strong, sustainable pipeline of skills, and it is something we will keep under close attention.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is absolutely right that the Scottish Nationalist Government have been a blocker of nuclear power—but they are not the only Luddites in our political system. It was of course Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, who stood in the way of new nuclear, and this Government face opposition from regulators who use legacy EU rules to stop new nuclear power. Fish protection measures have already cost more than £700 million in the development of Hinkley Point. The government-commissioned Fingleton review pointed out how we could deal with these measures, but the Government have refused to implement—
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My goodness, there was a lot in that, and I am not sure I heard it all with some of the demands for a question out of it, but I can assure the noble Lord that I would never deny that there have been challenges in delivering our nuclear policy. We have had challenges in planning. It has been far too slow, which is why the Fingleton review was undertaken. We have committed to implementing the 47 recommendations of the Fingleton review and we are implementing some of them already. There will be lots of opportunities to discuss this matter further, when perhaps we can have a more detailed discussion as we take forward the legislation. I suspect the notion of Brexit and the EU will be a continuing matter for discussion in this House.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
As someone who grew up on Ynys Môn, many of my friends had to leave the island to get a job. After 15 years of a Conservative Government in London and many years of a Labour Government in Cardiff, that has been an economic disaster for Wales. So, can the Minister commit to recruiting locally for this project, so we do not have another generation that has to leave the island just for a job?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
Again, that is a very serious question and a matter that demands close attention. I would need to look at the details of the particular island rather than give the noble Baroness guarantees, but I can assure her that the principle of local employment, ensuring local communities benefit from infrastructure development, is at the centre of what we do. We will keep it closely monitored and ensure there is a skills pipeline coming through, because a range of jobs are associated with nuclear projects, from the very highly skilled through to apprenticeships, which are vital. Overall, our commitment is to growth in every postcode: economic regeneration for all the UK. It was a model between the Plaid Cymru Government and the UK Government to develop this project. Michael Shanks was there last week with the Welsh Government Minister, and they were seen delivering together. That is a constructive approach. We have our differences, but on employment regeneration, we can work together.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, while I welcome the employment opportunities expected from the Gwyndod project, does my noble friend the Minister agree that success should be measured not simply by the number of jobs created but by whether they are secure, high-paid, union-recognised jobs, filled by local people? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this ambitious project creates a sustainable pipeline of engineers, technicians and skilled tradespeople, not just in north Wales but nationwide, supporting both this initiative and the UK’s future nuclear programme as a whole?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
That is another vital dimension of this. I should have said earlier that the nuclear skills hubs include the Wales hub. They are a UK-wide approach that brings employers, training providers and partners together to address local skills needs and strengthen that pipeline of talent needed to support the sector’s future. The plan is also to strengthen apprenticeships, graduate programmes, doctoral research and technical career paths, to develop the engineers, technicians and skilled workforce needed to support the UK’s current and future nuclear ambitions. We all know that, economically, that has a read-across to other industries and skills, as well as knock-on effects for suppliers. We want to release this money, to make it work twice and to make sure we have high-level, well-paid jobs that, of course, are unionised too.
Online Safety Act 2023: Platform Categorisation
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
To ask His Majesty’s Government why Ofcom’s register of categorised services contains no platform categorised by reference to risk or functionality alone, when the Online Safety Act 2023 permits it; and why small, high-harm platforms, including those hosting antisemitic and suicide-related content, remain outside Category 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, Ofcom assessed and designated services on the register, in line with the regulations passed by Parliament, in February 2025. These set category 1 threshold conditions, combining user numbers and functionalities. Category 1 is intended for platforms with a minimum of 7 million monthly UK users, reflecting their reach and influence. Smaller services are required to tackle illegal content, including suicide, self-harm and antisemitic content, that meets the legal threshold and to protect children from harmful content.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister very much for her Answer, but the real reason is that, in 2025, then Ministers chose to accept Ofcom’s advice to categorise online platforms on the basis of user numbers alone. Do current Ministers now accept that Ofcom would have been better able, for example, to block a notorious suicide forum, to tackle platforms promoting hate-filled antisemitic content, or those recruiting people for activities hostile to the United Kingdom, if it had followed what this House legislated for in 2023? If Ministers had pushed back on Ofcom’s advice and instead required it to categorise platforms on the basis of functionality or size, as the House wanted, would that have given Ministers that flexibility?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Categorisation, as the noble Baroness knows, does not determine whether a service is regulated or subject to enforcement by Ofcom. The Government considered options to categorise small but risky services, including those proposed by many thoughtful people on this complicated issue, but ultimately a workable and robust condition for capturing small but risky services was not found. I emphasise that the Government share the significant concerns about small but risky services, such as those that exist purely to stoke hate and division. Ofcom has established the Small but Risky Services Taskforce. It has monitored and carried out active engagement with the providers of 14 services that represent a significant risk of harm to children, from harmful content they host or disseminate. A number of those have geo-blocked the UK as a result, but the Government keep the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act under review and will not hesitate to take further action where there is clear evidence it is needed.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, currently, the Online Safety Act requires platforms to conduct suitable and sufficient risk assessments but does not legally require platforms to take action to address the risks identified in these assessments. Does the Minister think that the OSA should be amended to deal with that problem?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The implementation of the Online Safety Act is something the Government are highly focused on. We have asked Ofcom to look at capabilities; the chair of Ofcom is looking at capabilities around supervision and enforcement. We are taking further measures to protect children, with the restricting of social media companies providing services to under-16s. We are very live to the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act. As the Secretary of State and others have said, where we find evidence that more action is needed, we will take it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, pro-anorexia online forums promote extremely dangerous content, exacerbating eating disorders, yet Ofcom has chosen not to take powers to tackle these pernicious sites, despite knowing that anorexia has the highest mortality rate of all eating disorders. Are the Government reviewing how Ofcom is using the powers that this Parliament gave it to tackle small, high-harm eating disorder forums, and if it is not, will it commit to doing so?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I mentioned, the Government share the significant concerns about small but risky services. The Ofcom taskforce is working to ensure compliance with the Online Safety Act, focusing on platforms hosting priority harm content such as CSAM; hate and terror content; suicide, self-harm and eating disorder forums; and violence against women and girls. That is a very important focus of activity. As I also mentioned, this is something that we expect Ofcom to enforce robustly. Ofcom has the Government’s full backing to use its enforcement powers, and the chair of Ofcom is undertaking a review of Ofcom’s enforcement capabilities and powers. The Government are in discussion about what more needs to be done here.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that, once again, Ofcom is hopeless, and we need to review its role? Unless we have an effective regulator, things such as this will happen on a regular basis. We need to do something about the poor standard of regulators in this country.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Ensuring that there is a safe, digital experience for citizens and young people in this country, as my noble friend alludes to, is absolutely essential, and we expect robust enforcement of the Online Safety Act. We welcome the capabilities review commissioned by Sir Ian Cheshire, the new chair of Ofcom, which is expected to conclude this autumn. We expect the review to identify practical improvements needed to strengthen the pace and impact of Ofcom’s enforcement function. Enforcement goes hand in hand with the further measures the Government will bring in to regulate the online environment for young people.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that smaller platforms are causing disproportionate harm to society. We supported the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with his regret amendment in February 2025 on, quite rightly, regulating these smaller platforms, in which the Contents had it. Do the Government now accept that it was a serious mistake to resist the will of the House?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Small but risky services are regulated under the Online Safety Act; they are subject to the duties around illegal content and harm for children. It is very important that those duties are abided by; it is very important, as I mentioned before, that Ofcom enforces with a focus on those services that are disseminating, or creating the environment for, such harm. It is something that we absolutely back.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, can the Minister comment on how the exclusion of small, high-harm platforms from category 1 supports the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, given concerns that online abuse, coercion and the spread of misogynistic content often occur on very niche platforms, with relatively small user bases?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Small services are subject to the illegal content and child safety duties. Ofcom absolutely must enforce those duties where there is evidence that services are not abiding by them. That is one reason we have asked Sir Ian Cheshire to take forward his review of Ofcom’s capabilities. It is important that the online space and the offline space are safe for women and girls and that illegal content is clamped down on.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reference, but I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her work on this. I am not surprised that she has raised this again. When she tabled an amendment to the Online Safety Bill, we all thought that this categorisation matter was sorted. Will the Government now firmly commit to a fixed date for reviewing the categorisation thresholds, informed by evidence of harm rather than user numbers, so that this is not left adrift until the statutory review of the Act?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The focus when taking forward the categorisation duties is to ensure that those duties come into force in 2027. Let me return to the point that I think everyone in this House agrees with: small but risky services should not provide illegal content or harm to children, and Ofcom should take the necessary action to enforce the duties under the Act.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, how is Ofcom working with the consumer council to look at the control of so-called toys targeted at children as young as three, which have AI responses in them? They are linked to the internet and can give really disgusting, highly sexual answers when children, from the age of three onwards, pose even simple questions.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Obviously, we must keep examples such as that in mind. I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness to answer her question, as it crosses a number of activities and regulations. We are taking action to restrict children’s access to services that provide the kind of harm that she mentions. I will follow up with her afterwards.
Sudan: Aerial Bombardment
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent aerial bombardments in the war in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)
The increasing use of aerial warfare, including drones, is inflicting devastating harm on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Sudan, killing over 1,000 civilians in the first half of this year and contributing to the growing risk of famine in the country. The UK, both publicly and in our diplomatic engagements, is urging the warring parties to protect civilians, comply with international humanitarian law and facilitate safe and unhindered humanitarian access. At the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary and Minister for International Development convened international partners to co-ordinate action to protect civilians in Sudan and issued a communiqué on behalf of the UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention on the impact of drone warfare on civilians.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he tell us what response we have received from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about credible allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Sudan and the bringing to justice of those responsible, along with the quartermasters whose actions have led to an estimated 400,000 deaths in Sudan? That includes terrible atrocities in El Fasher in Darfur, the displacement of some 14 million people and 19 million people facing acute food insecurity and famine. As penholders in the Security Council, will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify reports that the UK intends to support a candidate to become Secretary-General of the United Nations who has dismissed the findings of the UN’s own panel of experts about the involvement of the UAE in arming RSF paramilitaries? What convoluted message would this send on seeking an end to the world’s most deadly and catastrophic war?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that and pay tribute to him; no one inside or outside this House does more to keep the spotlight shining on what is the worst humanitarian crisis facing the world in the 21st century, and I thank him for that. On the chemical weapons issue, we take any alleged breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention very seriously. As Sudan is a state party to that convention, we expect all those in Sudan to abide by the prohibition on developing, producing, processing, transferring or using chemical weapons. We have consistently raised concerns about allegations of weapon use by the Sudanese Armed Forces, including at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I hosted the director-general of the OPCW a couple of weeks ago in this very building and discussed exactly that, and we are using our national and Sudan-specific statements at the OPCW’s executive council to further this agenda. On the issue of the United Nations Secretary-General, I urge everyone in the House not to believe wild speculation in the newspapers on any UK preference for any candidate; we do not comment in public on that, and that is how we will continue to approach this issue.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The actions that the UK has taken on the credible information on the use of chlorine gas on civilians is that it has asked the alleged perpetrators to investigate their own actions. This is wholly insufficient. Under Articles IX and X of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UK, as a state party, can take actions to demand independent investigations of this credible information on the use of gas. As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, why have we not taken this action?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are engaging on a number of strands of this issue with the OPCW. He is absolutely right that part of that is urging Sudan to conclude the investigation that is under way. We have a range of discussions at the OPCW and at the UN in our role as penholder, across the community of nations, about ways to address the issue and take allegations seriously. As I think the noble Lord and everyone else in the House know, the OPCW has enjoyed strong support from the United Kingdom for a number of years, and we take it extremely seriously as the primary vehicle to investigate serious alleged breaches.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, given the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Sudan over the past number of years, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I again ask my noble friend: will he, along with international counterparts, put some diplomatic pressure on President Trump to persuade him not to allow control of the UN to go to the UAE, as it funds the rebels in Sudan who have committed immeasurable atrocities in Darfur, including El Fasher?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My noble friend is right to point to the role of external interference in this conflict and the way it fuels the conflict. We have been clear from the start that all external support for either side serves only to fuel the bloodshed and prolonged violence and must end. That is why we have imposed an arms embargo on Sudan. With reference to the United States, that is why we are not just continuing to call for compliance with the United Nations arms embargo on Darfur; we are also working with the US and others to support efforts to strengthen the scope of that UN embargo.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it was exactly a year ago that the RSF attacked El Fasher and 6,000 civilians were killed. A similar appalling atrocity was committed in El Geneina a few months later. These are vile, wicked and evil crimes committed by people who are beyond being reproached. What more can be done to bring them to justice?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord—as I think everyone will—on the vileness of the actions in El Fasher; the events were horrific. Earlier this week, the Minister for International Development and the All-Party Group on Sudan held a joint event in Parliament to remember the victims. On the first anniversary of the RFS assault on El Fasher, we announced a new round of sanctions on suspected perpetrators of sexual violence and other atrocities. The answer to what can be done is: a whole range of things. Frustrating as this is, I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom is leading on both humanitarian support—providing £146 million a year—and on justice and accountability, through leadership of the Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice for Sudan. We are also using our penholder status at the United Nations for a variety of activities.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome what my noble friend the Minister had to say about our continuing support, and particularly the humanitarian response. Can he update the House on the processes that are being led by the US through the quad? In addition, because these quad processes and other statements and UN processes have so far been unsuccessful in preventing the grim atrocities that we continue to see, can he commit the UK to playing a leading role in the painstaking work of working with civil society and local political civilian leadership in order to bring about a lasting peace?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My noble friend knows what she is talking about on this; she played a leading role in responding on it for a number of years, and I work with officials who are extremely grateful for all the leadership that she provided on it over a long time. She is absolutely right that the UK must play, and continues to play, a leading effort in not just formal multilateral fora but informal environments. Recently, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Istanbul for an—excuse the acronym—E3+R4 meeting, which engages countries with different kinds of access to involve parties in ways of trying to find ways through on the range of difficult issues that are involved in the Sudan conflict.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, churches have been widely used as shelters over the course of the conflict in Sudan, particularly in the Nuba mountains, from where the majority of Sudanese Christians originate. Attacks on places of worship and religious leaders have been widely documented, and both sides have used places of worship for military purposes. In the light of these developments, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made on the situation of freedom of religion in Sudan and what steps particularly they are taking to ensure that the urgent humanitarian assistance that he has already referenced is also reaching vulnerable and historically marginalised religious communities, including in the Nuba mountains?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to point to issues to do with freedom of worship and the use of religious buildings, such as churches and other locations, by parties to the conflict. On the guiding principles of the humanitarian support provided—it is not just about the amount, £146 million a year, which we are pleased to say is reaching millions and millions of people—one of the developments, the evolution of which I think my noble friend was partly responsible for, is that we are providing help to local responders using NGOs and local organisations, including religious organisations, as partners and destinations for funding. That is an important principle in the humanitarian response that the right reverend Prelate asked about.
Rosebank Oil Field
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the exploration of the Rosebank oil field, following its development being accounted for in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook published on 28 October 2026.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
The OBR makes assumptions about future oil and gas production in order to forecast tax receipts. It uses the North Sea Transition Authority’s projections, which include potential production from potential new fields, including Rosebank, and future discoveries. It is therefore normal for the Government’s future revenue forecasts to include both current and potential future oil and gas projects. Rosebank, for example, has been included since at least 2019. This in no way reflects the Energy Secretary’s independent decision on the project, which will be made through a quasi-judicial process, taking into account all relevant factors in the case. It will not surprise the noble Lord to hear me say that I am unable to comment further on individual projects and that the Energy Secretary will be making a decision on whether to grant consent or not in due course, in the normal way.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn. The legislation governing the OBR gives it an explicit, legally binding right to access information and seek assistance from government departments. When it is uncertain, it says so. However, what it says on pages 93 and 94 is as clear as crystal. The projection for oil and gas receipts,
“includes production from currently producing fields (including Jackdaw), and the NSTA’s estimate of production from development of new fields, which includes Rosebank”—
so there is no prevarication and no rider, and it is specifically named.
At today’s oil prices and with current reserve estimates, it is likely that the tax take could be north of £10 billion for the life of the field. Can the Minister say why it has taken over a year for the Government to announce the decision to produce Rosebank, with the Secretary of State stating to the Guardian that she is “leaning towards” refusing Rosebank when the words of the Chancellor this morning in the context of Jackdaw were:
“I really welcome the decision … It’s common sense. It’s practical. It adds to our energy security. It produces revenue”—
all of which are equally applicable to Rosebank?
Does the Minister agree that if these figures are wrong, then the OBR, despite its right to consult DESNZ, should bin its projections and rewrite them? Alternatively, should not Parliament be informed first when the Government make an announcement, especially when backing the Conservative campaign to approve Rosebank and back Scottish workers—indeed, over 1,000 Scottish workers and their families?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a number of points. In terms of what he says about the OBR, I have to re-emphasise the points that I have made, that it is a normal process for the Government’s future revenue forecast to include both current and potential oil and gas receipts, and it has been included since 2019. However, the noble Lord went on to make a number of other points.
The Chancellor indeed said that Jackdaw was common sense—I think I used that very phrase myself when I was at the Dispatch Box earlier this week. I have to emphasise that we have had a legal challenge through this process—the noble Lord’s former Government will understand that, because the Court of Session said that scope 3 emissions had to be taken into account, so we have had to revisit that. I want to be as clear as I can be that this is quasi-judicial and I do not wish to jeopardise that in any way whatever. I take the point the noble Lord made; I am under no illusions about the Conservative Party’s view on this is—it has been pointed out to me on countless occasions. I want to just leave it at that. I am sure as the questions develop, we may go into a bit of a party-political debate, but at the moment I just want to emphasise the quasi-judicial nature of the Rosebank decision.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to that point, will my noble friend confirm that, if this decision is made on a political basis and not on the facts for and against going ahead, there could be another legal challenge, which would delay it for a further two years and which would certainly not be of any benefit to the people of Scotland?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I do not mean that disrespectfully. I mean more that my noble friend usually challenges me in his questions, not that he does not put his case well; humble apologies for that if it was inappropriate. My noble friend makes the point very well that the decision is quasi-judicial and all the factors will be—and must be—taken into account. If not, they are bound to be legally challenged. We know that there are stakeholders with great interest on all sides of this decision. I counsel those who are against and those who are for Rosebank to think about that, because it may jeopardise the future if we do not get the legal process right.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the earlier answer she provided to give clarity on the OBR forecasts. However, separate from that decision, does she agree that 90% of Rosebank’s oil reserves would be destined for international markets and would be sold at global market prices, providing little or no benefit to UK consumers?
Earl Russell (LD)
Does the Minister also agree that the 254 million tonnes of scope 3 CO2 emissions will be equivalent to 70% of the UK’s annual emissions in 2024 and seem very incompatible with our carbon budgets?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I have to make the same point again: I cannot be tempted into making any comment about that. The noble Earl made his point and it is on the record. I heard some challenges to him and some support for him; that is on the record.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, did not the Chancellor really give the game away yesterday when he referred to Jackdaw and accidentally let the truth out, which was that the Energy Secretary was opposed to it, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said yes? Is not that exactly what we are going to see with the Rosebank decision? The Energy Secretary is against it, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor know it is the right thing to do, that is what the Government are going to do, and if they do the right thing, we will support them.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I understand the process and I understand politics. I understand why the noble Lord is making that point. But I have to say that it is quasi-judicial, and I can absolutely guarantee, because I know the Energy Secretary very well, that she has not made the decision, she will make the decision on the facts, and the Government will stand by that decision.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this process occurred under previous Conservative governments and that that really is not important in this discussion? She is quite right, of course, to say that the Secretary of State will make the decision in her own time, exactly as a previous Conservative Secretary of State would do. All I would say to her is that I hope the Secretary of State realises how important it is for Britain not to encourage other people to extend the exploitation of oil, because we are fighting a battle against climate change which is crucially important for our children and grandchildren.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I never thought I would ever find myself saying this, but I have listened to the noble Lord’s speeches on climate change and have had a very positive response to them. I think he makes very significant contributions on climate change and pay tribute to the work that he has done. I will reference the Jackdaw decision because I do not want to reference the Rosebank decision, but the Government are very clear that we are maintaining our commitment to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. It is entirely consistent with our commitment to building clean energy, and we remain committed to understanding and explaining to the British people the threat of climate change and the way that it will impact on their lives. It is happening now. We need to adapt, we need to mitigate now and we need to get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. I recognise the arguments that the noble Lord has put so well in this Chamber about that.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The Minister has kept saying, as have the Government, that this issue is quasi-judicial. Would she explain why? A judicial decision was made in the Scottish courts about a year ago. The duty of the Government is to make a factual decision, taking into account a judicial decision already made. That cannot be regarded as quasi-judicial.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I answer the noble Lord with some degree of trepidation, because I know of his great expertise in this matter. My understanding is, and I have been told categorically by officials, that it is quasi-judicial because, given the range of factors that the Secretary of State has to take into account on this, it could be opened up to a court challenge. I am happy to further explore this matter so that in future I give a more adequate legal answer to the noble Lord.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I ask a very simple question of the Minister. Given what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said about what the OBR has stated, can she confirm therefore that if Rosebank does not go ahead, the Government’s fiscal headroom will be much reduced?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
The OBR will have to republish the figures if Rosebank does not go ahead, and that will need to be addressed.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
Does the Minister agree that perhaps noble Lords opposite should be a little more careful and a little nuanced in their interpretation of the OBR report? It did indeed, for the reasons that the Minister set out, include both Rosebank and Jackdaw in those assessments, but the overall assessment was that receipts from North Sea oil revenues and taxation would decline, as they have over the last 20 years, in the next five years to zero. Is it not really important that we concentrate on the future, and could the Minister tell me what progress we are making—it was mentioned in the Budget papers—on that important issue that would save consumers money, delinking the price of electricity from the price of gas?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out that that is what the OBR actually says about that.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
Well, there is a discussion going on across the Benches at the moment, and we will return to that, no doubt, if there is disagreement about it. I share that understanding with the noble Baroness, and that is what I have been briefed. She is absolutely right about the importance of delinking, because, fundamentally, we all know that the North Sea is a declining basin and that that is something we have to come to terms with. I understand the politics of what the Conservative Party is trying to do here, but as I have often said at this Dispatch Box, the Tory Party is in utter denial about what we face in terms of climate change, and as a country we have to come to terms with it.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I just point out that there are some nodding on the Conservative Benches who agree with that. The Conservative Party is in utter denial and broken the consensus on that. I said before that I think it is a dereliction of duty not to address the interests of the British people on that matter. That is why our move to clean energy and delinking is so important. As I said earlier, the price of electricity was determined at 90% and it is 60% today. The Chancellor yesterday referenced the contracts for difference process that will keep us maintaining that momentum to delinking. It is fundamental to our policy going forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a lot of the focus on the Rosebank decision has been on climate change, naturally, but this is a development at a depth of over one kilometre, the deepest ever proposed on the UK continental shelf. The remote location, depth and harsh Atlantic conditions make it a very difficult site. A major oil spill could have serious impact on at least 16 UK marine protected areas. Can the Minister reassure me that that is really seriously being taken into account?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, because I just do not want to be dragged into any detail about the decision. I will absolutely assert that when the Secretary of State makes her decision, she will be given a range of information that I know that she will read and study carefully. She will make the decision in the round and will address that. As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, those issues are on the record in this House.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I do not know about other noble Lords, but I would welcome a little bit of financial context on this, following the question by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. When I look at the OBR document, it is very hard to understand what the financial difference is. It refers to, with Rosebank, a 10% decline in revenues over the period and, without it, a 14% decline over the period. What does that mean in terms of pounds and pence over the financial forecast period?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I was going to say thank you for that question, but I do not know if I do, to be honest. The OBR does not actually make forecasts. It recognises the potential tax receipts for Rosebank, but it does not actually give pounds and pence forecasts for it.
Lord Lilley (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, this quasi-judicial nature has been shown to be a quasi-excuse. I can assure the Minister, having taken quasi-judicial decisions, that they do not need to take a year. If the Government decide that it is illegal under the present law to go ahead with Rosebank, why do not they change the law, and as soon as possible?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I can only assert what I have already stated. It is our understanding—my understanding, certainly—that this is quasi-judicial. I need to understand some of the points being made in greater depth. It was raised at the Court of Session. We do not want to go through another legal process again. We have to give it proper consideration. That means that these decisions take time, and we want to be absolutely clear that when a decision is made, it is the final decision and does not end up in the courts again.
Mediation, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
That this House takes note of the impact of mediation and conflict prevention globally, and the role of the United Kingdom in peacebuilding.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I note several entries in the register of interests in relation to work I have done recently for the World Bank, the CHD and Conciliation Resources, my position as a ministerial adviser on soft power and my attendance at more than a couple of conferences on mediation and conflict prevention over the past year.
I thank all noble Lords who have volunteered to speak in this debate. I am very grateful for their participation and particularly for the Minister stepping up to address this important topic in his closing response. I am also grateful for this opportunity to address the escalation in violent conflict that we have seen across the globe in recent years and to speak a little about the hope that exists in the efforts that are escalating to prevent violent conflict and what we here in the UK can do to contribute.
