House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
My thoughts today are with all those whose lives have been changed forever and the families who have lost loved ones through the contaminated blood scandal. I have very close friends who lost brothers and cousins nearly 40 years ago. Nothing can undo the suffering they have endured, and this Government are totally committed to recognising that profound hurt and injustice. Eligible claimants will receive the compensation they are due. We will continue working across Government to ensure that justice is delivered and compensation reaches the victims as quickly as possible.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am sure the whole House echoes his sentiments. There is concern among claimants, particularly those claiming for the estates of those who have passed on, because under Government regulations, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is required to claw back overpayments. These are people who have been traumatised over many years, and those errors—Government errors, not errors on the part on the claimants—are causing distress and forcing people to relive their experiences. Can we ensure that Government and Treasury rules and regulations do not require IBCA to reclaim overpayments in this way?
John Healey
My hon. Friend has been a campaigner in this House for almost the whole time he and I have been here—we were elected together in 1997—and he raises an important point. If overpayments happen, it is the responsibility of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deal with them, and the IBCA appears to be reviewing a small number of cases. The Treasury has agreed that the authority can continue paying compensation under the scheme while it conducts those reviews. I have asked the authority to keep us updated on those reviews, and I will certainly do the same for my hon. Friend.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the question that the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) has asked, some people and their families face delays in getting their money. For some families in Northern Ireland, the years catch up with them, their health catches up with them and they pass away, so I want to ensure that in the lifetime they have in this world—the short time that some of them have left—the moneys they are due actually get there. What has been done to ensure that those who are still waiting for compensation get it as a matter of urgency?
John Healey
The IBCA is following the inquiry’s recommendations about priority payments. It is prioritising claims from individuals who are sadly nearing the end of their lives, followed by those in older age groups. In the past two years, over £2.3 billion in compensation has been paid out to people who are either infected or affected, and I say to the hon. Gentleman—who has also been a long-term campaigner on this issue—that the Treasury is playing its part. We are making sure that those payments can be made through the annually managed expenditure, so there is no constraint on the payments that can be made under Treasury rules.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the family protection plan issue, which I know affects hundreds of his constituents and many other people. As he knows, we have engaged with the FCA on the impact of its withdrawal. I want to see this matter resolved in a satisfactory way, and I look forward to engaging with him further to that end.
Frank McNally
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her response and her work on this matter. The most vulnerable families paid FPP funeral cover for 25 years because it was all they could afford, and data shows that since its withdrawal, only 3% of policyholders have been able to secure alternative cover and at least 61 people have died without funeral protection. Despite numerous industry forum meetings to explore redress, no solutions have been agreed, even for the oldest and most vulnerable. Will my right hon. and learned Friend meet me, MPs with affected constituents and the independent coalition of credit unions as a matter of urgency, so that we can try to identify any possible next steps?
Lucy Rigby
I will. As I said, I want to see this matter resolved in a satisfactory way, not least due to the ongoing harm that my hon. Friend describes.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
My Budget last week took action to help people worried about the pressure of winter bills. A £100 household energy payment will be made directly to people’s bank accounts in 20 million households. We have the VAT cut from electricity bills, the 5p cut to fuel duty extended through the winter to July and standing charges removed entirely from gas bills next year. This action gives people a bit of breathing space with the cost of living pressures, and I am asking banks to pay a bit more to fund this help for households this winter.
Claire Young
The Treasury is cutting £1 billion from the warm homes fund, including a smaller than planned pot for the boiler upgrade scheme. Combined with tax rises on heat pumps, these cuts risk creating a boom-and-bust cycle for installers and leaving more households exposed to the volatility of the oil and gas market. Can the Chancellor explain how cutting support for clean heating is consistent with the Government’s own mission for a clean energy transition?
John Healey
Our priority is to give people who are facing a winter of worry with rising energy bills just a bit of relief. That is why the priority is the £100 paid directly into people’s bank accounts, which will go to 20 million households. That is four in five households in England, and it will reach nine out of 10 of the poorest third of families. It is timely, it is targeted and it is fair. It is a choice that this Government have made in the Labour Budget that I delivered last week.
Mr Forster
Yesterday, Trussell and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation wrote to the Prime Minister criticising the Government for freezing local housing allowance, saying that it will not help people with the cost of living and will critically undermine plans to end rough sleeping. Does the Chancellor agree with those national charities and Citizens Advice in my Woking constituency that rent support must be tied to actual rent levels?
John Healey
Rent allowance and how we best support the increase in the building of council and social housing were also part of my Budget announcements. They were not just about having a bit of breathing space and relief from the pressures that people immediately face, but action to start the long-term fix to our housing, including help for first-time buyers who do not have the backing of mum and dad and help to get council and social housing built in this country.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The measures in the Budget to help with the cost of living through cuts in energy bills were welcome. The Chancellor also said that he would adopt one of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s recommendations not to add further policy costs to bills, but can I encourage him to look at one of our other recommendations, which is to move policy costs from electricity to gas? That would help people take up electric heat and batteries, which will enable them to take advantage of the tariffs that are available now.
John Healey
The action I took in the Budget last week was on top of help that the Government have given this year to help across the board with energy costs. It included some of the measures that my hon. Friend’s Committee has urged us to look at. Going into this Budget, I was conscious of the pressures and the worry that people have about rising energy bills, which are driven by the Iran war. My priority was therefore the steps we have taken: extending the 5p cut to fuel duty, extending the VAT cut on electricity bills, and removing the standing charge from gas bills for next year. Above all, we will see the direct payment of £100 into the bank accounts of 20 million households in January, which will help at that point of maximum pressure as people face those winter bills.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Treasury Committee has done an enormous amount of work not only on the household bills situation, but also on the impact on graduates who still have significant debts. Can the Chancellor promise that when things do improve, he will look again at this burning issue for so many of our constituents?
John Healey
I will indeed. We will keep an eye on that, and no doubt we will return to it. However, I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), that the Budget provides for immediate action to help with the cost of living pressures and give people a bit of breathing space over the winter, but also for action to make deep reforms to our energy system that will bring prices down for business and for households in the long term. That means an end to the standing charges on gas bills, an end to Government policy costs simply loaded on to consumer bills through levies, and an end to buying and building new generation that does not bring cheaper as well as cleaner energy and cannot be connected to the grid. This is a Budget with immediate action to deal with the cost of living pressures, and action for the long-term changes that are necessary to bring British energy bills down in line with those in Europe.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
At the weekend the Chancellor said that the Budget would provide breathing space for families and working people, so will he tell the House today whether he agrees with his Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who thinks that employers are not working people?
John Healey
Of course they are. That is why, in the Budget, I protected income that is earned. I protected income that is earned through dividends which are reinvested in business. I promised a “breathing space” Budget, and that is what I have delivered: help with the cost of living pressures and help with the cost of business pressures, with 70,000 high street businesses taken out of business rates altogether to lift our local areas, including the right hon. Lady’s constituency. Just as I am asking banks to assist with the cost of this help for households through the winter, I am asking gambling operators, big online sellers and vape shops to pay a bit more to help our high streets, and I hope the right hon. Lady will back that.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
With too many Derby residents dreading their bills as the nights draw in, I welcome the news that 93% of the households in our city will be given £100 of breathing space in their energy bills this winter, but whether it is the weekly shop or filling the car, budgets are being stretched from every direction. What other steps can the Chancellor take to give families who are struggling to make ends meet the extra breathing space that they need?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the 93% of families in Derby who will have this £100 payment paid directly into their accounts at the beginning of the winter. Let me also point out to him that the VAT cut on electricity bills from the first week of this Government is extended through the winter and the spring to July, just as the 5p cut in fuel duty is extended through the winter, through the spring and to July. We are also taking standing charges off gas bills next year to help relieve the pressure that people face and the worry over energy bills.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Office for Budget Responsibility said last week that higher taxes were weighing on living standards, with the tax burden heading for a record high. The Budget was a missed opportunity for the Chancellor to cut the cost of living by cutting taxes, but instead his answer was to cut the price of gherkins. The Chancellor promised “breathing space” nine times in his speech; does he really think that 6p a day in savings amounts to breathing space for hard-working families?
John Healey
There will be a council tax cut in the new year. A VAT cut in electricity bills will be extended. A 5p cut in fuel duty will be extended through next winter and into July.
This is also a Budget that has rejected broad-based tax rises. This is a Government and a Budget making sure that we close the loopholes and target the measures we are taking at those who can pay, and pay what they owe. All those policies in the Budget are fully funded, because underpinning all is the fiscal discipline that is needed to rebuild confidence in this country, and confidence in our ability to manage our finances that were so badly damaged by the Truss mini-Budget in 2022.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Government’s use of the outdated council tax system to roll out their energy support package has led to an absurd situation whereby between 800,000 and 1.4 million people on low incomes will miss out on the £100, while a wealthy couple who have retired early and have downsized are set to benefit. There is absolutely no excuse for this. The Government could have followed our plan to use existing DWP and HMRC data to roll out a targeted essential energy guarantee, getting the most help to those who need it most, so why on earth did they not do so?
John Healey
The hon. Lady disappoints me. Nine out of 10 of the poorest households will benefit from the £100 direct payment. Four out of five households in total—20 million—will benefit from this. She will have seen in the Budget that, for those who do struggle, I have also put an extra £100 million into the special fund that local authorities have to administer. They can make payments in hardship cases for those under extreme pressure, and I encourage her to point people to that.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friends are entirely right to focus on the need for more apprenticeship opportunities for young people. Reversing the 40% decline in youth apprenticeships since 2016 is a top priority. That is why the Government are investing £3.3 billion in apprenticeships, and why the Chancellor has announced the expansion of local apprenticeship services to all mayors.
Will Stone
In Swindon, Honda trained up about 170 apprentices over the years, giving young people real access to good, high-skilled, well-paid jobs. When Honda left, so did those opportunities. Will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the DWP to ensure that Swindon gets better access to apprenticeships for young people in the future?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is absolutely the right question. We all know that there are so many young people in our communities who would benefit from the clear transition from education into the world of work that an apprenticeship provides. We are supporting employers to provide that bridge, with a new £2,000 grant for small and medium-sized enterprises recruiting apprentices aged 16 to 24. That is in addition to the fully funded training costs for eligible young apprentices at all businesses.
Kirith Entwistle
Every year on A-level results day, I hold a youth drop-in event at Market Place in Bolton town centre to connect young people with the skills, opportunities and training that I benefited from myself. Every year, young people tell me that they would benefit from more apprenticeships. What further action is the Chancellor taking to work with employers, colleges and training providers to expand apprenticeship places and ensure that young people in constituencies like mine can access the skills and training needed for successful careers?
Torsten Bell
Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on her important work, and on what sounds like a feature of the calendar in her constituency. All parts of society have a role to play in tackling the challenges we face when it comes to young people’s participation in the world of work. When it comes to apprenticeships, we have already reformed the levy to make sure that there is £1 billion extra over this spending review period, which will provide 50,000 more young apprenticeships. I note that over half of the apprenticeship starts in her constituency involve young people, but we need to make sure there are many more in the years ahead.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Construction is a key sector for apprenticeships, yet the 1.5 million target for homes has been dropped. In London, the city we are in, the Government are meeting just 5% of their target. [Interruption.] It is 5%. There are no apprenticeships coming through, and we see Landsec, Taylor Wimpey and other companies in London pulling back even further. When will the Government recognise that stamp duty is standing in the way of getting those apprenticeships going, getting those houses built and getting this economy growing once again?
Torsten Bell
Let me start on a point of agreement: I think that all of us in the House value the role of the construction sector and want to see more houses built. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships in the construction sector to get more young people into that route. In London, we do need to see more building. That is why we have announced a new package of reforms with the Mayor of London to make sure that we get the building rates up, but Conservative Members cannot stand in this House and say that they support house building, and then oppose every planning permission that comes forward for building in their constituencies. That is not what this Government will do. Those houses will be built.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
For a young person in a South Cotswolds village, the barrier to an apprenticeship is often just getting there. Buses are rare or non-existent, and the cost of running a car is out of reach on an apprentice’s pay. Will the Chancellor work with the Transport Secretary to cap bus fares at £1 and to fund more rural bus routes?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we want to see apprenticeships for young people in every part of the country, including in rural constituencies. That is why the Government have put in place the £2 bus fare in England, but we are obviously conscious that not everybody will be able to get a bus to their place of work, which is why the Chancellor has extended the freeze to fuel duty right the way through to next summer.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Last year, we provided the Scottish Government with a record spending review settlement, and last week at the Budget, we gave the Scottish Government a further £600 million through Barnett consequentials. We also announced £18 million for a UK advanced chip design academy led by Edinburgh University, £6 million to support the expansion of Glasgow’s Scottish event campus and £10 million of co-funding, with the Scottish Government, for two defence technical excellence colleges.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the Minister for that answer. I very much welcome the extra investment coming to my home city of Glasgow, and I am sure Glasgow will make good use of it. Overall, I welcome the record funding that this Labour Government have delivered for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the SNP Government should now drop the gimmicks, end the excuses and prioritise making Scotland’s public services fit for the future?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend. As she says, at the Budget we gave the Scottish Government an additional £600 million through Barnett consequentials on top of a record spending review settlement. Now we need the SNP Government to act to improve public services in Scotland with that money.
Chris Kane
Small and medium-sized family businesses in the retail sector create jobs on our high streets and keep money circulating locally. In my constituency, these businesses include Pembertons sewing machines, the Radio Music Store in Bannockburn, Michael More the butcher in Cambusbarron and countless others. I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget support for high streets in England, including the two-year, real-terms business rates freeze. Does the Minister agree that Scottish businesses deserve the same, that the SNP should match this freeze in its Scottish Budget and that failure to do so would mean thousands of Scottish businesses missing out on much-needed relief?
Emma Reynolds
As my hon. Friend says, the Chancellor last week froze business rates in real terms for high street businesses, and has taken 70,000 small businesses on the high street in England out of paying business rates altogether. We have given the devolved Government in Scotland the Barnett consequentials for that, and I urge them to follow our lead.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Economic growth in the north-east of Scotland and our green transition rely on the carbon capture and storage project at Peterhead. Would the Minister make clear what assessment the UK Government have made of whether it will still go ahead, given their massive cuts to the project?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to support the Acorn project. The initial grant funding that this Government are providing until the end of 2026 remains in place, and we are exploring delivery through private investment and Government loans or equity investments in the future.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can the Minister clarify the extent to which the data centre covenant announced in the Budget will apply in Scotland? She will be aware that there are some very significant applications in Scotland, not least in my own constituency, and that clarity is very important.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and suggest I write to him to set that out in more detail.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The Government are bringing down borrowing, helping to bear down on inflation to support households and businesses. Last year, borrowing fell by 0.7% of GDP to its lowest level in six years, and borrowing is forecast to fall across the forecast period to 1.8% of GDP by 2031-32.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Does the Minister understand just how devastating the effects of his Government’s spending, taxing and borrowing policies are for my constituents in Romford? Does he recall that the last time we had a Prime Minister who understood that we need low taxes, a smaller state and lower borrowing was in 1990? Then the national debt was 21% of GDP; now it is heading for 100%. Will he please reduce the size of the state, cut taxes for hard-working people and start to live within our means?
Torsten Bell
This Government are bringing down borrowing. That is why the IMF has said that the UK saw the biggest reduction in the G20’s deficit levels this year. It has said that the UK stands out for having a borrowing reduction plan, with borrowing falling every year across this forecast.
The hon. Member was of course a member of a Government who saw debt levels go through the roof over the past 14 years. This is a Government getting on with reducing our borrowing so that we can bring debt down in the longer term. The only numbers that Reform Members talk about is how many millions of pounds their boss can take from crypto-billionaires around the world. We will deal with the public finances. Stop taking money from the crypto-billionaires!
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Borrowing is high and I welcome some of the measures in the Budget, but we need to look at how every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent. Will the Minister reassure me that he and in particular his colleague, the Chief Secretary of to the Treasury, will be holding every spending Department tightly to account in the spending review, not just for future spending but for managing existing projects, so that every tax pound is spent as wisely as possible?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is, as always, right. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has heard every word she has said. There will be a spending review next year. It is important that we debate not just the levels of that spending, but how we ensure every single pound is spent well, whether on defence, health, education or anything else.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
That was a shockingly complacent response by the Government Minister. The latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast shows that this Labour Government will borrow nearly a quarter of a trillion pounds more in just two years, this year and next year, costing every household an extra £476 a year in additional debt interest. Does the Chancellor accept not only that was this Budget a lost opportunity to bring borrowing under control, but that Labour’s addiction to borrowing is bleeding the British people dry?
Torsten Bell
Our record is reducing borrowing. The hon. Member’s record is being a Minister under Liz Truss. What is the Leader of the Opposition’s big idea now? It is appointing the Liz Truss fanboy and coming back to the Liz Truss playbook, promising over £30 billion of unfunded tax cuts. The Conservative party is offering lettuce-wilting levels of fiscal incontinence.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
At the Budget, the Government announced that they intend to expand to refinery products the CBAM—the carbon border adjustment mechanism—subject to the consultation launched on Budget day.
Henry Tufnell
I welcome the Government’s announcement in last week’s Budget of the intention to expand the scope of the CBAM to include refinery products. That is critical to preventing carbon leakage by ensuring that British refineries are on a level playing field when compared with imported refined products. It will protect thousands of jobs in Pembrokeshire and strengthen our energy national security. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation? What assurances will he provide on protecting the competitiveness of the export sector for refineries in this country?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has been a strong representative of the workers at the Pembroke refinery. He has been campaigning on this issue for a long time and I thank him for his continued engagement. His constituents should know that he definitely has their back. The Government have launched a consultation and are seeking views from a range of stakeholders on the practical, technical and economic considerations of any potential expansion. This is, as my hon. Friend will know, a complex area and it is important that we take the time to get the detail right.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Critical to the competitiveness of the refinery sector is the taxation of the companies. I know we have just had the Budget, but will the Treasury keep in mind for forthcoming fiscal events that essential element to competitiveness in the sector?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his question. The Government have been considering a replacement for the energy profits levy. From 2030, or sooner if prices fall below the relevant thresholds, the new and improved design of the tax for the long term, the oil and gas revenue levy, will be coming into force.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Oil is the lifeblood of the refinery sector, but the Government missed an opportunity to back this foundational industry both upstream and downstream. The Rosebank oilfield is already priced into the OBR’s assumptions. If that does not get the go-ahead, it will be back to the drawing board, Chancellor—won’t it? Is the fiscal headroom not already thin and will it not disappear even more if Rosebank does not get the go-ahead? The reality is that this Budget is built on sand.