Across the globe today we face the highest number of states involved in violent conflict that the world has seen since 1946. A recent report, Peace Works, by 11 international NGOs based here in the UK, showed that the cost to the world of this conflict is about 10% of global GDP—approximately £16 trillion. Nearly 120 million people across the world are displaced today, approximately half of them children. Over 200 million people face humanitarian need as a result of the impact of conflict. Tens of thousands of children are impacted directly by violent conflict every year. Sexual violence is increasing as a weapon of war after many years when it was enthusiastically tackled. Just under a quarter of a million people, combatants and civilians, were killed in 2025 as a result of violent conflict. In the UK we face the impact of that. We see increased division, distrust, the impact of displacement in different parts of the world and disruption, most of all to our energy supplies.
Unfortunately, over the last decade the UK has stepped back rather than stepping up into this challenge. We used to lead the world in global thinking, global action on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Between 2005 and 2015, successive Governments took the action that was required at home and abroad, and in the multilateral organisations, to make a real difference to combating global conflict, bringing about peaceful resolution and supporting those trying to implement peace agreements. But there has been no refreshing or updating of the conflict prevention strategy of the United Kingdom since the 2016 building stability overseas strategy. Over that decade, we have reduced our capacity for working in the multilateral organisations and, perhaps more importantly, on the ground in local peacebuilding initiatives. Our spend on conflict prevention reduced from £296 million in 2017 to £118 million in 2023; the figures for the next three years have not yet been published.
It was noted, in an independent report this time last year to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Resolution 1325 at the United Nations on women, peace and security, that there was an increasing gap between policy and rhetoric—all very positive, not just about women, peace and security but about peacebuilding and conflict prevention generally—and action and delivery by the UK. Globally, we face enormous challenges, not just because of the scale of the conflict but because a United Nations that was designed for approximately 50 member states in 1946 is increasingly unfit for purpose for nearly 200 states in 2026.
There is good news amid all this misery and violence. We have countries around the world stepping into the area of conflict prevention and mediation. Turkey, for example, joined with Finland in 2010 to establish the Group of Friends of Mediation at the United Nations. It also co-chairs the friends of mediation in the OIC and in the OSCE. Over these last 16 years it has been involved in helping to resolve disputes between Ethiopia and Somalia and in supporting the peace process in the Philippines. Of course, closer to home it has also regularly engaged with a number of conflicts in its own neighbourhood.
In Japan, just this year the new Prime Minister established the international peace mediation unit in its foreign service to take a “more proactive role” in peacefully settling disputes in other places. That is particularly significant in south-east Asia, given some of the challenges that we are seeing.
Qatar has become both a location and a voice for mediation and conflict prevention since 2004. It has been involved in several ceasefires, the return of hostages, the establishment of peace agreements and support for them afterwards, not least recently in Gaza but also in the DRC and on an issue close to my heart—helping to secure the return of some of the Ukrainian children stolen by Russia, many thousands of whom still lie behind Russian lines. The UK established a partnership with Qatar just 12 months ago to take forward this work on mediation and conflict prevention. I would be interested to hear an update from the Minister on the progress of that partnership and the actions that have been or could yet be taken.
There is a common thread running through this international action, which is supplemented by the historic and important work of the Scandinavian states, the Swiss, more recently the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and others. That thread is that every mediation, every sincere effort at conflict prevention, has three key elements. It has to have sincere dialogue; it has to have a sustained, patient and consistent approach to the mediation itself; and increasingly it has to have regional ownership. In the neighbourhood, people understand the historical, cultural and identity issues that will drive many of these conflicts, and which local leaders could bring about an end to the conflict and sustain the peace.
I have seen this for myself, working with the FCDO, with a number of NGOs, with the Philippine Government and with the former Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Bangsamoro region of the Philippines. Centuries of division between the Catholic and Muslim populations of the Philippines and decades of armed conflicts in Muslim Mindanao led to a quarter of a million people dying between 1968 and the early part of the 21st century. But in 2014 the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, supported by the United Kingdom and the international community but led locally and chaired by the first-ever woman to sign a peace agreement anywhere in the world as the chief negotiator, was signed. I have spoken about this process in your Lordships’ House before, but I am delighted to report that in September, just two months ago, the Bangsamoro region held its first elections to the democratically elected autonomous parliament that was promised in the peace agreement. Those elections have been relatively peaceful. The new chief minister will be elected by the new parliament tomorrow in Cotabato. The UK has been a partner in that process, just as we were a partner in Colombia and a driver for the peace process in Somalia. I hope that we will continue to help build peace in the Philippines and elsewhere in south-east Asia. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that too.
The UK has significant assets that we can contribute to conflict prevention and to mediation and peacebuilding across the world. We have the honour and the responsibility of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Our other networks include NATO, the Commonwealth, partnership with the European Union and our considerable diplomatic assets—still one of the best and most respected diplomatic networks in the world, despite some of the cutbacks of recent years.
Here in the UK, we have the expertise and the trust not just in government but outside government that so many people feel that they can, or at least have been able to, rely on. We must use those soft power assets that we have to be engaged more in the years to come in trying to reverse this increase in violent conflict and support those who are seeking peace.
That same report, Peace Works, that was published just last month and launched here in Parliament by the All-Party Group on Conflict Prevention, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding, had five key priorities that the UK could follow. The first—this is a statement of purpose that might seem very obvious, but it is not yet up front in the Government’s international strategy— would be to prioritise prevention, and to say that quite clearly and embody it in the work that we do on an everyday basis.
The second would be to energise coalitions. We have discussed this on many occasions. In fact, I think my last contribution in your Lordships’ House was on the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in this time of desperate conflict against the Russian invasion. But we should be energising other coalitions for peace and supporting and participating where we can. The third would be to harness the capabilities that exist here in the UK, in and outside government, and use them in the way that can be most helpful. The fourth would be, at the same time, to champion local peacebuilders, because ultimately, without local ownership of peacebuilding processes, those processes cannot be sustained. Finally, in a world where technology is increasingly changing the nature of violent conflict, we need also to spearhead technology for peace. We can use many of these new technologies to help support peace rather than just dealing with war.
In securing this debate today, I ask whether the Minister can perhaps clarify for us the current state of funding and the plans for support from the Government for conflict prevention, not just this year but in the next three years. Can the Minister say whether that funding will be maintained in this difficult financial climate or whether there is even a possibility that it might be increased? Will we commit to being a reliable, engaged, long-term partner for not just those international partner countries that we can work with on mediation, conflict prevention and peacebuilding but those trying to build peace on the ground and within countries trying to recover from conflict, to ensure that future generations have a better future? Will we, ultimately, refresh the strategy from 2016 and ensure that we use our assets for the best purposes and the maximum impact as we intervene and take our responsibilities seriously around the world?
We have that responsibility. We have a historic responsibility—a very current responsibility in our role at the United Nations—but we also have an opportunity to use the skills, talents, capabilities and passions of people here in the United Kingdom. Will we use that responsibility and opportunity to not just resist and defend from violent aggression and prepare for that properly, which I fully support, but to contribute to peacebuilding and prevent conflict in a way that will ensure that future generations can live more safely and maximise the opportunities that they deserve?
There has been a bit of debate over the last 18 months within and outside the Government, and perhaps even elsewhere in the world too, about the competition between hard and soft power. Many countries, not least the UK, among the developed democracies of the world, have had to step up, rightly, and improve their hard power capabilities. However, I submit to your Lordships’ House that that cannot be at the expense of soft power. We need to not make this a choice between hard and soft power; we need to use smart power. It will be smart power that will not just allow us to prevent and deter violent conflict against ourselves or our allies but allow us to make a difference around the world and ensure that people are able to live in peace. With that hopefully positive potential outcome to all this, I move the Motion standing in my name.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing this debate. There is no more important topic; the world would be a much better place if there could be peace in places today torn by war, with the damage, destruction, and the violence that brings. I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord said about the opportunities for the United Kingdom with our great diplomatic skills, the reach of our diplomatic service, the experience we have gained over many decades and centuries of intervening around the world and, where we could, trying to find resolution of conflict, and with our own experiences bringing peace out of the very difficult situation in Northern Ireland. But, as the noble Lord referred to at the end, one of the reasons the United Kingdom does have a role in the world and is taken seriously is that we have serious and important defence forces. It is most important that they are used with a view to promoting peace where we are intervening, or to right wrongs that can be righted relatively easily by the judicious use of force. That has not always been true in the interventions that we and our NATO allies have made in recent decades in different parts of the world.
I hope the Government, as they go through a rather long defence review and discussion about how best to spend the money that is clearly needed, will have at the forefront of their mind how those forces can be used to deter violence and the outbreak of new conflicts, and how they can be used for expeditionary forces that can make timely interventions where necessary, particularly where those interventions can help create a peace, or where they are needed to police a peace which has been brought about by diplomatic process.
I am sure all of us agree that talking and diplomatic compromise are usually better than conflict extending into aggressive war, and that we would all agree that you only get a war when diplomacy and politics have failed. We all here believe that politics, particularly democratic politics, should be a benign force channelling the conflicts and disagreements into words and arguments and resolving them by compromise or votes. But that will not always be possible in different parts of the world, and that is why we need to choose to spend our money on defence wisely, and to see how we can best help the world through those places where we have power: through the United Nations, through our senior membership of NATO and through the Commonwealth and all the associations that brings.
Looking at defence priorities, it is most important that the Government do not forget that the main priority is to be able to defend these islands and to show that these islands are so well defended that they would be a very hostile environment should any external force wish to intervene. That must mean strengthening our sea forces and our ability to respond to drone and missile attack, and to know how to police our waters when we see possible hostile powers looking enviously at our cables and pipes that are such an important part of our economic progress. So, will the Government please make sure that that is all beefed up and the best modern technology adopted?
When it comes to expeditionary force, we have in the past shown that we have that expeditionary capability, and at times it has been very successful. The Falklands are only free today, and the people of the Falklands are only safe in their wish to be British, because we had enough expeditionary force on our own to drive out the Argentinian invader and restore order. It is most important that we now keep enough force available in case anybody has changed their minds in Argentina about what they might wish to do to try to gain control of islands that are clearly British. British forces were also very successful alongside the American allies leading the operation when Kuwait was liberated, which was a very good example of a sharp use of overwhelming force to right a very obvious wrong where a country had been badly invaded.
Today we have two very big conflicts, which are damaging in themselves—particularly damaging for those involved with them, with too many deaths and too much destruction of property—but also very damaging to the rest of us economically, and because we are morally offended by how they originated. Those are the conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East.
We need to hear from the Government a bit more about how they wish to proceed. If we take the case of Ukraine, the war has dragged on for so long and we keep Prime Ministers for such little time that there have now been five United Kingdom Prime Ministers who have had to respond to the difficult situation in Ukraine. They have shown complete unity of understanding and purpose, they have all condemned the Russian invasion and the atrocities that have resulted and they have all wished to offer sensible support to the very brave Ukrainians defending their country. But they have all been very clear that we are not going to declare war on Russia, commit British forces or drag NATO into a conflict with Russia. That would greatly worsen the position and is much against everybody’s interests, including those of the Ukrainians, because it would intensify the exchange of barbarity with all the extra firepower it would bring to the conflict.
That means that we in the West have a dilemma: we are not going to offer a military coalition to beat the Russians, and the Ukrainians, fighting very bravely, have not yet been able to evict the Russians from their territory. I would be interested to know what the latest government thinking is about when and if there is going to be any chance for talking to replace war-fighting and for the two belligerents to be brought to the table in a way that might produce some kind of diplomatic answer. It is not obvious how you do it. President Trump has been much criticised for trying to do it; people thought he was being too kind to Russia, which is not something that people want. It would be interesting to know what the United Kingdom and the European Union position on all this is, and whether there is any way through. I think we all feel that five years of war is excessive and that the awful problems it is creating for the Ukrainian people are unacceptable, difficult though it is to see a way out.
In the case of the Middle East, the United Kingdom does not have a big role to play because it appears that we do not really have serious forces to offer to try to police the sea-lanes and to deal with some of the attacks on our allies in the Gulf. America has the near monopoly of power that can be committed to that, and in that sense it is America’s war. We all rest upon what happens in the exchanges between the President of the United States of America and those now leading Iran.
I would be interested to know whether the Government feel there is anything we can do by way of helping our allies in the Gulf, and whether they can see any way forward, which is more likely to be led by local interests there, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, very sensibly said. We too are friends of the UAE, Qatar and so forth—the places most likely to be able to help. It would be good if we could get our defence forces into a shape where we could play a more significant role in trying to help the restoration of normal shipping in the Gulf and Red Sea area. Clearly, energy prices, interest rates and other things globally have been driven up by the extent of that conflict and by the interruptions to trade. In a world that should have plenty of oil and is in transition to using less of it, we find ourselves short of it because of a very nasty war.
I would hope that the defence review would come up with good answers on that combination of defending the home base, which needs more defence, and the appropriate expeditionary force for policing commerce and sea-lanes and going to the aid of allies. It would be very useful to know from the Minister how the Government can extend the skills and the experiences we have had diplomatically and in governing places that are subject to these conflicts. The world desperately needs peace, particularly in those two centres of warfare at the moment, and we would all be better off if that could be brought about.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on securing this debate and thank him for introducing it so well. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as chair of Inter Mediate, the charity founded by Jonathan Powell and inspired by the Northern Ireland peace process. Inter Mediate has been engaged for almost 15 years in dialogue with Heads of State and armed groups in attempts to resolve some of the most dangerous and intractable conflicts of our time. Some of its successes, such as Colombia and Mozambique, are matters of public record; the great majority of its work is not, and for good reason. Suffice it to say that I am more proud of the achievements of our remarkable staff, led by Claire Hajaj and Mockbul Ali, than I am of anything else apart from my own family.
When this House amended the National Security (State Threats) Bill this summer to avoid penalising or chilling dialogue between good faith conflict resolution organisations and designated foreign bodies, it was acknowledging that states do not have a monopoly in conflict resolution. Indeed, some of the principles identified by Jonathan Powell in his book Talking to Terrorists may be more usefully performed by non-state entities than by Governments: dialogue with actively hostile groups, the establishment of back channels and the taking of calculated risks to build trust.
Unlike some noble Lords present today, my experience of international conflict resolution is largely second hand. I am not out there cutting deals with national leaders or armed insurgents—just sitting in London checking the kidnap insurance and signing off on the accounts—so I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I venture to make three points that have struck me with particular force during my eight years with Inter Mediate.
First, we in the United Kingdom have a very good name for this sort of activity. I am regularly impressed by the regard in which our diplomats and third-sector peacemakers are held for their influence, their convening power, their trustworthiness and their moral leadership, even—perhaps especially—in those parts of the world where we were once the coloniser. In a 2026 Conciliation Resources survey, 65% of those polled expressed support for UK investment in peacebuilding around the world. They were backing a British success story that, with the right support, has the potential for more success still.
Secondly, conflict resolution is not some wishy-washy nice-to-have. Here I go perhaps a little further than the noble Lord, Lord McConnell: it is an essential ingredient of our hard power. Conflict, weak governance and institutional collapse can create opportunities for terrorist recruitment, regeneration and expansion, and can provide hostile actors with opportunities to undermine UK interests. Integrating early warning, intelligence, local partnerships and institutional resilience into security planning enables us to anticipate threats and head them off. If our counterterrorism or containment strategy begins only when a threat becomes operational, we have already surrendered the advantage. Enhanced military power is certainly necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said—a year on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme has left me in no doubt about that—but it can be strategically effective only when accompanied by work at every level to develop relationships, forge compromises, make agreements and see that they are implemented.
Thirdly, money spent in this field offers remarkable value. Public investment in civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention and mediation is minuscule as a proportion of overseas development aid, and barely noticeable by comparison with defence spending. The annual budget of Inter Mediate would barely stretch to the purchase of a single fixed-wing attack drone or a Patriot missile. If we are serious about boosting our security, our self-reliance and our ability to respond to and shape international events, planning for a serious investment in mediation and peacebuilding needs to be a long-term priority, both in our world-class capacities here at home and in local partners who are essential for reach and for delivery. This means more than simply increasing budget allocations, although after years of the brutal cuts that have been referred to, that would be a good start. We need funding vehicles that are flexible and responsible, partnerships across government and with peacemaking organisations and, returning to where I started, a political and legal environment that supports the risks necessary to make peace.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for securing this timely debate, though I confess I speak with some trepidation given the considerable expertise in this Chamber. But as a refugee who arrived in this country from Iran as a young girl because of political violence and religious persecution, and as someone who has stayed abreast of developments in Iran and across the wider Middle East, this is a subject close to my heart.
I have spoken previously on why I think the joint US-Israel attack on Iran in February was an act of strategic folly, the consequences of which we continue to live with. The prospect of a renewed assault on Iran, soon after the mid-term elections in America and the recent elections in Israel, fills me with dread and illustrates all too well that our collective ability to mediate and prevent conflict is diminishing.
Although our assessments of the 1945 global order as broken, bruised or in the process of being bolstered may diverge, surely those who care about human flourishing and the conditions that support it cannot be content with the current era of disorder and unpeace. From a faith perspective, I certainly find this state of affairs deeply troubling. The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, chapter 14, verse 33, that God is not a God of disorder, tumult or dissension but of peace, order, harmony and shalom.
Some will argue that, if you want peace, you must prepare for war. That logic is evident in last year’s strategic defence review and in subsequent conversations about how we fund Britain’s military commitments. I do not deny the utility of military deterrence, and I am immensely grateful and indebted to our Armed Forces, who risk danger to protect us. At the same time, I fear that the practice of some countries in recent years suggests we are now moving towards a new formulation altogether—namely, that if you want peace, you must first wage war.
That is a dangerous path to tread. It invites a new global arms race, renewed wars of conquest, shrinking trade and prosperity, and the collapse of the co-operation needed to confront shared global threats. It is a dystopian path that threatens our God-given human dignity and the very integrity of God’s creation. I worry that the preparation for war and the act of war itself become our principal ways of imagining the road to peace. We need instead, as the Lutheran archbishop of Estonia has suggested, to take an alternative pathway—namely, if you want peace, prepare for peace and invest in the instruments necessary to uphold it.
The 2025 strategic defence review was necessary, but where is the strategic peacebuilding review to complement it? At a time of heightened insecurity, we need a focused assessment of whether the UK has the policies, institutions, capabilities and partnerships needed to prevent violent conflict and strengthen the conditions for sustainable peace. At a time when considerable attention is rightly being given to defence, deterrence and national resilience, we also need to examine the other side of the security equation: how Britain prevents conflict, addresses the conditions in which violence and instability develop, and strengthens social cohesion and supports peace before, during and after crises. A strategic peacekeeping review could bring together the domestic and international dimensions of peacebuilding and consider the contribution of government, civil society, faith communities, business and international partners.
None of this is to belittle steps that have been taken in recent years. The creation of a 16-person peace process and mediation team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is a welcome step, but how might this capability be strengthened and embedded across government, rather than remaining primarily as an FCDO-led operational function? Rather than undertaking such a strategic peace review and investing in peacebuilding mechanisms, we seem intent on financing our rearmament by salami-slicing the development budget and, in so doing, diminishing our ability to tackle the drivers of conflict in many parts of the world. This is a false economy and feels self-defeating. Instead, we should invest in peacebuilding, with fresh funding and a more joined-up national conversation than we have had to date.
This is an agenda that the Church takes seriously. The commitment to peacebuilding is part of our very DNA. We are willing to work together with government and others in creating the conditions in which war and conflict no longer feel like the logical choice or the inevitable outcome. Only last year, the Church of England Pensions Board established the Global Centre for Peacebuilding and Business to respond to the growing global demand for minerals and energy; the expansion of extractive industries into fragile and conflict-affected contexts; the risks that flow from this; and the extraordinary presence and reach of the Church in many of those places.
In South Sudan, a country where, for ordinary people, the situation is getting worse and nothing seems to be getting through to the political inner circle, the Church continues to be the most trusted and far-reaching national institution, engaged in peacebuilding, humanitarian responses, education and healthcare. This role is replicated in other fragile and conflict-ridden countries and underscores the Church’s commitment to being a force for reconciliation and peace.
All this is by way of saying that, in today’s age of disorder, peacebuilding should be understood not merely as a humanitarian endeavour but as a strategic imperative to national security, economic resilience and long-term stability. In a world increasingly focused on preparing for conflict, it is important that we continue making the case for peace and peacebuilding with all due seriousness. Committing to a strategic peace review, to sit alongside the strategic defence review, would be an important but long-overdue step in this direction.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who brings unique experience to this conversation. I point her in the direction of the emerging markets and developing economies taskforce that the Church of England pension trustees are participating in. If successful, that project will achieve and deliver investment at a far greater scale than any development assistance from any country ever could and will unlock the real gains that are needed in developing countries, which will see more stability. That relates directly to the topic of today’s debate.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McConnell for securing this debate. Occasions such as these often allow this Chamber to be at its best. So far, the contributions this afternoon have proved that to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to Inter-Mediate. I thank him for the work that he has led with it alongside Jonathan Powell. They have done tremendous work, almost all of it invisible by necessity. I have had some involvement with some of its work at various points along the way, and I have had some amazing advice from Jonathan about the necessity of patience, discretion and building trust. In today’s world of what is too often reactive diplomacy, where everything needs to be said publicly and responded to instantly, the work that Inter-Mediate does just proves what can be achieved by taking a slightly different approach.
Last night, I had the pleasure of attending an event here to mark 10 years since the signing of the peace agreement in Colombia. Former President Santos spoke about the painstaking work, the political risk, the essential role of the international community, and the commitment that is needed to this day to protect and secure that agreement.
When asked how the UK had helped, former President Santos said, “The most significant change happened when we instructed the Colombian armed forces to stop killing the FARC”. President Santos explained that, when the army began to capture fighters to demobilise and reintegrate them into society, the armed forces were no longer seen as devils by the fighters. He said that real progress was achieved when the enemy became viewed as people, not to be destroyed but rather to be defeated, because you need them to negotiate with in order to bring about a stable peace.
There are obviously lessons that can be learned from the Colombian experience, just as there are from other fragile and all-too-rare lasting peace agreements, such as the Good Friday agreement and Dayton, which are incredibly fragile and which we must protect at every opportunity. But there is a warning about trying to learn lessons and apply them directly in different contexts. It is tempting to search for a template—a set of principles to deploy that will guarantee success in other contexts—but, as we all know, each conflict is unique. The motivations, relationships, history and political space, the involvement of neighbouring states, which we see more and more, the approach of more distant but powerful nations, the presence of hard power, the deployment of technology and the character of the protagonists are all different.
Instead of the hard work of innovation—coming up with creative new approaches, combining our defence, diplomacy and development work, working alongside the multilateral development banks and multilateral systems—too often I see the international community’s response is to look to the tools that it used last time to ask itself which of those it ought to deploy. This is fine, important and can lead to some success—UN resolutions, increasingly outraged statements of condemnation, which I have given myself, sanctions, demands for accountability, side meetings and symbolism. These are all important and have their place, but issues and places are too often picked up and put down by the multilateral system and by nations. Look at Haiti, and even Sudan. There are so many examples. Who is holding it close? Who is really taking responsibility for what is happening and saying, “We’re the penholder: we have the job of making this better, however long it takes”. In an era when countries can trade off their relationships, not just with their neighbours, but with the US, China, Russia and Europe, protagonists can and do ignore the standard toolkit responses.
When agreements work, they are the result of deep understanding and, often, local leadership. This is especially true in Africa, where one year since the fall of El Fasher we continue to see widespread massacres and atrocities. While high-intensity wars in Ukraine and Gaza generate so much news, attention and, it is true, a massive share of the casualties, it is Sudan and, indeed, Africa as a whole that is the deadliest continent for deliberate non-combat violence, directed deliberately and specifically at civilians, with women paying a particularly high price. We see non-state armed groups, private armies, Russian mercenaries, extremist terrorist groups, weak states and communities desperately trying to survive despite it all.
This debate is about what the UK can and should do. If the UK and our partners want to help, as I believe we do, we must supplement the statement making with statecraft. We, by which I mean the international community, need less reliance on shaky deals between warlords and more time given to building long-term, resilient, civilian relationships that form the foundation of any lasting peace. We saw Kagame and Tshisekedi summoned by the White House to sign a deal. That did not bring about peace to eastern DRC, which is now ravaged by Ebola and lacks the community trust or state apparatus to do what is needed.
Last night, when I asked President Santos what his experience told him would help in Sudan, he gave an answer that I agree with completely. He said that the UK should give its time and attention to the supporters of the warring parties in neighbouring countries and further afield and that we should work hard to support civil society and local civilian leadership. It is low-key, unglamorous and time-consuming, but it is vital. Trade, transactional approaches and saying that we will bestow or withdraw development assistance or other such gestures will always fail. They have always failed. There is no example of where that approach, so often advocated for, has succeeded.