Dan Tomlinson
It was the Opposition who fluffed it when it came to approving Rosebank and Jackdaw. They could not make sure that they signed the right paperwork at the right time. We had to clean up their mess in that and a whole range of other areas.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
At the Budget, we announced a two-year real-terms freeze to business rates bills for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England; cut bills by an extra 20% for pubs and all but the largest live music venues; and removed 70,000 smaller properties from business rates altogether. Taken together, these measures show how the Government are backing our high streets: all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England are seeing their business rates frozen in real terms, reduced, or cut to zero.
Jas Athwal
My constituents and I welcome the Budget measures to support small businesses in Ilford South, including the business rates freeze for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which will benefit more than a thousand businesses across my constituency. Will the Chancellor outline what further fiscal steps the Government are taking to support high street businesses, such as those in my constituency, to encourage investment and ensure that our town centres remain vibrant, thriving places for generations to come?
James Murray
I am very glad to hear that more than a thousand retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Redbridge may benefit from a real-terms freeze in their business rates bills, giving them real breathing space over the next two years. We are also helping high street businesses through our new high streets strategy, which was published at the Budget, providing £210 million to transform derelict buildings into the new anchors of our high streets across the country.
Dan Aldridge
The changes to business rates announced in last week’s Budget will provide some much-needed breathing space for many businesses in Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages. However, thriving high streets and coastal communities such as mine depend on businesses being able to take on new staff, particularly local young people. At a roundtable I held with small businesses last week, the cost and difficulty of employing young people were raised repeatedly as a major concern. What more can the Treasury do to ease those financial pressures, and will the Minister provide more information about the new high streets strategy and how the Treasury will ensure that vision is matched with funding?
James Murray
The Government want to support businesses in Weston-super-Mare and across the country to take on young people in particular, which is why our youth jobs grant offers businesses £3,000 for every young person they hire aged 18 to 24 who has been on universal credit and looking for work for six months. Businesses also benefit from targeted employer national insurance contribution reliefs for young people, meaning that employers pay no employer NICs on earnings up to just over £50,000 for employees up to the age of 21 and for apprentices under 25—a saving of nearly £7,000 per eligible employee per year.
Matt Turmaine
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome last week’s Budget and its efforts to create breathing space for people and businesses—[Interruption.] It does indeed. Watford has a popular high street. I have met local business owners post Budget, and they are keen to see the Government cut red tape and stimulate growth. Will my right hon. Friend outline some of the specific measures the Government are taking to help our high streets?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend points out, the Government are working to reduce red tape for businesses in Watford and right across the country by making progress towards our target of cutting the annual admin burden of regulation for businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. As I have mentioned, we published our high streets strategy at the Budget, which is backed by £210 million of new funding that will bring vacant and derelict properties back into use, support the growth of co-ops and mutuals and help more communities to take ownership of valued local assets.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I recently received an email from a publican in my constituency, who said:
“I cannot find people willing to work minimum wage because they earn more on benefits, I cannot give my experienced staff a pay rise because minimum wage increases eat into my budget, and often people will turn up for interviews only to demonstrate that they are ‘looking for work’ at the Jobcentre before bunking off on their first day.”
Can the Minister explain why he has used the Budget to compound the problems of an unaffordable minimum wage and an out-of-control welfare system?
James Murray
It is important that people get paid for the work that they do in a fair way. It is also important that we support our pubs, which are much loved in communities across the country. That is why one of the first announcements that the Prime Minister made when he came into office in July was an extra 20% cut in business rates bills for pubs and live music venues. That was confirmed at the Budget and will be implemented from next year. It will help pubs across our country to thrive, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
While the Budget provides some welcome support for high streets, so many businesses in Tiverton and Minehead tell me that excessive costs, regulation and red tape remain a drag on growth. Does the Minister agree that lasting economic growth will require not just short-term support but fundamental reform of business rates and tax administration so that businesses can invest, expand and create jobs with confidence?
James Murray
I agree with some of the principles behind the hon. Lady’s comments. In addition to the breathing space that the Budget delivered, we are beginning work to help businesses and the economy to grow in the long run. She mentioned the importance of us cutting red tape and bureaucracy. Indeed, as I mentioned just a moment ago, we are cutting the regulatory admin burden on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament, which is critical to taking some of the pressures off businesses to allow them to invest, grow and succeed in their local communities.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
At my business club in my constituency last week—before the Budget—businesses on the high street, including ones that will be well known to the Minister, told me about their concerns. They have not been assuaged by this Budget. What will the Government do to reduce the tax burdens on the hospitality and tourism industry, and when will that happen?
James Murray
April 2027, as we announced at the Budget. As I set out in my earlier responses, to help businesses on high streets across the country we are making sure that all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England get a real-terms two-year freeze in their business rates bills or see them reduced or cut to zero.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I have been sitting here listening to the Minister give some sort of victory lap on business rates. It is like the Government have broken the high street’s leg, given it a crutch and are now asking for a thank you. The British Retail Consortium called the Chancellor’s business rates package a “smoke and mirrors announcement”. I call it a missed opportunity to fix their cut in business rates relief from 75% to 40%. Why does he not just back the Conservatives’ plan to abolish business rates for 250,000 businesses on high streets across our country?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman talks about missed opportunities. When the Conservatives were in government they missed the opportunity for 14 years to support high streets properly. This Government are giving real support to businesses on high streets across the country from April next year, starting with the 20% saving for pubs that the Prime Minister announced in July. Added to that, we are taking 70,000 small RHL businesses out of paying business rates altogether and giving a real-terms two-year freeze to all other RHL businesses in England. That is real help for businesses, helping them to succeed.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The last Labour Government introduced child trust funds with the intention that every child in the country could access a financial asset as they entered adulthood. Almost 3 million young people have already accessed their funds, currently containing an average of £2,600 each. Today, we are announcing that we are making fund access simpler for those who lack mental capacity, meaning that tens of thousands more young people will benefit from their funds. I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) in particular; I know they both care deeply about this issue.
Bambos Charalambous
I congratulate the Minister on her announcement, which will enable over 120,000 young people who lack capacity to access their child trust funds. That will make a huge difference to them. As she is aware, there are an estimated 800,000 unclaimed child trust funds, worth approximately £1.3 billion. What steps is she taking to enable those young people, who often are unaware of the existence of those funds, to access them? Will she work with the Share Foundation to find a long-term solution?
Lucy Rigby
I will. I thank my hon. Friend again for the work he has done in this area. We are working with the Share Foundation as well as other industry partners. We have also set up a child trust fund taskforce to improve tracing and to customise communication and engagement, all with the aim of putting more young people in touch with their child trust funds.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
This is fantastic news—so many people have campaigned for it over so many years. I thank my colleague Baroness Kramer in the Lords, who helped by tabling an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that has brought us to this point. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my constituent Andrew Turner, who was one of the first parents to discover this issue when his child Mikey reached the age of 18 six years ago and has campaigned tirelessly on it? He has done a fantastic job. Would she like to congratulate him?
Lucy Rigby
I would, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I congratulate Mr Turner and indeed the hon. Member on all their work.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
This change on children’s trust funds is a huge win for the campaigners who have fought for six years to see it. I know that it means a huge deal to my constituents Paula and Andy Gilbert and their son James. What is the timescale for when these families will be able to access their money?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she has done in this area, including with Mr Turner. I will table an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Second Reading of which is next week, which will enable the Ministry of Justice to make regulations to put the change into action.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As a YMCA parliamentary patron, I visited the YMCA’s home in Glastonbury, which works alongside Street Foyer to support young people, including care leavers. Many care leavers had child trust funds opened by the state but have no parent or guardian to tell them that the money exists. They need it the most. What is the Minister doing to ensure that every care leaver receives the savings that are rightfully theirs?
Lucy Rigby
We are looking at that issue via the child trust fund taskforce. I am more than happy to communicate further with the hon. Member on it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Our 10-year advanced manufacturing sector plan backs jobs, investment and growth, and we have committed up to £4.3 billion to the advanced manufacturing sector to 2030.
Amanda Martin
Although Portsmouth is on the south coast, its legacy of deindustrialisation and privatisation brings us challenges familiar to many cities and towns across the north. Reindustrialisation must be national and not confined to the north.
The loss of shipbuilding under the Tories devastated Pompey, but we are resilient and proud, and—despite huge losses—have retained a world-class defence cluster in advanced manufacturing and hugely skilled jobs in companies such as Accuracy International, Harwin, Griffon Marine and Airbus. To enable real reindustrialisation across the whole country, will the Minister commit to a national reindustrialisation strategy that protects advanced manufacturing, backs innovation and drives growth?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of reindustrialisation. Too many places were harmed by the deindustrialisation that accelerated in the 1980s. The need for more good jobs in more parts of England matters in the south, as well as in the north; it matters in our towns, as well as in our urban centres; and, of course, it matters in Portsmouth too. My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for her community, and I look forward to working with her to build on Portsmouth’s proud industrial and maritime strengths.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethics and sustainability in fashion, I ask why our military and NHS uniforms are made overseas in countries like China, when factories in my constituency are ready, and can stimulate the local economy and provide jobs. Will the Minister use public procurement to bring advanced textile manufacturing back to Britain and will he meet me to discuss how?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member raises an important issue. It also touches on the broader topic that this Government are focusing on relentlessly: through reforms to procurement, backing British business and ensuring that more of the goods and services that the British Government buy are built and made here in the UK.
Topical Questions
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
Three weeks ago, I attended the International Monetary Fund annual meeting. The IMF said that Britain now “stands out” among G7 nations for our fiscal credibility. Last week, my Budget continued that progress. It was a Budget built on fiscal discipline—I meet our fiscal rules and bring borrowing down in every year of the forecast period—and it means that the UK is set to reduce the deficit by more than any other G7 country by 2029. This Budget was a clear political choice: to give Britain breathing space today and fresh hope for the future. As our new Treasury analysis shows, our overall winter support will benefit those with the lowest incomes most. This is how Britain will help British families in the midst of the Iran war—a war that the Conservative party wanted to jump straight into. This support is funded by a fair and time-limited tax on banks, which the Conservatives oppose. This is our choice. This is our Budget. This is a Budget for working people.
Graeme Downie
The Chancellor is very well aware of the threat to our economy of Russian cyber and physical attacks, but the UK public are not. My recent report, “The Putin Tax”, found that it was already costing the economy in excess of £2.5 billion a year and each taxpayer more than £100 a year. With families facing rising bills, I am sure that people would much rather spend that money themselves than give it to a dictator like Vladimir Putin. Will the Chancellor help to fulfil the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to me by gathering and publishing the data on the cost of Russian attacks so the public know how much Putin is costing their family?
John Healey
I thank my hon. Friend for his important work. We know that Putin’s aggression is imposing real costs both on Ukraine and here at home. That is why we provided an extra £10 billion of new economic and military support for Ukraine in the Budget, alongside new investment to bolster Britain’s cyber-defences. We will continue to stand up to Russian aggression and to strengthen Britain’s security in order to ensure that Putin does not succeed in undermining us here, in this country.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Last week, the Chancellor had his chance to get debt under control. Instead, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that it will rise—every single year. It is another missed opportunity. The national debt is now the equivalent of £100,000 for every household. It is why we recently had the highest borrowing costs for 30 years. As a result of the Chancellor’s policies, the Bank of England is expected to raise interest rates this week. Will he now admit that it is his failure to get a grip on borrowing that will be causing rates to rise?
John Healey
The Budget confirms that borrowing will fall every year during the next period. Debt will start falling from 2028-29. The hon. Gentleman is right that we inherited a debt mountain. We inherited that as part of the consequence of the disastrous mini-Budget that he was part of in the Treasury team. It crashed the economy and it collapsed confidence in Britain’s fiscal strength. We are fixing his failures. The chief investment strategist for L&G said this week that our Budget makes the UK
“the adult in the room when it comes to fiscal discipline.”
The Conservatives have learned nothing. Their latest policies represent over £30 billion in unfunded tax cuts, with the wealthiest benefiting most. With Labour, we have got support for families; under the Tories, it is a return to the—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are rerunning the Budget—other people need to get in. Come on, folks, let’s help each other.
Andrew Griffith
It is very clear that the Chancellor does not know how to get a grip on borrowing, so let me tell him. The Conservatives have laid out plans to cut over £70 billion of spending, and he is very welcome to copy them. The Prime Minister is thousands of miles away talking about wasting taxpayers’ money on reparations and debt forgiveness. This Government are happy to apologise for things that happened centuries ago but take no accountability of their actions today. Does the Chancellor agree that not a penny of taxpayers’ money should be used on reparations?
John Healey
The Prime Minister has said that he is open to discussions about an apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade. He has also said that reparations are not the right approach. Considering a formal apology does not mean accepting that British people today should be held liable for the past, which they played no part in. The hon. Gentleman asks this question to distract from the Budget, but the questions that people are asking are these. Why does he not back the Budget action we have taken to give Britain a bit of breathing space? Why does he not back the action we are taking to fund that help this winter?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Can I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as Chair of the Justice Committee? As she rightly says, we inherited a prison system at breaking point after 14 years of Tory mismanagement. At the spending review, we significantly increased the funding for the Ministry of Justice, with an additional £550 million for probation, £450 million for courts and £7 billion for prison places. We have already delivered 3,000 new places through the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era. I will continue to work with the Justice Secretary on the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet rightly point to Brexit as a major reason for the UK’s doom loop of low economic growth, and in two and a half weeks’ time, the Government will have an opportunity to do something about it. Rather than just discussing a timid UK-EU youth mobility scheme that should have been agreed months ago, will they start negotiations for a new growth and defence partnership as the only surefire way to put money back in people’s pockets and make the UK stronger, safer and more prosperous?
John Healey
We have “been there, done that” on defence. At the EU summit later this month, we are faced with the chance to add billions to our economy and help with prices, with a new deal on food, drinks and farming. It is a chance to reinforce the collaboration on illegal immigration that will help to tackle the small boat smuggling gangs, and it is a recognition that the Brexit deal done by the Conservatives has just not been good for Britain. The Conservative party is opposing all the steps we are taking to improve Britain’s business trading, while we look for practical benefits to make it better.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that GDP per capita is what matters. It has grown by 2% so far since the election. It was revised up at the Budget after falling in the last Parliament. My hon. Friend is also right to raise the need for Government to look closely at the design of our tax and benefit system. We announced at the Budget the removal of the carer’s allowance cliff-edge, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will keep further simplification and reform options under review.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
As the hon. Member knows, we have a commitment already to 350 banking hubs. We are working with industry to deliver those 350 hubs over the course of this Parliament. We also have the access to banking review being done by Richard Lloyd. The end result will be more banking hubs across the country.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
John Healey
I know my hon. Friend welcomes the step I took at the Budget that guarantees that every penny of the pension fund surplus will now go in full to miners. I know the job is not done; I will go on to ensure the full transfer of the guarantors fund. I want a way to resolve this in weeks, not months. That work is under way. It will be done jointly by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Treasury. I will ensure that my hon. Friend and other Members across this House from mining communities like mine are fully updated on that work.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Dan Tomlinson
As I said at the Dispatch Box just a few minutes ago, it was the previous Government that totally fluffed up this decision, and these revenues were in the forecast since 2019. If the Conservatives are looking for a political party that is not able to take the right decisions to protect the future of our oil and gas industry, they should look in the mirror—it is them.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
I am glad that our business rates changes will benefit businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as part of our measures to take 70,000 small retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England out of paying business rates altogether, as well as a 20% cut for pubs and the real-terms freeze for all RHL businesses across the country.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
This morning at the Treasury Committee, I was taken aback by how ferocious Helen Miller from the Institute for Fiscal Studies was in decrying the Government’s founders’ relief. She suggested that it could lead to cliff-edges and contrived business redefinitions. Could one of the Ministers explain how founders’ relief will encourage investment and innovation, because there is enormous scepticism out there among the community of entrepreneurs that it will have a positive effect?
James Murray
I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman because entrepreneurs who I have spoken to welcome the founders’ relief that we introduced at the Budget last year to back some of the founders—some of those behind our fastest-growing businesses, creating wealth, jobs and opportunity in our country.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is right: nobody in our country should be relying on emergency food parcels. The Trussell Trust figures have shown falls over the last two years—for the first time since it has produced the data—but there is much more to do. I am happy to meet him.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), and the Chancellor have both inadvertently misled the House by saying that Government borrowing is coming down. It is not: in the Budget, borrowing for this year will be almost £20 billion higher than at the March OBR forecast; and for the lifetime of the Budget book, it will be £65 billion higher.
Torsten Bell
I know that the hon. Member is excitable at best, but borrowing figures in the OBR’s forecasts are falling every single year as a share of GDP, and they will fall because of the decisions made by this Labour Government, who are getting borrowing down and rescuing our public services.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
James Murray
We want to support our brilliant local businesses to succeed, and I hope that the Rockwood, Craftyard, Darlington’s and Kuzzu will benefit from some of our Budget measures, since all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England will see their business rates frozen in real terms for two years, reduced or cut to zero.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
New financial modelling on the Government’s proposals for an asylum camp at MOD Bicester site A, which affects many of my villages, shows that the per night, per person cost is two-and-a-half times that of the equivalent hotels. If it is cost control the Chancellor is after, surely he will tell the Home Secretary not to proceed with that plan.
Emma Reynolds
We were left a terrible legacy by the Conservative party, and we have cut £1 billion from asylum costs during the time we have been in power.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
One way to achieve growth in postcode PA1 is to revitalise our high street, and the best way to do that is to back the redevelopment of the Paisley centre, which lies at the heart of it. This is a shovel-ready project that received planning permission nearly four years ago and has the potential to bring 330 jobs to our community. The previous Chancellor promised me she would help. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to see how we can get this project moving?