The UK, as others have said, has credibility in building and sustaining peace alongside others, notably Qatar and Norway. We must use this well and do so urgently, especially in places where the ordinariness of earning a living, raising your children and seeing out your days in peace is far too often denied. It should never ever be taken for granted.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, not just on his luck in the ballot but also on his continuing zeal and determination in trying to focus our minds on these vastly important, indeed giant, world issues. Mediation, conflict prevention, peacebuilding and our role in it all are very big issues indeed, covering enormous areas. At least half our home Troubles, which sometimes seem just local matters, are in fact issues that, in a world in which what the Chancellor calls “global economic storms” are coming along, have their roots in precisely the areas that we are discussing today. They require strong and respected international and multilateral institutions to handle and calm them down.
Probably most important of all in the calming down process that is so badly needed are the multilateral agencies and respected fora, which are where our global decisions can be reached and the frameworks, design and rules must be established. Trusted and respected multilateral bodies must be rebuilt, as they were in 1945. People forget that, in 1945, after the rubble of the Second World War, we created from nothing—Americans and British in the lead, but many others as well—an entirely new structure of international co-operation. Yet all those post-war institutions, which served us quite well for decades in the 20th century, are now in deep trouble. They are the rule-makers, or are meant to be, and the referees, but they must have respect and some trust if their writ is to run.
Obviously, we need a new Bretton Woods to shape the financial regulations of an entirely different world from that of 80 years ago. We plainly need new trade rules in a far more complicated trade and investment world of supply chains. We need entirely new maritime controls, both subsea and surface. We need overhauled international courts, new insurance systems and so on and so forth. Where are the visionaries today? Where are the equivalents of Truman, Marshall, Maynard Keynes and Dexter White, for instance—although I am told that he had other interests as well. They were supported by a dazzling cast of American and British economists, officials and financiers.
National plans and solutions we have two a penny—they are coming out all the time—but missing is the other half of the story: the global network and new international organisations that are the shield under which our own reforms become possible and relevant. Where are the new levels of co-operation that we need to assume some control over artificial intelligence and superintelligent machines that are beginning to think for themselves and have their own agenda?
All this is ignored or barely reported or discussed in the media or in public policy. The spirit of 1945 and those visionaries is plainly needed all over again, but in an even more ambitious form. Without that, we can carry on attacking one another and attacking the nearest targets as well, but we remain the playthings of past economic fantasy theories, swept along in a rudderless craft in a world without rules, referees or restraints. Amid many uncertainties, the one thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that such a world, without the handrails of accepted standards, is fatal to the prospects of a nation such as Great Britain.
To those who shake their heads and say that the required degree of co-operation is politically impossible today, the answer is not so. Political parties may be harder than ever to keep together, but authors such as the brilliant Adrian Wooldridge, whose book I strongly recommend and who writes about centrists in all parties needing to come together, are pointing a way to a new kind of revolution. The middle ground may sound a quagmire to party warriors from the old ideological wars, but the new common ground, which is a very different thing, undoubtedly lies ahead. That is where the real revolution is, and where those with real foresight should be concentrating their views.
This is the political powerplay and style of co-operation in the internet age and beyond. It avoids the traumas of party “betrayal”, which the press loves to play up, but unites the search for common ground. The barrier, of course, is the old left-right battle that grew out of Marxism-Leninism versus laissez-faire capitalism and led to unstable ideological stalemate and worse.
The moderating instincts of balanced international liberalism ought to be the ones driving global financial stability and restoring free trade, which Trumpism has thrown into turmoil. They ought also to be the ones that open the gates to closer co-operation, rather than a standoff between private funding and public need in almost every sphere of public policy.
I end with one final observation: with the binding force of the English language still dominating global trade and holding together a still growing Commonwealth, the largest network in the world and the largest network in history, it may be that a new vehicle of thought, action and hope is about to be born. Let us wait and see.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [R]
My Lords, I have spent 47 years in Westminster. I have supported conflicts worldwide, most notably in the Middle East and eastern Europe, but some recent conflicts have caused me to reflect and have cost me dearly. Friendships have been fractured. My view that we have sometimes questionably intervened in matters overseas has been unpopular. Today’s debate is about global mediation and conflict prevention, and I shall concentrate my remarks on Ukraine and Russia.
In 1992, as a Labour shadow Agriculture Minister, I visited Moscow to investigate our beef export trade. That eye-opening visit gave me an early opportunity post Gorbachev—Yeltsin was president—to look at developments in Russia. I visited the Duma, NGOs and institutions. The Russian economy was in free fall. Its proud people, the spirit of Stalingrad, were being humiliated before the civilised world. Its administration was often riddled with corruption, with many former Soviet apparatchiks openly exploiting the system to survive, their actions often underpinned by reckless acts of officials who sanctioned violence.
I particularly recall the poverty. I witnessed a respectable, well-clad woman in effect begging over a small stall in the street with her meagre offerings—a bunch of vegetables, a tin or two and some vodka—to raise money to survive on little pension. She was one among many whom I witnessed. The currency was in free fall. My hotel rate was $150 for foreigners; it was $5 for locals. Black marketeers were touring the hotels dealing in currency. Russia was in a state of total humiliation and collapse, and the political response was suspicion of the West.
Of course, it was totally unwarranted, a complete misunderstanding, the truth being that across our political divide there was a hope that their suffering would end and a new Russia committed to democratic values would surface and enter the world of advanced, civilised nations. It was not to be, as within two years of this period of humiliation, Russia signed the 1994 Budapest memorandum. It was a treaty born in duress that was prayed in aid by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, last week. That memorandum was signed by Russia at its lowest ebb. Russia, in humiliation, never accepted that treaty. It arguably led to the election of Putin in 1998, a former spook with visions of rebuilding Russia which appealed to its humiliated peoples.
That brings me to the Putin years. I well recall that day in October 2001 when my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, as NATO Secretary-General, met Vladimir Putin—I think it was in Vienna. My noble friend had proposed that a working group be established to promote a NATO-Russian relationship—all very welcome—but it was to be completely undermined by President Bush’s calls in the same year for NATO expansion into eastern Europe. Those Bush interventions were critical, as they heralded an end to détente and the revival of a militant Russia, where they were seen as acts of hostility. Russia had relied on the maintenance of a string of non-nuclear, non-NATO barrier states stretching from Finland to Georgia. Ever suspicious of the West, it followed up with its desperate but ill-considered attempt to take over Ukraine, and Zelensky was elected on the backlash.
It was about this time that I started following events in Russia more closely, which I do to this day. Talk of détente had gone, and the Robertson/Putin agenda was dead. We now had an inflexible Russia extending political control, grabbing territory—the Crimea—and manipulating populations in Ukraine’s eastern provinces, provoking a fearsome and brutal response from the Azov Brigade with its history of support for Germany in the Second World War, thus the Russian references to the Nazis. When historians reflect on developments in Ukraine during its darkest periods, let us not underestimate the significance of those battalions in Russia’s decision to use them as foil in justification for their invasion of Ukraine.
For me, the issue is how we should respond. We now face a future where a Russian leadership, paranoid and challenged, stands in isolation. I fear for the future of mankind in this period of conflict. A rogue operator in Russia’s nuclear military establishment could act in isolation. I well recall with concern the actions of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the rebel commander of the Wagner brigade, a former confidant of Putin, who died in suspicious circumstances. Putin himself saw the dangers, and it is in that light that the drift into war where Zelensky controls the agenda worries me.
So now how should we proceed? A proud Russia is cornered, and I suspect it seeks a settlement without humiliation. We need an agenda that avoids humiliation for all concerned. We need to settle this dispute. I have called repeatedly for the UK Government to seize the initiative and take on the settlement agenda. In my most recent interventions, I have called for the establishment of protectorate status in eastern Ukraine, for which there are well-established precedents—a settlement to include much of Donetsk and Luhansk, underpinned by guarantees from the major powers, to include the United States, Europe and Russia. I still believe that Russia’s future lies with the West and that Putin, for all his misunderstanding, can be returned to rational discussion. It is the British who should take the lead, but it is an agenda requiring courage, understanding, wise counsel and risk, and an agenda that listens to those of us who take a different view without the name-calling.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I begin my remarks with a simple reflection: the true test of diplomacy now is not how eloquently we respond to conflict but how effectively we prevent it. I draw Members’ attention to my registered interests with the World Humanitarian Forum and the International Communities Organisation, and as a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee. The issue of conflict prevention is very close to my heart. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for tabling this debate. Over many years as a Minister, I saw his passionate advocacy for both conflict resolution and humanitarian affairs.
Today, as we confront a world marked by more than 65 conflicts, depending on how you define a conflict or a war, deepening geopolitical divisions and immense humanitarian suffering, the responsibility on all of us, and the United Kingdom in particular, has never been greater. Behind every statistic of a life lost—and we heard harrowing statistics from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell—there is a human story: a family displaced, a child deprived of education, a woman subjected to violence, or a community whose hopes for a peaceful future have been shattered.
Having served in government, represented the UK internationally, and worked extensively through the United Nations, I have seen both the potential and success of diplomacy but also, tragically, the consequences that come when you act too late. The UK was part of the conflict resolution between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Perhaps we do not get the credit we deserve. I remember shuttling between Foreign Ministers. But that was the true sense of British diplomacy: discreet and understated. I have learned that peace is not achieved through declarations alone. It requires, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, sustained political engagement, conversations, crucial and trusted partnerships, and, above all, the courage to keep working when progress seems elusive. Prevention, mediation and peacebuilding are not separate stages of our international responsibility; they are interconnected parts of the same endeavour.
The United Nations, a clear focus of our debate, was founded on the determination that future generations should be spared the devastation of war. In my view, millions have been failed in this regard. The founding vision remains as relevant today as it was in 1945. The UN, as I saw myself, brings together the international community, provides a framework for collective security, supports peacekeeping, facilitates mediation, and gives a voice to nations that might otherwise be unheard. Yet we must be candid: the UN’s effectiveness in recent years has been diminishing or indeed absent from the negotiating table. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and others have said, we have seen other countries stepping forward—Qatar in the Middle East and beyond—and regional players playing their part to ensure that conflicts can come to an end.
When divisions within the Security Council prevent meaningful action, as I saw myself, the credibility of the international system suffers. Yet my own experience of multilateral diplomacy also reinforced a fundamental lesson. International institutions, whether we talk of the UN, the ICJ or the ICC, are as effective only as the political will that sustains them. We need a more responsible, dynamic and agile United Nations but, importantly, with the right people who can act as advocates. Reform matters, but so does the willingness of member states to use the instruments that already exist.
One of the most important lessons of diplomacy is that conflicts rarely emerge without warning. Political exclusion, discrimination and the erosion of human rights, economic insecurity and the deliberate targeting of communities are often the basis. Yet too often, as a collective, we wait too long. We wait until violence has erupted before mobilising the full weight of international diplomacy. This must fundamentally change. Prevention requires investment in early-warning systems, strong institutions, inclusive governance, and the protection of fundamental freedoms. It also requires listening to communities and faith leaders, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us. I saw directly the importance of sustained relationships and direct engagement with international partners. In diplomacy, trust built before a crisis is essential.
I have a plea that applies to my party as well as the current Government. We must stop the revolving door when it comes to ministerial change on the global stage. Relationships matter and we must invest in those relationships. Without that, the UK loses credibility. We have excellent diplomatic networks and international relationships. We have the experience in this House as well. I say to the Minister: leverage those experiences. We have names who have built security and trust. We need to ensure that we get the optimum benefit for the world as a whole. The most successful act of conflict prevention may be one that the world never notices, precisely because that conflict never happens. Those who have been involved with this have seen it.
My noble friend Lord Redwood also mentioned the importance of diplomacy, but it needs the strength of all our assets, including defence. So I ask the Minister: as the United Kingdom previously has operated, and continues to operate, on issues such as Operation Prosperity Guardian, what is the current support we are extending to ensure that places such as the Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea continue to be secure, despite the Houthis’ attacks? Mediation also means that we keep the door open. It requires patience and political judgment. When we believe in peace, we must be prepared to do the hard work of pursuing it.
Let me emphasise an important distinction. Engagement does not mean endorsement, and dialogue does not mean abandoning principle, especially when it comes to dealing with conflicts such as Ukraine and Russia. This is where the UK and its regional partners can make a real difference, co-ordinating diplomatic pressure and ensuring that negotiations are accompanied by a realistic pathway to peace. We must also resist the temptation to measure success solely by whether the parties all sat around a table. It is far more than that. The real measure is whether the process produced meaningful progress, peace, and security. A ceasefire can stop the immediate violence. Only sustained political engagement can help prevent its return. Peacebuilding begins long before a peace agreement is signed, and we must emphasise the importance of women peacekeepers. The UK led on the issue of conflict mediators, creating the very networks of women mediators. Yet, with the one exception that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, we have not seen women mediators involved in the current live conflicts that we witness.
I turn to a subject which was very close to my heart. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Hague and Lady Helic on the issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict. I spent seven years on that. In terms of listening to voices, of effecting global change, we listened to survivors, not after the event, but we put them at the heart of our strategy planning. I hope the Minister can assure me that we will continue to stand by UK leadership, and I would welcome an update on the international alliance that was created in this respect.
To conclude, the UK’s responsibility is immense. First, I do not subscribe to the view that we are a middle power. We are slightly more enhanced than that. We are not China or the United States, but we are the United Kingdom. We have incredible diplomatic networks, as has been mentioned, and we need to invest in those to sustain our principled diplomats.
Secondly, we need to practise principled, consistent engagement and maintain channels of communication. We must be the champions. It is not woke to stand up for women in mediation; it is simply the right thing to do. We must support peace beyond the negotiating table and build effective coalitions. But, above all, we must maintain consistency between our words and our actions.
Let me conclude with a reflection drawn from my own experience on the international stage. Diplomacy can be frustrating: I served five Prime Ministers and six Foreign Secretaries, so I know that it starts at home. Yet history reminds us that conflicts once considered intractable have found pathways towards resolution when political leadership, international engagement and public determination have come together. We must never confuse the difficulty of achieving peace with the impossibility of achieving it. The UN has a vital role, but it must be revitalised. Let us therefore move from reacting to crises towards preventing them and from managing temporary pauses to political settlements. Let our legacy be measured not simply by the conflicts we helped to resolve but those we helped to prevent, the lives we helped to protect and the generations who were able to grow up in peace.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by joining the chorus of thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, for bringing us this debate and introducing it so clearly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who, as we have just heard, has maintained an acute focus on gender issues in conflict; I echo his comments by saying that I hope we will continue to see this from our current Ministers. I also note that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, did a brilliant job in the recent Lord Speaker’s Lecture with Dr Fiona Hill. For those who missed it, it is on YouTube and I can strongly recommend it.
I am going to focus on three issues. The largest and first is atrocity prevention, which is of course absolutely crucial to maintaining and restoring peace. I have raised this issue previously in your Lordships’ House and it is an acutely urgent one. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, referred to the first anniversary of the El Fasher massacre this week. I was at the commemoration in your Lordships’ House of that massacre, an indescribably awful event. We heard there from a woman who described herself as a child of El Fasher; she lost 40 people there. Of course, one of the realities of such massacres today is that she was on the phone to one of the people killed at El Fasher—their children were killed as well—just hours before El Fasher fell. If we think about the kind of experience that people are going through, we must not forget that. She made the plea, so often heard and so often not delivered: “Never again”.
There is a great deal of academic work being done on atrocity prevention, which is worth looking at. The answer to the simple question of why leaders choose to engage in mass atrocities is that they do it because the rewards seem greater than the costs. They end mass atrocities either because they have achieved what they saw as their goal or because the balance of risks and costs has changed. That really is where the international community could and should be coming in.
What we have seen, sadly, is that three of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have increasingly been challenging, to varying degrees, the post-war legal order and seeking to weaken the institutions which should be acting to increase the costs of committing atrocities. For the middle powers—Canada, Brazil, Japan and the UK—that means we have an even larger responsibility to act. As the right reverend Prelate set out, we have a huge moral responsibility, but there is also the practical outcome of why it is in our own interests to take action. Atrocity crimes drive human displacement and destabilise entire regions; many would point to the fact that they disrupt markets and demand costly responses. I note that the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Global Peace Index estimates that such violence cost $2.8 trillion in 2025, equivalent to 18.5% of global GDP.
In November last year, I put a Written Question to the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the staffing level of the mass atrocity prevention hub in the FCDO that was created in 2022. As the noble Baroness told me, it had been integrated into the conflict and atrocity prevention department in 2024. I was asking for numbers in that Written Question and did not get them, so these are direct questions to the Minister and I will understand if he needs to write to me. How many people are now working in that conflict and atrocity prevention department? How does that compare with the number of people working in the department 12 months ago and where do the Government expect the staffing in that department to be in 12 months’ time?
I ask that in the context of an important report that came out earlier this month from the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes, an independent but very respected group which published The Atrocity Crimes Review: a Comprehensive UK Strategy for Atrocity Prediction, Prevention and Response. The review concludes that
“the UK’s approach … remains fragmented and reactive … there is no coherent framework to ensure … early warnings of atrocity crimes”
and there is now a great deal of academic literature and professional understanding of how we can see these crimes approaching. It says that this is not being “translated into timely action” and that there is
“no comprehensive national strategy, no dedicated ministerial lead, and no clearly identified budget”,
as we have seen from the structural changes I just referred to.
The review stresses that it is talking about successive Governments—it is not picking on any Government in particular—and warns that this is directly affecting the UK’s national security and economic interests. It also has impacts on migration pressures, as well as in the overall application and exercise of the international rule of law. Acting before the atrocity happens not only saves enormous human costs; it saves enormous economic costs. The review recommends:
“A dedicated cross-government atrocity prevention strategy”
with clear funding and parliamentary reporting;
“An independent statutory expert body to assess atrocity risks and advise Government and Parliament”;
and a “named ministerial lead” for these issues, with “stronger mechanisms” to get action. My question to the Minister is: will the Government be looking seriously at this review and responding to it?
I come briefly to two further points, which both relate to the UK’s position in the world. If we are to take action, be regarded as a leader and be effective in that action, when we make commitments to the global community, to scientific researchers and citizens, we need to ensure that we can meet them. I note it has recently emerged that HMS “Protector” will not be deploying to the Antarctic for the 2026-27 season, which will leave the UK without an ice patrol vessel in the South Atlantic for the second year in a row. We last had a vessel, which was the HMS “Protector”, in the 2024-25 season.
That vessel could not sail from Teesside to Devonport this month. Reports suggest that it has suffered a catastrophic double engine failure. This vessel was taken on in 2011 as a short-term replacement for HMS “Endurance”, which had been crippled by flooding in 2008. The vessel carries out surveys and inspections under the Antarctic treaty and it supports the British Antarctic Survey, as well as taking on more obvious defence responsibilities. Can the Minister reassure me that, by whatever means necessary, we will be meeting our responsibilities to the Antarctic treaty and supporting the British Antarctic Survey?
I come finally to a very large subject which I can cover only quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, spoke, absolutely rightly, about how our diplomats and third-sector organisations have a very good international reputation, but we are seeing worldviews shifting as geopolitics shift. I note that the UN adopted a resolution in March 2026 declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans as the gravest crime against humanity, and of course the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, has launched a new manifesto from Caribbean leaders asserting their moral, ethical and legal case for reparations.
As noted in a 2024 report by the UCL Policy Lab and Hertford College, Oxford, former colonies are making increasingly vocal demands around the need for reparations for colonialism and compensation for the loss and damage arising from historical industrial emissions. I must cross-reference the Rosebank debate we had earlier: that decision will impact on our international standing in the world, as well as all the other impacts.
Other noble Lords have already referred to some very unwise military interventionism and adventurism in which we have engaged with the US in recent decades. Not being Airstrip One is something that we must think about very hard in terms of our international relations and how we will be treated by the rest of the world. The UK needs to be an independent actor, standing up for human rights and the rule of law. If we are not in that position then we will not be as effective as we could and should be.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, a week ago I took part in a debate here on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution. I was put on the speakers’ list to follow a slew of noble and learned Lords whose knowledge, experience and fingertip ability to bring out the right quotation and citation was extraordinary and belittling. This week, I am put on the speakers’ list to follow diplomats, politicians and others who have run the world or been close to people who have run the world. Here I stand now, seeking to make as much sense and legitimacy for my being here as I tried to make last week. The feature in common for both debates is the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I am now so used to the noble Lord that his presence is comforting; last week, it was less so.
I want to move from macro to micro, and those who know me will not need much help to understand that I wish to speak about a country that is very dear to me, namely Haiti. I lived there for 10 years and did all kinds of things, from microfinance to organising co-operatives, planting trees, literacy and working with Haitian people in the fields and the council chambers, sometimes in the midst of alarmingly hostile situations. I come from that experience and it allows me to declare, as a possible conflict of interest, my co-chairing of the Haiti APPG. I was also ordained as a Methodist minister in Haiti. Our two sons were born there in a local hospital with Haitian medical care, so nobody could ever accuse me of being impartial as I share my remarks with the House today.
Three items concerning Haiti have come to my attention in the few days since I put down my name to speak. First was the news that the United Nations has agreed to extend its remit to maintain a Gang Suppression Force in Haiti for a further six months. Secondly, one of the countries providing troops to that force is Sri Lanka. Some 1,500 of its soldiers have been present in Haiti since June. Thirdly, there was a long article in the Spectator by a man called Bruce Gilley under the headline
“It’s time to colonise Haiti”.
I found it provocative, ill informed and malicious. That is not untypical of the approaches to encapsulate or describe what is happening in Haiti.
Despite the longer time than usual which is now allotted, time limits me to just two of those items. Between 2004 and 2007, at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers sexually exploited and abused Haitian children, boys and girls, some as young as eight, anally and orally. This was revealed by an internal United Nations report; it is excoriating to read. None of these peacekeepers was imprisoned for sexual assault or misconduct or brought to justice. There is no evidence of any credible, transparent or independent vetting process for troops constituting the present deployment from Sri Lanka. The complete absence of such measures is causing great concern to members of the Sri Lanka Campaign with whom I have been in conversation. Yet 1,500 Sri Lankan soldiers are on Haitian soil again. It is doubtful that many lessons have been learned from the previous dreadful experience.
Such happenings seem to be a regular occurrence in Haiti. Let us remind ourselves that the country suffered an enormous earthquake in January 2010. Over a quarter of a million people died—more than twice the total number of people killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. The world made a show of rallying round and the United Nations strengthened what it called a “stabilisation force” to keep order on the streets, but abusive events seemed to flourish in the chaos of those times. Uruguay was forced to recall five of its peacekeepers from Haiti in 2011 amid allegations that, while wearing their country’s uniform, they were involved in the sexual assault of a local young man. Apart from that recall—even though there is much informal sharing of information that cannot be ascertained—no further investigation was mounted.
In the same year, an internal investigation conducted by Oxfam revealed that some aid workers, including the charity’s Haiti director, used local women. They were shamefully described as “prostitutes” as if they bore some of the blame for what was happening. All they had post-earthquake was their bodies; nothing else could earn them a penny or two. That they took part, therefore, in what were called “orgies” among the development workers under the aegis of Oxfam was a horrid thing. Amid widespread allegations of a cover-up, details of that 2011 event did not become public until 2018.
Peacekeepers from Nepal were accused of being responsible for a cholera outbreak, subsequently proved to the satisfaction of the investigation, which has killed as many as 10,000 in Haiti—a country that had never known cholera before. Compare the blanket of silence that has fallen on this experience with the publicity given to the incidence of Ebola in Sierra Leone at roughly the same time, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in more recent times.
Then there is Donald Trump, bless him; I paused for effect there but I did not seem to get it. In the 2024 election he and, please note, his Vice-President alleged that Haitian immigrants were stealing and eating their neighbours’ pets. There were no credible reports, police records or substantiated evidence of pets being stolen, harmed or eaten by Haitian immigrants.
The grotesque Mr Trump repeatedly referred to Haiti as a “shithole” country, an adjective which, if he continues on his present course, might become useful to us all in our attempts to describe his country. He has begun the process of repatriating 300,000 Haitians to the land of their birth, where 10 million are already subjected to poverty of an order almost impossible to understand; it is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere.
I call these observations that I put together for this talk a charge list. The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations has signally failed to engage with the needs of Haiti. The hundreds of millions of dollars it has poured into Haiti for various iterations of peacekeeping, stabilisation or gang suppression forces represents a downright waste of money of the first order. Can our representative in New York show an interest in these matters and see how a fraction of what has been lost and wasted there could have done immense good in the country I am referring to? With that, I rest my charge.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for his permanent passion and pursuit of these issues. We know that he digs away when many of us would rather sleep, and we are grateful to him for this debate. I also thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port for his heartfelt and painful speech—many aspects of it were difficult to hear but many of our private conversations have expressed the horrors that he has described well today. The whole House owes the noble Lord respect, given that he has lived and served in Haiti, and continues to advocate for it. Thank you.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for referring to President Santos. I will be with him in Cape Town next Friday. President Santos will be delivering the 24th Nelson Mandela lecture, in which he will pose the important question, “When is silence complicity”? He will ask us to consider what has happened to our voices as nations and our voices as leaders. He is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who has worked strenuously to bring opposing forces together. In other meetings I have had with him around the One Young World Summit—it takes place in Cape Town next week and I am there as a trustee—he has been strident, as also the leader of the elders, that the voice is vital to the piercing power of the impact we seek to find.