James Murray
I or a colleague of mine would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that much-needed investment in her constituency. More widely, we would urge the Scottish Government to replicate in Scotland the business rates changes that we have announced for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Last week’s Budget papers assume that significant tax revenues will be generated by new drilling at the Rosebank oil field. Although I understand it is common practice to rely on these sorts of projections, are the Government not worried that this signals that they have already made a decision on Rosebank and are prioritising short-term gains over protecting us all from the medium and long-term catastrophic economic damage associated with climate breakdown and burning new oil and gas?
Dan Tomlinson
I have already answered similar questions on this topic. This revenue has been in the forecast since 2019, and the decision is a quasi-judicial one for the Environment Secretary.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the Budget’s council tax rebate, which will provide much-needed relief to over 50,000 households in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, but hardship remains. The Trussell Trust reports that local food banks distributed over 10,000 emergency food parcels last year—up almost 50% on pre-pandemic levels. Does the Minister agree that more ambitious action is needed, and will he ensure that the Government’s response to the Milburn and Timms reviews does not further restrict social security support, leaving people unable to afford the essentials, and instead advances Labour’s commitment to end the need for emergency food?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes about reliance on emergency food parcels. In his constituency, over 90% of properties fall into council tax bands A to D, which means that residents will receive £100 directly in their bank accounts come January, in the coldest part of the year, but he is right to say that we must go further. That is why we will see 29 million households benefiting from the extended cut to VAT on electricity and 35 million motorists benefiting through extending the freeze in fuel duty. On the social security question he raises, that is also why we have ensured we are changing the support that goes to families with children, so that this Parliament sees the biggest fall in child poverty of any Parliament on record.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Government have said that they wish to join the EU’s internal energy market, which will involve a payment to the EU for the privilege. When will the Government say how much that policy will cost British taxpayers?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman will know that an EU summit is coming up on 20 November, and we are still negotiating with the EU. We are putting right the botched Brexit that we inherited from the Conservative party, which put frictions at our border and increased costs for farmers, family businesses and others.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
While the Government look to boost economic growth in Cumbria, businesses in the county are frustrated at losing staff to Sellafield and the wider nuclear sector, not just engineers and project managers, but business administrators, trades people, nurses and teachers. Will the Secretary of State consider a review of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s social impact duties under the Energy Act 2004, and its impact on the growth and diversity of the wider Cumbria economy?
Dan Tomlinson
Nuclear and Sellafield are an important part of Cumbria’s economy, and the NDA’s social impact work is vital. I agree that all parties must continue to work together to grow and diversify Cumbria’s economy, and the Government have provided good growth funding to the new Cumbria strategic authority to do just that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Around 5,000 people in my constituency work in the hospitality sector, which is a vital part of the Welsh economy. While hospitality businesses across much of the European Union benefit from reduced VAT rates, our pubs, hotels and restaurants are stuck paying 20%. Why did the Chancellor decide not to prioritise that sector in last week’s Budget?
James Murray
I question whether the hon. Lady was listening to the Budget if she thinks we were not prioritising hospitality, given that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses received real help on their business rates in England. I would urge the Welsh Government to follow suit.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The green innovation corridor in my constituency has investment zone status and £27 million in capital funding, with £7 million earmarked to prepare sites for development. What further Treasury support, including access to finance and targeted tax incentives, will the Government provide to attract private investors and deliver more skilled jobs in Wolverhampton North East?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend is a relentless champion for her constituency. The Government are devolving powers and funding to the west midlands combined authority to support investment, and the National Wealth Fund is partnering with it to develop many projects, which I am sure will benefit her constituency.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Economic growth and investment in my constituency has greatly benefited following the creation of freeports and the associated tax benefits that come with that. Can Ministers give an assurance that any reset with our European partners will protect existing tax benefits?
Torsten Bell
One thing that has been less focused on in the Budget is that according to business investment figures across the country, we are seeing the highest level of business investment for a decade. Whole-economy investment is now at its highest levels since 1990. I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman raises, and freeports around the country want to know about that. Although the issues he raises are not on the agenda set out for the European summit, I am sure a Minister will be happy to meet him.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I warmly welcome last week’s announcement that business rates relief will be extended to thousands more cafes and restaurants, alongside further support for pubs. However, businesses such as the Village Green Cafe in Eyam face many of the same pressures as pubs, without benefiting from the additional targeted relief. Will the Chancellor consider what further support can be offered to those vital employers and community hubs to ensure that they are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Village Green Cafe, which I know will be valuable to the local community in Eyam. In addition to the business rates support that we have spoken about, the new Hope on the High Street strategy sets out the Government’s plan to revive our high streets. It includes taking a “high streets first” approach that will bring more public services and civic activity into town centres, driving footfall to support those local businesses.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Treasury Committee’s recent report on student loan repayments said that the Government have a “moral obligation” to reverse their decision to freeze the threshold at which student loans are repaid. Will the Chancellor set out his timeline for when he will end the repayment threshold freeze?
Emma Reynolds
I remind the hon. Lady of her party’s role in trebling tuition fees when it was in coalition with the Conservatives. We have helped this year by capping interest rates at 6% for plan 2 and 3 loans, and from the academic year 2028-29, we will reintroduce targeted maintenance grants to support students from low-income households.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Chancellor is always open to new ways to save money. New modelling suggests that universal access to fracture liaison and prevention services could save £606 million over five years, with the investment paying for itself within two years. Will the Chancellor encourage the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that its promise of universal access to fracture liaison services by 2030 is backed by a funded delivery plan?
Emma Reynolds
I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant health Minister. More broadly, the Chancellor announced last week that in the spending review next year, we will set out a new preventative departmental expenditure limit spending category to get ahead of problems before they get more expensive, because we recognise that preventing problems before they arise is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
We spend hundreds of billions of pounds on debt interest, migrant accommodation, foreign aid, public sector fraud, benefits for foreigners and, let us not forget, the healthy indolent. We are leaving a record tax burden and a shameful £3 trillion of national debt to our children and our grandchildren. Let me say this in a way that even Members on the Labour Front Bench understand: we are bankrupt. My question to the Chancellor is this: is bankrupting Britain a consequence of Government policy, or is it now the actual objective?
Torsten Bell
Let me say two things to the hon. Member. First, it is absolutely right that the public finances be put on a sustainable basis, and that is what this Government are doing. We are bringing down borrowing every single year, and were praised by the International Monetary Fund for standing out from other G7 economies. Secondly, it is moral bankruptcy that Labour Members worry about when we see the behaviour of the hon. Member, who is whipping up division up and down this country, rather than bringing it together, saving our public services, and investing for the future.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that diversifying Cumbria’s economy is key to our economic growth. Will he therefore support efforts to realise the potential of RAF Spadeadam as a future hub for rocket testing and innovation?
Dan Tomlinson
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that matter in more detail.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The community amateur sports clubs scheme supports thousands of not-for-profit sports clubs across the country, including Highwoods golf club in Bexhill, in my constituency, but the threshold for participation has not been lifted since 2015. I have had the pleasure of sparring with the Paymaster General on both “Question Time” and “Any Questions?”. Will he make it a hat trick and agree to meet me to discuss this?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman has just made it a hat trick by asking a question today, but I am happy to pick that matter up with him outside the Chamber.
Poundland
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade if he will make a statement on the situation at Poundland and potential actions to protect jobs.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I declare my interest as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
I am deeply concerned about the uncertainty surrounding Poundland’s future, and the impact that could have on its thousands of staff and their families, who are at the forefront of my mind, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Poundland is not currently in administration and the business continues to trade, but this is a worrying time for employees, suppliers and communities. We are establishing the facts, keeping in close contact with those involved and monitoring developments closely.
The Secretary of State and I continue to engage closely on this issue. We have met and are in ongoing contact with the trade union USDAW, which I know is extremely concerned about the jobs and livelihoods of its members, and I thank it for its work and engagement. We will be meeting Barry Williams, the managing director of Poundland, this week. Earlier this week, officials met Gordon Brothers, and the Secretary of State is due to meet it to continue to press our concerns and establish the facts. However, there are ongoing commercial negotiations concerning this private business, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to influence the outcome or comment on the merits of individual bids.
The owners should act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. We want the best possible outcome for Poundland’s workforce and the future of the business. The 12,000 staff and many thousands of suppliers are at the forefront of our minds, and we want to see an outcome that protects as many jobs as possible and keeps as much of the business trading as possible. The Government stand ready to ensure that affected employees can access the appropriate support, should it be needed.
The Prime Minister has set out his aspiration to bring good growth to every postcode, including by making high streets a new symbol of Britain’s renaissance. Last week, the Government published our high streets strategy, which goes further and sets out the principles for high street success, practical support for businesses with the business rates system and more policies to support vibrancy and footfall. That includes establishing a “high streets first” principle to ensure that public estate locations drive footfall and opportunities to co-locate public services.
The fundamentals for doing business in the UK are strong. Our economic strategy to deliver growth is investment across the public and private sectors and in every postcode. Our industrial strategy, trade strategy, small business strategy and plan to make work pay address long-standing barriers to growth. Retail is vital to employment and the economy, and we recognise that the sector has been through a significant period of change. We want all types of retail to thrive, now and in the future, so we are working closely with businesses to understand what they need to succeed and grow. The Minister for Employment and I are providing a briefing for Members of Parliament in this House this afternoon on the support available to employees who may be impacted.
I want to emphasise that in the event that a retail company enters administration, my officials will work, where appropriate, with the administrators, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Insolvency Service and local partners to ensure that appropriate support is available to affected employees. We stand ready to support them if they need to move into new employment. However, our priority is always protecting jobs, and the Secretary of State and I will continue to engage with the company to secure the best possible outcome.
Gareth Snell
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for the tone and content of her answer.
At the heart of this matter are the 11,000 people whose jobs, through no fault of their own, hang in the balance, and who do not know whether they will have a job at all this side of Christmas. Those jobs are not concentrated in a big factory, but dispersed across this country in towns such as Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent and in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, as well as in the supply chains and distributors in Makerfield and Harlow, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) talked about. This company has survived because the workers turned it around.
We are in the situation that we are in today because choices have been made by Gordon Brothers. It has rejected solvent bids and is seeking to push a company into administration for its own personal profit. Fundamentally, its interest does not appear to be the 11,000 constituents we all represent, who take home money to look after their kids, put food on the table and live the life that they deserve. I am very glad that the Minister continues with meetings, but the management of Poundland is not the problem; it is Gordon Brothers.
If we get to a point where administration takes place and 11,000 jobs and supply chain jobs are put at risk, what levers can the Minister use to save as many jobs as she can? What pressure can this House, through her, put on the owners to accept one of the solvent bids in order to protect jobs? What can this House do to send a message to Gordon Brothers that its predatory capitalism when it comes to this company will not be tolerated? We in this country will always stand with people before profit.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his reflections and comments on behalf of his constituents and the many employees across the country. It is deeply concerning to see the uncertainty about Poundland’s future. That is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on this extremely worrying situation for staff, their families and communities up and down the country. We have been demanding to know what is happening, and demanding that Gordon Brothers explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going.
We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of our ongoing engagement. The Secretary of State will meet it later this week, and I am meeting Poundland tomorrow. It is absolutely legitimate for this Government to ask the business if it is doing everything that it can to protect employees and suppliers up and down the country.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
For thousands of Poundland workers, the question today is simple: “Will I still have a job?” Behind every store facing uncertainty are workers—real people with bills to pay and families to support. As a west midlands MP, this issue hits close to home—the headquarters are in the region. For thousands of shoppers who rely on this store to make their money stretch further as the cost of living worsens, the question is also simple: will they still have a local, affordable place to shop as Christmas approaches?
Workers and customers deserve clear answers about what happens next. Why was a proposed management-backed rescue bid rejected? Can an agreement still be reached? If individual stores are sold, will their employees keep their jobs? When will communities learn whether their local branch has a future?
The current economic landscape is hostile to British business. Given the stifling red tape, skyrocketing energy bills and surging employment costs, another well-known British brand being in trouble feels less like a surprise and more like an inevitability. Rather than admitting that their own vindictive policies have driven the cost of doing business to an unsustainable breaking point, the Government are instead locked in a desperate squabble with Reform over who can intervene the most to engineer a state-sponsored rescue. The reality is clear: increased political interference is a failed strategy that offers nothing but false promises to workers and consumers alike. True security cannot be micromanaged into existence by Whitehall.
If the Government genuinely want to revive our economy, they must start dismantling the barriers to growth that they have put in place since taking office. Running a business should be an ambitious pursuit, not a high-stakes gamble against state-induced risks. That is why, rather than looking to interfere in yet another business dispute, the Government should focus on slashing the unnecessary red tape that is suffocating businesses; lower business rates, which hinder high street growth; reduce the cost of employment and make it rewarding to invest in people; deliver the lower energy prices that businesses across the nation are calling for; and get tough on the wave of shoplifting plaguing our high streets. Rather than looking to stifle businesses’ every move, we must protect workers’ livelihoods by allowing businesses to get on with driving economic growth and employing people.
Kate Dearden
I must say that I am quite disappointed by the tone of the shadow Minister. Vindictive economic policies and a squabble with Reform—is that his answer to the 12,000 people and the thousands of suppliers across the country whose jobs are at risk in the run-up to Christmas?
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government should stop interfering with another business, but that is exactly not what we are doing; he would know that if he had listened to my statement. We are not interfering with the auction. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about this private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process or comment on individual bids, as I said. It is legitimate for the Government to ask a business whether it is doing everything that it can to protect employers and suppliers, in order to get clarity about its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—in this case, 12,000 of them across the country. It is right for us to put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.
We are clear as a Government about our expectations; we are taking a responsible approach, not a “sit by and do nothing” approach. What would be the point of politicians and Government if we took that approach?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Some 30,000 jobs are at stake in Poundland and its supply chain. Internal documents that we saw at the weekend show that the business’s sales, margins and profitability are ahead of target. Is the Minister absolutely convinced that Poundland’s directors are fulfilling their fiduciary duty and acting in the best interests of Poundland, or are they acting in the interests of a faceless American investment firm? If the loan of up to £60 million that was raised and imposed on Poundland is the barrier, will she take steps to ensure that we are doing everything we can to restructure it, so that it is not a barrier to saving Poundland’s business?
Kate Dearden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks and for his close engagement on this issue over the past couple of days. We know how concerning this situation is for employees across the country. As he knows, we are still working behind the scenes, and Poundland, Gordon Brothers and the Secretary of State will be engaging this week, because we still hope that we can secure a good outcome from the process. That is why we are in close contact with the company and receiving regular updates on many of the points that my right hon. Friend has alluded to. We will of course keep him as updated as we can; I cannot go into all the details at the Dispatch Box today, but I hope he is reassured about our concerns, and that we will remain engaged with Gordon Brothers and the company going forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The news about Poundland will be deeply worrying for its 12,000 staff members and their families, for the 30,000 staff overall when we include the supply chain—as the Chair of the Select Committee has said—and for the communities in which its stores are located. As Poundland’s founder, Steve Smith, has said:
“Once these jobs are lost, they are lost”.
For many families, Poundland is one of the few affordable options left. People are already struggling with an unsustainably high cost of living, and they now face losing somewhere that they rely on to make their money go further.
The fall of Poundland raises bigger questions about our high streets. Its troubles show how much pressure both shoppers and high street businesses are under. The Prime Minister has set out his ambition to revive the high street, but the collapse of one of the UK’s most well-known and affordable retailers highlights the extent to which our high streets are struggling. The business rates system puts our high street shops at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants, and the national insurance hike imposed by this Government is unfair and counterproductive. With unemployment levels already alarmingly high, will the Minister now listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls to properly overhaul the broken business rates system and scrap the unfair jobs tax—at the very least, for part-time workers?
Kate Dearden
The UK retail market is rated one of the most advanced e-commerce markets in the world; that has to be celebrated, and we do so. Physical retail remains a key part of the high street, and a thriving high street will need a strong retail offering. We are clear that we want all types of retail to thrive, now and in the future. The hon. Member heard our announcements last week—our commitment to our high streets strategy and our announcements on business rates reform—which will support many businesses in her constituency and all across the country. We are committed to work with the sector as closely as we can, so that it can grow and succeed. In the particular case of Poundland employees, I hope the hon. Member has heard about our concerns and engagement and how closely we are working with them.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am standing here on behalf of the workers in Tipton centre and on Union Street in Wednesbury, all of whom provide a vital service to my constituency. If it emerges that a viable bid to keep Poundland intact was blocked, putting 12,000 jobs at risk, what specific powers will the Secretary of State use to hold Gordon Brothers to account? Will the Minister now establish an urgent review of whether our corporate governance and insolvency frameworks give sufficient protection against asset stripping and short-term financial engineering at the cost of jobs and our high streets?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for standing up for her constituents and the importance of Poundland to her local high streets and those across the country. It is absolutely legitimate for the Government to be asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, which is why we are seeking clarity on its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Officials have met Gordon Brothers this week, as the Secretary of State will do, and I will meet Poundland tomorrow. As my hon. Friend rightly mentions, it has a responsibility to its employees—12,000 of them, and thousands more among its suppliers. We will keep putting pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Today the Tory party has shamefully said that it does not give two hoots about 12,000 workers, including dozens in my constituency. What is going on here is that the management of Poundland are very concerned that the owners of Poundland are looking to abuse the insolvency process to maximise their financial returns, not giving two hoots about 12,000 workers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that Gordon Brothers will not act as a rogue owner by abusing the insolvency process?
Kate Dearden
As the hon. Member knows, the appointment of an administrator is a matter governed by the statutory insolvency process; it is not a decision for Government. However, I hope that he has heard my remarks today about our engagement with Gordon Brothers and Poundland for the sake of those 12,000 employees up and down the country and the many more employed by its suppliers. We want to do everything we can, and to make it clear that jobs are our absolute priority in this situation. They are so important for our high streets up and down the country, which is why this Government have taken the responsible action we have taken so far, and we will continue to do so.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
I, too, am a member of USDAW the union. My constituents want to work for Poundland, and they have helped it turn a profit at Midland Road in Walsall. Can the Minister ensure that USDAW is at the table in any negotiation? It has struck deals with Ikea and John Lewis, and its knowledge is valuable.