One of the other elders, Desmond Tutu, said that if we are neutral in situations of injustice, we have chosen the side of the oppressor. That is a painful thing to hear because I suspect that many of us, both in the previous Government, including the long-serving and honourable Ministers who saw out many who found the exit, and in this current Government, look at our governmental processes and wonder where is the voice? To what extent are we silent in the face of evil events? Albert Einstein reminded us that the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything. Will the Minister reflect on the extent to which we are we watching but not commenting? Are we seeing but not speaking? Are we afraid to express our voice in public? Martin Luther King Jr reminded us that
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends”.
I was thinking about the last time there was a governmental conference on one of the most difficult and intractable wars currently under way, which is in Sudan—probably the most vile of all the current wars. We must give credit to the former Foreign Secretary David Lammy for holding a conference to address those concerns, but subsequent Foreign Secretaries, certainly to my awareness, have not done so. The point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was that we keep swapping around Foreign Secretaries, Defence Secretaries and Ministers who are meant to carry memory, and the memory should help us to continue mature conversation and enable us to make better decisions. If we constantly refuse to hear because the voices have gone silent, we are complicit. We must ask ourselves why. To what extent has Britain lost its backbone?
Last night, I pointed out to the students that I have the joy of teaching at an American business school—I teach online, as I could not have got from here to there for this debate—an article that appeared in a local South Carolina newspaper by the former executive director of the World Food Programme, David Beasley, on 20 October. He is a great personal friend, and I was pleased that the university I represent gave him the Stephen R. Covey leadership award three years ago for his life of principles.
In this article, David Beasley, who was also a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his exceptional work in leading the World Food Programme, takes the question to the very heart of what I want to think about. The title is:
“Before America can be great, she must be good”.
He is currently running a campaign called “Make America Good Again”. That is not the business of this House, or the House down the Corridor, but it is a very important point.
I listened intently to yesterday’s—may I say, tinkering—Budget. Some may have loved every bit of it, but I went through the Budget book this morning and looked up what is said about foreign affairs, defence and conflict resolution—helped by AI a little bit, I must say, especially for “conflict resolution”. There was nothing. A lot is said, quite rightly, about £10 billion for Ukraine and the acquiring of weapons and structural systems, but not about conflict resolution. Maybe we have given that up. Buried away somewhere in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office there is a group of civil servants beavering away, advising Ministers, but we do not know how many and we do not know what they are saying.
We do not seem to express a strident voice that really matters on the global stage on these issues. I am going to say something dangerous: the United States President has invited the Russian President to attend the G20, which will take place in the United States. I hope every grown-up European politician, and our own Prime Minister, will take that as an opportunity for dialogue—not to run away and simply not be seen but to have communication, to shake hands and to be present. That is an easy response. Trust between opposing powers is built only when we meet.
I also spoke to my students last night about the work of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. Everyone in this House remembers 1977 and 1978 because we were all around and very old at that stage.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
Okay, maybe not—let us allow youth to speak. We all remember what it took for President Carter to sit for 23 days with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at Camp David, to discover a peace between Egypt and Israel that has held to this day. The same can be said of Northern Ireland and South Africa: whether we like it or not, dialogue is essential, even with opposing people, powers and those of a vile disposition, as we see it.
I will meet President Santos next week for the third time. I have been in Colombia three times and the last time I was there I went to Medellín, the town in which Pablo Escobar managed to conduct his vile campaigns of police and army corruption and destruction. I witnessed 20 women telling stories about the killing of their husbands and sons. Then I witnessed 20 of Escobar’s men step forward to apologise. The necessity of facing what we do not want to hear, and dealing with others because we must, is what I call “heart power”. We say a lot about soft power and hard power, but we need heart power to solve conflicts and bring people together. That requires guts, and I hope the Minister has them.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Hastings. He is the last of those who could be accused of remaining silent in the face of injustice. He has been at the forefront of so many cases and I agree very much with what he said, including his words about Dave Beasley, with whom I had the privilege of working, when I was Minister of International Development, at the World Food Programme. He did immense work there.
I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for initiating this debate. No one in this place has done more over the years than him to advance the agenda of stopping wars and saving lives. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for the work that he does not only in this place but, as we heard in his introductory remarks, around the world. I place on record my interest as qualified mediator with the International Mediation Institute and I serve as an officer with the All-Party Group for Sudan and South Sudan.
Peace-seeking and peacemaking are never popular. In the short term, everyone wants to be a Churchill; no one wants to be a Chamberlain. Yet, in 1954, Winston Churchill became so deeply concerned about President Eisenhower’s refusal to talk to his Soviet counterpart amid rising tensions that he went to the White House to tell the President publicly that
“jaw to jaw is better than war”.
Eisenhower listened and agreed to hold talks which temporarily defused the tensions.
Often, we are unable to meet jaw to jaw on our own and we require an intermediary, a trusted mediator or a mediating institution to bridge the gap and facilitate the dialogue. When both sides are shouting, no one is listening. Mediation does not compel us to agree with our enemy, but it does require us to listen to them, and they to us, and for both sides to do so respectfully.
I recall being the most junior of bag-carriers to the Security Minister in the Northern Ireland Office in 1994, when messages were being received about a possible ceasefire. But the experiences of the terrorist atrocities, the lack of trust and a deep suspicion meant that we could not bridge that chasm on our own. It was not until President Clinton sent, as a gift, Senator George Mitchell as an envoy to Northern Ireland later that year that we had someone who would stand in the gap for us and form a bridge for mediation that led to the Good Friday agreement. There was nothing weak about negotiating that agreement—it was done with huge political and personal risks by all those involved—but it saved hundreds, if not thousands, of British lives.
It is so much easier to throw a brick or build a wall than it is to build a bridge, easier to raise a fist in vengeance than it is to extend a hand in forgiveness. That is easy for me to say—I have never lost family members in war or been a victim of violence. Erich Fromm, on the other hand, was a German Jew, one of the greatest psychoanalysts of the last century. He was living in Frankfurt when the Nazis came to power. He narrowly escaped the Holocaust, but members of his family did not. He had every reason to be filled with self-righteous hatred and judgmentalism. But instead, he wrote a small book, The Art of Loving, which I will quote some of here today:
“The lack of objectivity, as far as foreign nations are concerned, is notorious. From one day to another, another nation is made out to be utterly depraved and fiendish, while one’s own nation stands for everything that is good and noble. Every action of the enemy is judged by one standard—every action of oneself by another. Even good deeds by the enemy are considered a sign of particular devilishness, meant to deceive us and the world, while our bad deeds are necessary and justified by our noble goals which they serve … The faculty to think objectively is reason; the emotional attitude behind reason is that of humility”.
In a world where nine men have at their fingertips enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet many times over, our only hope is human reason. But Erich Fromm reminds us that reason is built on objectivity and humility. The capacity to reason is that we see things not as they are but as we are; where we sit determines where we stand. We do not see the whole picture, we may be wrong and our enemy may even have a point. Let me illustrate this: I follow Newcastle United Football Club.
Lord Bates (Con)
Thank you. As you can tell, I am an optimist. Even my blood group is B positive, and that helps. But when I am at St James’ Park, watching a game from the stands, the minute one of our players just trips over a shoelace in the opposition box, 50,000 fans rise as one to call for a penalty for such an obvious and devious foul. Yet when the opposing player is flattened by big Dan Burn in our box, the crowd rise as one to call it a clear dive that deserves nothing but a yellow card for simulation. But when I watch the game at home on TV, I see multiple different perspectives replayed endlessly in slow motion and from every angle. We have them assessed by a referee and a linesman, and independent commentators, and we see things differently, perhaps more objectively.
The point is that we live in a Westphalian world of sovereign independent states where each state is its own referee. We call events as we see them, but then so does everybody else. We believe we are right, but then so does everybody else. We believe our actions are just, but then so does everybody else. It is a system designed for chaos and conflict. Yet, with our incredible human ingenuity, we have designed mediating institutions to compensate for our human weakness, chiefly the United Nations to act as a bridge between sovereign states and within states to maintain order and over which they can seek to mediate their differences. When we uphold the United Nations, we are upholding international order. When we attack or undermine it, we are destroying the critical infrastructure on which the very future and hope of civilisation depend.
I believe it is no coincidence that today we are seeing armed conflicts at their highest levels since 1946, when at the same time great power rivalries are undermining the United Nations at every turn and cutting its budgets. In international relations, as in life, you get what you pay for. Global military spending last year was $3 trillion, 1,000 times the budget of the UN. The entire peacebuilding budget of the United Nations to respond to 65 active armed conflicts around the world is $124 million, less than the cost of a single modern fighter jet. We could mediate an entire peace process for less than the cost of a single cruise missile.
Moreover, we are blessed in this country with some of the most skilled and respected diplomats in the world. The convening power of London is second to none. We are a soft power superpower, but that superpower is hard power. We have also been the beneficiaries of patient mediation ourselves in Northern Ireland, and that imposes an obligation on us to repay it by mediating for others.
It is also in our own enlightened self-interest to do that. Around three-quarters of those arriving in small boats in this country are from areas of conflict abroad. We are more secure at home when there is peace abroad; we are more prosperous too. Peace is the greatest generator of prosperity humans have ever discovered, and war is the greatest cause of poverty. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor told us yesterday that they are seeking opportunities to invest for growth. My message to them is simple: invest in peace.
Lord Rook (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I thank him for that contribution. We have the privilege of catching the bus home together occasionally, and on Monday we discussed his recent trip to Sudan, which was fascinating, and this upcoming debate, which we were much looking forward to. I do not think either of us have been disappointed; I might disappoint some people now, but up until now, we have not been disappointed. My thanks go to my noble friend Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale for securing this debate, and to other noble Lords for what has been a fascinating and broad-ranging set of contributions.
I point to my register of interests, and the work I do at the Good Faith Partnership, in respect of some of the work I will talk about next. Around the world, faith leaders are often on the front line of peacebuilding. From them, we learn that religious diplomacy can reach the parts that Governments struggle to reach. In my honest opinion, there are some false and lazy assumptions that sometimes prevent us harnessing the power of faith for mediation and conflict resolution. I want to talk about that today.
One false assumption is that the relationships of faith leaders are held largely with other religious people. It is not true in western countries; often, our faith leaders are the most well-connected people across different sectors and the range of society. It is certainly an irrelevant assumption in much of the world, where more than 80% of people say that faith has a role in their own personal identity. I am really grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for highlighting earlier the role of the Church in the work of mediation and conflict resolution. I hope what I say next will bring more power to the right reverend Prelate’s elbow.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, rightly said that London has a remarkable convening power. Earlier this year, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland hosted a group of senior Christian and Muslim religious leaders from Nigeria, prior to a peacebuilding summit that was hosted and convened in London by a former colleague of ours, Bishop Justin Welby. Those leaders were all opponents at one time, and some were enemies. Over the last month, starting at that event here in London, they have started to build relationships and plot paths to peace in parts of their country where conflict is rife.
My noble friends Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port both made it clear that local ownership is essential for successful mediation. Those Nigerian leaders would have been clear, and are clear, that there are only really Nigerian solutions for Nigerian problems; coming to London does not put things right. However, what we have learned from this experience is that the support of our Government and the US Government, in helping to enable and empower those leaders to take a role in their community, has been more than powerful.
I thank my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington, who, in her then role as the Minister, addressed the leaders when they came to your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to Minister McNeill, the new Minister for International Development and Africa, who confirmed, only this week, her support for the Government working with those faith leaders in Nigeria. I am particularly grateful to David Smith MP, our UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, who has worked hard with those faith leaders to encourage them in the work they are doing in their own country. We recently met again in Abuja in Nigeria and received great support from both the British and the US embassies, with the high commissioner and the US chargé d’affaires attending and engaging in the discussions. While conflict is not going down in Nigeria—sadly, it is rising in large parts of the country—these discussions, wherever you go, are a cause for real hope and, most importantly, for real practical action. A path to peace is being laid out by these leaders.
Far from engaging only with other people of faith or other faith leaders, those leaders in Nigeria are demonstrating an extraordinary capacity to build relationships both wide and deep. Together, they can engage those people who perpetrate violence; together, they can engage those people who are in danger of being drawn into violence; and together, sadly, they have to engage the victims and survivors of violence. I obviously encourage the Government to continue their support for the work of those faith leaders in Nigeria, but I also ask that we explore whether there are other regions in the world where religious diplomacy might be a route to help us support mediation and conflict resolution.
Following that false assumption, I want to raise a lazy one: the assumption that faith is more responsible for conflict than it is for peace. We do not have too long to go into that now, but often when religion is blamed for these conflicts, it is a false or thin depiction of that faith, often through radicalisation and extremism. Exploited by others, these false depictions become something that adds to conflict and local tension. In such situations, faith is actually not the poison; it is the antidote. Faith leaders have a moral and theological authority to call out bad actors in their community, to influence people to take a different path and to modify bad behaviours. In Mozambique, the United Nations has worked extensively with bishops to prevent acts of terrorism—the fight against ISIS. Where government sometimes lacked the ability and the authority to ask communities to do things differently, faith leaders provided powerful and practical solutions and, over a period, were able to reduce significantly the recruitment of community members into extremist activities. In Mozambique, we experienced that authentic expressions of faith can enable mediation and prevent conflict.
In 2025, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, whom I mentioned earlier, met two of the Nigerians who came to London in September, as she presented Pastor James Wuye and Imam Muhammad Ashafa with the inaugural Commonwealth Peace Prize. Some 40 years ago, James and Muhammad were fighting in rival militias; they had been recruited by local extremists and were waging war on each other’s communities— James lost his right arm in the process. However, as faith leaders, they have built a friendship and become reconciled. They have created an interfaith mediation centre and now run a national network of peace clubs, with more than 10,000 members, in their country. They are a parable of the power of faith leaders to build lasting relationships and to provide moral leadership that changes attitudes, behaviours, communities and—one day, I hope—their country.
I very much look forward to the response of my noble friend the Minister. I close with two questions for the Government. First, I am so grateful for the ongoing support of His Majesty’s Government for the faith leaders in Nigeria who are working so hard to build a path towards peace. In Nigeria and other countries, David Smith, our FoRB envoy, is playing a leading role in helping His Majesty’s Government to harness the power of faith and to build our capacity for religious diplomacy. At the launch of our freedom of religion or belief strategy at the FCDO in 2025, the department committed to publishing an annual report on the progress and impact made in this area. I am interested to know from my noble friend the Minister when we might expect the first of these reports, because it will provide valuable opportunities to recognise, celebrate and promote the important work that our Government are undertaking. In dark and difficult times, I hope we can find some good news, which is desperately needed.
Secondly, the FCDO’s Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation provides excellent specialist expertise in conflict prevention, mediation, peace process and stabilisation. It works with Governments, international institutions and civil society, and only this week a leading actor in this field was lauding its work to me. I am interested to know from the Minister how that unit can make an even greater impact by working with faith communities and religious diplomacy to draw on their unique relationships, local knowledge and moral authority to strengthen the UK’s impact in preventing and resolving conflict.
In closing, let us exercise smart power, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, mentioned earlier. Let us not be the victims of false or lazy assumptions; let us recognise the vital role of religious diplomacy in mediation and peacebuilding. Let us recognise the unique and remarkable relational capacity and the moral and theological influence and authority of religious leaders in conflict zones around the world, and let us do all we can to support them as they work faithfully on the front line of international mediation and peacebuilding.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on initiating this debate and on the way he introduced it. We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate, with lots of different perspective brought into play, which is as it should be and is extremely valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said that the problem with the Government is that they have tended to step back rather than step up. I am glad that he went on to say that there were some more positive things, and I think we should relate to that. However, it seems to me that the conversation we have is less about peacekeeping at the moment and more about conflict resolution, because until you resolve a conflict it is very difficult to keep the peace, and things have been moving in a pretty bad direction. However, this debate has been extremely instructive.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about his role as an intermediary were fascinating. He made it absolutely clear, as many other speakers have, that quiet engagement below the headlines can often make the difference, and he cited some really interesting examples. The work that has been done there is extremely valuable and not to be overlooked, and I am glad that he brought that to the debate.
It was also pointed out that peacekeeping and conflict prevention represent value for money, but, unfortunately, we are not actually providing the money at the moment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford touched on a very powerful point. She said that the concept at the moment seems to be that you have to wage war to secure peace. That is increasingly the way some of the conflicts look, and it is extremely difficult to know how you can pull them back to say, “Actually, no, you have to fight for peace”. That was an interesting analogy because, as I will come on to say, one of the problems we have is that too many of the protagonists are not interested in peace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, quite rightly said that we should not just reach for the same old toolkit, useful as it may be; we have to recognise that, in a changing world, we are going to have to find different ways of doing things. Increasingly, also, it is not just about states but non-state actors, and sometimes we have to invest in the long term.
I was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, whose intervention was not unexpected. I do not wish to discredit his own genuine view, which is not widely shared but which he has come to on his own basis—I am not suggesting that he is an agent for anybody else—but the reason I raised the Budapest memorandum is that he is looking for a solution which will require the same guarantors who have not honoured the original memorandum. It is difficult, therefore, to see how you can get a settlement that can be trusted, which is really the problem we face.
I want to pick up in particular what the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Bates, said. We have to engage with people we do not like, we have to take the criticisms as to why we are talking to them, and we have to do it both publicly and privately, and extensively, and be more objective. Those are powerful arguments, and all the best peace outcomes have always had that characteristic to make them happen.
As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said in his opening remarks, conflicts have proliferated to the extent that we currently have the highest level and number of conflicts since the Second World War. The worst ones, with none showing any capacity for peace interventions, are clearly Sudan, the Middle East and Gaza and Ukraine. I am afraid that, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the UN’s current weakness is revealed for all to see. Much of this is exacerbated by the disengagement of the main players on whom the UN depends: notably, Russia, the US and, to a lesser extent, China.
The UK, which supports peacekeeping and conflict prevention and resolution, has actually cut its funding to peace initiatives. I just checked the figures for the integrated security fund: for the current year, there is £854 million; next year, £545 million; the following year, £499 million; and the year after that, £471 million. That is the Government’s financial commitment to peacekeeping declining. It is not all about money—I accept that—but it is, I suggest, a movement in the wrong direction.
Turning to some of the conflicts, in Sudan I find it slightly extraordinary that, with Saudi Arabia supporting the Sudanese Armed Forces and the UAE supporting the Rapid Support Forces, they are also half of the mediating quad, which also includes Egypt and the United States. It is difficult to see progress or even the capacity to prevent the most appalling atrocities and humanitarian abuses when the mediators are also protagonists in the process. The UK is the penholder, so one question to the Minister is: to what extent can we exert some pressure? We had an earlier Question about aerial bombardment in Sudan, which has been perpetrated as extensions of two of the outside players. What can the Government do to put pressure on those two players to stop these atrocities and to pay a price if they do not, as my noble friend Lord Purvis called for in the earlier Question?
In the Middle East, we have not yet had the results of the Israeli elections, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has escalated assaults in the West Bank and Gaza, and he has been actively encouraged to do so by the White House—although I am not quite sure who is encouraging whom—when President Trump described him as a warrior Prime Minister, which is supposed to be a compliment. We are talking about peace, and he praises a warrior Prime Minister. Both sides in the Middle East are now promoting single-state solutions, turning their backs on the two-state solution, which is the only thing that offers long-term peace and stability. We still must not abandon our aspiration to get there, however difficult it may be. Tony Blair commented of the Belfast agreement, when he was made envoy for the quartet, that it was ironic that there was no agreed long-term solution to the division of Ireland, but peace had been secured, whereas there was an agreed and viable long-term solution to Middle East peace, but there was no peace. In the midst of this current situation, Trump and Netanyahu have started a war that they do not know how to end.
On Ukraine, we have equivocal support, not from us, but from the United States—or from the White House; I see the difference—and pressure to end the war by surrendering. It is no longer just equivocal support; it has now switched to outright support for Putin’s Russia, with Trump’s envoy, Witkoff, describing Putin as humanitarian for releasing one US prisoner. That might be welcome, but he was ignoring the daily slaughter of Ukrainian civilians by Russian drones and missiles, aggravated by the United States’ degrading of Ukraine’s defence capability.
It difficult to see how we can get out of these situations while the main players are behaving in this way. It must almost be observed that they do not want peace. They just want their side to win at all costs. How on earth are we supposed to respond to this? We must of course support the United Nations and initiatives that may fly. However, when President Trump seriously nominates Viktor Orbán as the candidate to be Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is obvious that, for the time being, we must look to other ways of promoting peace.
The conflicts that I have referred to are promoted by misogynistic leaders with the characteristics of bullies and cowards. The UN recognised in the year 2000 with Resolution 1325 that lasting peace required the active participation of women. Yet, precisely because so many of these conflicts are about power and control by men, they are still too often ignored—while mobilising humanitarian relief and exposing abuse is all that we are left with. Yet women played a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process and are conspicuous in the fight for Ukraine’s survival.
We have been talking about the United Nations and the international community. What is the role of the UK? We need a reset, a SWOTs analysis, to see what our strengths are and to deliver them on a priority basis. I ask the Minister whether that could be considered.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their contributions.
Throughout the debate, a number of points appealed to me and struck a chord. Funnily enough, it was noble the Baroness, Lady Chapman, who talked about trust and her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who talked about relationships. We are talking about smart power, regional ownership, local peacebuilders and the importance of moving quickly on mediation when conflict occurs. However, none of this will proceed unless there is the political will for it to succeed. This debate has looked at how the contributions from different sectors can push more mediation and prevention of global conflict.
We live in an increasingly dangerous world. It has been said many times in this debate, but in a debate such as this it is right that we reflect on the conflicts that we are seeing all over the world, as noble Lords have, whether in Sudan, the Holy Land, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, Afghanistan or the Philippines. It seems almost that wherever we look there is conflict, as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and my noble friend Lord Bates have said: 2025 saw 65 active state-based conflicts across 35 countries, the highest number recorded since 1946. There are many more places in the world today in tension to an extent that threatens conflict. The appalling scenes in Ceuta earlier this year showed the threat that illegal migration poses to countries across the world. In France, internal disorder has seen the mass destruction of livelihoods and public buildings. Every one of us wants to see order and peace in every part of the world. His Majesty’s Government should continue to use all the diplomatic tools available to work towards that goal.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has highlighted the importance of mediation in his Motion today, and we are particularly well placed as a nation to support mediation. We are a nation that respects the rule of law and is known the world over for our respect for fairness and, as other noble Lords have said, for our Diplomatic Service. But Britain today does not have the global reach it once had, and we must reflect on that. Can the Minister, when he replies to this debate, comment on the reality of Britain’s role in our increasingly unstable world and say what specific steps his department is taking to promote peace and an end to conflict across the world? In particular, can he say what work his department is doing towards a stable and long-lasting two-state solution in Israel and Palestine?
As a member state, Britain supports the work of the United Nations in promoting peace and stability through its Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding and Peace Support Office. I understand that this structure has recently been reviewed. Can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom fed into that review process and, if yes, what submissions did we make? I would also be grateful if the Minister could comment on the broader challenges faced by the UN, not least as a result of the fact that Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, is pursuing an illegal war in Ukraine, and what His Majesty’s Government’s position is on that.
The UK has contributed £630 million per year in funding for the UN for the last decade. Can Minister say whether the Government intend to continue that level of contribution or increase it? Further to that, can he say what work his department is doing to ensure that funding is going to the right places? We have all followed with interest the controversy surrounding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Can Minister update the House on the Government’s assessment of the situation at UNRWA? But mediation after conflict has begun is not enough. Constant engagement, rebuilding and trade across cultural divides has an important role to play. Can the Minister say what work Ministers are doing to promote constructive engagement between nations in conflict areas across the world?
The harsh truth is that, when conflict occurs, there is often a call for more direct intervention. Peace cannot always be achieved through mediation and international co-operation alone. We saw that in Sierra Leone, where a total of nearly 4,500 British personnel were deployed in-country. We must not forget that five dedicated British military personnel lost their lives in that conflict. We saw it again in the Balkans, where tens of thousands of British troops served as part of the NATO-led peacekeeping mission. A total of 72 British Armed Forces personnel have died as a result of those operations in the Balkans, including in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Serbia, since 1992. We should remember their service too.
Diplomacy is essential but, without hard power, as mentioned by other noble Lords, Britain cannot play a full role alongside our international allies and partners. That is why defence spending is so important and why it was disappointing to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer fail yesterday to set out a clear plan to hit the 3% of GDP spending target on defence. The Budget was in many ways an exercise in avoiding the tough decisions that we expect Ministers to tackle, and that was true on defence. Not only are we still waiting for the 3% spending plan, but the Chancellor has been accused of stealth cuts to the defence budget by diverting pensions savings to the Treasury rather than the defence budget.
The situation we are in on defence spending sends the wrong message to our allies, and it is important to get that message right. Overall, this debate has been really informative. It has given much food for thought and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)
My Lords, I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale for securing this debate and for the way he opened it with his experience, reflections and wisdom on this broad issue. I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the All-Party Group on conflict and peacebuilding, and to his long personal commitment to peace in many parts of the world, particularly in Mindanao, which he spoke about.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It is a debate that has brought not just experience of diplomacy, negotiation and the slow challenging work of building peace on the ground but a sense that peacebuilding is not the work of Governments alone. In fact, sometimes Governments are not the best-placed partners to make progress. I will come back to some of those points in a minute and I will try to respond to as many of them as I can. Apologies if I do not get to everything, but I will come back to you if I do not.