Kate Dearden
I pay tribute to USDAW for its work, and for its engagement with members and the Government; I know how concerned it is about its members’ jobs and livelihoods. We have engaged with it closely throughout this process, and we will continue to do so. USDAW will join me in my meeting with Poundland tomorrow.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The great majority of the more than 300 online reviews of the Poundland store in Totton in New Forest East give it a five-star or four-star rating. I think the most concerning part of the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was his concentration—rightly—on the apparent rejection of viable, solvent bids. If ever there were a case of potential asset stripping, this would appear to be it, and if the Government cannot intervene, surely trade unions and their legal advisers have a positive role to play?
Kate Dearden
I am thrilled to hear the right hon. Member talk about the important role of trade unions—something I talk about constantly at the Dispatch Box, so it is quite refreshing to hear it repeated back to me. Of course, I cannot speak about what exactly USDAW’s legal advice is or what it is doing, but as the right hon. Member will have heard me say, we are meeting both USDAW and the business. Obviously, USDAW is standing up for its members, who are really concerned about their livelihoods in the run-up to Christmas. I thank it for that, and for its continued engagement.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
We have three Poundland stores across Paisley and Renfrewshire South—one in Paisley itself, one in Linwood and one in Johnstone—and I have been contacted by many Poundland employees who are concerned about the current situation. One of them is Dawn. She has worked for Poundland for 21 years and has been a loyal and hard worker. She is now 64 years old and is very concerned that if she loses her job now, so close to retirement, she will be in a very vulnerable position and unable to get another job before retirement. What assurances can the Minister provide to employees in such circumstances?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerning case of her constituent, and those of others she represents. She is right to raise those cases today. We are seeking clarity on the business’s plans and a clear understanding of the situation. The Department has met Gordon Brothers this week; the Secretary of State will do so, and I will also meet Poundland this week. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—to my hon. Friend’s constituents in this case, and to thousands of others across the country. I know how concerned they will be, and we share those concerns.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The news that Poundland has filed a notice of intention to enter administration will cause deep concern to the many thousands of employees whose jobs are in jeopardy and the millions of customers who rely on its low prices. With almost 50 stores in Scotland, including the Poundland in my city of Dundee, my thoughts are with the many families who are now worried about jobs and livelihoods at the worst possible time, the run-up to Christmas. Given that discount retailers would normally be expected to perform strongly during a cost of living crisis, does the Minister recognise that Poundland’s potential administration is yet another damning failure of this UK Government to improve consumer confidence and the health of UK high streets, and to alleviate the financial pressures facing low-income households?
Kate Dearden
Business investment grew by 4.8% in the first half of this year, productivity has grown for six consecutive quarters, GDP grew for the first half of 2026, the Office for Budget Responsibility has upgraded its 2026 growth forecast, and whole-economy investment has increased by 6.9% since the start of this Parliament. Let us not go into the back and forth of what our economy is doing; we have a good base for businesses to grow and start up here in our country, and we are proud of it. It is those Poundland employees—the thousands in Scotland who the hon. Member has referred to and the others across the country—who are our priority, and that is what we are working on this week, engaging with the company in a responsible way, as we would all expect a Government to do. We want to protect those jobs and livelihoods.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). What we have here is an American private equity firm that is able to buy a going concern that is present on many of our high streets; to put its desire for profit above the interests of its workers, as well as the 18,000 workers in the supply chain; and to make a mockery of the Government’s plans for our high streets. If there is a viable bid on the table and we do not have the power to ensure that it is prioritised, why do we not have that power?
Kate Dearden
I am proud of our plans for high streets and the announcements the Chancellor made in the Budget last week for businesses across the country. As a Minister, I am proud to work with our retail companies and sectors all across the country to support them to grow and thrive. As I have mentioned, we are committed to asking the company to do everything it can to protect employees and the thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why we are seeking clarity on the situation and the company’s plans. My hon. Friend will have heard me discuss the meetings we are having this week and reiterate that businesses have a responsibility to their employees. It is right for us to put pressure on the company, because we have a responsibility to do so, and ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Poundland is headquartered in Walsall and, as one of the borough’s MPs, I am concerned about the impact this situation is having not just on employees, but on business confidence and our communities. I fear that it is symptomatic of some of the Government’s failed policy choices, but for today I want to focus on the employees. What exactly are the Government doing? When the Minister talks about “appropriate support” for employees, what exactly does she mean?
Kate Dearden
Mayor Richard Parker is ready to stand up support and resource for those in the region who might be impacted. We are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, as we always would in such situations, to ensure that we can support employees with training and future job prospects. My priority at the moment is the conversations we are having with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and USDAW. We know how extremely worrying the situation is for staff, families and communities. That is why we are rightly taking the responsible approach to engage with them and to protect jobs.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Constituents in Birmingham Erdington appreciated having Poundland—we had three Poundland stores, but two have closed in the past year. What assessment has the Department made of the private equity acquisition model, whereby a £30 million shareholder loan is prioritised over a solvent sale?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend will have heard me say that we are demanding to know what is happening. In particular, we want Gordon Brothers to explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going and how it will be acting in the best interests of Poundland’s loyal UK staff and stores. We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of the ongoing engagement, which includes my engagement this week with Poundland and the Secretary of State’s engagement with Gordon Brothers. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about a private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process. I hope she has heard my concerns and our priorities for how this Government respond.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I have not been contacted by any constituents who work for Poundland, because the store in Haywards Heath closed in February. Roll forward to November, and that large unit—an anchor unit for the whole high street—is still lying empty. What is the Government’s plan to reform business rates in order to support these large units that prop up the rest of our high streets?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Member welcomed the Chancellor’s announcements on business rates last week, which included introducing a two-year real-terms freeze for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties to help with increased inflation. We are also removing 70,000 extra properties from business rates, meaning that half of all RHL properties will pay no business rates at all. High streets are the beating heart of our communities and are so important for local people and jobs. We are committed to tackling their decline with our high streets strategy and so many other initiatives in partnership with the sector. We want to back our high streets, back the jobs and back the businesses that support them.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
On behalf of the staff who work at the Poundland stores in Cannock town centre and the Linkway retail park, I find this news particularly shocking, particularly given that the company recently announced a return to like-for-like sales growth and thanked staff for their “amazing efforts”. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of efforts to rescue Poundland being rebuffed, Gordon Brothers needs to get around the table with USDAW, managers and creditors to save this iconic staple of our high streets?
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of jobs and the uncertainty that lots of the employees are working through with the union. I pay tribute to them for all their work. We are committed to engaging with all stakeholders as much as we can, and we are making our priorities clear. We want the company to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and a clear understanding of the situation.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Poundland in Bridgwater closed in July. While the Minister is right to prioritise protecting jobs, will she accept that having introduced a £25 billion jobs tax, having added 350 pages of regulation in their unemployment Act and having delivered above-inflation rises to the minimum wage, it is her Government who are responsible for creating a hostile economic environment for British retail?
Kate Dearden
I am sad but not surprised to hear that response from Opposition Members. Their answer to a situation that is really worrying for 12,000 employees and so many more in the supply chain is to roll back rights for working people. That is not our answer. We are getting round the table and trying to protect jobs, as a responsible Government rightly should.
Mary Creagh (Coventry East) (Lab)
Poundland is a proud west midlands business and its three stores in Coventry provide fantastic products at reasonable prices to my constituents. Its workers have been writing to me with concerns over their futures. Poundland’s 12,000 workers will be contributing tens of millions of pounds in tax and national insurance to the Exchequer each year. Is there not a case for this activist Government to stand behind any management buy-out, or buy-in from any bidder, and ensure that these workers continue to play their part in retail on our high streets, in the way that the Government have done through the nationalisation of British Steel and through the loan facility offered to Jaguar Land Rover last year?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is right to raise the impact of the cost of living, particularly on those who rely on shops like Poundland. She is also right to bring the direct feedback, worries and concerns she has heard from her constituents to the Chamber today—I thank her for raising that directly with me. We want to hear that the business is doing everything it can to protect her constituents and employees and suppliers all across the country, so we are seeking clarity on its plans so that we can understand the situation. The process is still under way. It is an evolving situation, and we are continuing to engage this week. I hope she is reassured by our commitment to do that. We want to understand the situation, and we are making clear that the business has a responsibility to its thousands of employees and to her constituents.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
The Poundland in Denton expanded in 2022 and now employs 55 staff, several of whom have got in touch with me in the last few days and all of whom now find their livelihoods at risk as we begin the run-up to Christmas. I give credit to the union USDAW for its work on this issue. Does the Minister agree that this scandal exposes a serious problem? Our economy is vulnerable to private equity vultures, who sweep in and prey on our high street brands by loading them with debt and trying to ditch them for a profit.
Kate Dearden
The reports about Poundland’s future are deeply concerning, which is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is happening. This is an extremely worrying situation for the hon. Member’s constituents and for staff across the country, their families and communities. We have been demanding to know what is happening and how the company will act in the best interests of its loyal staff and workforce. We will continue to establish the facts this week and in the future, and we will make our priority clear, which is to protect jobs.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Like the Minister and Members across this House, my first priority is the staff of Poundland, including in the Hartlepool store at Middleton Grange shopping centre. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Gordon Brothers. Let us be clear that this organisation has form on this issue. Does the Minister not think it is time that we prevent these predatory capitalist vultures from making their profits off our people’s backs?
Kate Dearden
Keeping the business trading and protecting jobs are the key things, as my hon. Friend rightly says. We are therefore continuing to watch the situation closely, and the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made that clear. The company needs to account for why it has not accepted an offer to keep the company going and explain how it is acting in the best interests of the workforce. We will continue to have those conversations, and that engagement is important for us as a Department and for the Government.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
This is a hugely uncertain time for workers at Poundland in Yate, and I am sure that I am not alone among MPs in finding the DWP one of the hardest Departments to get answers out of. I am concerned about the practical support that the local jobcentre will be able to offer Poundland workers who lose their jobs. Can the Minister assure me that jobcentres will support those people?
Kate Dearden
The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to support anyone affected by this announcement with our rapid response service offer. The service is designed to give support and advice to employers and their employees when they are faced with redundancy. The Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), will be having a meeting with all Members, including me, later this afternoon, and the hon. Lady may wish to come and put further questions to me or to my hon. Friend from the DWP.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Among the 12,000 Poundland workers whose jobs are now at risk are those based at Low Petergate in York. In the light of Gordon Brothers’ egregious conduct, will the Minister look into the role of private equity companies in the retail sector? In the past two weeks Modella Capital has closed TG Jones in our high street, and we see this behaviour repeatedly from such companies. Will my hon. Friend consider regulations that we could debate in the House to ensure that we protect the retail sector?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her reflections on what she feels needs to change in the future. At this stage, the key priority is keeping the business trading and protecting jobs, and she will have noted our commitment to engagement. We do not want to impede or influence ongoing negotiations around a private business, as the process is live and constantly moving. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured about my engagement and that of the Secretary of State with the business and the union representatives this week, and we will continue to watch the situation closely, but protecting jobs is the absolute priority of this Government.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Employees in the Poundland stores in Carrickfergus and Larne in my constituency are now facing a bleak economic future, all because of what appears to be asset stripping of the stores and Poundland by Gordon Brothers. However, there is an alternative. Sales are up, profits are up, and there are viable investors wishing to take over the stores. Specifically, what pressure is the Minister putting on Gordon Brothers to do the right thing? Will she assure us that she will not hide behind the excuse that this is a commercial decision which the Government cannot do anything about?
Kate Dearden
I hope that the right hon. Member is reassured about the work and commitment that we are undertaking as a Department, whether we are engaging with USDAW, with Poundland or with Gordon Brothers. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—12,000 of them, in this case—and to many thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why it is right that we put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights, and it is therefore legitimate for us to ask it whether it is doing everything that it possibly can to protect its employees and suppliers up and down the country.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for asking the urgent question and for putting very relevant questions to the Minister. Everyone at work at the three Poundland stores in my constituency today will be worried that they will not be in a job tomorrow. It is good that the Minister is talking about how she can help people into jobs if Poundland shuts, and it is good that she is putting pressure on Gordon Brothers, but is she actively considering what proactive measures she can take to intervene and stop closures from happening if that pressure ultimately fails?
Kate Dearden
This is obviously a very concerning time for many employees in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in constituencies across the country, and they are at the forefront of our minds. That is why we are asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, and why we need to keep understanding the clarity of its plans and to have a clear understanding of the situation. The meetings we are having this week are important in enabling us to assess that, and to ensure that the company observes its responsibility to its employees. As I have said, there are 12,000 of them—a significant number—and we want to protect them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her responses to all the questions that have been asked so far. The potential collapse of Poundland places more than 12,000 hard-working staff at risk across the United Kingdom, including the high streets in Northern Ireland and my constituency of Strangford. Independent estimates suggest that up to 30,000 jobs could ultimately be lost once the wider supply chain and high street neighbours are taken into account. What specific discussions is the Minister having with Administrations and local enterprise agencies across the United Kingdom to guarantee that workers in Northern Ireland are not left behind in any restructuring, and to ensure that these vital retail jobs are protected?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for asking that question, on behalf of his constituents, about the impact on his local high street. I hope he is reassured about our commitment to putting pressure on the business to ensure that it understands its responsibility to its employees in his constituency and others that are represented here today. It is right for us to do that, because we too have a responsibility and we take responsibility, as well as rights, extremely seriously, as the ownership should. The hon. Member will know of our meetings this week, and our continued engagement will make that very clear.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
High streets such as Dudley’s face pressures from online shopping and rising costs. Too many units have stood empty for years, weakening footfall and confidence, and the potential loss of Poundland and 15 jobs in my constituency could blow another hole in the high street. However, this is not just about my 15 employees; a ripple effect of the potential closure could cause problems in the supply chain as well. Has the Minister assessed the full impact of the closures across Poundland, across the country and across the supply chain in order to hold Gordon Brothers to account?
Kate Dearden
I share my hon. Friend’s concern for her constituents and those across the country. This is a very worrying time for them. We are therefore taking a responsible approach, engaging with Poundland, Gordon Brothers and USDAW to ensure that jobs are protected as much as they possibly can be, to understand the situation and demand to know what is happening so we can make that assessment, and to ensure that the company is acting in the best interests of its loyal UK staff and workforce. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those reflections today.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The current situation is not the Government’s fault, and it is certainly not the fault of the excellent employees at Poundland. It is the fault of the worst type of greedy capitalism. A number of my constituents have contacted me about the situation, and what they want to know from the Government is what robust response they are giving the owners. My constituents want to be assured that no stone will be left unturned, and they want to know what options the Government can pursue.
Kate Dearden
What is key is ensuring that the business continues to trade, and that we protect those vital jobs up and down the country, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is why we are watching the situation so closely. As I have said, Gordon Brothers must account for why it has have not accepted an offer to keep the company going, and explain how they are acting in its best interests. Those 12,000 staff are at the forefront of our minds. It is a really worrying time, in the run-up to Christmas, and we will be doing everything we can in our conversations to make our position clear. We have to protect those jobs for the future, and we want to see the business continue to trade in order to do so.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Poundland store in Dartford forms an important part of the shopping offer at the Priory Centre, as well as the wider town centre. It employs local people, who will be desperately worried about their future in terms of their jobs and the continued survival of Poundland itself. Is it not clear that the Government cannot look on while a solvent company goes under, as the Opposition parties appear to be recommending that we do?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are not just sitting back. I ask again, what would be the role of politicians and this Government if we were to do that? We are taking our responsibility seriously, and it is legitimate for us to ask the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and trying to gain a clear understanding of the situation, which is exactly what a responsible Government should do in these circumstances.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Let me first declare an interest as a proud member of USDAW.