In particular, I would like to start by endorsing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that we should stop the revolving door of ministerial appointments. I could not agree more; we should start that right now.
We meet at a sobering moment. As many noble Lords have said, including my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, there are more conflicts in the world today than at any time since the Second World War. The figure my noble friend mentioned was that a quarter of a million people died in violent conflicts across the world in 2025. Conflict is driving terrible humanitarian crises, forcing families from their homes and seeing the most appalling atrocities committed against innocent people. We talked about Sudan earlier. I will come back to that in a minute. It is perhaps the most egregious example but, sadly, they are all too common.
The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned Ukraine. Just last month I was in Ukraine, meeting veterans, families, civil society leaders and others enduring a brutal assault on their country. I went to the village of Yahidne, which some noble Lords may know about. Just after the invasion, some 400 people were held in a school basement there for 27 days. I was taken around that basement by people who were in there without food, lighting or any provisions, and by people whose family members had suffered, some of whom had died. Ten people died in that basement. In Kyiv, I visited a UK-funded centre that is doing the heartbreaking but extraordinary work of tracing children who have been stolen from occupied territories and deported to Russia, where they have been adopted by Russian families. In the short time in my job, the human cost of this one example and the incredible courage of ordinary Ukrainians in this war is something I will not forget.
A few days after that I went to Toronto, where I joined more than 80 countries at a conference to discuss how to respond collectively to the problems that Ukrainians under Russian control face. There, we committed to convene a core group with Ukraine in London on the identification, return and reintegration of civilians from the occupied territories detained by Russia. That is perhaps a small example, but it is one of an attempt at peacemaking: the patient, often unseen work of getting people home, working with NGOs in the community of nations, trying to secure a just and lasting peace at a time when prospects seem pretty bleak, and using international law to do so.
I take seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on the need to have a heard-headed strategy to go along with that. In a nutshell, our strategy is to raise the costs of conflict for Russia so that it is forced—reluctantly, perhaps—to come to negotiation and discussion. This is at a time when Ukraine has made it clear, even at some cost to itself, that it is prepared to engage in those discussions. I am pleased to say that we are doing a variety to things, from sanctions to incessant diplomatic work, to try to achieve that outcome.
On prevention, beyond tragedies overseas, we have all seen how the effects of conflict reach our own shores—through irregular migration, organised crime, and higher costs for families here at home. For those who do not look abroad perhaps as much as noble Lords in this debate do, with their expertise and interests, prevention is in the national interest. My noble friend Lord McConnell is right that prioritising prevention is crucial. It is a hard-headed choice. It is not a soft option. Acting early saves lives and saves money. Mediation—helping those who are fighting to find a way to stop—is one of the most practical tools we have.
This theme has recurred in this debate: prioritising prevention is not the job of a single small group of people sitting in the Foreign Office; it runs through the activities across the Foreign Office and across government departments. Money is crucial, of course, and I will come back to that, but it is not reflected in a single pot of money allocated to something called “prevention”. It is much broader than that. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has extensive knowledge of this across six Foreign Secretaries and five Prime Ministers, rightly talked about the interconnection of different activities, such as peacebuilding, prevention, peacekeeping and mediation.
However, we have to acknowledge that the world of peacemaking in particular has changed—although the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, is right that we need more imagination in thinking about pre-emptive action and the way that the UK Government should act in the future. On the one hand, the group of states playing significant mediation roles has expanded, as my noble friend Lord McConnell mentioned at the start. However, as my noble friend Lady Chapman pointed out, some deals are short-term and transactional, do not stick, and leave the causes and drivers of conflict untouched. Some deals between states have that characteristic, as well as deals between non-state actors. The United Nations has also found it much harder to play the role it once did, which is a point many noble Lords have made. That must shape how we think about our role.
So what is our role? The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, rightly challenged me to spell it out. I will put it in three sets of categories or clusters of activities. Before I say that, it is striking that there was universal agreement that the UK, for all our faults, has pedigree in this area and a strong reputation. Despite some parts of the world thinking we are perhaps historically tainted in some ways, we are a country full of organisations, diplomats and experts that has a positive role to play. We should be proud of that and it continues to be true, for all the challenges we face. I will put the UK strategy in three parts: the first is to bring expertise, the second is on partnerships, and the third is to strengthen and protect the institutions of peace.
I will start on bringing expertise. We rarely lead mediation processes ourselves, often because others—NGOs, other countries or faith groups, to come back to my noble friend Lord Rook’s point—are better placed and more trusted by the parties concerned. Instead, we tend to back mediators, regional organisations and parties themselves, drawing on our diplomatic relationships, our influence, our expertise, back channels and ceasefires. We have experience: the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the sad, painful experience in Northern Ireland, which gives us a mixture of pain, experience, credibility and wisdom, and enables us to have some perspective and authority.
My noble friend Lord McConnell knows this from Mindanao: in 2009, at the request of the parties, the UK led the formation of the international contact group, alongside others such as Japan and Saudi Arabia, and helped pave the way to a peace agreement that has significantly reduced violence. On Colombia, which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to—he is about to meet former President Santos, as he said—my noble friend Lady Chapman noted in quite moving detail the specific way in which UK engagement actually made a difference, particularly in the perceptions of the enemy at the point of demobilisation. Here, the UK used its role on the Security Council to keep international support behind the peace process.
Through our new conflict and violence community of expertise, we deploy specialists on mediation, atrocity prevention and conflict-related sexual violence where they are needed. Through our conflict resolution programme, we have funded expert partners to support dialogue in some of the hardest places to achieve that. Much of that work is very discreet and is not talked about, for good reason: as many noble Lords have mentioned, discretion is an important part of keeping people safe and keeping talks alive.
On this issue, I want to go back to my noble friend Lord Rook’s comments on the role of faith-based organisations and individuals. I always love listening to my noble friend; he is one of my favourite speakers. He raised two issues. Last year, when we announced our approach to freedom of religion or belief, the Government made a commitment that we would have a report, and I can confirm that the report, which outlines the progress we have made, will be presented to the Prime Minister before the end of this year. On contact between FCDO conflict experts and religious leaders, I am pleased to say that it not only is crucial but happens frequently. It is pivotal to informing the FCDO’s understanding on how to use its influence, where not to use its influence, where to delegate, where to use partnerships and other approaches.
The second theme is building partnerships. As my noble friend Lord McConnell mentioned, since 2025 we have formalised co-operation on conflict resolution with Qatar and Turkey, for example. I know from our ambassador in Qatar how much effort he and his team are putting into that partnership, particularly with the Iran conflict and other conflicts in mind. They are partners with growing roles as mediators whose expertise we value. We have also begun working with Japan’s new mediation unit, which I know my noble friend has championed, and we are deepening our co-operation with the European Union, as provided for by the security and defence partnership.
Again, our job is not to crowd an already crowded field; it is to help those with access and more legitimacy than we sometimes have to succeed. As I mentioned earlier in answer to a Question on Sudan, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Istanbul last week for an E3+R4 meeting looking at ways in which countries with other kinds of relationships in areas such as Sudan and Iran can play a more constructive role.
I come back to a very important point that my noble friend Lady Chapman raised. She is completely right about the framing of responses being overly dictated by the last response. With my academic hat on—I can never quite give up being an academic—there is a wonderful book by Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War, which is precisely about military engagement falling prey to exactly the same vice: fighting the current war based on the lessons from a previous war. Peacebuilding can suffer from some of those same vices as well. That is an incredibly important point.
The third set of activities to which I want to draw attention is strengthening the institutions of peace. I was in Vienna last month where I opened the UK’s chairpersonship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is one of the few multilateral institutions where we sit around the table with Russia and which, in my view, is more valuable for that. In my speech—I am sure noble Lords have read it, but I will just summarise for those who may have missed it—I talked about how dialogue matters most when trust is at its lowest ebb and how Europe’s security institutions still have a role, despite it being unfashionable in many quarters, to manage risk and prevent escalation. We will keep investing in them. For example, we have contributed more than £200 million to the UN peacebuilding fund since 2006, which makes us a very long-standing and loyal donor.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave us a chastening and correct challenge to try to recapture the spirit of 1945. Let us be honest: this is not a good time for multilateralism and the UN. It is therefore not a time for us to walk away from these multilateral institutions. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it is a time to try to put some steel back in the multilateral architecture. I will respond to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in a minute.
It is also a time to beware false choices, which have been presented in some noble Lords’ comments today, between hard and soft power. I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford’s point that if you want peace you have to invest in the institutions of multilateral co-operation that bring it about and not assume war. There is also the false choice of thinking that it is either defence or development. Of course, this has been a very difficult time because of the cuts that have been made to the development budget. But there is a more fundamental challenge than just zero-sum trade-offs of funding, which is to rethink the way we think about defence and to bring security, economic and military dimensions—pre-emptive downstream interventions—into our concept of what proper security and defence are about.
We helped shape last year’s review of the UN’s peacekeeping architecture. We fund the UN’s mediation experts, and as the UN prepares for a new Secretary-General, we want a United Nations that uses its good offices actively and early. Regional organisations matter too, particularly the African Union, for example. We will support these organisations to make that commitment real and will work with the World Bank and other international finance institutions so that money flows to prevention before violence breaks out.
Several noble Lords raised early warning, including the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. The problem is rarely that we cannot see a crisis coming; we usually can. It is about turning warning into action. The FCDO has developed a variety of mechanisms and tools to support early warning and early action across the network. The importance of using technology to improve translation of that early warning into action was a point well made. The Foreign Office is bringing conflict, atrocity and humanitarian analysis together into a single view of risk, drawing on our embassies, open-source data and horizon scanning. We support local civil society organisations to strengthen their early-warning functions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned atrocity prevention. I welcome the challenge in the Peace Works report launched by my noble friend’s all-party group and in the Atrocity Crimes Review published earlier this month. We are considering their recommendations carefully. I am particularly considering their recommendations carefully because my old boss, Gordon Brown, spoke at the launch of the review, and I have learned over the years not to ignore Gordon Brown, especially on early-warning issues. Officials are meeting the authors, and I would be glad for our officials to meet my noble friend and the group’s officers as well.
I was going to talk about some particular cases. Given the time, I probably will not, but we talked about Sudan earlier and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, challenged us on Sudan. There are definitely complexities with those involved in peacemaking also being parties that have interests. That is not just a complexity of Sudan, but clearly it is a complexity there. What are we doing? We had an UNGA event specifically on the drone attacks to try to make some progress on that. We are leaders of the coalition for atrocity prevention group, and there is constant engagement on this. I am sure there is more that can be done, but it is not a field in which we are silent.
I also want to mention the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on the question of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, which I believe he was instrumental in starting. We are continuing to prioritise that. We work with Colombia, the DRC, which I think is chair this year, Ukraine and others. We are vice-chair this year, and it is an agenda that is being actively pursued with energy from the United Kingdom.
Inclusion is vital. Peace agreements are more likely to last when, for example and in particular, women participate in a meaningful way, and parties are more likely to come back to the table if talks falter. We need women’s leadership and meaningful participation in these spaces. We have protected funding for women, peace and security, and we are refreshing our national action plan on this. Inclusion also means hearing local peacebuilders, the people who raise the alarm first, stay the longest and have most at stake. We must do more to protect women peacebuilders and human rights defenders who face growing intimidation, reprisals and violence.
Many noble Lords asked about resources. I will not pretend that reducing aid to 0.3% was easy and has not had trade-offs—of course it has. It has had consequences, but we are concentrating on where we can do most good. I am pleased to say that more than 70% of our country and regional aid will go to fragile and conflict-affected states by 2028-29. As I said earlier, and I speak as someone who used to come up with pots of money as a Treasury special adviser for a previous Chancellor, this is an area where money is crucial, but the magnitude of commitment cannot be expressed simply by how many people work in a particular unit or how much money goes to a particular sub-activity inside the Foreign Office, crucial as that is.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, rightly challenged us on defence, although traditionally the spending review is when spending decisions are made. At least, that is my understanding. There will be more to say on that.
To conclude, the success of prevention is often invisible: the war that did not start, the ceasefire that held, the talks that kept going when everyone thought they would fail. These are non-events that are huge events in the world of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. It is one of the best investments that we can make in security for people living through conflict and for us here at home. Our role is to bring expertise, build partnerships and strengthen institutions.
I will make two quick last remarks even though I am hitting my time limit. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked whether Britain was afraid to speak. Absolutely not—I say that with all due respect. Without being pious, I see myself as part of a team of Ministers at the Foreign Office who are putting ending suffering and violence at the forefront on Israel, even though many noble Lords will not agree with our position on Israel and in our Israel reset, on Sudan and on Ukraine. I am sure everyone will keep us challenged on that, but it is absolutely at the centre.
Lastly, are we afraid to talk to those with whom we disagree? This point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Bates—whom I congratulate on bringing Dan Burn’s name into a debate on conflict prevention—Lord Hastings, Lord Anderson, and others. The answer is yes, sometimes we are too afraid to speak to those with whom we disagree. That is probably true of our Government at times, so that is a good challenge, because lines of communication are more, not less, important when tensions and conflicts are at their greatest. That is a salutary lesson to take away.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for such a fascinating, interesting and thought-provoking series of speeches in a debate that I am sure will live on in the minds of those of us who have been here to listen for days, weeks and perhaps even months to come. My thanks go in particular to my noble friend the Minister for his wide-ranging response. There is much there for us to think about, but also for us to welcome. It would be impossible to comment on even a range of the points that have been made, but I will briefly comment on two.
The first is in relation to the United Nations. Many noble Lords mentioned the importance of the United Nations, and many others reflected on the frustration about the ability of the United Nations to do its job in 2026. Given the Government’s commitment to decentralisation, devolution and the understanding that not everything can be done centrally, perhaps one of the questions we need to address over the next 20 years towards the centenary of the United Nations is whether everything centralised in New York is the right format for an organisation that has grown from 50-odd states in 1946 to nearly 200 today. Perhaps those regional organisations that I have referred to regularly in debates such as this—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which has an important role in the Middle East these days, and so many others—provide forums through which we can deal with many of these issues much more successfully.
Finally, I want to comment on the issue of patience and persistence and sticking with the difficult business of peacebuilding. When I first became involved in the Philippines in 2014, there was much enthusiasm about the peace agreement. Nine months later, the Philippine National Police, at the instigation probably of the United States of America, went looking for a couple of Malaysian terrorists in the area that was controlled by the erstwhile Moro rebels. They were not warned in advance. They thought they were under attack. They attacked the police officers who had gone into the area, and killed 41 police officers. There were calls in Manila at the time to scrap the peace agreement, to tear it up, to go back to square one, and to go in and kill everybody who was associated with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front rather than stick with the peace agreement.
I was in Manila at the time and I was asked to do a series of interviews. I recalled the Omagh bombing in 1998, the worst bombing during the whole of the conflict in Northern Ireland, six months after the Good Friday agreement, and the calls on Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern to cancel the agreement because of that bombing and their determination not to do so at that time. My calculation in 2015 was that every single child leaving school in Northern Ireland that year aged 16 had lived their entire life in peace as a result of that decision not to cancel the peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that my colleagues in the Philippines stuck with it through three Presidents and even a change of local leadership from the liberation front, and tomorrow they will elect their first ever chief minister in an autonomous parliament that, I hope, will give them peace for many decades to come. Persistence, sticking with it, going through the bad times as well as the good times, dealing with your opponents and having an inclusive process are essential, and I am very glad that our debate reflected that today.
Refugees: Community Sponsorship
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of refugees that will be settled annually through community sponsorship; and what steps they are taking to provide adequate resources and support to sponsors.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to have secured this debate, and to those who will speak. Community sponsorship offers a distinctive approach to refugee settlement. It enables people not simply to welcome refugees in principle but to stand alongside them in practice in securing a home, navigating unfamiliar systems and building relationships and new lives. It is a considerable commitment and an expression of the best of our civic life—or, as the Prime Minister might choose to see it, a courageous example of hope, where families are welcomed by their neighbours. It has been a privilege to witness the scheme’s extraordinary capacity to transform the lives of displaced people and enrich communities in my own diocese of Chelmsford, and across the UK, since its launch at Lambeth Palace in 2016. People want to help provide refugee protection.
The Government’s role is to create a safe, managed and sustainable framework that turns that willingness into action; I am grateful for their commitment in wanting to make that work. My understanding is that the Government will open applications to the scheme today. If I am correct, that will be an important milestone. I hope that this debate offers an opportunity for the Minister to share more about the Government’s ambitions for partnership working with communities and sponsors to make this pathway a joint success. Communities need to know what is expected of them, how many refugees the programme hopes to support, and what resources are available. These are questions of ambition, capacity and responsibility, which I hope we can explore a little today.
The Government want to restore public confidence in the migration system. We all see the human tragedy of people risking their lives in small boats and we hear concerns about pressures on services, housing and cohesion, yet these concerns are too often presented as a choice between compassion and control. The model of community sponsorship demonstrates that this is a false choice. It offers a safe, regular and well-managed route for refugees to rebuild their lives while strengthening communities.
In this scheme, communities choose to participate. Numbers are known and arrivals prepared for. Accommodation and support are planned and secured beforehand. This contrasts starkly with disorderly arrivals, emergency hotels and last-minute dispersals, which undermine trust and fuel anxiety. Sponsorship instead encourages cohesion, establishes relationships from the start and leads to faster integration. Evidence shows that sponsored refugees learn English more quickly, find work sooner and rely less on public services, because support helps their independence, reducing the long-term costs associated with homelessness, unemployment and poor health.
It is right that the scale of sponsorship is driven by the willingness and capacity of communities rather than by an arbitrary cap, but how will the Government assess that capacity, and the potential for growth, as infrastructure develops through new pathways for education and employment? How will faith groups, refugee-led organisations, voluntary sector organisations and local authorities be consulted before numbers are determined?
Sponsorship should also be a flexible national asset that can be mobilised rapidly in response to emerging humanitarian disasters. A mature system could provide a durable framework for future crises without requiring entirely new programmes. Homes for Ukraine demonstrated the public’s willingness to respond, with over 175,000 arrivals. The Government have said that arrivals through the resettlement scheme and sponsorship routes will initially number in the hundreds rising to the low thousands. However, they must ensure they do not constrain the ambition of willing sponsors. In time, I hope the scheme will become fully accessible to other parts of the world, not just those currently named. The existing scheme has supported more than 1,200 refugees through over 200 sponsors. Canada’s comparable programme has resettled over 440,000 refugees since 1979.
In preparing for this debate, I contacted organisations supporting refugees, as well as the Church of England, to gauge their interest in participating. I heard from the Salvation Army, Welcome Churches, the Pickwell Foundation, Refugee Education UK, Citizens UK, REST, Rohingya Association UK, the Welsh Refugee Council and Micro Rainbow. That is an impressive and diverse group of potential partners. It is important that government and this House welcome the welcomers. Community sponsorship is emotionally and practically demanding, particularly in divisive times. Those giving their time and resources should be recognised and protected. Civil society and government must work closely together so the welcomers feel confident to provide support effectively. I hope that today is a helpful opportunity for the Minister to place on record the Government’s thanks to these thousands of volunteers who have supported refugees through sponsorship schemes over the past decade and will be integral in the future.
My Question also concerns the support available to sponsors. It would be easy to focus on funding without acknowledging the Government’s considerable investment in the processing requirements, including overseas vetting and logistical arrangements. What plans do the Government have to build societal infrastructure so that community sponsorship becomes a self-sustaining, resilient and community-owned model? Generosity cannot replace professional support, so how will the Government help lead sponsors to offer specialist assistance, including training, safeguarding and administrative support? How will they ensure that sponsorship remains accessible to less affluent groups that wish to participate, including local churches and faith groups?
The Question before us today is not simply how many refugees the Government intend to welcome through sponsorship; it is whether they are ready to build a programme that communities can participate in confidently and on which refugees can rely. Community sponsorship can be a powerful expression of shared responsibility. It is a safe and controlled model and, importantly, it is rooted in the best of who we are as a society. With proper planning, sustained support and a clear commitment from government, it can offer refugees not only safety but the opportunity to belong, to flourish and to contribute.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I am incredibly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for bringing this vital issue before the House today and for the excellent and eloquent introduction to the debate. The question of how we resource, support and scale our resettlement programmes goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation. I welcome the Government’s commitment to expanding our safe and legal routes, specifically through the introduction of the new community sponsorship, refugee study and refugee work streams. These are commendable steps in the right direction.
However, having had the privilege of serving as a Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, I know at first hand that a policy framework is only as strong as the infrastructure supporting it. During my time in office, I was consistently humbled by the immense, untapped generosity and operational capacity of our civil society. From churches and mosques to local neighbourhood coalitions and secular charities, the British public have a profound desire to step up and welcome those fleeing conflict and persecution.
Community sponsorship is not merely an alternative delivery model for immigration policy; it is a gold standard for integration. Traditional state-led resettlement provides a roof and basic safety net, which is vital, but community sponsorship provides a community. When a local group wraps its arms around a refugee family, the results are transformative. We see accelerated language acquisition, swifter entry into meaningful employment and deep-rooted social connections. Neighbours do not just hand over keys; they help to register children at the local school, navigate GP appointments and introduce new arrivals to local employers. This model actively fosters social cohesion, bridging cultural divides and building shared purpose at a grass-roots level.
If we want to see the true transformative potential of this model when it is backed by real government ambition, we need only to look across the Atlantic to Canada, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. For nearly five decades, Canada’s private sponsorship of refugees programme has been the global benchmark. Since its inception, ordinary Canadian citizens, faith groups and community associations have directly sponsored more than 400,000 refugees.
The Canadian data speaks for itself. Decades of independent longitudinal studies show that privately sponsored refugees consistently find employment faster, learn the local language more rapidly and report a higher sense of belonging than those entering through standard government assistance routes. Why? It is because they arrive with a ready-made social network of citizens completely invested in their success. Canada proved to the world that when you trust civil society and you build a robust partnership between the state and the community, you create an engine for successful integration that scales naturally.
Yet if we are to unlock that same potential here, the Government must match the ambition of our international peers. The recent indication from the Home Office that initial arrivals across the UK resettlement scheme and these new streams will number only in the low hundreds is, frankly, overly cautious. While I understand the need for careful management, we must remember that community sponsorship is uniquely scalable because it relies heavily on civil society’s energy and private good will. It alleviates, rather than exacerbates, the immediate strain on hard-pressed local authority budgets. The low hundreds should not be treated as a comfortable ceiling; it must be a strict baseline for year one backed by a clear road map for growth.
Furthermore, we must address the bureaucratic barriers that historically caused enthusiastic local groups to lose momentum. If we are to open these routes to non-profits and charities, the accreditation and vetting processes must be rigorous but accessible. Overly complex financial checks and prolonged processing delays can smother community good will before a single family even arrives.
Our finest asset in integrating refugees is the open hearts and operational capability of our faith and community groups. Let us give them the tools, the streamlined processes and the long-term certainty they need to succeed. I urge the Government to expand their vision, resource our sponsors adequately and allow British communities to do what they do best: welcome, integrate and heal.
To ensure that our communities are truly empowered to deliver this vision, I put four specific, brief questions to my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend has noted previously that initial arrivals across the UKRS and the new community sponsorship routes will be in the low hundreds, as I have mentioned. Can the Government outline what specific criteria or milestones will be used to trigger an expansion of these numbers as more charities and non-profits achieve accredited status?
Secondly, as the Government open up the new community sponsorship streams, what steps are being taken to streamline the application and vetting processes so that smaller grass-roots community groups are not inadvertently locked out by prohibitive administrative red tape? Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a dedicated regional Home Office liaison unit tasked specifically with providing ongoing operational advice, training resources and troubleshooting support to accredited sponsors during their first critical year of hosting? Finally, while community sponsorship leverages immense voluntary resources, local statutory services like ESOL and healthcare still experience impacts. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify how the funding architecture for these new routes will ensure that local authorities are adequately compensated alongside voluntary sponsors? I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who hosted a family from Ukraine for four years. They have recently moved on and I am expecting another family to arrive just before Christmas.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that we need to be certain that steps are taken to provide adequate support and resources to sponsors. It is in that context that it is worth looking at the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which has supported thousands of Ukrainians, with individual families opening their homes and hearts to welcome them in. Hosts were originally allocated £500 a month to help with extra costs. Last year, this was reduced to £350 a month, and now the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said that the monthly rate is going to be reduced to £100 a month from 1 January next year.
Ostensibly, this is based on the view that Ukrainian families should by now have been able to develop their own resources here. Yet, the same cut of over 70% will apply to UK families taking Ukrainians who have just arrived, and the situation is getting worse. Even while we have been sitting in this Chamber, in the last hour 14 people have been killed at a Kyiv railway station by a Russian drone. A fortnight ago, the Lord Privy Seal rightly argued in this place that the moral obligation of this country to do what we can practically to help Ukraine and its people remains as high as ever. The noble Baroness seemed surprised when I told her about the change to the funding arrangements for hosts.