I share the support for valued Poundland workers across the country at this time of great uncertainty for them, including those in the Emersons Green branch in my constituency. Local people work hard, day in day out, for this profitable company, and deserve so much better than the worry of possible job losses that are no fault of their own, but the result of inaction on the part of the owners. What reassurance can the Minister give me, and those valued local workers, that the Government are doing all they can now, and will review regulations and processes to establish whether poor owner behaviour can be further protected against in future?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House. She is absolutely right, and I share her concerns for her constituents and for the thousands of families and employees across the country who are really worried about the future of their jobs. We have been standing ready to take action to support workers and reassure families wherever we can. We want the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business. That is why we are working hard behind the scenes to protect jobs, and we will continue our engagement this week. It is a real priority for us, and I want to work closely with the business and the unions.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
My fair-minded constituents are rightly appalled at the news that the jobs of our local shop workers in Poundland are being put at risk by exploitative owners who appear intent on asset stripping, rather than preserving a store that has been returned to profitability thanks to the staff’s hard work, and which has viable offers on the table. How can we make sure that, as a Government, we are using all the levers at our disposal to force the American owners to do right by the stores? What lessons do the Government think we might need to learn to ensure that we can do a better job of protecting our high street assets in the future?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns on behalf of his constituents and those across the country who are really concerned about the future of their employment. We have been seeking to clarify the business plans and get a clear understanding of the situation, because it is absolutely legitimate for a Government to ask a business to do everything it can to protect its employees and suppliers. Of course, this is an evolving situation, and we will continue to engage with Poundland, Gordon Brothers and USDAW this week, to make sure that we can have the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I called at the Poundland store in the Sovereign Shopping Centre a few days ago to check in on the team, speak to the manager and find out how they are doing. Unsurprisingly, they are living with extreme uncertainty. Will the Minister speak directly to the employees of Poundland in Bournemouth and let them know exactly what this Government are doing to support them and save their jobs? After all, they just want to earn a good wage, put food on the table and be able to afford presents under the Christmas tree.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very concerning situation on behalf of his constituents in Bournemouth, and I acknowledge that hundreds of jobs are at stake. I hope he takes some reassurance from my remarks at the Dispatch Box, because this Government intend to do absolutely everything we can to ensure that the business is doing everything it can to protect his constituents’ jobs and thousands of suppliers’ jobs across the country. We want the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business, which is why we are working with the company and the union to protect those jobs.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her answers, and my thoughts are with all the staff at the Alloa store. What is happening with Poundland is the latest example of private equity being allowed to do as it pleases—the type of behaviour that, frankly, has destroyed our high streets. Both the UK and Scottish Governments need to act to stop private equity raiding our towns and then upping sticks when it has decided that there is nothing else to extract. Will the Government take decisive action, and take steps such as curbing profit shifting and tax abuse by private equity?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise business owners’ responsibilities to their employees. In this case, there are 12,000 of them across the country, including many in his constituency, as well as suppliers. That is why it is right that this Government are putting pressure on the company. It has responsibilities to their employees, who also have rights, and that is why we are asking the owners to do everything they can to protect employees and suppliers. I will continue our engagements this week, because it is a real priority for us.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I, too, declare my proud membership of USDAW. Poundland workers in Merthyr Tydfil, like elsewhere, are deeply concerned about their futures. The workforce have given absolutely everything to the company to make it profitable. Can the Minister give further reassurance about what more the Government can do to ensure that Gordon Brothers does absolutely everything at its disposal to support the workforce, and to treat them with fairness and respect?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the hard work of the workforce and their dedication to their jobs and the business. In our engagements with the company, we have been very clear about its responsibility to its employees and the need to protect jobs, because this is a really concerning situation for so many across the country. We will continue to work with USDAW and discuss its members’ concerns, particularly at this difficult time in the run-up to Christmas. We are a responsible Government who will do everything we can to speak to the union and the business. We know how vital the jobs at Poundland and other high street shops are, including for his constituents. I thank him for raising this issue.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for asking the urgent question. Harlow is home not only to two Poundland stores but to a distribution centre that employs hundreds of people. Does the Minister share my concern that the owners are not acting in the best interest of Poundland employees in Harlow, particularly by rejecting legitimate bids for the business? Will she join me in sending heartfelt messages to Frederick, Jody, Donald, Katarzyna and Jordan—who have personally written to me—as well as other employees at Poundland in Harlow? Is there anything the Minister can do—I declare an interest as a proud member of USDAW—to engage with USDAW and ensure that it is at the table for discussions with the owners?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for rightly raising the concerns of his constituents who work at the Poundland stores and the distribution centre in Harlow. I absolutely share those concerns, which is why we are taking a responsible approach by engaging with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and the recognised union, USDAW, which is concerned about the impact on its members and their livelihoods. I will be meeting representatives of Poundland tomorrow, and USDAW will be part of those conversations. It is really important that we reiterate the importance of these jobs, and that we make sure the business can succeed in the future and protect as many jobs as possible.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Last week, workers in Lichfield woke up, put on their uniforms, went to work and were told that their jobs were under threat—not because the company is not viable or profitable, but because the company’s owner, Gordon Brothers, is choosing not to do the right thing. It is choosing to put jobs at threat for its own selfish interests. I know the Minister and USDAW are working really hard on this, but can she give the House a reassurance that everything will be done to make sure that Gordon Brothers steps up, does the right thing and backs its workers? It is the workers who have turned the business around, not the owner, and it is time that Gordon Brothers recognised that and backed those workers.
Kate Dearden
We absolutely back the workforce and thank them for their hard work and dedication to the business. That is why we have been engaging with the company and the union this week, and why we are encouraging the owners to act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is an extremely worrying situation for the staff, their families and our wider community. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and hope that he is assured about our commitment, engagement and work on this issue this week. We will keep him as updated as we can.
Gareth Snell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should have put on record my membership of USDAW at the beginning of the urgent question, and I apologise to the House for inadvertently failing to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record.
Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill 2026-27 View all Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat; and for connected purposes.
I am reintroducing this Bill following the considerable support it received when it was previously brought to the House, as the concerns about lack of consumer choice, animal welfare and transparency have not gone away. I therefore hope the House forgives me for repeating much of what I said last time, as the arguments for the Bill have not changed and remain compelling.
This Bill does not seek to ban halal or kosher meat; it seeks to introduce clear compulsory labelling so that consumers know exactly what they are purchasing. Every consumer has a right to make an informed choice, yet that choice is currently undermined by the lack of clear information, leaving consumers unaware that the meat they are purchasing and consuming may be halal or kosher.
Currently, labelling arrangements are voluntary and inconsistent. The Bill would address that gap by introducing clear and compulsory labelling, giving consumers the information they need to make the choices that reflect their beliefs, values and dietary requirements. Some people particularly want to buy halal or kosher meat; other people particularly want to avoid buying it. This Bill will benefit both those groups.
To produce halal and kosher meat, an animal’s throat is cut at the point of slaughter. In the case of halal meat, the animal is often stunned before it is killed, although it may not be. Under the shechita method used to produce kosher meat, there is no pre-stunning. For many consumers, whether an animal was stunned before slaughter is an important animal welfare consideration, and what began as a limited religious exemption has become an increasingly significant part of the meat market.
The Government’s own figures show that, of the approximately 1 billion animals processed in England and Wales in 2024, an estimated 215 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. On those numbers, what was meant to be an exemption—an exception—is certainly not one. Government guidance is clear that meat resulting from non-stunned slaughter must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims, but production is clearly going way beyond that. Alarmingly, the United Kingdom now exports halal meat overseas. Between 2018 and 2019, there was an almost 700% increase in sheepmeat exported to the United Arab Emirates.
Consumers are increasingly interested in how meat is produced, and those concerned about animal welfare want to know whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter. Equally, some people wish to know whether meat has been prepared according to a particular religious rite. None of these positions is unreasonable. The important point is that consumers should have the information they need to make an informed choice.
The legislation regulating animal slaughter is currently set out in the assimilated EU regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, together with the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Under those provisions, animals must generally be stunned before slaughter, although exemptions exist for slaughter carried out in accordance with specific religious observance. However, while the law provides an exemption for stunning requirements, it does not require meat produced under those exemptions to be labelled. As a result, consumers are often left without information that they would regard as highly relevant to their purchasing decisions.
The Government have previously stated that consumers should be able to make an informed choice about the food they buy, yet informed choice is possible only when relevant information is available. In the absence of mandatory labelling, consumers are frequently unaware whether the meat they have purchased had been produced under a religious exemption, or whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. That cannot be described as meaningful consumer choice.
The lack of compulsory labelling has helped create what is in effect a two-tier system in the industry. Some slaughterhouses comply with the general requirement to stun animals before slaughter, while others operate under the religious exemption. Currently, some of the UK’s largest retailers, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Asda, sell halal or kosher meat without informing consumers. Takeaway outlets such as Domino’s, Pizza Hut and KFC serve it without consumers being made aware. Non-stunned meat is also served in schools by 17 local councils, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools, meaning that parents and pupils may have had no idea what children were eating. It is also being served in UK hospitals, where patients do not know what they are eating.
In late 2024, the Labour Government published their animal welfare strategy, which claimed to set out a comprehensive agenda for improving animal welfare. It addressed issues such as boiling of live lobsters, carbon dioxide stunning of pigs and the treatment of farmed fish, yet despite spanning more than 12,500 words, the strategy made no reference to the slaughter of animals without prior stunning and contained no proposal for clearer labelling of halal and kosher meat. If animal welfare is a genuine priority for this Government, that cannot be overlooked, and without that a strategy presented as a landmark contribution to animal welfare is certainly not one.
Public support for greater transparency is overwhelming. “Food and You 2”, a biannual official statistical survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern in 2024 was “food production method”. In August 2022, almost 99% of respondents to the Government’s call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare said that a method of slaughter labelling should be introduced. In research from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 92% of halal consumers stated that clear halal certification is important.
Is it not time that we updated our regulations, and demanded that our meat was clearly and fully labelled? Surely that is what consumer choice is all about. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of animal lovers in the UK expect the House of Commons to support this Bill, which will improve animal welfare and provide choice. I urge all Members of the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Esther McVey, Sir Roger Gale, Alberto Costa, Dame Karen Bradley, Sir Edward Leigh, Graham Stringer, Rupert Lowe, Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin present the Bill.
Esther McVey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 171).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 337 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 420 / Noes: 105 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 414 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 88 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 181 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It is a pleasure to open the final day of the Budget debate. As we begin, let us pause and remember what is really essential to the debate today. Where are we as a country and what do we really need to talk about in this debate? I would put it like this. In the last year, gas prices have tripled, oil prices are up by over 60% and our borrowing costs—alongside those of all the major economies—have risen; and yet, business investment is rising, our economic growth has accelerated and the IMF has singled out the UK for praise for our deficit reduction plan. That is testament to the extraordinary resilience of the British people, British businesses and the British economy.
We know from reading the official documentation that there is no doubt but that ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have driven up costs here and around the world. However, despite these significant economic headwinds, when the Chancellor came here last week, he delivered a substantial cost of living package to help the British people and long-term reforms to strengthen growth, and he commanded market confidence while he did so in a way that eluded the previous Conservative Government. There is not a shred of complacency on this side of the House, but the package he announced built on the success we have already achieved, with year-on-year growth—again, above 2%; an economy growing per head—not just through higher immigration, but because living standards are increasing; and wages rising faster than prices. It is clear, as we stand here today, that we can say the economy is stronger today than when this Government came to power.
But we know things are still tough. That is why the Budget unveiled much-needed breathing space for families, businesses and working people. Beyond that breathing space, we are beginning and proceeding with the big changes needed to put our country on a better course: reindustrialising Britain, driving good growth in every postcode, and strengthening our national security. The Budget shows entrepreneurs, inventors and investors that the UK is the best place to start and grow a business, with this Government using our industrial strategy and wider policy platform to back them every step of the way. We cannot insulate people from every pressure or meet every ask in one go, but we can provide the targeted support that is necessary where it can make the biggest practical difference.
That is why, to help our high streets and small and medium-sized enterprises, the Budget contains a £1 billion business rates package. In England, shops, restaurants and cafés of all sizes will get a two-year real-terms freeze. Around 70,000 more small retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be taken out of business rates altogether. To ensure that our high streets are vibrant into the future, the Budget also commits us to upgrading 600 post office branches in this financial year. That will help them to provide more accessible, welcoming spaces, simpler transactions and a speedier service for customers. That also includes the essential banking services upon which so many of our high street businesses and SMEs depend.
The House will know that all these reforms form part of a much broader package being implemented by the Government to support the 5.7 million SMEs in this country that are the beating heart of our economy and the backbone of our communities. With our small business plan, we are bringing down costs and using the levers of Government to back British business. In particular, we are cracking down on the scourge of late payments that shuts down the equivalent of 38 firms a day and costs the economy almost £11 billion a year. Our Commercial Payments Bill will give us the strongest laws to tackle late payments in the whole of the G7, with the Bill’s Second Reading set to take place this month; I hope it will command cross-party support.
We are also reducing the regulatory burden on our small and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, when the Prime Minister, Lord Leong and I met business owners at No. 10 North last month, we proudly accepted 14 recommendations from the small business taskforce, which has been working in partnership with the Government to reduce the bureaucracy holding British firms back. We are now making it simpler for smaller firms to bid for public contracts. We are streamlining Office for National Statistics business surveys to reduce form-filling. At the same time, we are making it easier for businesses to find support on gov.uk and helping them to report disproportionate regulations. We are delivering, too, on our “tell us once” ambition, as part of which we are pausing the Companies House profit and loss filing requirement for April 2028. I thank the Federation of Small Businesses for all its work on this agenda and in particular for its support on that decision.
Where there is an opportunity to save businesses time and money, we will seek to do that. As proof positive of that agenda, the Budget included savings of over £600 million per year on regulatory administration, with streamlined company reporting requirements and reduced reporting burdens for asset managers. A simpler home buying and selling process will also save businesses over £100 million a year.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I have to ask, was the right hon. Member listening to a different Budget from the one that I heard? I do not recognise anything he has said there. On burdens and costs imposed by regulations on business, the OBR said that the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill—will actually add to the cost of business, completely contrary to what he has just said.
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not want to say that the hon. Gentleman should listen a bit harder to the Chancellor when is giving a Budget, but he went into detail on that. I will expand on what the better regulation taskforce will mean.
Specifically on the employment rights agenda, we know that the Conservatives do not like it—that is not a secret—but I would simply say to the hon. Member that we have a manifesto commitment to address in particular insecurity in the workplace, including the 1 million people on zero-hours contracts. Let Conservative colleagues not forget that the premise of that particular measure is that where a person works a regular number of hours, they will receive, if they wish to, a contract for those hours—not additional costs. Additional costs are not present when someone get a contract that reflects what they are already working.
The rest of the agenda may not be popular with the Conservative party, but it is certainly popular with the country. And because of that agenda—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives did not stick to their own manifesto commitments, but we will stick to ours. Because of that agenda, of course want to reduce burdens in other places; it is an entirely noble agenda and one that reflects the interests of British business. The hon. Member may be aware—the Chancellor did speak about this in the statement—that there is an aspiration to reduce business burdens by 25% over the course of this Parliament. That will be delivered through the new Better Regulation Executive. It brings together the power of the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and my Department to move us towards a more streamlined and proportionate regulatory system—one that spurs growth, investment and innovation across the country.
I also warmly welcome the Chancellor increasing access to finance for ambitious founders and entrepreneurs. In the Budget, he introduced a new founders relief to encourage a new wave of wealth creation. Founders and early investors will benefit from a 10% capital gains tax rate on up to £10 million of lifetime gains. Dom Hallas from Startup Coalition said:
“The chancellor has delivered the boldest action backing startups and scaleups of any government in years.”
Meanwhile, the trading allowance for people starting new ventures is being tripled from £1,000 to £3,000, and £700 million is going towards home-grown innovation, strengthening Britain’s sovereignty and ensuring that tomorrow’s technologies are developed and adopted right here in the UK.
On top of all that, the Budget gives the British Business Bank £1.4 billion of additional commercial equity capacity, allowing it to back specialist venture capital funds in strategic sectors and larger growth funds capable of writing the cheques needed to keep the UK’s fastest-growing companies scaling here. The package is expected to leverage around £4.2 billion of private capital and create 14,500 additional jobs. That builds on the landmark investments the bank has already made, backing businesses across the UK: from Optima Partners, the Edinburgh-based AI consultancy, to Pharos Marine, the Norfolk manufacturer of navigation aids for offshore wind farms and ports, to Oxford Space Systems, whose satellite antennas were launched into orbit earlier this year.
Our industrial strategy is also making a difference. It is an essential part of our ambition to reindustrialise Britain and back our own sovereign capabilities. It is delivering on industrial energy costs, reversing what we inherited from the previous Government, with the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world. We are slashing electricity bills by 25% for over 10,000 British manufacturers through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. We are cutting electricity costs for those businesses by up to £40 per MWh, bringing their costs closer into line with competitors across Europe, with eligible businesses also receiving a one-off additional payment in 2027 to cover the support that they would have been received if BICS had been in place from April this year, correcting years of Conservative failure.
We are channelling investment into the eight high growth-driving sectors of our economy, including life sciences and advanced manufacturing. The Budget confirmed over £1 billion of new life sciences investment, from Kindeva, Vertex and Convatec, backed by almost £70 million of Government funding. It gave the green light to a partnership that I am particularly proud of: a partnership with Rolls-Royce to develop its next generation of turbine engine technology here in Britain. This is the single biggest reindustrialisation opportunity that the UK has before it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I very much welcome the investment in Rolls-Royce; many of my constituents work there. What impact will the investment have on opportunities for young people in Derbyshire Dales?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. The £2.5 billion investment will support thousands of jobs in the midlands, Bristol and across our country. The significance is that it is not just another public-private investment in an exciting area of the future. It is a genuine opportunity for a leading British firm to break into an incredibly lucrative market, which is currently dominated by two main players, where we could be significant in the future.
Last week, I visited the Rolls-Royce site in Derby with the Prime Minister and Chancellor to discuss this very issue: British industry, British talent and British jobs. Everyone in the House will be aware of how outstanding Rolls-Royce is on apprenticeships and opportunities for the next generation. It is excited about what the future holds for the UK, and the Government will work hand in hand with it to make its growth ambitions a reality.
We are backing British business not just through our industrial strategy, but by ensuring that we remain an outward and open-looking economy and that we stay true to the principles on which the modern British economy was built. We intend to reindustrialise our country, but we will not use punitive trade measures and tariffs to do so. In many cases, tariffs hinder businesses and hurt consumers far more than they help them. They are ultimately paid by our own people.
That is why the Government are using the Budget to suspend tariffs on more than 100 essentials, which will support farmers who import fertilisers and households who use heating oil; by lowering costs on products like baked beans, chocolate, marmalade and fruit, it will also support people with their supermarket shop. Government cannot reduce all the pressures on the family shop overnight, but we can use all the levers at our disposal to bring prices down, and that is exactly what we are doing.
While other nations turn inward, restricting trade with the rest of the world, we stand as a proudly internationalist country and global hub for trade and investment that is ready to deepen our partnerships with new friends and old allies—not least the European Union, which remains our largest trading market. That is the message we will be taking into the UK-EU summit later this month.
Our ambition is clear. We want to continue simplifying trade. We want to conclude negotiations on our sanitary and phytosanitary and emissions trading deals, which could add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy and would be a huge win for small business.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile what he has said about trade with the desire to reindustrialise, manufacture more in order to make more of what we consume. In an uncertain world, national economic resilience is more important than ever, and yet we run a huge trade deficit, which has grown year on year. Our dependence is on many countries who are not friends and could pull the plug on Britain at will.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the sentiment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, on one of the most substantive issues that the House must grapple with. There is no inconsistency in being proud of the services-led nature of the UK economy while recognising the essential contribution of advanced manufacturing. There are sectors of the UK economy that could gain from the current phase of innovation in artificial intelligence in goods; for instance, robotics could reduce our wage differential with low-wage economies and return industrial functions to the UK.
The basis of British industry will, however, always be export led—that is key in the automative or aerospace sector. I do not see a tension between strengthening our resilience and our domestic industrial capacity and being an outward-facing, internationalist country to the rest of the world. I believe the two things must go together.
I give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a specific example: our critical minerals strategy. We cannot reduce our dependence on other countries entirely, but we can reduce the degree of exposure to individual markets and use the levers of Government, through investing in tungsten or lithium mining in the south-west of England, looking at how the refining process works, and working with allies. It is a balance between the two things. I recognise absolutely the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question and its importance to this debate.
On the UK-EU summit, in addition to the premise of the deal we seek to strike, we want to make progress on electric vehicle rules of origin, steel tariffs and economic security, recognising that in many cases we share similar challenges. We face those challenges together, and we can overcome them together. To that end, the Prime Minister will say more later this year about options for our long-term relationship with the EU—one that strengthens our collective security and our collective prosperity.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State makes an important point about our relationship with the EU. He will be aware that Bracknell is home to lots of companies that work in cloud technologies. Is he alive to concerns around the EU’s proposed cloud and AI development Act, and will he ensure that we address those concerns robustly as part of our negotiations in the summit and thereafter? We do need to get that right.
Jonathan Reynolds
The agenda known in shorthand as “Made in Europe”, which affects the CADA and the Industrial Accelerator Act—it runs through as many as 50 different pieces of EU legislative files—is a top priority not just for me and Ministers in my Department, but for the whole Government. It cannot be the case that we must seek a bespoke solution for each separate area. We need something that provides business with certainty going forward. We need to recognise—in a way that the previous Government did not, frankly—that whatever our relationship to the EU, what the EU does will affect us. That is the nature of integrated supply chains and a key market on your doorstep.
I am confident that the approach that the Prime Minister has led from the front—I credit him with this—has given us the space to provide the answers for that agenda. It is a far more productive approach than the kind of adversarial relationship we saw towards the European Union from the previous Government. The bottom line is that it gets results for people in this area.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
You are giving them everything they want.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am tempted to respond to that, but I will proceed with my speech; as ever, we are all waiting to hear from those on the shadow Front Bench. Actually, I will bite—go on. [Laughter.] When it concerns something of such fundamental importance to British industry as access to the single market, when it is and always will be our major trading market, gaining access for British businesses and businesses based in the UK and ensuring that British workers will not lose their jobs is not giving the other side everything that they want—it is delivering for Britain in a way that the Opposition never quite managed.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I negotiated directly with Maroš Šefčovič, the lead negotiator for the European Union. We had a very good working relationship and got a lot done. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that standing at the Dispatch Box and setting out the UK’s desired end position gives a huge advantage to the EU negotiating team, who are trying not to damage the UK but to get the best possible deal for the EU? Publicly setting out the desired end state from the UK’s position makes the right hon. Gentleman’s job in future negotiations harder, which is why we get rolled over by the excellent EU negotiators every time his Government go across to Brussels.
Jonathan Reynolds
Colleagues, it is great to receive some advice from the Conservative party on negotiating with Europe, is it not? I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. First, the premise of the UK-EU summit—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should just listen to the point. The premise of the UK-EU summit—agreement on SPS, food and agricultural trade, on emissions trading and on electricity systems working with each other—is all already in the public domain. We agreed the memorandum on that last year. This is about the implementation of that deal. On whether we would like the single market to operate rules that completely shut out British industry and British supply chains, it is no secret that we do not fancy that very much and are seeking a solution to it.
I will turn back to the deal, which the right hon. Gentleman says he is very proud of. As he will know, you left us a few things—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the second time the Secretary of State has said “you”. I did not leave anything, Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds
I would never suggest that you negotiated the deal with the European Union, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see why you would want to distance yourself from that, as we all would.
Let us move on. The British people should know that we will always seek to make things a little easier where we can. We will transform our country for the long term, but we will also act now to provide support for people in the short term. That is what the Budget was all about. That is why 2.3 million workers will benefit from increases to the national minimum wage. Thanks to these changes, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their earnings rise by £910 a year before tax. This is a balanced approach which recognises market conditions. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Low Pay Commission for its expert advice and support on these measures.
I am also pleased that this Government committed in the Budget to expanding parental pay. We are making the system fairer so that more parents can spend time with their family after the birth or adoption of their children. From April 2029, self-employed fathers, partners and adopters in Great Britain will be able to access a parental allowance. Those only recently employed, those who have been made redundant and those who have an irregular pattern of employment will also qualify for some degree of financial support. All in all, over 150,000 people in Great Britain per year will benefit from the reforms. Thanks to the changes we are making, things will be easier for them and for working parents everywhere.
As the Chancellor said last week, this is a downpayment that will begin to address some of the issues around working men and paternity provision as we prepare the final outcome of our review of the full parental leave system next year.
I would also like to acknowledge that many in this country are quietly, conscientiously providing care for a loved one, whether that be a child, parent, grandparent, sibling, friend or neighbour. About 5.8 million people in the UK provide unpaid care for a family member or friend. In the Budget, this Government are moving to support them. We are replacing the current carer’s allowance earnings cliff-edge rules with an earnings taper. That measure alone will benefit 50,000 unpaid carers—a real injustice being righted.
We are also reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers to help those balancing their caring responsibilities with work, because it is not easy to help a relative out of bed, get them dressed, take them to the doctor or hospital appointments and cook them meals while holding down a job and working 35 or 40-hour weeks. This review, which will look at unpaid leave, the right to return, paid carers’ leave and paid leave for parents of seriously ill children, will conclude in early 2027. I can assure the House that we will act on its findings.
This is what we mean by fresh hope, good growth and support for those who need it. In our first 100 days, this Government have shown that we will do all we can to give people and businesses the breathing space that they need. This Budget has shown that commitment, too, with real, tangible measures to help—with business rates cut, tariffs reduced, energy bills slashed, living costs lowered and the minimum wage increased.
We are doing all of that while keeping Government borrowing falling faster than any other G7 economy. We are doing it while getting employment up this year, higher than previously forecast in March and while ensuring that business investment relative to the size of the economy remains at its highest level for a decade and whole-economy investment higher than at any other time since 1990.
For all these reasons, people should have hope—fresh hope—for what the future holds for them, our economy and our country. They should know that we are resilient, that we should be optimistic for the future and that the best days of this nation lie ahead. That is why I proudly commend this Budget to the House.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Government gave today’s Budget debate a theme: “Fresh hope for the future”. The debate will be closed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who this weekend let slip,
“I don’t think employers are working people”.
I recommend that she does not deliver her message of fresh hope to the salon owners, café owners, shop owners, services firms, gym owners, pub landlords, builders, dentists and restauranteurs in her constituency of Wycombe, for she may never get served again. These are the people who are not only providing for themselves but taking risks to build businesses that employ and serve others. Everything that they do is fuelled by the hope that their relentless hard work will one day create something bigger than themselves—a better life for their families and employees. But they feel hopeless right now. Many are questioning whether they can make the numbers work. Tax, regulation and energy costs have all relentlessly climbed. But if businesses put their prices up again to cover those costs, they risk driving their customers away. That is the reality they face as working people.
They are filling shifts themselves because they can no longer afford the staff. They work harder simply to stand still. They are wondering whether they can continue to justify the sacrifice to their families. But if they pack up, it is a problem for us all, because it is their taxes that are helping to keep this show on the road.
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “I don’t think employers are working people”, it was one of those Labour truths—the sort of truth that Labour Chief Secretaries have such form in letting slip out. “I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”—the handover note of another Chief Secretary after Labour’s last chance in power in 2010. But who left the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) with no money when he wrote that fateful note? It was one of his predecessors as Chief Secretary—a man who during his second tilt at the Labour leadership was forced to apologise for his own failure to get public spending under control before a brutal financial crisis hit. That Chief Secretary is now the Prime Minister, and his first Budget suggests that he has not learned his own lesson.
“Employers are not working people,” “There is no money,” “We failed to control public spending before a crisis, sorry”—three Labour admissions, three different moments in our recent political history that tell us an awful lot about the way that this party governs. They are a neat summary, too, of this Budget, for there is precious little in it for working people. Labour has no money to fund the basics of defence, and it is failing to get public spending under control. No wonder that despite all the briefings about a Budget for bloody-minded entrepreneurs, it undershoots at almost every opportunity.
Take business rates. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to exempt 70,000 businesses from rates altogether, but Conservative plans would take a quarter of a million firms out of paying rates. On the minimum wage, it is right that the Chancellor has not levelled it up for younger workers, but Conservative plans would halve employer national insurance for under-25s. Labour offers employers the temporary bung of the youth guarantee, but that scheme is necessary only because this Government have made it so much more expensive and risky to take people on.
If entrepreneurs look under the bonnet of the new founders’ relief, they will discover something hopelessly complex that is likely to benefit very few. This is no return of entrepreneurs’ relief, and it comes as this Government halve the limit on business asset disposal relief. Last year 61,000 people claimed that relief, and only a few hundred are thought likely to benefit from founders’ relief. Labour’s entrepreneurship adviser, Alexandra Depledge, has left her role after mere months, saying that the Government treat entrepreneurship and innovation as “a sideshow”.
What about sole traders and freelancers, such as personal trainers, electricians and creatives—the people who do not have an army of accountants? The reward for their hard work is having to report their earnings to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more frequently so that they can be squeezed for more tax, while there is no such vigilance on checking the eligibility of benefits claimants. Has the Chancellor ever had to deal with the realities of cash flow—of a few good months followed by a fallow period?
Meanwhile, by taxing banks the Chancellor risks making them less internationally competitive while driving up the cost of borrowing for businesses across the economy. Shifting energy costs from green levies to general taxation does nothing to tackle the underlying drivers of our staggeringly uncompetitive energy prices. The Chancellor slipped out another Labour truth last week when he said that the Energy Secretary opposed Jackdaw. I expect that she is opposing Rosebank, too. We can forget reindustrialisation.
Consider British food producers. It is all well and good to take a few pence off imported gherkins—we support cheaper goods—but at the same time Labour should help domestic producers compete. They are hamstrung by higher taxes, higher energy bills and rising wage costs.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Lady knows that her party left us with the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world. Is she saying that she opposes taking policy costs off bills and putting them into taxation? I think she said that, but that would obviously result in higher bills than we have now.
Julia Lopez
Our cheap power plan would lower bills across the board. The right hon. Gentleman’s plan is to just shift costs from green levies to general taxation.
Perhaps the most damning thing about this Budget is what it does not attempt to do. After seeing off Keir Starmer, this new Prime Minister wants to press the reset button and pretend that this first 100 days is a fresh start, but Labour owns the last two years and the last two Budgets. If the Prime Minister will not reverse their measures, the consequences of the decisions that have already been taken are his to own as well.
The national insurance rise has been devastating. Chef Tommy Banks said,
“Over the 20 years I’ve been in the industry, this is without doubt the hardest time it’s ever been to operate…I’m seeing restaurant owners saying, ‘We’re closing tomorrow. We’re going to make everybody redundant.’”
He says employer national insurance has increased his business costs by 162% and that, with a couple of hundred staff, that can mean half a million pounds.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 has not even begun to have its full effect, yet I spoke to a small business last week that is already having to shell out £8,000 to prepare for its implementation. Another is being quoted £200,000 in legal fees to fight a tribunal. Another is winding down its disability employment activities; it used to give opportunities to people with cognitive impairments who needed extra support, but it will no longer take the risk. Since 2024, 170,000 jobs have been lost, and by the OBR’s reckoning another 215,000 jobs are to go by the decade’s end. Does this Budget do anything to stop that slow-motion car crash?
There is no review of the farm and family business taxes, which are crushing our food producers and entrepreneurs at a time when the nation needs the food security they provide. I recently spoke to a business that has been in the same family since the 1850s. The owners cannot risk losing it on death, so they are trying to offload it early, at the expense of investment in the business itself. That will not generate growth. Last week, another private school closure, in Leweston, left parents and children in limbo because Labour refuses to review its envy-driven tax on independent schools.
The pressures on these businesses are flowing out into the wider economy, which is why everything is costing people more. It costs more to go out for a meal, have your hair done, take a few days away with the kids or buy the weekly shop. The Prime Minister now owns Keir Starmer’s choices.
The most damning part of the Budget was the difference between the Prime Minister’s homely “breathing space” rhetoric and the hard reality that real household disposable income is falling this year and is lower in every year of the forecast—nearly £1,500 lower than forecast under the last Conservative Government. What is everyone getting in return for all the extra tax? Better public services? No. The Government are spending £124 billion a year on debt interest alone. That is up £14 billion since March, and is more than we spend on defence, policing and prisons combined. Are we at least building up a buffer to make ourselves more resilient? No. The Chancellor has cut fiscal headroom to just £15 billion, the equivalent of barely 3.5 days of public spending. The Government are even kicking defence spending into the long grass.
Businesses are paying more tax, families are getting poorer, public services are not improving and the Government are leaving the country dangerously exposed to the next economic shock. There are only two sustainable ways out of that: grow or cut spending. On both, the Government are found wanting. Last week, Ministers went full Vicky Pollard when asked whether they would grip the welfare budget this Parliament: yes, said the Chancellor, and no, said the Treasury and No. 10. The Prime Minister said, “As soon as possible.” No, eventually concluded the Chancellor—yeah, but no, but yeah, but no. The Chancellor’s leader is making a fool of him.
What about growth? The Prime Minister’s big idea is to reopen the debate about rejoining the EU. That is a debate that the Business Secretary does not want to have: he says that it creates uncertainty for business, which companies explicitly do not want. [Interruption.] He is now trying to nuance his way out of it, but we know what he said. It is also a debate about free movement that the Home Secretary does not want. It is a debate that will tie us to the slow-growth lane, and we will pay for the privilege. Why do we have to pay the fees of EU students to access “Made in Europe” when our participation is in the EU’s interests and the matter has not yet been settled in the EU Parliament? The Prime Minister is weakening our hand to build a left-wing coalition that will keep him in power.
If growth is the goal, why does the Prime Minister not pull the levers that the Government already have by bringing down energy costs, making it easier to employ people, cutting tax and getting more people off welfare? Because those decisions require real courage and a willingness to test the mandate that the Prime Minister fears he lacks among those on his own Benches and in the wider country.
“Employers are not working people.” “There is no money.” “We failed to get public spending under control before crisis hit.” Those three Labour truths run through this Budget, which has been overseen by a Prime Minister who is more interested in the perception of being on people’s side than in the reality, and is offering a debate about a future he may not control rather than taking tough decisions that he could own today if only he were to find the courage.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I welcome the Budget and its focus on giving families a bit of breathing space during this difficult period. Many people in my constituency welcome the £100 household energy payment this winter alongside the reforms to carer’s allowance and support for working families. As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I will focus my remarks on devolution, local government, our high streets, rough sleeping and housing delivery.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to devolution and the publication of the fiscal devolution road map. However, we need greater clarity on how the proposals will work in practice. As powers are devolved, accountability, scrutiny and local capacity must keep pace. Devolution should not simply be about moving decision making out of Whitehall; it must deliver better outcomes for the communities it is intended to serve. The Committee will continue to scrutinise these reforms and how they are implemented on the ground.
I also welcome the measures to support and revitalise our high streets, including expanded business rates relief and support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. High streets are more than economic activity; they are the heart of community life, providing places where people meet, work and access services. That is particularly relevant to the Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into revitalising our high streets and town centres. We look forward to examining whether the Budget measures are delivering the long-term regeneration and economic resilience that our communities need.
The Budget must also be judged on whether it addresses the long-term pressures facing local government. Councils continue to face significant pressures, including special educational needs and disabilities and rising demand for children’s services, adult social care and housing support. Previous Committee work has repeatedly highlighted concerns about the sustainability of local government finance and the growing gap between what councils are expected to deliver and the resources available to them. A sustainable funding settlement remains essential if councils are to plan for the long term, invest in prevention and deliver high-quality services for residents. Across local government, housing and devolution, the common challenge is delivery. Communities need to see the commitments translated into tangible improvements in their daily lives.
I strongly welcome the significant investment to tackle rough sleeping and help people off our streets—I had the opportunity to attend the rough sleeping summit—but if we are serious about ending rough sleeping we must address its causes as well as its consequences. That means looking again at issues repeatedly highlighted by the Committee, including homelessness prevention, the five-week wait for universal credit and the continued freeze in the local housing allowance.
Ahead of the Budget, I urged Ministers to reconsider the local housing allowance freeze. I am disappointed that it remains in place. Charities have warned that it could push hundreds of thousands more people into poverty or deeper hardship. If ending rough sleeping is truly a national priority, we must ensure that housing support keeps pace with the reality of rents and the pressures facing low-income households. The Budget rightly invests in support services, but lasting progress will require action on the structural factors that push people into homelessness in the first place.
Finally, I welcome the additional investment in social and affordable housing, including the £1.5 billion top-up, which is expected to support 10,000 additional homes. However, it is still vital to consider whether these measures alone translate into homes being built at the pace and scale needed. The OBR has warned that housing delivery is likely to be slower than previously forecast, highlighting the challenges that remain. The question is not whether we have the ambition but whether we can remove the barriers that prevent homes from being built at the scale required. The Committee will continue to scrutinise what further action is needed to meet the Government’s house-building ambitions and more generally to ensure that more affordable homes are delivered.
Overall, there is much in the Budget to welcome, from support with energy bills to investment in social housing and a renewed commitment to devolution. The Budget sets out an ambitious agenda, but that ambition must be met with delivery. My Committee will scrutinise how the commitments are implemented and whether they are delivering real change for the people and communities we represent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I must tell the House that I am going to put a five-minute time limit on Back Benchers’ contributions immediately after she has spoken.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
What we needed was a growth Budget, because only by growing the economy can we cut people’s taxes and bills. We Liberal Democrats have repeated our calls for a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, because growth through such a partnership would enable us, in time, to raise the income tax threshold to £15,000. If we can grow the economy, we can put more money in people’s pockets.
The Government’s cost of living package was too timid and not well targeted. The OBR is clear that living standards are not set to improve. I am deeply disappointed that the Government’s energy proposal is linked to the outdated council tax system. That means that between 800,000 and 1.4 million of the most vulnerable people on low incomes will not benefit from the £100 payment, while wealthier people who may have retired early and downsized will. That could have been avoided.