Research conducted by the Office for National Statistics outlines how the cost of living has already forced many host families to abandon this scheme. Hosts were originally asked to commit to six months. After that time, 23% pulled out as they could no longer afford it, and 99% of these hosts cited significant extra costs, such as utilities and food. The Local Government Association told us that thousands of Ukrainian households have had to register as homeless here, after their hosting arrangements collapsed. Apart from the fact that this may well cost local authorities more than the proposed cuts, it is also incredible to me that we offer families a safe haven from a country at war, yet they may end up sleeping on our streets.
Ukraine, and particularly its capital, is facing a devastating winter. It will be the worst of the war so far, given the increased Russian ballistic missile attacks on infrastructure and the almost complete cessation of the supply of US Patriot defence systems. The father of the family we have hosted for four years is still in Kyiv. In the last three weeks, he has had three hours of running water. He spends nights sleeping in either a corridor or an underpass, and he is lucky if he gets two hours of electricity a day. This week, I received an email from the guest who is joining us shortly, with his young son—the mother is no longer alive. He wrote:
“The situation in Kyiv feels more dangerous now than at any other time during these four years of war. With almost constant air raid alerts and attacks, the city sometimes feels more like a place near the front line. Even going outside has become a source of uncertainty and concern”.
As a result of this escalation, more parents from Ukraine with traumatised children are looking for homes here, yet the combination of reduced funding and high living costs has drastically reduced the number of families who are able to sponsor.
Another factor causing concern, which also needs to be taken into account, is the lack of clarity on the duration of visas, which affects not only Ukrainian children, many of whom are now totally integrated into our education system, but their mothers, or parents, who are trying to get a job and find somewhere to rent, with no fixed idea of how long they will be here. This adds unnecessary stress to an already intolerable situation. So, I urge His Majesty’s Government to look again at their changes to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to reconsider the proposed cut of almost three-quarters to the amount paid to host families, and to make sure that lessons are learned and that the resettlement of refugees through community sponsorship is adequately resourced.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [R]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on securing this short but important debate on the process of allowing refugees to settle through community sponsorship, to assess the numbers involved and to look at whether the Government are giving adequate resources and support to sponsors. I join her in thanks to the many communities that have already supported refugees.
It is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. Her example as a sponsor of a Ukrainian family, and shortly to sponsor another, is absolutely to be commended. But I share her concern at the reduction of grants for host families and the consequential loss of hosts. Please, Minister, can this be changed?
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, spoke powerfully of the strength of a welcoming community, to ensure that arrivals settle and become part of the community, and I agree with him.
In 2016, under Prime Minister Theresa May, the community sponsorship scheme was launched. In that scheme, managed by the Home Office, families were allocated to approved sponsors, who could be charities, faith groups or other civil society organisations. It has developed very slowly. The Sunak Government said in 2023:
“Over 1,000 vulnerable refugees fleeing regions of conflict and instability, including Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, have been welcomed under one of the UK’s safe and legal routes by local communities across the UK, so they can start their new lives here”.
That was not many, over seven years.
The scheme does have good ideals. The sponsors have to demonstrate capacity to deliver their side of the scheme, which includes available funding of at least £9,000, as well as the appropriate accommodation and written consent from the local authority. Once approval was given, they were given the responsibility of supporting a resettled family for at least one year, providing accommodation for two years, and providing support for all that they might need, from accessing medical services, language tuition, schools, social services, and, importantly, helping them to find employment. This absolutely encourages cohesion.
However, the low numbers have demonstrated a problem: the capacity of local authorities to be able to play a practical role in this, without any extra resources. Let me be blunter than that. Most local authorities are struggling to deliver anything beyond their statutory duties, and it is disappointing that yesterday’s Budget was not able to change that. However, even if it had, I suspect local authorities’ capacity to help community sponsors would remain a low priority compared with the statutory duties of children’s services, children in care and adult social services. The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, graphically laid out the consequences to local authorities of the government grant to hosts being reduced.
What has also exploded in the last few years is a worrying resurgence of groups on the far right who, instead of objective to government about their concerns for refugee policy, have taken to demonstrating, marching and intimidating the refugees themselves. Too often, police resources have been needed to intervene to stop these aggressive patterns of behaviours by protesters. That is why, 12 months ago, then Prime Minister Starmer published Restoring Order and Control: A Statement on the Government’s Asylum and Returns Policy. Along with my party, and the noble Lord, Lord German, I have been arguing for years for effective, safe and legal routes to asylum for people with real cause, and I am not sure we have really got effective, safe, legal routes at the moment. I am interested in understanding how quickly this scheme, if it works, can be developed further from the scheme first introduced a decade ago by the previous Government.
Despite what many people want us to believe, there are refugees with a real and understandable fear for their lives in their own countries, who seek to come to the UK, often because of direct—that is, familial—or indirect reasons, for example the Afghan troops who worked with us in the war in Afghanistan.
The 2025 government policy paper said that refugee sponsorship would
“become the framework for most of the UK Government’s refugee resettlement efforts”.
The three new routes still include the route I described earlier but, unless resources are improved, I cannot see that increasing very much.
The second route is by universities, through the study sponsorship route, and by companies, through the work route. This too is very welcome, but I am sure I was not alone in absolute despair when our universities had found money and offered some places to prospective students stuck in Gaza last year and this year who could not leave their small children behind in a war zone. Some of those prospective students also could not get their status confirmed in time to start their courses. The sponsorship opportunities were wasted by the universities through absolutely no fault of theirs or the prospective students. What steps are the Foreign Office and the Home Office taking to improve visa processes for candidates under this scheme, especially for universities, where new students have a deadline that cannot be changed?
The third route is the UK refugee settlement route, which opened to new referrals recently. I echo the questions of the right reverend Prelate, who asked what numbers the Government expect in each of these three schemes over the next few years. The Government say they will set annual limits, but are the appropriate resources available to make sure that, once the community sponsors have fulfilled their side of the bargain, the Government will have capacity to deliver their side, especially the timely approval of visas? The other area that community sponsors, including Reset Communities for Refugees, are asking for is support in
“clear guidance, appropriate resources, effective safeguarding arrangements and access to specialist training and support”.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those.
Finally, there is one community I know well and have worked with for some time which has been accessing a safe and legal route to settlement in the UK for many years, but not without some problems. Unfortunately, the Government still refer to this group as refugees, but I believe they are wrong to do so, and I have said so before. These are the brave opponents of the Chinese regime in Hong Kong, who already hold British national (overseas) status and have fled to the UK because the Conservative Government of the day recognised, when we handed Hong Kong back to China, that they were entitled to be British nationals.
Since that handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997, and especially over recent years, when people fleeing Hong Kong arrive in Britain, Home Office staff often treat them as if they are exactly the same as all other refugees without British national status. Please will the Minister ensure that this practice stops? Yes, they may seek help and support if they arrive in distress, with no or few possessions, and they will need help with resettlement, but the first and biggest hurdle for them is overcome already. They have a right to come to this country, and it is shocking that their first encounter is immigration staff who do not even know this.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has so eloquently laid out the position of those groups in which she has some direct interest.
I must declare my interest as being supported by the RAMP organisation, and I must thank the right reverend Prelate for being ahead of the curve again in being able to bring forward debate on an issue that is very potent in the current scene. I must also declare my interest—with a small “i”, not a capital “I”—as the general rapporteur on European migration and asylum policy for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I will be reporting on this debate as it is an important part of the structure we face across the whole of our continent.
For generations, Britain’s proudest chapters have been written not when we turned our backs on the world but when we stepped forward to offer sanctuary to those fleeing terror, persecution and war. We saw that spirit when our towns and villages welcomed displaced families from Ukraine, as we heard so eloquently, and in the response to the fall of Afghanistan. I remember the crisis of the Ugandan Asians many decades ago, when we sought and brought to this country those who were being displaced so horribly. We have seen it across the hundreds of quiet, compassionate community sponsorship groups that have opened their homes and hearts across our country.
The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the best of British values is found in our local communities. That is why we welcome the principle behind the Government’s new community sponsorship scheme. Establishing new safe and legal routes is a necessary step in the right direction. Allowing communities, faith groups, universities and local organisations to step forward to directly sponsor named individuals, to support students and to welcome displaced workers is a proven and powerful concept. When local communities have direct ownership, integration flourishes. Refugees do not arrive as numbers on a Home Office spreadsheet; they arrive into an existing network of neighbours, mentors and friends who help them find work, master our language and truly belong.
We on these Benches reject outright the cynical, ungenerous claims from those on the political right. Those who demand that no safe routes be created until every boat has stopped miss the fundamental reality. People take to dangerous dinghies precisely because safe and legal routes do not exist. We do not smash the vile business model of criminal smuggling gangs by building higher walls; we smash it by opening controlled, orderly doors that render the smugglers obsolete.
Although we support this scheme in principle, we must be brutally honest about its practical realities. Compassion without ambition is mere sentiment. As it stands, this policy suffers from glaring shortcomings that risk setting it up to fail. First and foremost is the question of scale, which was mentioned earlier. The Government talk of this scheme breaking the cycle of irregular channel crossings, but look at the figures to which the Home Office has now quietly admitted. Total arrivals across the reopened UK resettlement scheme—that includes all three new sponsorship routes—will start in the hundreds before slowly growing into the low thousands. Reports suggest an ambition of just over 10,000 altogether by the end of this decade. Schemes need to be known about and understood, and people need to be provided with sufficient information for the schemes to make a difference and for the people to make a choice.
To present a scheme that admits a few hundred people as a serious deterrent to the tens of thousands not just crossing the channel but entering by other means is, frankly, a tokenistic drop in the ocean. The Refugee Council and civil society have made it clear that, if we are serious about safe routes, we must aim for real ambition by restoring settlement to at least the pre-pandemic level of 5,000 people a year, not trickling out places in the low hundreds.
Secondly, the Government are engaged in passing the buck to local communities from local authorities. Ministers say that they want to relieve local authorities and end the reliance on expensive asylum hotels. We agree with closing the hotels, but the Government’s answer is to offload core statutory responsibilities on to volunteers, charities and churches. Under the scheme, sponsors are required to secure independent accommodation for at least two years and to raise substantial private capital.
In the middle of the worst housing crisis in modern memory, how on earth does the Home Secretary expect local charities to outbid the market to find two-year tenancies without statutory backing? Under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the state provided monthly thank-you payments to assist host households, yet under this new scheme Ministers have completely failed to guarantee whether similar financial support will exist. If the state treats volunteer good will as an unpaid substitute for proper governance, burnout will follow and the intake will grind to a halt.
Thirdly, I am afraid that we cannot ignore the punitive rollback of refugee rights baked into this agenda. For years, community sponsorship granted refugees immediate indefinite leave to remain, giving them the certainty needed to rebuild their lives and contribute. Now, the Government have reduced that to a precarious five-year route to permanent settlement, while slashing domestic asylum protections into 30-month temporary visas and threatening 20-year delays on settlement.
Fourthly, there is a serious danger that, by shifting the bulk of resettlement to named, study and employer routes, we risk abandoning the most vulnerable. Resettlement must never become a corporate recruitment fair or an elite academic exercise. We cannot ignore the disabled, the elderly or those who lack language skills and overseas connections—those whom the UNHCR identifies as facing immediate peril.
We want this sponsorship scheme to work. We want British communities empowered to open their arms. But a genuine safe route cannot be treated as an afterthought or a cheap PR shield to justify harsher enforcement. If the Government genuinely want to offer sanctuary, they must meet the four tests and the four queries that we set out earlier. As our immigration moves towards net zero with those coming in and those leaving, we need to be absolutely certain that we are giving people the compassionate best we can. We as a country are at our best when we are open, generous and fair. Let us not build a scheme of token numbers and shifting burdens; let us build a system that is controlled, compassionate and truly fit for purpose.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this debate. The right reverend Prelate asked what assessment the Government have made of the number of refugees who will be settled annually through community sponsorship. The honest answer so far, from what I can see, is that we do not know. In response to a Written Question that I asked on 5 October, the Minister said:
“The Government expects the total arrivals across the UKRS and the three new community sponsorship routes to number in the low hundreds at first”.
It is the words “at first” that concern me. What timeframe does that cover? Is it a few hundred people in the first year or the first three years? How many people do the Government believe will be able to come to Britain after this undefined initial phase? Do the Government even know how many people they want to bring into the country under these new schemes? The Minister must tell noble Lords how the cap will be set and by whom, whether Parliament will have a say, and what happens if the cap is exceeded. He must also say whether numbers will sit alongside a commitment to reduce overall migration.
Furthermore, in that same Answer, the Minister said:
“The Home Office works closely with the local authorities that volunteer to participate in the UKRS”.
Can I take that to mean that local authorities will have to house these refugees only if they volunteer to do so? If so, can the Minister rule out any local authority being forced to house refugees who enter the country under one of the new schemes if they do not wish to do so, or will we see a repeat of the current situation whereby local authorities have no say over where asylum seekers are housed?
The context matters. We are told that this scheme depends on illegal migration falling, so let us look at where it stands. More than 41,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2025. In the 12 months to June this year, around 33,000 did so. The Government point to a fall, and they are right that the number has fallen. However, 33,000 people in a year arriving in dinghies, in defiance of our laws and at the mercy of criminal gangs, is not a problem solved. The Government’s answer to this is to reopen the resettlement scheme, but to open the front door while the back door is still being forced open sends exactly the wrong signal to the people smugglers, the illegal migrants and, indeed, the British people.
What of the cost? The National Audit Office has estimated the cost of asylum accommodation at £15.3 billion over 10 years. Even after recent reductions, around 16,000 asylum seekers remain in hotels, and many thousands more are in other Home Office accommodation. Every one of those places is paid for by the taxpayer. The Government propose additional intakes and say that the sponsors will carry some of the burden. Can the Minister tell us what the total Treasury cost will be? What funding will be given to local authorities for school places, GP registrations and housing when a sponsorship arrangement falls through?
The Government’s policy of dispersing asylum seekers across the country has placed enormous pressure on small towns and rural communities that never asked to be at the centre of a national problem. Residents in places with one GP surgery and one primary school have found hundreds of newcomers placed among them with little warning and even less consultation. Local councillors and police have told us how hard it is to preserve cohesion in those circumstances. Whatever one thinks of the policy, those communities have a right to be heard. The Government are now asking those same communities to take on a further burden through sponsorship, and they are doing so before they have shown that they can manage the problem they already have.
Under these proposals, charities and non-profit organisations will be able to apply to become sponsors, and approved groups will be able to choose the refugees they support and take responsibility for their housing, integration and employment. That is a significant degree of trust to place in an organisation. Let me be plain: there have been a number of cases over many years of charities, mosques and NGOs that have hosted extremist speakers or whose trustees or associates have held views hostile to our way of life. The Charity Commission has opened statutory inquiries into such cases, and we have a duty to ask whether an organisation of that kind could become an approved sponsor with direct responsibility for vulnerable people who may depend on it for their housing, income and daily lives. This is even more important given that we know that the Iranian regime has been sending operatives to Britain on small boats. What is to say that they will not attempt to do so through the community sponsorship routes?
So I have a few specific questions to the Minister. Will every applicant be vetted against Charity Commission records and Security Service advice? Will trustees and key personnel be checked? Will there be ongoing monitoring, and will approval be withdrawn swiftly if concerns arise? Will the Government ensure that no sponsor, of any faith or none, is able to exploit a position of influence over refugees, whether to radicalise, to coerce or to profit?
We need a real assessment of the numbers involved in these schemes. We need a full costing of the policy, including the burden on local authorities. We need proof that the small boat crisis is under control before the legal routes expand. We need a commitment that communities will be consulted, not simply informed, and we need a rigorous, transparent vetting regime for sponsors. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for initiating this timely debate. Let me reassure her that the Written Ministerial Statement announcing two of the three new safe and legal routes was laid about an hour and a half ago, and I am hoping that, as I speak, it will be published, so it is extremely timely. Two of the three safe and legal routes will have applications open to become lead sponsors: the named community sponsorship and the refugee study routes. This is an important step demonstrating the UK’s commitment, as noble Lords have said, to playing a part in the international protection system.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has heard me make the point in earlier debates, but the Home Secretary said in her conference speech this year that our purpose
“is to create that fairness. In our immigration system … And, in doing so, to hold this country together. At a time when others seek to divide us”.
In the Restoring Order and Control statement of November 2025, the Home Secretary announced the development of three new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution: a named community sponsorship route, a refugee study route and a refugee work route. These new routes will operate under a lead sponsor framework. UK-based charities and non-profits will be accredited as lead sponsors, supporting community groups, universities and employers to sponsor refugees.
These sponsors will identify refugees they wish to sponsor. Accredited lead sponsors will then refer cases to the Home Office for consideration. Individuals will not be able to apply directly. The UNHCR will confirm that individuals are refugees before they travel to the United Kingdom. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that all individuals will be subject to the necessary security and identity checks by the UK Government. Arrivals under the named community sponsorship and refugee study routes are expected from autumn 2027 onwards. The refugee work route is expected to open in spring 2027, with the first arrivals to follow later that year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and a couple of other noble Lords raised the question of eligibility in the application process. The guidance for lead sponsors has been published and will be available to noble Lords. The lead sponsorship framework draws on proven international experience. My noble friend Lord Khan and the right reverend Prelate referred to the Canadian experience and the figures of that scheme. The Government have worked with a range of stakeholders, including the Canadian and Australian Governments, to develop the new routes. Lead sponsors will support sponsors, enabling successful integration of arrivals and intervening where difficulties arise. Sponsors will be responsible for accommodation and integration support, helping refugees to work towards self-sufficiency. The model will lessen the burden on local authorities and ensure that routes do not strain local services.
The right reverend Prelate raised an important question about support for sponsors. The Home Office today published guidance outlining roles and responsibilities, and will ensure that there is appropriate training and support. The Home Office will also look to build a lead sponsor network to share knowledge and best practice. On anticipated numbers, as noble Lords have said, the Government expect the new routes to number in the hundreds at first, growing into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall. A cap will be set annually, based on the capacity and willingness of communities to welcome refugees. Participation is voluntary and arrival numbers will depend on sponsor demand and capacity.
Questions were raised, particularly by the right reverend Prelate, about that capacity. In contrast to previous resettlement schemes, the new routes are community led, meaning that communities will be able to determine who they support. We have worked with local authorities throughout the development of the new routes to ensure that local authority feedback is incorporated into the new routes.
The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Khan asked how we build societal infrastructure. The Government are committed to supporting community groups, universities and employers to play an active role in refugee sponsorship. As the new routes are implemented, we will continue to work closely with stakeholders, including through appropriate training and support. As I said, we will look to develop a lead sponsorship network to share knowledge and good practice. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Government will put in place training to deliver the lead sponsor role.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, who is an example to us all. I wish we could all play the role that she has played. The United Kingdom is absolutely united, and the Government of the United Kingdom are determined and steadfast in their commitment to Ukraine and its people. What she described was incredibly moving. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has evolved from an initial emergency response into a more established programme. Nobody expected this war to continue for as long as it has. That is why the Government are making changes to funding to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable for much longer than we had originally thought, so that we can continue to support those fleeing the war in Ukraine.
The Homes for Ukraine per person tariff will decrease from £5,900 to £3,300 for claims made after 1 January 2027 to ensure that this funding remains affordable. Thank you payments will be reimbursed at £100 per month per household, again reflecting a sustainable level of support while continuing to recognise the generosity of sponsors and hosts. I know that will not satisfy the noble Baroness, but I believe we have to show that we are totally committed to Ukraine and the people of Ukraine.
I will just pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others. As part of the fundamental change to the UK’s protection offer, the annual cap will be set following engagement with local authorities, mayors, and other partners, and existing community sponsor groups. The methodology will consider community capacity—that is an important part of this scheme—and, of course, sponsors’ willingness to support integration.
I could respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and talk about the boats. Our programme on immigration is to ensure fairness. We have recently ensured a reduction in the boat people, not just by the arrests of the gangs that are doing it, although that is really important, but by our collaboration with France, which is also ensuring results. As I think noble Lords have said, we are absolutely committed to retaining the values that the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, referred to. We are a country that has acknowledged the need of refugees to come to this country, and we are proud of it. Many people in this Chamber are descendants of refugees, and we should not forget that.
Throughout our history we have offered sanctuary to those in genuine need of protection. The new routes will ensure we continue to do so, drawing on the generosity, expertise and commitment of communities across the country while maintaining public confidence in the immigration system—that is really important. I hope my answers have resolved the points raised. If I have not addressed a specific point, I am sure we will be able to write to noble Lords and cover it.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a slight change of timing for the next debate. A mistake was made on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, each have 12 minutes. That means there are no minutes in the gap. I am sure we will all be very grateful in the House if everybody sticks precisely to time, and then both the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the Minister will have time to respond.
Personal Independence Payment and Disability Benefits: Implementation and Impact
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
That this House takes note of the implementation and impact of Personal Independence Payment and other disability benefits and linked schemes.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity in the aftermath of the Budget to debate one of the most pressing challenges facing our country. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed to debate it in the graveyard slot. This challenge, of course, is the sustainability of our welfare system and, in particular, disability benefits, including personal independence payment and the wider set of entitlements passported by PIP.
The basic purpose of our welfare system ought to be straightforward. It is a safety net for those who need it, to help people who are out of work to return to employment where possible and to provide proper support to those who cannot work because of illness or disability. PIP has a particular role within that system. It is to cover additional costs associated with long-term disability or a health condition. That is a legitimate purpose, but we know that in practice it is not always how PIP is functioning.
When we look at the disability benefits system more widely, there are serious questions about whether it too is fulfilling its objectives. We have a system that too often fails to provide people with the practical help they need, which can leave them dependent upon financial support, without addressing the underlying difficulties they face, and which, through its interaction with other benefits, can create uncertainty and financial disincentives for those who might return to work. Despite the increasing sums being spent, the Government have yet to demonstrate convincingly how they intend to bring the welfare bill under control while improving the effectiveness of the support being provided.
PIP itself is a generously conceived benefit. It is unconditional, non-contributory, not means tested and does not need formal medical evidence. International comparisons by the TaxPayers’ Alliance show that PIP is a looser regime that also pays more generous rates than our nearest colleagues in the European countries we like to compare ourselves to. It needs skilled assessors who can discriminate effectively and maintain thresholds. Assessors need strong support from immediate managers all the way up to Ministers for some tough decisions, as well as appeal mechanisms that consistently apply those same thresholds. PIP was also designed before courts interpreted the relevant law as encompassing a wide range of mental health conditions, and before Covid and furlough normalised paying healthy people to stay at home and not work.
Let us now have a look at the figures. As of July 2026, some 4.1 million people in England and Wales were entitled to PIP, of whom approximately 3.4 million were of working age. Some 37% were receiving the highest level of award, while over the preceding five years 42% of new claims made under the normal rules resulted in an award. According to Department for Work and Pensions statistics, 79% of planned award reviews resulted in an increase or no change in the award. For reported changes of circumstances, that figure was 89%. Meanwhile, 27% of mandatory reconsiderations cleared, excluding withdrawn cases, resulted in a changed award. These are substantial—indeed, enormous—figures. They make it all the more important that we understand what is driving the growth in claims, how eligibility is being assessed and whether the support being provided is producing the outcomes we should expect.
PIP is designed to support people who find daily living or mobility more challenging because of a disability or health condition and there is an important question here about the distinction between recognising a condition and identifying the practical support that someone actually needs. Take, for example, conditions such as anxiety, depression or ADHD. We should also be asking whether the assessment system is sufficiently effective at distinguishing between different levels of impairment, identifying the additional costs people actually face and determining what form of support would be most beneficial.
The current system presupposes that a cash award is the most appropriate intervention. But surely, with the substantial rise in those claiming benefits on the basis of a mental health condition, should we not consider that timely therapy, appropriate treatment, occupational support, workplace adjustments or other practical interventions may do far more to improve their quality of life, and indeed that they might enable some to return to work? The purpose of the disability benefits system should not be simply to recognise that someone is experiencing difficulty; rather, it should help them overcome that difficulty wherever possible.
That brings me to how PIP awards are assessed and reviewed. The figures I just cited raise important questions about how consistently assessments are conducted, how effectively changes in circumstances are identified, and whether decisions are made correctly in the first place. Where a person’s circumstances have materially improved, there must be a fair and reliable means of recognising that change, and, where an initial decision is overturned, we must consider whether an avoidable error was made in the initial assessment. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps the Government are taking to improve the accuracy and consistency of PIP assessments and how they intend to ensure that reviews respond appropriately to permanent, fluctuating, and potentially treatable conditions.
There is a related point here about face-to-face assessments. Can the Minister commit to restoring face-to-face assessments in their entirety rather than relying on assessments conducted over the telephone? If not, can she explain how the Government can be confident that they are accurately assessing an individual’s physical needs and their entitlement to support without ever seeing the person concerned?
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report yesterday, spending on sickness and disability benefits alone is forecast to reach £100 billion by 2028-29, a year earlier than forecast in March. That is up from £85.6 billion in 2025-26. These are very substantial sums, particularly at a time when public finances are under such considerable pressure, and they bring us to a fundamental point which is sometimes overlooked in debates about public spending: every decision about government expenditure is ultimately a choice about whose interests we prioritise and who bears the costs. This was made abundantly clear in the Budget debate yesterday. That is why fairness must be at the centre of this discussion—fairness not just to those receiving support but to those whose taxes fund it and to those who depend on the other public services competing for the same resources.