We have called several times on the Government to use existing data held by the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC to roll out an essential energy guarantee to slash the cost of the first chunk of essential energy, benefiting everybody, and giving extra support to those who are most in need, such as the disabled. That is the most progressive way of supporting people with the cost of energy bills, it is the most targeted way of doing it, and it is within the Government’s reach.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Lady is aware that winter is fast upon us, which is why the Government had to design a scheme that can be delivered quickly. Will she also recognise the £100 million of additional support being given to local authorities to target exactly those households to which she has referred, so we can ensure that every household that is struggling financially this winter is given a little bit of support?
Daisy Cooper
The Government already have the data through DWP, which it uses to roll out the warm home discount. That data is already there, the system exists with energy providers and it would have operated just as quickly. HMRC has the data on child benefit; equally, it could have been rolled out just as quickly. Yes, I recognise that some money has been given to local authorities to roll this out, but that process will not act as quickly as the system that the Government wanted to roll out in January. It would have been done through the energy providers far more quickly than the additional support. It would have been a more targeted, faster and more progressive way of rolling out help. We have been calling for it for six months; it is unfortunate that the Government have not listened.
On business, we welcome support for small businesses, and raising the small business threshold will support a number of businesses. However, that is still tinkering around the edges rather than delivering the fundamental reform of business rates that this Government promised in their manifesto. If we are serious about breathing new life into our high streets, we have to reform the outdated, broken business rates system. In my constituency of St Albans, the rateable values are so high that only eight pubs are set to benefit from the support, and that comes in the face of a whole raft of measures in the last two anti-growth Budgets. The chair of my local Save St Albans Pubs campaign has sent me this:
“The budget does nothing to help or support most of the pubs in St Albans. Still no business rate reform. Alcohol duties up. No cuts in VAT. No cuts in the horrific employers national insurance jobs tax and a huge increase in wages”.
That means one thing: it will put up the price of a pint.
Founders’ relief has been described variously by people as “bonkers”, “dreadful” and “a pointless lottery”. It will benefit, at most, 600 people and will undermine productivity and growth. That is not exactly the ringing endorsement that I believe the Government were after. I encourage them to look at that relief again.
As for the BAD—business asset disposal—relief, the clue is in the title, and the Government’s measures do not close the loopholes. On property taxes, we need to see real reform of all the outdated property taxes—council tax, stamp duty and business rates—but the Government’s so-called mansion tax is not the way to do it. All the funding will go to Whitehall; it will not go to local councils. That is from a Government who say they want devolution at a time when they are ripping money out of local authorities.
The OBR says that there is a 20% chance of appeals. Just five weeks ago, I stood right here and challenged Ministers to contact the Valuation Office Agency because it had issued the wrong valuation to two of my small businesses. I dread to think what will happen to the many people who will want to sell their house and move to other parts of the country to support family members, but who cannot because they are stuck in an 18-month appeal process with the VOA. It is not clear that the Government even have a definition of a “working farm” when it comes to the operation of the so-called mansion tax. It looks to me that it could be family farm tax 2.0—I urge the Government to look closely at that—and for what? For £400 million in three years’ time. This will not sort out the cost of living crisis that we are facing right now.
I am pleased that the Government have shifted on bank taxes. We Liberal Democrats have long called for taxes on the big banks that have made eye-watering profits. To those on the Conservative Benches who say that they are worried about the competitiveness of our financial services, let me tell them this. Under their botched Brexit deal, they have hammered the financial services, which have been hit by a loss of jobs and a loss of business. If anybody is serious about protecting our world-class financial services, they should support our calls to join the single market and to move the liability for online fraud from banks to the big tech companies. If we could do that, we could grow our world-beating financial services market and still increase the taxes further so that they can contribute to tackling the cost of living crisis.
Finally, let me just say that there is a role for optimism; there is a role for talking about real hope. I hope that we can project to the rest of the world the fact that we believe in the future of UK plc. If we are going to talk about fresh hope, however, it must be matched with meaningful action. I am afraid to say that this Budget did not deliver the meaningful change that the country expects and deserves.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I welcome this Budget, and I congratulate the Chancellor on bringing it forward at a time of considerable economic uncertainty. There is much in it that deserves support and colleagues have spoken well over the past few days in that regard. I will use my contribution to make a broader argument, one that concentrates on the interaction between business and trade and prosperity for the country.
The biggest economic challenge facing this country is the fact that we have become accustomed to an economy that does not grow quickly enough, does not invest enough, does not produce enough and does not deliver rising living standards for enough of our people. Worse than that, we have constructed an economic system that has learned to accommodate failure.
Thanks to the long, dark years of Tory rule, this country has, in effect, institutionalised stagnation. For much of the past 80 years, people in this country could have reasonably expected to have been better off than their parents. Productivity increased, wages rose and living standards improved. However, since 2010 that has changed. The relationship has broken down, real earnings have barely grown by historical standards, productivity growth has been desperately weak and the prospect of building a better life has become increasingly remote for too many people. We need to change that.
First, we need to be clear about what we mean by “growth”. Our overriding economic objective should be sustained growth in GDP per capita, driven by higher productivity and accompanied by rising real wages and improving living standards. We should judge our success not just by what happens in some sectors such as financial services, or any other, but by what happens in places such as my Southport constituency, Swindon, Wigan, Bristol or Birkenhead.
Secondly, we need to rebuild our productive capacity in this country. For decades we have promoted consumption while allowing production to decline. We have become dependent on importing the things we need, exposed to volatile international energy markets and willing to see promising British innovations commercialised elsewhere. We need to change that, too. We should be ambitious about advanced manufacturing, clean energy, life sciences, digital technology—all those industries of the future.
I would like to see us set ourselves a national mission to create 1 million additional jobs in production over the next decade. That requires an industrial strategy with some proper oomph behind it. That proper oomph should be patient capital, affordable industrial energy, skills provision designed around the needs of employers and public procurement that supports domestic productive capacity. It also requires a closer and more practical economic relationship with our European neighbours. The isolationist turn that this country has taken over the past decade needs to come to an end, and not just for the benefit of our country; it has harmed our trading partners and has benefited only those countries that want us to fail.
We also need to reform the way we govern the economy itself. I strongly support fiscal responsibility, I believe in independent economic scrutiny, and I have no desire whatsoever to return to the economic recklessness that did such damage in 2022. We should also recognise that fiscal responsibility should be a means to an end, rather than the end itself. The purpose of sound public finances must be to enable a prosperous, productive and resilient population, but that is not what we have ended up with.
Too much of our economic policy making is currently dominated by what happens over a relatively short period. Investment that costs money today but only delivers in 20 or 30 years’ time can appear less attractive, so we have become trapped in a vicious circle: weak growth reduces tax revenues; weak tax revenues constrain investment; insufficient investment weakens productivity; and weak productivity leads to weak growth. We need to break that circle, and the way to do that is to look at how our fiscal and monetary policies are implemented. I would encourage Ministers to review those policies to ensure that the future of this country is prosperous.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The theme of this year’s autumn Budget was said to be one of hope. It raised our hopes akin to the title of a “Star Wars” film, yet for many of my constituents in Epping Forest, and indeed for families and businesses across the country, that hope has been sorely dashed. I have huge respect for the Chancellor, who is a deeply honourable man. He resigned as Defence Secretary, calling for 3% of GDP on defence spending by 2030, but sadly, even his hopes for this clear commitment and plan have been dashed by this Government.
In Epping Forest we are fortunate to have fantastic local businesses, restaurants, cafés and pubs, yet many are struggling to stay afloat under this Labour Government. It is deeply regrettable that this Budget did not take up the sensible proposals from the Conservatives on scrapping the family farm tax and family business tax in full, abolishing inheritance tax on family homes and scrapping business rates for 250,000 businesses nationwide.
One thing my constituents in Epping Forest will have noted was the Chancellor’s talk of a British data centre covenant. Many of my constituents are rightly concerned about the implications and environmental impacts of AI data centres, including the proposal in Loughton, with major concerns about their huge water and energy usage. Also, a speculative and completely inappropriate proposal is being worked up for a data centre near Chigwell that will threaten our precious green belt. Many of my constituents have reached out to me, alarmed by the Chigwell proposal and by the fact that it comes in the context of a Labour Government who have outrageously taken away large planning decisions from Epping Forest district council and who are arbitrarily and spuriously moving to reclassify green belt as grey belt in order to achieve their development targets.
We have seen this, too, with inappropriate large-scale housing developments being proposed on green belt in Theydon Bois and around Epping, and with solar developments on farmland between Thornwood and Epping Upland. I urge the Labour Government to do the right thing, listen to my Epping Forest constituents, leave our green belt alone and pull the plug on these damaging top-down policies and inappropriate developments.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I cannot resist this opportunity to say that I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying about green belt protection. The Government have an opportunity to stop this reckless, top-down approach and to be serious about brownfield-first funding. Does he agree that they should put the money into brownfield first, to protect and save our special, precious green spaces?
Dr Hudson
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. She is a proud champion for her area and for standing up for the green belt and putting pressure on the Government to do the right thing and go for brownfield first and leave our green belt alone.
The Prime Minister is a good man, and I really welcomed his stated ambition to work cross-party to address the long-standing challenges in social care, drawing on his own family’s sad experience. I agree wholeheartedly with him that no one should be forced to sell their home to fund essential care, but that hope, too, was dashed when it became clear that he is prejudging the Casey report and that his plans will not cover residential care costs—the very reason that people have to sell their homes. By failing to address this core issue, the Government have missed the very point they are trying to confront.
Turning from care to health, I know that many of my constituents will be dismayed to learn that our local hospitals, Whipps Cross and the Princess Alexandra, will still be waiting until at least 2032 for any rebuild. This is despite Labour’s promise during the 2024 general election that both hospitals would be rebuilt.
The Government have spent much time talking of devolution and powers, but my constituents need them to start by working with the powers that already exist, including those relating to their relationship with the Mayor of London. For far too long, the Central line, which my constituents rely on, has been plagued by unacceptable delays, overcrowding, unbearable heat in the summer months, ear-scraping rail noise levels and ugly graffiti akin to something out of Gotham City. The newly refurbished trains that have been promised are arriving extremely slowly, and the services on the Epping line and the Chigwell branch remain unacceptable.
In Waltham Abbey, over 3,000 of my constituents signed the “Bring back red buses to Waltham Abbey” campaign petition urging the reversal of Transport for London’s cuts to local bus services in the area. This situation has been made worse recently by bus services ending early on weekdays, when there are already no tube or train services serving our Waltham Abbey area. The Government cannot sit on the sidelines and spectate; they have to be a player and push both TfL and Essex county council to step up. This was a Budget of missed opportunities. If the Government are serious about hope, I ask them please to give us some hope and actually do something about these vital issues.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
“Fresh hope for the future” must mean something that people can recognise in their own lives: a young person finding a skilled job close to home, a patient getting a diagnosis sooner, someone waiting for an operation finally getting treatment and getting back to their life. That is how people will judge us, so I welcome this Budget’s determination to give families breathing space now while building a stronger economy for tomorrow. I want to focus on one opportunity that can help us achieve both: backing life sciences so that Britain can build a future here. That involves developing new treatments, manufacturing them in Britain and getting them to NHS patients faster, because a healthier country is a stronger country. The industries that help us live healthier lives can also create the jobs, investment and prosperity that our communities need.
I began working as a care assistant at 16. I became a social worker, working in child protection, and served as cabinet member for public health and protection. Those experiences taught me that public services are judged at the moment someone needs them. Can they get help? Are they listened to? Does someone take responsibility? As a Health Minister, I brought that same test to innovation. A scientific breakthrough is an extraordinary achievement. Approval matters, but success is a patient receiving treatment. Our ambition should be clear: discover here, make it here and deliver it here.
This Budget gives us something substantial to build on. I welcome the £100 million investment in robotic surgery, supporting the ambition to increase procedures from 70,000 a year today to 500,000 by 2035. For a patient, that could mean a less invasive operation, a shorter stay in hospital and getting home to their family sooner. I also welcome the life sciences investment in Manchester, Oxford and Loughborough, together worth more than £1 billion, supported by almost £70 million in Government grants. These investments should give businesses the confidence to build in Britain and patients the confidence that progress will reach them.
The next task is to make that partnership work across the country, and to connect investment with improvements that people can feel. Birmingham’s life sciences district shows what is possible when we bring our strengths together. The University of Birmingham, the Queen Elizabeth hospital and Birmingham Health Partners connect world-class research with frontline care, and our health innovation campus and precision health technologies accelerator help businesses turn discoveries into treatments. We should back this district as an engine of national growth, attracting investment, expanding manufacturing and opening routes into skilled jobs for local people. This is an enormous opportunity for our city to know that there could be a place for young people in my city as a laboratory technician, an engineer, a clinical researcher, a manufacturing apprentice or a specialist working with health data. Representatives of the University of Birmingham are here today in Parliament launching the Birmingham health and life sciences quarter.
As the Government develop their 10-year plan and prepare for the next spending review, three things should guide us. First, we must make the adoption of proven innovation a core NHS responsibility, because businesses and innovators need a clear route from successful evaluation to everyday use, with named responsibility, funding and a timetable. For a small British business, a successful NHS trial should open the door. It should not have to go begging every single trust to procure its product. We should measure success through patient outcomes, and the same discipline should apply to AI. I therefore welcome the Budget’s review of NHS productivity and AI. Its purpose should be practical: better care, less avoidable administration and more time with patients.
Secondly, we need to connect life sciences investment to British manufacturing and local opportunity. Thirdly, we must make prevention and earlier diagnosis central to our ambition, because the greatest gain is often the illness avoided.
This is a serious economic opportunity. Better health can help people remain in work, support families and reduce pressure on public services. Successful British businesses can bring investment, exports and skilled employment. The Prime Minister has opened a conversation about the country we want to become. My answer is a Britain confident enough to back its scientists, ambitious enough to build new industries, and determined enough to put their achievements into the hands of the people who need them; a Britain where a discovery becomes a treatment and an investment becomes a skilled job, and where a young person can see a future in the place they call home. That is what fresh hope for the future must mean.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Budget debate is an opportunity to consider both the national and the local impact of what has been announced. It is clear that this is a centralising Budget and a tax-and-spend Budget. It does not even raise the tax necessary to cover the spending commitments that are being made. When we look at the impact across the economy, what is clear is the importance of routes out of poverty and the opportunity to find a job, which is good for people’s wellbeing and their mental, physical and financial health.
There has been a surge in unemployment under this Labour Government. It is the worst graduate jobs market since records began. Those in my party—who will have been proud of the fact that, on average, 800 new jobs were created every day that our Government were in office, and that youth unemployment was halved by the time we left office—will look at the long-term impact, particularly on younger people and their life chances as a consequence. There is nothing whatsoever in this Budget to address that, except more tax and spend.
On productivity, I represent a constituency that has lower than London average incomes but high prosperity and employment. Yet this Budget does nothing to address the cliff edges in the tax system, the loss of child benefit for high-rate taxpayers, the loss of access to tax-free childcare, the impact of rising pension contributions and the withdrawal of personal allowances, which, particularly among the most productive public sector professionals, is having a huge impact not just on their incomes but on their ability to contribute to the service improvements that we all need to see.
We all want our housing market to be an engine of opportunity and growth, but all the measures introduced by this Government are making it harder to move, to rent and to build houses. Two thirds of London’s boroughs—in one of the most economically vibrant cities in the world—report net zero additional new homes from the start of this year. At the same time, local authorities, such as the excellent Conservative council that serves some of my constituents in Harrow, have put in a £300 million bid for shovel-ready housing projects to the Greater London Authority, funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but have received an allocation of precisely zero towards the delivery of any of those new homes that are ready to go. It is small wonder that the Secretary of State has been clear that this Government will not meet even their own housing targets.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who is no longer in her place, made reference to rough sleeping. I am glad that the Government are making that a priority, because they certainly need to do so. St Mungo’s has reported a 27% rise in street homelessness since this Government took office—something which is on them and which they must own. It is right that they need to clear up their own mess.
That description applies to the measures announced on business rates as well. Having promised hospitality and retail a new, permanently lower regime of business rates, the Government imposed massive increases, which have driven business and employment off our high streets. It is good that the Government are beginning to recognise the negative impact on our high streets that their policies have had; they should at least have the humility to recognise that it is the consequence of their own decisions. There is nobody else to blame in respect of that.
There are many headlines for the clear implications that this Budget will have. The increase in the benefits bill under this Government is bigger than the entire defence budget at a time when this country faces an incredibly uncertain world. The verdict of savers and investors of both the domestic and international markets is clear, because borrowing costs for 30-year and 10-year gilts have hit record highs. In no period in recent history has there been so little confidence in the ability of a Government to manage the finances of the country effectively. This Government talk about the impact in every postcode, but in my constituency, people from HA4 to UB9 are left with unbuilt granted planning permissions in their green belt, deteriorating and reduced public services, and a Government who are taking away the opportunities for people to make life better for themselves and their families.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Without a doubt, the greatest concern for most of my constituents is the cost of living, in particular the cost of energy. The biggest factors driving up the costs are the Ukraine war and, of course, President Trump’s ill-conceived and, frankly, stupid decision to go to war with Iran. It is just not credible to claim that in the current financial climate this Government could put right in just over two years 14 years of Tory mismanagement of the economy and the impact of those two wars. It is also worrying that we have a generation of young people who feel they will be worse off than their parents. Clearly, it is shocking that we have a million young people not in education, employment or training.
I welcome many of the measures introduced by the Chancellor in the Budget, in particular the breathing space scheme whereby households in bands A to D will get a £100 payment directly into their bank account this winter to help deal with rising energy bills. It is good that the Budget supports households with the rising cost of energy bills by extending the temporary 0% rate of VAT on electricity until 2027 and capping new levies on energy bills at 0% until 2030. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, so I welcome the fact that we are taking more businesses out of paying business rates by increasing small business rates relief thresholds for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
Likewise, I support removing eligibility for vape shops and adult gaming centres, to help our high streets to become vibrant places once more, supporting independent businesses and creating town centres where people want to live. I initiated a new town centre plan for Widnes with Halton borough council to help regenerate our town centre as the money becomes available, so I am pleased that the Government have allocated £1.24 million to renovate derelict buildings. When added to the £1.5 million Widnes Pride in Place town centre impact fund allocated last year, that can help kick-start some of the improvements we want to see in Widnes town centre, and I look forward to working with Halton council on that. I am also pleased that Knowsley council has been allocated £1.55 million, and I look forward to discussions with the council on how that will be used.
Derek Twigg
I will not, given the time.
I look forward to hearing more from the Chancellor about the fiscal devolution road map, reforming the long-term funding model for regional and local government. It has the potential over time to make a real difference to the economic performance of many of our cities and towns outside London.
We have had the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war. It is also true that we face the biggest threat since the cold war. I am pleased that the Chancellor has announced that he is fully funding the defence investment plan and has a target date of 3% of GDP by 2030, but I think we need to see the plan for reaching that target sooner rather than later. It remains my view that threats are escalating, and we need to be spending 3% before the end of this Parliament. The previous Tory Government hollowed out and grossly underfunded our armed forces, leaving them in a truly shocking state, with the smallest Army since the Napoleonic wars, every single recruitment target missed and an equipment programme that was in disarray—over budget,behind schedule or both. Now they have the cheek to try to erase their woeful record on defence. This Government are working hard to make sure that our armed forces are ready forwar, but there is more to do.
I want to turn briefly to the zero emission vehicle mandate. I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party motoring group, and I have both Jaguar Land Rover and Ford plants in my constituency. The consultation on the ZEV mandate review closed on 23 October 2026. Both Ford and JLR want Ministers to publish their response and clarify the mandate’s direction ahead of the 2027 compliance year. Early clarity will help manufacturers to plan, sustain investment and support an ambitious, deliverable transition. Ford tells me that it is committed to a truly electrified future, but the transition must reflect customer need, charging infrastructure and vehicle users’ needs. There are specific challenges for vans.
We have big challenges ahead in bringing down debt and the cost of welfare. It will take some tough decisions and challenging work, but it has to be done, and we must have a credible long-term plan. We cannot just pick an arbitrary figure out of the air to save on welfare; we need a proper, thought-out strategy that is informed by the Milburn and Timms reviews. Finally, productivity remains a real challenge in the economy. We need to deal with the lack of capital investment to make sure we have sustained growth in our economy.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the MP who represents the furthest away constituency in the British mainland, the words “growth in every postcode” interest me hugely. In preparing for my contribution today, I thought perhaps I would talk about the lack of affordable housing or efforts to promote employment opportunities for the young, but I did something last week that made me think.
As some colleagues know, my wife is disabled. That is not what I am on my feet to talk about—she is a brave lady, she puts up with it, and it is all great. I thought it would be kind to order her a fireside chair. I found one online at a very good price, reduced, called a jubilee fireside chair, in the colour mineral. It was virtually the first one that came up when I googled “fireside chair for the disabled”, so I clicked on it. There it was, and I thought, “Yes, we’ll have that.” The website said that there was free delivery—great!—and yet, when I came to look more closely at the amount of money, £50 had been added on because of my postcode. I went back to the page, and in very small print, under “Free delivery”, it says, “Perhaps not everywhere”. I can afford that, but lots of people out there cannot afford an extra 50 quid when they want to buy something for somebody they love.
In preparing yesterday, I remembered what happened last week, and I thought, “Right, let’s have a little look at the various postcodes.” I worked my way down Scotland. First, I looked at Orkney: delivery costs £50. I looked at Wick: £50. I went down and down and got as far as Perth: £50. So I went east to St Andrews: free delivery. I thought I would then look at Land’s End, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George): there is a £50 charge for delivery. Then there was a little bit of good news. I looked at the Western Isles, represented by my very good friend the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). In Stornoway, delivery is free. In Castlebay in Barra, down the bottom of the Outer Hebrides, they can get their fireside chair for the disabled in mineral colour—whatever mineral is; I think it is green—delivered for free. I do not begrudge the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar; jolly good luck to him. Out of devilment, I then put in EH99 1SP, the postcode for the Scottish Parliament, and guess what? John Swinney gets it delivered free.
My point is that we have these extra charges that we have to pay in the remotest parts of the UK, and it has been going on for years. I spoke in a debate about this issue back in December 2017, when I was first elected to this place, and yet we still have the problem today. It is an iniquitous and completely unfair extra tax on people who really cannot afford to pay it, and it is not in the spirit of fairness one little bit. I have had a good reception from Ministers in the previous Government, but at the end of the day, it was fine words, or, as we say in the highlands, tea and sympathy.
I do not expect an instant answer from the Government on this. There are so many demands for things that should be put right, but I would respectfully add these iniquitous extra charges to the list. I would be very, very happy on behalf of all the people who pay these extra charges to sit down with a relevant Minister, outline the problem in detail and help to think of how we can sort it out.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am so pleased he is back on his feet. He is making a really important point about a potential blind spot for the Government in terms of rurality. Policy Exchange produced an excellent report recently about the effect of rurality on access to healthcare in England. Does he agree that if we design services around the hardest to reach, that helps the most unequal parts of society everywhere?
Jamie Stone
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
I am not going to string this out any longer. I think I have made my point, which is that if we want growth in every postcode, including some of the remotest parts of the UK, we should tackle this issue of some people having to pay extra charges simply because of where they live, which has a knock-on effect on everything else they buy or do. I rest my case.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
This Budget contains much that people across Tooting, Balham and Earlsfield will truly welcome. In the months beforehand, people in our communities gave me clear criteria for a Budget—one that recognises the poly-crisis we are in by giving them breathing space in the cost of living crisis and easing the burdens of the cost of business too. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered that and more.
Local people have told me that they welcome the £100 household energy payment and the business rates package, which means that retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Tooting will see their business rates either frozen in real terms, reduced or cut to zero. That is over 70,000 additional high street businesses taken out of business rates altogether. This Budget rightly recognises that high streets are the heartbeat of our local communities and the foundation of our collective identity, as I have seen locally with our bustling town centres.
The Prime Minister has made good growth in every postcode the north star of his Government. He is talking about postcodes across our capital—not just SW1 but E13; not just N1 but SW17. We have a vibrant array of neighbourhoods, each with its distinctive history, character, community and unique personality. Despite everything its opponents throw at us online, that is what makes London the best city in the world. People from all around the world, from the US to Russia, are trying to divide our communities and break our cohesiveness—the thing that makes us proud to be British—and we will never, ever let them achieve that.
But we know that there is more to do, particularly on London’s failing housing market. That is why the Government are rightly taking action through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and their commitment to work with our mayor and councils to deliver more council homes. As temperatures drop, the immediate priority must be to truly end rough sleeping. When people see their fellow citizens sleeping rough, it offends their sense of a fair society. When I am doing my shifts in St George’s hospital and I see people who are homeless coming through our doors, it breaks my heart—it breaks the heart of every nurse, doctor, receptionist and healthcare worker who has to look after them. We have the most incredible homelessness inclusion team at St George’s, but it is a scourge on modern British society that people are sleeping rough. It is a public health emergency and a moral catastrophe. Tweaking will never be enough, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s commitment to double spending on ending rough sleeping to almost £900 million is a signal of this Government’s values of compassion, dignity and decency.
That is the difference a Labour Government make. Every day, the country and our capital are turning around the trajectory of industrial decline and putting fresh hope in every heart.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Two years ago when I was shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I labelled the then new Labour Government’s first Budget as the most “anti-business” Budget this country had ever had, and I said that the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), would go down in history as the “destroyer of jobs”. Some 225,000 job losses later, I am sad to say that I was right. I take no joy in saying that, because it is my constituents, and those across the country, who have paid the price. When Labour Members increased national insurance on jobs, they knew that it would increase unemployment. When they increased business rates, they knew that it would increase unemployment. When they introduced the farcically named employment Bill, they knew that it would increase unemployment. This country has paid a high price for Labour dogma.
Two years on, with a new Chancellor and a new Prime Minister, Labour Members had a golden opportunity to turn things around. But they have not. This Budget has not backed Britain, and it has not backed British business. Despite all the noise and all the promises of hope—the precise theme of today’s debate—there is very little to be positive, never mind hopeful, about in the Budget. It is just more debt, more taxes, and more unemployment. Vital decisions on welfare and defence spending have been kicked into the long grass. Dithering comes at a cost.
The Chancellor included the phrase “breathing space” in the title of this Budget and he mentioned it 13 times during his speech. That meant breathing space for the Government, not for my constituents. And speaking of my constituents, the Chancellor also said that the Budget would unlock growth “in every postcode”. Really? Not in WR9, WR11 or WR12—not in Worcestershire. There were loads of new promises, with lots of new spending and powers for cities and mayoral authorities, but sadly—as always—rural communities like mine in Worcestershire were ignored yet again. Labour could not make its disdain for rural communities any clearer.
What I found particularly grating were the constant references in the Budget statement to the supposed generosity of this Labour Government. Well, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. There were comments by the Chancellor about the “difficult decisions” that the Government are making. What a load of nonsense! Putting up taxes—dipping into other people’s pockets—is not a difficult decision. That is the easiest and lazy thing for any Government to do. The difficult thing is restraining spending and cutting taxes. When oh when is this Government going to recognise that there is no such thing as Government money? It is taxpayers’ money, and Government Members need to show the same level of respect for taxpayers’ hard-earned cash as they do when making spending decisions within their own household budget. They cannot even bother to tackle the out-of-control welfare spending, which will rise by another £19 billion this year to £353 billion—a sum almost identical to that raised by all income tax. The situation is farcical.
Defence spending has been kicked into the long grass. The Chancellor did not announce defence spending. He said that he would set a “target date” for 3% in 2030. A target date is not a policy or a commitment; it is just noise. Bizarrely, at the same time, Britain will end up with the highest tax burden in our history. It is forecast to increase to 37.9% of GDP next year, and to continue to rise until 2031-32. Labour’s answer? You guessed it: more taxes. The Budget confirmed a new tax on the tourism industry. Only the bizarre mindset of a Labour Minister could believe that the way to help an industry is by imposing more taxes on it. As has often been said, “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”
There are so many missed opportunities in the Budget. Retail, hospitality and leisure were crying out for support. As has been mentioned, we had proposals—which we would have been happy for the Labour party to copy—that would have taken 250,000 businesses out of paying business rates altogether, permanently. Labour’s solution was to take 70,000 businesses out temporarily, only giving back a fraction of what they had already taken away. This was a Budget of missed opportunities, and what alarms me most is the inability of Labour Members to recognise the damage they have already done, because that means they do not know how to get out of it. There is an alternative—a pro-business Conservative alternative—so bring on the election because we are looking forward to implementing that alternative at the earliest opportunity.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I welcome the measures in the Budget that will give my constituents some much-needed breathing space as they look ahead to the winter. The £100 payment towards energy bills, the scrapping of gas standing charges and the extension of 0% VAT on electricity bills, will all make a difference to household budgets in my constituency at this pressured time. I also welcome measures to support small businesses, such as the fantastic Elysien that I visited last week, and our brilliant local pubs and brewers such as Renegade and Double-Barrelled.
Today I wish to speak in my capacity as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and because those facing discrimination and disadvantage are often the most exposed to financial pressures, I must start by saying that measures in the Budget to support people with the cost of living are particularly welcome. I also welcome the funding to tackle misogyny announced in the Budget, and the Government’s ambition in that area. In the Committee’s inquiry into the manosphere we have heard alarming evidence about online misogyny fuelling harm, and we have been left in no doubt that if we are to meet the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, we must urgently focus our attention, and our resources, on prevention. Although £15 million over three years is a welcome start, compare that with the vast profits being generated by the platforms and industries through which misogyny and hate are amplified. We are being outmatched, and as misogyny continues to plague our society, we must rise to the challenge.
The Budget also contained some welcome measures for parents and carers. I welcome the changes to the carer’s allowance to remove the cliff edge. We cannot keep telling carers—the majority of whom are women—that we want them to participate in the workforce while maintaining a system that penalises them for trying to do so. I note that the changes will not be in force until 2030-31, and I would welcome additional commitments from the Government to support carers in the meantime.
I also welcome the paid paternity leave for self-employed fathers and other parents announced in the Budget as an important first step towards the wider parental leave reform that we need. It is regrettable, however, that that gap in the system will not be filled until 2029. The Women and Equalities Committee has been clear that we need a pathway towards six weeks of paid paternity leave, and a simpler, fairer, more gender-equal parental leave system. The 18 months of the Government’s parental leave review will soon be up, and we hope and expect to see that pathway laid out.
One of the biggest barriers to equal participation in the workforce remains access to affordable childcare, so I was a little disappointed that childcare measures were not included in the Budget this year. It is a huge achievement of this Government that we have overseen a record expansion of funded childcare—something I was proud to work on as a Minister. Too many lower-income parents are unable to access the support that they need to re-enter work or work longer hours. The Government already fund around 80% of childcare delivered in this country. We have in effect already created a new public service, and it is time that we reformed our complex system to reflect that reality, and to make universal childcare a centrepiece of the Government’s 10-year plan. These are not peripheral issues but fundamental barriers to economic growth. According to the Women’s Budget Group, women’s equal participation in the workforce could be worth £113 billion to our economy, even before we consider the enormous figures that could be unlocked by improving employment opportunities for disabled people and other groups who face barriers to work.
That brings me to my final point. If we truly want to tackle inequality, we must have a conversation in this place about the barriers that prevent people from working, from earning, and from securing a better life for themselves and their families, and that means a proper conversation about welfare reform. The current system is both fiscally unsustainable and deeply unfair to the people it traps in a cycle of inactivity, so I am looking forward to the final reports of the Milburn review and the Timms review, and to the Government’s setting out concrete proposals in this area. I am also clear that in that necessary conversation about welfare reform, we must also talk about the wider barriers to employment, support for carers, the role of parental leave and, above all, access to universal childcare.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Britain needed a much bolder Budget for growth—one for families and businesses, and to boost our economy.
For families, heating—or even cooling—our homes, getting around and feeding the family are all costs that continue to rise. The energy price cap is set to rise again in January, and 1.4 million low-income households in higher council tax bands will miss out under this Budget. However, our Lib Dem essential energy guarantee would take £100 off the average bill for everyone, paid for by clawing back excess profits made by monopoly energy operators. We would also cut rail fares by 10%, bus fares to £1 and fuel duty by 10p, paid for by the Treasury’s fuel price windfall.
For most businesses, rent, rates, energy and hiring costs are going up. At DJ’s Play Zone in my local area, Mark says that his rates bill has gone up by 52%, from £21,000 to £32,000 a year, on top of the national insurance jobs tax and rising wages. He is running a small business in a big building, so small business relief never reaches him. The Chancellor’s new £18,000 threshold changes nothing for him and many other businesses that slip under the net.
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend mentions the example of an indoor play centre where the business rates are going up. Is she concerned, as I am, that this winter those increases will simply price children out of play altogether?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. That is why we need wholesale reform, looking at how we are supporting the businesses that need it and at the broken business rates system.
Charlotte from Berkhamsted Bookshop tells me that the average independent bookshop will need to sell over 1,000 more books a year just to cover rising costs. Christopher, who runs a small martial arts academy in Tring, tells me that rising rent and service charges threaten his future, with almost no protection for small commercial tenants. Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for more to be done to help our local businesses, including replacing business rates with a commercial landowner levy and cutting VAT on hospitality by 5p.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Philippe Messy, who runs the excellent Little Wine Shop in Taunton, who was hoping to see a big move in VAT, but who has instead described the Budget as “a soufflé that did not rise—flat, flat, flat”?
Victoria Collins
I could not have put it better myself. On top of that there is the cost of hiring, as has been mentioned again and again. The Government have to tackle that for businesses.
If we truly want fresh hope for the future and for our wider economy, we need bold action. Supporting our entrepreneurs is key, and as Lib Dems who have pushed for a type of young entrepreneurs allowance for almost a decade, we are pleased to see that proposal and look forward to hearing more details. I would also push the Government to look at further work to support start-ups and scale-ups, including reviewing the seed enterprise investment scheme, tax on SEIS, tax credits and relief so that they work for businesses.
As for the founders’ relief, I ask the Government to work with the industry to ensure that it works. One founder said to me that they felt that if they stood on one leg and turned around enough times they might just about get close to getting some of it.
On incentivising innovation, the Government must take spin-outs from our world-leading universities across the UK more seriously. We are calling for the Government to quintuple proof-of-concept funding, create regional innovation centres and introduce standardised frameworks for negotiating intellectual property across the sector. As regards innovative spending, the extra £120 million for the Sovereign AI fund pales in comparison to the nearly £8 billion of active contracts with US tech giants or the billions spent on procurement. We call for a proper digital sovereign strategy to back our British businesses and to look at increasing research and development spending, so that we do not have to make decisions over Jodrell Bank, for example, and how that is impacting innovation.
Finally, we need a bold plan on Europe. We are calling for a growth and defence partnership with Europe, rejoining the single market and customs union. Not only can we cut taxes for families with that growth dividend, but inject real growth into our economy for families, businesses and our future.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Although the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is no longer in his place, I start by thanking him and colleagues in the Department for the work they are doing with me and other local MPs in securing the long-term future of Jodrell Bank. I am proud that it is in my constituency and I am grateful for the work that he is doing.
Like many colleagues, I welcome the Budget. Businesses need certainty and stability in order to invest, and I welcome the prudent and targeted decisions, particularly around the cost of living, which other hon. Members have touched on. Absorbing some costs in a moderate reduction in the fiscal headroom, as set out by the Chancellor, is sensible and creates the stability that helps to maintain, rather than undermine, business confidence.
In recent months, Britain has proved extraordinarily resilient to the shocks caused by the conflict in the middle east—a war that, as other colleagues have pointed out, was recklessly supported by Conservative and Reform Members. Despite oil prices remaining above $100 a barrel, growth has been better than expected in Britain. Because of the stability from this Government and the measures provided in this Budget and in previous Budgets, there is now renewed hope for the future. That hope should be cause for optimism and provide a check on the constant doom and gloom that we often hear—a reminder that official forecasts are not destiny, but a target to beat.
In the past year we have gone from the Leader of the Opposition saying we might need an IMF bailout, to the IMF saying that we have the best deficit reduction plan in the G7. In the past two years, we have consistently performed better than the forecasts. In March 2025, the OBR forecast 1% growth, but we grew 1.4%. In April this year, the IMF forecast 0.8% growth, but we hit 1.2% in the first