This brings me to the question of incentives. We cannot consider PIP entirely in isolation from the wider benefit system. For people who receive PIP alongside other forms of support, particularly means-tested benefits, there is a serious question about whether the interaction between different payments creates the right incentives. For some people, returning to employment or increasing their working hours can mean a substantial reduction in means-tested support, at the same time as they face the additional costs of going to work. The result can be that someone takes on greater responsibility, works more hours and contributes more in tax but sees relatively little improvement in their disposable income. Where people are concerned that attempting to return to work or demonstrating an improvement in their condition might place their existing support at risk, that uncertainty can become a barrier in itself.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that can leave people afraid that making progress in their life might result in them being worse off. We should want people to recover where possible, to become more independent and to enter or remain in employment where their circumstances allow. The welfare system should support those ambitions, not discourage them. If we want people to enter employment, work must offer a clear and worthwhile reward. It should not be the case that the structure of the welfare system itself discourages people from doing precisely what the country needs and wants them to do. What does it say about the fairness of our system when people who work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to the economy can struggle to see the financial rewards of doing so? What message are we sending when we ask those working families to shoulder an ever-greater tax burden while failing to demonstrate that the substantial sums being spent on welfare are delivering the best possible outcomes? Those people are increasingly impatient and intolerant about how their taxes are being spent.
These are perfectly reasonable questions, which we should not shy away from asking. The welfare system ultimately depends on a degree of trust and shared responsibility. Those who contribute must have the confidence that their taxes are being spent effectively, support is going to those who genuinely need it and those who are capable of working are being given every reasonable opportunity and incentive to do so. Equally, those who depend on the system must have the confidence that it will provide them with proper support when they need it. For those receiving PIP, that means knowing that assessments will be conducted fairly and consistently, decisions will reflect their needs, and they will not be penalised simply for attempting to improve their circumstances. Those two principles are not in conflict. Indeed, I would argue that they are mutually dependent.
Before I close, I have some straightforward questions for the Government. Are PIP assessments consistently and accurately identifying the practical difficulties that people face and the additional support they need? Are we sufficiently distinguishing between permanent disabilities, fluctuating conditions and circumstances in which someone’s health or independence might improve? Are the reassessment periods that we have sufficient to capture those people whose conditions improve, meaning they no longer require the benefit? Are we doing enough to connect people with treatment, rehabilitation and practical assistance rather than relying on financial payments alone? Are we ensuring that those who wish to return to work or increase their independence can do so without the fear of abruptly losing essential support? We cannot simply continue increasing expenditure without addressing these points.
Nor should we allow legitimate proposals for reform to be dismissed as a lack of compassion for people with disabilities. We need a disability benefits system that protects those with the greatest needs, provides effective and practical support, helps those who can work to do so, and treats those who pay for it with fairness and respect. That is the balance that the Government should seek to restore. It is deeply concerning that they have yet to demonstrate either the political conviction or the practical plan required to do so. Until we see meaningful reform, we risk not only growing pressure on the public finances but a growing loss of confidence in the welfare system itself. Ultimately, it is those who depend most on that system who have the greatest amount to lose. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for securing this debate. I look forward to hearing other contributions and, in particular, the response to the debate from my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham, whom I warmly welcome to the Front Bench.
I will particularly address PIP. The Motion goes a bit wider, but I think that it is really focusing on PIP. We will of course receive the final report of the Timms review next month, followed by a White Paper, and we expect legislation in the coming year. So, it is an appropriate moment for Parliament to discuss the principles that should guide reform and the questions to which the Government must provide convincing answers. The decisions taken over the next year will shape the future support for millions of people with disabilities.
The interim report of the Timms review reached a striking conclusion: although PIP remains highly valued by many who receive it, the system itself is no longer fit for purpose. The review drew on more than 38,000 responses from people with disabilities, charities, professionals and others, making it one of the largest exercises of its kind undertaken by the Government. More than 90% of responses concerning the claims process were negative.
Much of the public debate has focused on the rising cost of PIP. Costs matter, and no responsible Government can ignore them. However, figures on expenditure do not speak for themselves. They require proper analysis.
The overall case load at any point reflects three separate factors: how many people are making new claims, how many claims are being accepted and how many people remain entitled to the benefits. If we are to make sensible policy, we need to understand which of these factors is driving growth. Reviews and reassessments alone do not explain the increase that has been identified. There has been a genuine rise in reported disability and long-term health conditions, particularly among younger people. The interim review highlights the changing nature of disability and ill health since PIP was introduced in 2013 by the coalition Government. I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure that the forthcoming White Paper provides a detailed breakdown of case load growth, separating the effects of new claims, award rates and claim duration.
We also need to work on the quality of decision-making. The points-based descriptors that underpin PIP have changed little since the benefit was introduced. Throughout that period, they have struggled to deal properly with fluctuating conditions, multiple conditions and many less visible impairments. The result is a system that too often fails to capture the realities of the lives of disabled people. The consequences can be seen in the appeals process and the relatively high proportion of changes through that process. The most efficient way to administer any benefit is to make the correct decision at the outset.
This brings me inevitably to the question of fraud. Some recent media coverage has created an impression that abuse of PIP is widespread. That narrative deserves careful scrutiny. Stories about social media influencers explaining how to complete claim forms may generate headlines, but guidance on filling in what are, in truth, complex applications is not in itself fraud. What matters is what the department’s own evidence shows. The latest DWP estimates put PIP overpayments due to fraud at 1.4% of expenditure in the last fiscal year. That represents an increase and should be taken seriously. However, it also means that more than 98% of spending was not lost to fraud. The overall PIP overpayment rate at 2.3% remains below the average across the benefit system.
It is also important to understand the nature of the fraud that does occur. A substantial proportion arises where an individual’s condition has improved and the improvement has not been reported. This is plainly a risk where conditions may change over time. It is much less relevant where conditions are lifelong and progressive. Learning disability is lifelong by definition, and the same is true of many degenerative conditions, yet people with such conditions continue to undergo repeated reassessments. That was one of the major complaints exposed by the Timms review. More broadly, across all claimants, the great majority of planned reviews lead to either no change or an increase in entitlements. Those figures raise a legitimate question: are we directing administrative effort to the places where it is most useful? The sensible conclusion is not that everyone should be reviewed more frequently; it is that reviews should be targeted when needs are genuinely likely to change, while people with lifelong conditions should be spared unnecessary reassessment.
To turn to the review, many of the emerging recommendations point in exactly that direction. They include a redesigned, improved application process, improved treatment of fluctuating conditions, and the creation of an advocacy service to support claimants. These proposals are to be welcomed, but good intentions alone will not be enough. An advocacy service without adequate funding will achieve little, and better assessments will require assessors who understand learning, disability and other complex conditions. I hope the Minister can assure the House that both will be properly resourced.
The more significant question concerns the long-term future of PIP. The review is exploring a shift away from the current assessment of functional difficulty towards awards linked more directly to categories of disability-related extra costs, while retaining cash support as the foundation of the benefit and preserving its non-means-tested nature. There is an obvious logic here. PIP is described as a contribution towards the extra cost of disability, yet eligibility until now has been determined primarily by functional tests rather than by assessing the costs that people face. Aligning the assessment more closely with the purpose of the benefit has an intuitive appeal. However, Parliament should not endorse such a change without answers to some important questions.
First, there is the question of evidence. Extra costs can be difficult to identify and even harder to quantify. Many are indirect, intermittent or hidden. People who need support with communication, decision-making or money management may find it particularly difficult to document them. How will costs be defined? How will evidence be gathered? And how will the Government ensure that fixed categories do not exclude claimants whose circumstances fall outside a predetermined list?
Secondly, there is the issue of choice. The review suggests that some support could potentially be delivered through services or other non-cash provision. Services have a role, but they cannot offer the flexibility of cash. People with disabilities know best what support they need and any move towards non-cash provision should therefore be optional and claimant led.
Thirdly, there is the question of distributional impact. Reform has to operate within the government spending framework, but changes within a fixed budget inevitably create both winners and losers. Parliament will need to see detailed analysis showing the effects by condition, age and component of the award. That analysis should also consider employment outcomes. It is important to emphasise that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit; indeed, it is a benefit designed to directly enable people to work. PIP is payable both in and out of work and for many people it is precisely what makes employment possible.
The interim review has performed a valuable service by bringing together evidence and challenging assumptions. The test now is whether the Government respond to that evidence. Reform should be guided neither by expenditure figures in isolation nor by alarming stories in the press but by the realities of disabled people’s lives and by the goal of creating a system that is fair, accurate, sustainable and worthy of public confidence.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin on bringing this important subject to the House and on her important speech, with important facts and statistics within it. As well as welcoming her in leading this debate, I should say a word to welcome the Minister, because I believe that for the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, this is her first engagement and speech in our Chamber as a Minister. I welcome her to that and look forward to what she is going to say. I have at the end of my speech some particular questions that I hope she may be able to address.
The importance of this issue arises for many reasons. As we have heard from my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the well-being of people who are disabled and claiming PIP is important, but so is the backdrop of a really shocking increase in spending on welfare benefits, which is estimated to rise by £38 billion in real terms between 2026-27 and 2031-32. It is worth reporting the components of that £38 billion increase: £12 billion is for non-pensioner health and disability benefits—what we are debating today—£21 billion, significantly more, is for increases in spending on the state pension, driven above all by the triple lock, and £6 billion is for all other benefit spending. It is absolutely right to look at what we can do to reduce the costs of benefits for disabled people where the money is not having the effect that we hoped, but we should just remember the wider context of where the money is going.
I should declare an interest because I am president of the Resolution Foundation, a think tank. We produced only earlier this month a report, Hard Truths, which is about the whole issue of PIP. It was written by my distinguished colleagues there, Lindsay Judge and Louise Murphy, and I am going to draw on our Resolution Foundation research heavily throughout my remarks.
The estimates of the costs of PIP are of course very significant, perhaps running at £35 billion a year or more. This was absolutely not what PIP was supposed to do; I was serving as a Minister attending Cabinet when PIP was brought in, and I can still remember that it was supposed to be a cost-cutting measure, in contrast to DLA, but claims and costs are surging. There were 36,000 claims a month in 2019 and it is running at 76,000 claims a month this year, so it is right to reform it. However, reform has to be careful and evidence-based. At the Resolution Foundation, we did a survey of 2,500 claimants of PIP to try to understand better exactly what was going on.
PIP, of course, is an unusual benefit. In many ways, it is like child benefit: it does not depend on whether you are working, although it is possible that the way in which PIP functions could be a deterrence or barrier to work. It is not means-tested. The aim is that it covers the costs of some key condition. It is rather like child benefit, which is aimed at covering simply the costs of having children. The difference is that knowing whether you have children is rather easier to ascertain than establishing exactly what your disability is, what the condition is and what the costs are. You could have a condition-based system or a cost-based system.
Perhaps one of the most striking findings in our report at the Resolution Foundation is that 16% of people claiming PIP do not report any costs associated with their condition. However, of those people we surveyed who are receiving it—and the survey was done carefully, so it was a representative sample—47% said that PIP payments helped or enabled them to do economically valuable activities and 82% said that it boosted their well-being. In other words, we should be careful as we try to find ways of saving costs and ensuring it goes only to the people who most need it. It also has some beneficial effects which must not be sacrificed.
There is a lot of talk about particular conditions. Another significant finding from our research was that 56% of claimants of PIP have two or more conditions and there is often a mix of physical and mental conditions. In fact, 30% of recipients seemed to have a combination, 28% seemed to have just a physical condition, and 18% had just what was broadly regarded as a mental condition.
We need to reform it but we need to reform it with care. At Resolution Foundation, the broad outlines of what we propose are, first, a functional assessment. The assessment of what you are capable of doing is currently a very domestic set of tests, and we say that it should be more outward-looking and more focused on what you can do in society and in the economy. We should also look carefully at a breakdown of PIP. There is a case for a capital element: certain costs which are not regular monthly costs but that could be paid for and that, in turn, make a condition more manageable.
I disagree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We think there is some value in accessing services which help functioning and promote participation, including increasing the chances of getting into work. We think it could be useful if PIP were used as a contribution to the cost of receiving these services, and would help tackle the so-called notorious improvement trap. People are worried that, if they report that they are getting better or are helped to get better, this will cause them to lose the benefit entirely.
There needs to be more routine engagement with people on PIP and they should not be left totally disengaged from the system for years on end. We believe that there are some lower level conditions which, given the fiscal environment, should not of themselves lead to an entitlement to PIP. Put all this together, and the package we propose is one that we believe could save £4 billion to £5 billion in PIP.
I turn to specific questions on which I hope the Minister can give us some advice and guidance. The first issue is young people aged 16 to 24. This is a group whose claims for PIP are particularly scrutinised, and there are some who say that they just should not receive PIP—indeed, there are reports in the media that Alan Milburn may say they should not receive PIP at all. It is clear from our research at Resolution Foundation that one-quarter of young people receiving PIP say that they have no costs associated with a disability or no condition. There is absolutely a case for tightening up the regime. However, the other three-quarters say that they have some costs associated with their condition and that PIP enables them—this is relevant to Alan Milburn’s remit—to work, participate in education or volunteer. If there is to be a significant reduction in PIP entitlement for younger people, or it is to be removed entirely in favour of a new means of helping them work or participate in education, what assurances do we have that Alan Milburn’s report will ensure that simply removing PIP from all those young people who are using it—in exactly the way that he would like to get attention and support for to reduce NEETs—does not have the opposite effect from what was intended? For some young people, the risk of being NEET would go up rather than down. Young people matter.
The second point I turn to, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for this, is education, particularly for young people aged over 16 or 18. This is something to which I attach a lot of value, and the links between education and disability benefits and work are very strong. If you have no qualifications and you are disabled, your chances of being in work are 40% lower than if you have no qualifications and are not disabled. Among people with no qualifications, sadly, the employment penalty for being disabled is severe. For those with a degree and who are disabled, the chance of working is 14% lower than for people who have a degree and are not disabled.
In other words, one of the many values of higher education—I was one of the people who unleashed and fought long battles to get out the evidence on specific pay returns—and some of the wider benefits to higher education are captured here. For people who participate in higher education and are disabled, it gives them a massive chance and opportunity of getting into work. I hope the Minister will assure us that those types of considerations will be very relevant as we look to reform PIP, including for people who have a mental disability. People with a mental illness or mental problem are significantly more likely to be working, despite their condition, if they are graduates than if they are not.
Finally, I put forward two other points to the Minister. Pensioners cannot apply for PIP but they can carry on receiving it. In effect, PIP becomes a lifetime award if you are a pensioner. There is an argument that attendance allowance is better suited to the needs of these people and it has a lower cost than PIP. There are already 700,000 pensioners on PIP. Will the Government consider this as an area for saving and looking at ways in which attendance allowance could be used, because this absolute lifetime caseload of pensioners claiming PIP will grow?
This is my final point to the Minister. The one point on which I disagree with my noble friend Lady Jenkin is that there is a lot of belief in face-to-face assessments. The evidence from our review is that your likelihood of making a successful claim from a face-to-face assessment is 39%, from a video assessment it is 40% and from a phone assessment it is 41%. The big gap is with paper claims, where the chances are 78%. We do not need to focus on particularly expensive face-to-face claims; there are other means as well. I look forward to the Minister’s response to our debate.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Willetts, who has shaped progressive thinking on welfare for many years and has asked a number of penetrating questions. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin on her choice of subject for this debate and on her thoughtful and balanced introduction. Some 47 years ago, I was a Minister at what was then the Department of Health and Social Security, and my boss was Patrick Jenkin, my noble friend’s father-in-law. Social security expenditure in that year was £19 billion; it is now £333 billion.
Although this is a Conservative-led debate, I want to look at the issue through the eyes of two Labour politicians, Stephen Timms and Alan Milburn. The Timms review asked whether PIP is fair, accessible and fit for the disabled. Those are the terms of reference, and we have the interim report and emerging recommendations. The Milburn review is broader, looking across welfare, health and skills, but it is more concerned with the interaction of welfare, including PIP, with incentives to work and the sustainability of welfare expenditure. Again, we have his interim report. The two reports have different remits and different priorities, which, in turn, represent the tensions within the Government on the way forward on welfare reform.
First, The press often quote the very words Stephen Timms used about PIP: “not fit for purpose”. Against the background of the current debate about welfare expenditure, some people think that meant it should be cut back. But that is not at all what he meant. I could find one mention in the interim review about finance, but the whole thrust is about making the journey more user-friendly. The emerging recommendations take forward the terms of reference: improving the experience for people applying for and receiving PIP, increasing the availability of accessible digital services across the PIP journey to streamline the process and improve accessibility, and ensuring that people who need help to navigate the process can access advocacy services—all highly commendable objectives.
After reading the report, I, along with other Peers, got an invitation to a virtual briefing session with Stephen Timms and his co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Farquharson. I joined that session and it reinforced the message of the Timms review that the process could be dehumanising, soul-destroying and degrading. There were some very moving stories.
The tone of the Milburn review is different. He approached the subject not so much from the point of view of the claimant but from that of society as a whole and the taxpayer in particular. He is concerned about the cost. He says:
“Benefit spend on young people for PIP alone is expected to rise to £6.5 billion by 2031/32. If spend on DWP employment support remains at the levels currently being funded through the Youth Guarantee, we estimate that by 2030/31, for every £1 that DWP spend on employment support for young people, around £10 will be spent on welfare support for young people. This is not a spread of investment that prioritises participation. It is an investment choice that prioritises income transfers”.
When he looked at PIP, he said:
“PIP is the welfare system’s first point of contact with disabled young people from the age of 16 and for many it is the only point of contact before an out-of-work claim … Analysis we have undertaken however, does not suggest that it is achieving good participation outcomes. Administrative data shows that PIP claims are getting longer in duration, with 87% of 16- to 24-year-olds in the 2019 cohort still on the benefit five years later, compared to 74% of the 2013 cohort … The employment prospects of a young person claiming PIP get 21% worse over six years, whereas for everyone else they get 31% better”.
He goes on to say:
“The data makes it clear that PIP does nothing to support this key point of transition from education to work. At no point in a young person’s application or journey on PIP are they asked about, or supported to, work. This is not an accident of delivery. It is how PIP is designed”.
That is very different from the Timms approach, which leaves the basic design alone.
The implication from Milburn is not that we should spend more on PIP, but that we should spend less. He concludes:
“It is a symbol of a wider failure on the part of the benefits system to provide practical help for sick and disabled youngsters into work. The consequence is that a disabled person who seeks support is offered a benefit assessment, not a conversation about their goals, their struggles, the support around them and the help they need”.
He goes on to say:
“It measures what someone cannot do and writes a cheque. It does not ask what they could do and build a plan. The benefits system is founded on a deficit model of disability, one that pays for what a young person cannot do rather than investing in what they could become”.
Then he says:
“For a young person with a health condition who is unemployed and potentially seeking work, taking a pathway to inactivity can offer higher income, less hassle and lower risk. This is a perverse incentive. It is the polar opposite of what a participation-first welfare system should be providing and means more and more people are being trapped on benefits”.
Based on that Milburn claim about higher income, I worked out what a young person aged under 25 could potentially claim, using figures on the government website. Universal credit standard allowance would be £338.58 a month; universal credit LCWRA—limited capacity for work—would be £429.80 a month; and PIP highest daily living and highest mobility allowance would be £843.27 a month. Combined, this would be £1,611.65 per month. It would be more were they getting housing benefit.
I then worked out how much a young person could earn doing the national average of 36.7 hours a week of work, on the minimum living wage of £12.71. The answer was £2,021, from which you have to deduct the costs of getting to work, which are on average £55 a week, so you are left with £1,800 against £1,600. However, the £1,600 is guaranteed and involves no effort; the £1,800 is not.
Then it is claimed that not everyone gets the maximum available. That is indeed the case. Here I come to my final point: the ability to game the system, something touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I want to make one thing clear: I am entirely in favour of people getting proper advice about applying for PIP, as the noble Lord said. The application form is 20 pages long and it can be a daunting task to complete it. The Timms review makes the point that claimants are entitled to professional advice, and many organisations, such as the CAB, provide exactly that, which is absolutely right.
However, if you put into Google, “help with PIP”, the titles of some of the sites are clearly aimed at helping people to game the system. For example, “PIP assessors hope you don’t know this”, “Beat your PIP phone assessment”, “PIP telephone assessment masterclass”, “7 PIP mistakes—don’t get caught out”, “Secrets to scoring maximum PIP points”, “Unlock the secret steps for winning your PIP claims”, and so they go on. Some of them actually advise you to tell a lie. One site says: “Why do PIP assessors ask you if you have a dog or a pet? Even if you have a pet, just say, ‘No, I don’t’. They can’t prove you have or haven’t got one”. Another site gives the same advice and advises you to go into another room where your pet cannot be seen or heard. Another asserts—wrongly—that the assessor gets paid £85 for every refusal.
These sites—all on videos—have been seen by tens of thousands of people. Worse, they have been monetised by the advertisements that punctuate them—so people are making money by telling lies and assisting fraud. This underlines the point my noble friend made about a more robust assessment process. So, my final question for the Minister is: what is her department going to do about all these sites?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will start with some statistics, some raw numbers that are sobering, alarming, and, in their way, shaming. Some 30,000 people every day are signing on for long-term invalidity and incapacity benefits. The largest rise, incredibly in every sense, is among people aged between 25 and 34, the cohort just above that identified by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. Some 60,000 people every year go straight from university on to long-term sickness benefits.
Some 25% of people—25% of adults—identify as disabled, which suggests to me that the definition that at least some of them are using is very far from the definition traditionally understood. Then, of course, there is the cost. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, that 3.4 million people are claiming this benefit. That is, on the Government’s own figures, supposed to rise to 4.1 million by the end of this Parliament.
Why is this happening? Part of the answer was the lockdown, which introduced a lot of working people who up until then had never really claimed anything from the Government to a different way of living. We saw a large move away from employment and into other kinds of grants and benefits all over the world. But, for some reason, whereas in most western countries, and almost every other European country, that spike was reversed when the lockdown ended from the end of 2021, in this country, a lot of it has remained institutionalised. The huge improvements that were made between 2010 and 2020 in reducing the number of people who were out of work permanently were reversed almost overnight.
Why did that happen? As Warren Buffett’s right-hand man, Charlie Munger, used to say,
“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome”.
We just heard the incentives very ably adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. If you can work and earn slightly more, but almost the same as you would be getting without doing anything—and the noble Lord, Lord Young, was too generous or polite to point out that, of course, within those benefits you could also be doing some side hustling which would push you over the limit—some people are going to follow the rational incentive, and we can hardly blame them. The real tragedy here is not so much for the taxpayer as for the people who get trapped in a life of low income and low expectations.
None of what I have said should be remotely controversial. Indeed, I think there is a cross-party consensus that the system needs to be tightened up. There was an attempt in another place to tighten up the system, and the reason that attempt failed and ended up extending some of the claims that were opened bears scrutiny. I remember talking to a Labour MP, a friend of mine, who showed me on her phone what the WhatsApp groups of some Labour MPs were saying. In particular, they were circulating a survey by a disability charity that tabulated by constituency the number of PIP claimants and showed in how many constituencies the number of claimants was bigger than the MP’s majority. Those of your Lordships who have served in another place will know that tends to concentrate the minds of parliamentarians. But we are doing people no favours if we shy away from reform. We are not just encouraging an atmosphere where mental health conditions become normalised; we almost serve as a vector for more of them.
I have noticed that this rise in mental health conditions has led to an extraordinary change in language among people. When did you last hear somebody under the age of 30 saying “I am unhappy” rather than “I am depressed”, which is almost always their go-to adjective? When did you last hear them saying, “This makes me nervous” rather than “This is giving me anxiety”? “This is giving me PTSD” is one I hear from a lot of my children’s friends. I say, “No, that’s really not PTSD. Someone said something mean to you; it is not quite the same thing”. But as we normalise the medicalisation of language, it is no surprise that people genuinely think they are succumbing to these conditions. I read that so many anti-depressants are being flushed into our sewage system that it is beginning to affect the fish in the channel. It must be true, because I read it in the Daily Mail.
Are we doing anybody any favours, other than those MPs worried about their majorities, when we shy away from tackling these conditions? I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said at the beginning: what is the rationale for having these personal independence payments? The clue is in the name: they are to deal with the additional costs that come from a disability. If, by disability, we understand what was traditionally understood—somebody who has a physical impairment—then there might be costs: they might need to adjust access to their house, there would be transport difficulties and there might be care costs. How does somebody who has anxiety or depression have a more expensive lifestyle than somebody who is unemployed but does not have those conditions? I do not mean for a moment to belittle those very unpleasant conditions, but it does not follow, unpleasant as they are, that they lead to a more expensive lifestyle. It is quite extraordinary that, as the definition of disability has expanded, we have not adjusted its financial consequences.
Perhaps the key point is this: for those who really suffer from anxiety, depression or related mental health conditions, are we helping them when we encourage them to stay home taking pills? When we give benefits payments that discourage people from working, we cut them off from the things that are usually the surest route—not in every single case—towards recovery. We all need to be needed. We all need to have others relying on us. Taking people out of employment takes that very real psychological prop away and often worsens the condition that we are purporting to care about.
I hope that we will have the courage and the vision properly to tackle this growing problem: a problem for the economy of the nation, yes, but, much more gravely, for that growing number of millions of our fellow citizens who are trapped in these lifestyles. Show me the incentive, and I will show you the outcome. The incentive for us should be to do the right thing by those of our fellow citizens who have been put in this situation, and to do the right thing by our own duty as parliamentarians.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington on securing this debate. I too welcome my noble friend Lord Willetts and congratulate the Minister on her new responsibilities on the Front Bench. It is important that we are debating this matter in advance of the publication of two significant forthcoming reviews: the Milburn review and the Timms review.
I declare an interest as director of Policy Exchange, which has undertaken extensive work on disability benefits over the past couple of years. I draw noble Lords’ attention to two reports by my colleague Jean-André Prager, who will be known to some and who played a significant part in policy-making on these matters under a number of previous Governments over the past decade. For Whose Benefit? and Lapse of Judgment? have examined both the purpose of PIP and the constitutional questions surrounding its administration. It is through those lenses that I will focus my comment today.
As Prager correctly puts it, there is sometimes a reductive quality to our desire to protect disabled people. Protection, although always well intentioned, can become a form of infantilisation at times, overlooking the great economic and creative potential of disabled people. Our disability benefits system embeds this paternalism in its architecture. Too often, it defines disabled people by their functional limitations rather than what their potential or capabilities are. If we focus exclusively on what disabled people cannot do, PIP can never act as a means of empowerment for disabled people. Therefore, our approach should be recalibrated, first and foremost, to enable disabled people and, then, to protect them where necessary.
This brings me to a second but equally important point. If we are to reconsider what PIP is intended to achieve, we must also ask some difficult questions about who exactly should be entitled to it. As the DWP Secretary of State said to the Times recently, we began this decade with 2.4 million people claiming PIP; today, that figure stands at 4.1 million, with projections suggesting 5.4 million by the end of the decade. Expenditure is forecast to double to £41 billion over the decade, which is more than double what we spend on the British Army. These are staggering figures. They underline the need for a benefits system capable of adapting to the changing world around it. That adaptation needs to take place in that way, rather than allowing eligibility criteria to evolve without regular parliamentary scrutiny, as has happened too often to date. Therefore, eligibility criteria should not be treated as immutable; they must be reviewed regularly to reflect changing medical understanding, technological advances and the objectives that Parliament intends the welfare system to serve. In short, it must be properly accountable.
Policy Exchange has recommended that the Government review PIP criteria every two years to ensure they remain an appropriate proxy for the additional costs that disabled people face. I implore the Minister to take forward this recommendation and the Government to create a more responsive PIP system. We need fundamentally to reform PIP to ensure that it meets the needs of disabled people, retains public consent and remains sustainable for many years to come. Our PIP system should be an enabler, and it is my firm belief in the enormous contribution that disabled people make to our society that motivates my comments today.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for setting this debate in process. I trust the Government will listen to the interesting comments that are being made. I welcome the new Front Bench team and wish them well.
I begin with a practical question about whether the benefits system responds when people tell it that their circumstances have changed. I recently raised with another Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the case of someone receiving sickness benefits; he had reported that he had recovered but was still waiting for a reassessment four years later. I was not asking the noble Baroness then—and I am not now asking the Minister now—to discuss an individual’s personal circumstances; I am asking about the administration of the system.
Can the Minister say how common delays of this kind are? How many people who have reported an improvement in their condition are still awaiting reassessment? How long have they been waiting, and what has been done to put it right? If someone tells the department that their circumstances have changed, surely they should be able to expect a timely response. This is not a question about an individual; it is a question about how the department operates.
However, let me be equally clear about what I am not arguing. I am not calling for everyone to face more frequent assessments. We need fewer unnecessary reassessments, particularly for people with lifelong or degenerative conditions. Repeatedly asking someone to demonstrate needs that have not changed serves neither the claimant nor the taxpayer. We need to distinguish between reassessments that serve a purpose and those that simply repeat, again and again, what is already known. Reducing unnecessary reassessments and responding promptly to reported changes are not contradictory objectives; they are two elements of competent administration.
Turning specifically to PIP, we must distinguish between failures in the way the benefit operates and the value of the support it provides. PIP helps people meet the extra costs of disability. It is not an out-of-work benefit. People can receive it while working, and becoming able to work does not in itself mean that they no longer qualify. That distinction matters; otherwise, we risk discussing disability benefits as though everybody receiving them is in the same position, with the same needs and the same prospects. They are not.
For many people, PIP is a lifeline, not a luxury. Its purpose is to support independence and participation, helping disabled people exercise choices that others can take for granted. Payment in cash is an important strength of the system. By that I mean giving people control over how the money is spent. Disabled people should be able to decide how best to meet their own needs rather than having those decisions made arbitrarily for them. An extra journey, help with a daily task or a different way of managing life at home may seem a small matter to someone else; to the individual concerned, it may make the difference between dependence and independence. The freedom should be protected in any reform—I hope that the department will think about that.
We must also take care with the language of this debate. Rising claimant numbers deserve scrutiny. Ministers must explain expenditure, account for decisions and demonstrate that public money is being used properly. However, a debate dominated by numbers risks losing sight of the people behind them. We should not allow legitimate questions about administration and affordability—both of which I have made—to become a general suspicion of people who need support. Nor should we make someone feel that applying for help is an admission of failure. A fair system must command public confidence, but it must also command the confidence of those who depend upon it.
That brings me to the assessment process. In our 2024 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for greater transparency in PIP assessments and an end to unnecessary reassessments. Those remain important objectives, but transparency alone is not enough. We need decisions that are better informed, more accurate and easier to understand. Assessors need the training and time to understand how conditions interact. They must be able to recognise that the effects of disability and ill health can fluctuate.
An assessment should not reduce someone’s life to how they appear during a single appointment. Some may manage a task on one occasion but struggle to repeat it. They may present confidently while finding daily life extremely difficult. The question should be about what someone can manage in practice, not simply what an assessor sees, often in a brief encounter.
Supporting evidence must be properly considered, and decisions must explain clearly how that evidence has been weighed. When a decision is wrong, individuals should not have to become an expert in the benefits system to challenge it. Getting decisions right first time should be a central measure of success, not an aspiration left at the margins of reform.
We must also recognise the limits of what benefits reform alone can achieve. Changing an assessment process cannot substitute for timely NHS treatment. It cannot by itself make a workplace accessible or ensure that appropriate employment support is available. If the Government want more disabled people who can work to either remain in or enter employment, they must address those practical barriers, along with the benefits system. Disabled people must have a meaningful role throughout the reform process, not simply be invited to comment after the principal decisions have been made. Their experience should help shape the questions asked, the evidence considered and the way success is measured.
I ask the Minister for three assurances. The first is that unnecessary reassessments will be reduced while reported changes in circumstances are dealt with properly, and that the Government will provide information enabling us to judge progress. The second is that the assessor training and the use of supporting evidence will improve, with a clear focus on getting decisions right first time. The third is that disabled people will help design and evaluate reform, with their independence and dignity treated as essential tests of success. Lastly, after those three items, we must not forget the person who asked for a reassessment and was not given it. Is that a one-off?
We should not have to choose between compassion and competent administration. A properly functioning system must provide both. It should support people when they need help, respond when their circumstances change and explain its decisions clearly. That is how we build trust, not through repeated promises of reform but through a system that works fairly, accurately and with respect for the people it serves. Many points were made during this debate. That is not against PIP; it shows the value of PIP and how it needs to be administered.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for tabling this important Motion, and I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, to the Front Bench. Yesterday the Chancellor delivered a Budget that left one of the greatest challenges facing this country untouched. He acknowledged that in an interview yesterday when he said:
“There will be a reduction in the benefits bill, we’ll do that in a Labour way”.
I can hardly express how inadequate this is as a statement of government willingness to tackle a real crisis.
Others have already rehearsed the terrifying arithmetic. The OBR has said unequivocally that the borrowing trajectory is unsustainable. But this is not just a financial crisis. It is a crisis for those who act rationally, using the safety net of sickness and disability benefits at points of real need, but for whom the net becomes a trap, confining them to worklessness as efficiently as a lobster-pot. It is a crisis for the young people who turn to benefits in a labour market where their job opportunities have been drastically curtailed by Labour’s poorly directed tax, national insurance and minimum wage measures, and by the Employment Rights Act.
It is a crisis for those with mild mental health conditions who could and should live and work normally with just a little extra help, but who are incentivised by the availability of these benefits to drop out of work or, worse, never start work. It is a crisis for those who see others exploiting disability benefits to achieve lifestyles that many working families cannot hope for. This is, understandably, breeding cynicism and disaffection, and moral corruption is contagious. It is also a crisis for those with real and serious disabilities who need a fair and stable welfare system and are unfairly tainted by the increasing suspicion and distrust around PIP and its claimants. All this is a disaster for the mutual trust and cohesion that are essential to sustain public willingness to pay for a generous welfare state.
Many people are now studying this, most recently Fraser Nelson in his excellent project at the Times. The Centre for Social Justice has been looking forensically at the problems for years. The Chancellor has done another media round today to respond to criticisms that his speech essentially ignored what must be a flashing red light on the Treasury dashboard. Now he has promised proposals before the end of the year, after the Milburn and Timms reviews are published.
What indications do we have of what the Labour way might be? First, we have the ill-fated Liz Kendall reforms. These were a serious, if modest, attempt to start tackling the growing problem, but the Government were unable to carry them through, forced to eviscerate their plans by their own Back-Benchers. This is not encouraging. Next, we have the Timms review. As my noble friend Lord Young pointed out, there is little in its interim report to give confidence. The Minister’s assertion when it was published was:
“My view is that the current level of spending is not a great concern”.
Yet the OBR has already had to revise its projections for PIP substantially upwards. The Green Paper from which the review arose rightly emphasised that good work is good for health and plays a vital role in recovery from illness. Not all disabled people can work but, for the majority who can, work gives more than just income. It gives purpose, social interaction and respect.
Much of the recent rapid growth in disability relates to ADHD, autism and other mental health conditions such as anxiety. In most cases, these conditions should not be a barrier to work. Yet the interim report quotes, without apparent concern, a recent finding that of non-working disability benefit recipients, only one in 20 believed they could work now—even with the right job or support. Only just over a quarter thought they might be able to work in future if their condition improved. That leaves more than two-thirds believing they will never be able to work, some of them very young or in the prime of life.
This finding, along with the facts that only 20% of PIP claimants are working and that the longer they claim, the less likely they are to work, casts serious doubt on the suitability of PIP for many of those currently claiming it, as my noble friend Lord Young also pointed out. Granting PIP to anxious teenagers may be downright cruel. It does not help young people into work. It does not convince them that they are capable of maturing into resilient adults. Instead, it confirms their own pessimistic self-assessments and very likely locks them into dependency for life. It is so easy for the state to be kind on a short-term view and so much harder to be honest about what will really help young people in the long term.
The Timms review should have asked about disability definitions. The UK uses a harmonised definition of disability based on individual self-perception rather than clinical diagnosis. The ONS has published a study showing that roughly three times as many people are categorised as disabled under our definition as under the UN-recommended Washington Group methodology. This may help to explain why reported disability has risen in Britain in recent years at rates not seen elsewhere.
Yet Britain is not unique. Other countries experienced similar levels of Covid. Others have similar levels of poverty. We have universal free health care. We do not carry any particular genetic disadvantage. So why do we have high and increasing disability? How much of it comes from perceiving as disability what has previously been considered normal variability in the human condition? How much comes from poor welfare system incentives? At the margin, does a disability label help or hinder? As my noble friend Lord Godson said, are we infantilising or empowering people here? This needs honest analysis and discussion. In the light of all this, it is indeed disappointing that the interim Timms recommendations were mostly about improving the claimant experience rather than addressing more fundamental concerns.
The Milburn review is more encouraging. Much of the Milburn diagnosis is accurate and expressed admirably clearly and frankly. He has said that welfare spending must come down to make way for better support to get young people into work. But this might translate, in the face of fractious Back Benches, into a minimalist approach—just enough welfare reduction to fund a support package but nothing that will make a real impact on our parlous national financial position.
A common theme from Government Ministers and reviewers is the importance of supporting people into work, which is true. But not acknowledged is the fundamental problem that too many people, if they can succeed with a PIP claim and the passported benefits that brings, including unlocking the benefit cap, are often better off financially on benefits. No amount of support and encouragement will stop most rational people on an unconditional package of benefits from doing that arithmetic. Even though PIP is not means-tested, people see working as a risk to maintaining their claim to the benefit.
The disappointing findings published this week from the Government’s Connect to Work programme, which is meant to help health and disability claimants back to work, show that support does not compensate for unbalanced incentives. Despite a budget of more than £1 billion for the programme, take-up has been very low, including from young people. NEET numbers were declining pre-Covid but have risen steeply since and stand at close to 1 million, yet only 6,000 young people in that age bracket have signed up for Connect to Work. That is less than 1% of NEETs. In the first 15 months of the whole scheme, fewer than 1,000 people have worked for more than 18 hours a week for at least 26 weeks. Sadly, the likelihood is that spending on support will make little difference unless the incentive to claim disability benefits is reduced.
As I touched on earlier, there also need to be jobs. A Government who destroy jobs will quickly build up a sticky welfare pipeline. That pipeline is starting much earlier than many people realise. I talk to head teachers who are profoundly uncomfortable about the pressure they experience from parents to have perfectly normal children labelled as SEND to help the parents claim child disability living allowance. Claims for child DLA have shot up in the last two years. Why? It is a generous cash allowance that also unlocks other benefits and disapplies the household benefit cap. I know of one case where a parent is refusing to potty-train their seven year-old because that would remove the justification for their DLA claim. That child is being betrayed by the parent. Most DLA children move on to PIP at age 16, even though many should have outgrown childhood problems by then. We should be ashamed of this.
I welcome the announcement of 2,000 additional DWP investigators to follow up on suspicious welfare claims. It may have been unwise for the Timms interim report to dismiss the distrust associated with PIP as a false and damaging narrative derived from stigma and misinformation. Since I took up this role, so many people have told me of someone they know personally who is claiming PIP but either is not meaningfully disabled or whose disability does not bring extra costs. My noble friend Lord Willetts has shown solid evidence that these cases are far from exceptional. But while extra investigators are a good thing—fraudsters are deterred by a high likelihood of detection and sanction—it does not begin to address the problems of a disability benefit system that is now, quite simply, incentivising worklessness and trapping the youngest adults, and now also children, in an indefensible way.
I am going to add a few more questions to those put by my noble friend Lady Jenkin and my other noble friends. What exactly does the Chancellor mean by reducing the welfare bill “in a Labour way”? What assessment are the Government making of the impact of our unusually broad definition of disability? What steps are the Government taking to identify and eliminate disability-linked welfare traps, as happens in Sweden with the FASIT model? What work are the Government doing to establish whether claiming child DLA improves or worsens the long-term outcomes for a child? I very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s answers.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Dacres of Lewisham) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. If I cannot respond to all points and questions that have been raised, I will review Hansard and write to noble Lords, and place something in the Library.
We have had a wonderful debate this afternoon. We have covered a huge variety of issues and touched on the lives of millions of people with disabilities and long-term health conditions across the country. Today’s debate has been an invaluable opportunity to address some of the topics that go beyond party-political debates and go to the heart of what really matters. It is about what we expect from our welfare state: how to recognise the lived experiences of those with disabilities and how to support and empower disabled people to live an independent, fulfilling life with opportunities and choices to participate fully in society. With that said, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for bringing this debate to the House today. We truly appreciate it, as the noble Baroness could hear from all the contributions we have had today.
As has been commented by many Lords, there are millions of people who rely on the personal independence payment, or PIP, to help them meet the costs associated with daily living, mobility, communication, transport, equipment, support services, and countless other aspects of just living an everyday life. Entitlement to PIP is assessed on the basis of the needs arising from the health condition or disability, rather than the health condition or disability itself. The central purpose was, and remains, to help with the extra costs associated with disability and long-term health conditions. I want to acknowledge the noble Lord who, as a Minister, was at the genesis of PIP when it first came into being.
Similarly, the work capability assessment, or WCA, determines the eligibility for employment support allowances and additional health-related amounts of universal credit, and also assesses the individual’s capability for work. That is a key principle for both assessments: to consider the impact of that person’s disability or health condition, be it temporary or be it fluctuating, on their day-to-day life. While the purpose of these assessments has remained the same, the world around us has continually changed. The labour market has changed. Technology has changed. Healthcare has changed. Society’s understanding of disability has evolved.
Before discussing where reforms might be needed, it is important to be clear about the principle and values that underpin the Government’s approach. A successful state should prevent people falling into long-term economic inactivity; we should be helping more people into work, restoring trust through a fair and effective assessment system, and protect those who cannot work by supporting them to live independently with dignity. It also needs to ensure that the system is financially sustainable and to keep providing for those who need it most. The Budget on 28 October set out our latest forecast on government spending.
Before I go further, I will talk a little bit about the clearance times. We are committed to ensuring that people can access financial support through PIP in a timely manner. That has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. Reducing the time taken for the PIP claimant’s journey is a priority for the department and we are working constantly to make improvements to our services.
I would further like to assure noble Lords that we are always aiming to make an award decision as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Davies mentioned this. We need to take into account the need to review all available evidence, including that from claimants, and I shall come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, regarding face-to-face assessments.
We have seen a decrease in PIP clearance time since August 2021, with the latest statistics showing that the average end-to-end journey has reduced from 26 weeks in August 2021 to 18 weeks by the end of July 2026. This is because we are using a blend of phone, video and face-to-face assessments to support claimants and to deliver a more efficient and user-centred service; increasing case manager and assessment provider health professional resources; making sure that we are improving training for those who are doing these assessments; and prioritising new claims while safeguarding claimants awaiting awards reviews.
Noble Lords will be aware of the Timms review, which the noble Lords, Lord Palmer, Lord Young and Lord Davies, have mentioned this afternoon. It is the very first full review of PIP, which some might say is long overdue, and it seeks to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health and higher living standards, with greater independence, including through employment. On 9 September, the review shared a set of emerging recommendations. These are not the final recommendations—as we know, those will be published by the end of the year—but they were a starting point for the steering group to be able to test, challenge and improve, with feedback going back to the Timms review. That symbolises part of what might be considered the Labour ethos: nothing about us without us.
The Timms review is being co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts. This means that the Government are sharing ownership and responsibility for how the review runs and what it recommends. The Timms review is not working towards a fixed set of outcomes; it is listening to the lived experience and expertise of disabled people, because that is critical to the review’s success. Today, we cannot pre-empt what the recommendations will be, but we shall patiently wait.
I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned in his contribution: there needs to be a balance between the Timms review and the Milburn review. The Milburn review, as he said, has taken a broader look at welfare, health, education, skills and employment, and is focusing on the challenges facing young people who are not in education, employment or training. We look forward to the final report and its policy recommendations, which will help young people to access education, training and employment. As I said, these are not the final recommendations.
I move on to PIP expenditure and the caseloads, which have grown substantially over recent years. As has been mentioned, as of 2026, around 4 million people receive PIP. A responsible Government cannot ignore the long-term sustainability of the system. The system must remain capable of supporting future generations, as well as today’s claimants. Alongside this, we have been clear that we need to build a welfare system that supports participation and opportunity, and that is part of what the Milburn review is looking at.
Looking ahead, the Timms review and the Milburn review will play a central role in shaping the future direction of policy. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned that there could be tensions in that, but we shall wait and see how that flows when we get the full reports. The onus will be on us, as Members of this House and the other place, to look at the reviews and to work together for the best benefit of those who we seek to help through PIP and by getting people into work and employment, regardless of age, with or without disabilities. I assure the House that the Government will consider the recommendations and the reviews very carefully.
I will now attempt to address other points raised during the debate, starting with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, about yesterday’s Budget. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said clearly that we have to bring the benefits Bill down and fix the broken welfare system we inherited. But you do not do that by crude cuts, especially when people are feeling cost of living pressures. As I have already mentioned, we have two ongoing reviews, which are due imminently. The Chancellor has set out that the Government will respond by the end of the year. But we are not complacent. We are already taking action and delivering on welfare reform in different ways.
We have been rebalancing universal credit to reduce the incentive to be labelled too sick to work and increasing face-to-face assessments for health benefits, which declined under the previous Government. We are reforming mobility and tax breaks, which is expected to save over £1 billion over the next five years, and we are acting to get young people into work, with record funding for apprenticeships, grants for businesses taking on unemployed young people and our youth guarantee programme.
I said that I would come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the face-to-face assessments, which are sometimes the best way for some people to get their assessments. It allows for a more human approach, where people can sit down and better explain their circumstances or illustrate the condition that affects them in practice. It helps to ensure that decisions are fair, accurate and based on the whole picture. But that is just one part of the routes we can take to do such assessments. It is an important part and one that we have taken seriously. We plan to increase our face-to-face delivery by 30% and are already making steps to increase and improve face-to-face assessment. By July 2026, face-to-face accounted for 14.6% of PIP consultations and 23% of WCA consultations—so we are moving in the right direction and will continue to do so.
Another point raised was the PIP criteria for individuals’ abilities and fluctuating conditions. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The criteria to consider an individual’s ability is over a 12-month period, ensuring that fluctuations are taken into account. It is essential for assessments to accurately reflect the impact of the variations in individual levels of impairment. This is important for all health conditions and impairments, not just typically fluctuating conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned workplace capability assessments. Claimants who report a deterioration in their health condition, or a new condition, continue to be referred for reassessment but are waiting longer than we would like. We are prioritising initial assessments over reassessments, but we are also prioritising those who are seeking employment within a few weeks’ time, so that they can get their assessments and we make sure they are having the right assessment for when they go into work. That is another thing that we are doing.
We know that this is a very important issue for claimants and stakeholder groups, which is why we are urgently considering options for expediting reassessments of these cases as part of our wider intentions, set out in the Pathways to Work Green Paper, to resume assessments at scale when capacity in the system allows.
On awards durations, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, it may be helpful if I explain that, once somebody has been awarded a PIP, which can be paid at one of eight rates, either the award can be reviewed or the claimant will be required to submit a new claim. Award rates and their durations are set out on an individual basis, based on the claimant’s needs and the likelihood of those needs changing.
The Government are also prioritising welfare reform. Putting work and opportunity at the centre of our system should support people to get into work and to get on in work while ensuring that those who cannot work get the support that they need. We have already discussed at length the Milburn and Timms reviews, but in the meantime we will continue reshaping the system into one that puts work at the centre, while we will always support those who may not be able to work.
My noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made points about accuracy. It is our aim to make the right decision as early as possible in the claimant’s journey. To support this, we have made improvements to our decision-making process to ensure that people get the support that they are entitled to without needing to appeal. This includes giving decision-makers additional time to contact claimants proactively if they think additional evidence is required and may support the claim. It is a fundamental principle of our legal and political system that citizens should be able to challenge decisions made by the Government through the legal system. Mandatory reconsideration is a key element of the department’s decision-making process. It offers claimants the opportunity to challenge decisions and provide additional information that may be relevant to their claim.
Since the summer of 2026, when claimants tell us that they no longer consider themselves to have restricted ability to work, their case is reviewed to determine whether their limited capability for work or limited capability for work and work-related activity status should continue. The review considers whether there is sufficient evidence that the claimant’s circumstances have changed. In clear cases, the decision-maker can remove the LCW or LCWRA status without further assessment. Where there is doubt, including where health conditions are complex or fluctuating, the claimant may be referred for reassessment. In some cases, following the review, entitlement remains unchanged—for example, where the claimant has reported a change in error or the available evidence does not support removal.
The Government are committed to giving disabled people and people with health conditions confidence that working will not trigger reassessment and a potential loss of benefit. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the principle of right to try. There are already rules in place that are intended to encourage working-age people who are in receipt of health and disability benefit—be it PIP, universal credit or the new style employment and support allowance—to try work. The DWP suggests that there is a lack of awareness of these rules, and we will be working to ensure that this is widely promoted and that those who wish to have the right to try take advantage of this opportunity as well as the welfare reforms putting opportunities at the centre of everything that we do.
I have not had the opportunity to mention the claims management system. The noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Davies talked about the codes that we have online, claimants who are getting poor information and people taking advantage. We will be introducing a new code of practice in the coming weeks that clamps down on activity by claims management, as well as the work that we are doing in guiding people to the government website so that claimants get the right information first-hand.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I assure noble Lords across the House that we will engage constructively with the process of building a fair and trusted sustainable welfare state that is centred on the needs of disabled people.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and wish her luck in the many debates which lie ahead for her. I was glad to hear that she will be writing to us to address some of the many points she was unable to address in her remarks.
As I hope she takes from the powerful speeches by my noble friends Lord Godson, Lady Spielman, Lord Willetts and Lord Young of Cookham, who speak from considerable and relevant government experience, this is a topic about which there is tremendous concern on these Benches, especially given the delays in the publication of the Milburn review. I therefore hope that we will have time soon in this Chamber to debate both reviews and the concrete proposals to address the welfare budget that should follow swiftly.
Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I appreciate their commitment to this important topic and their willingness to be here for what I described earlier as the graveyard shift.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts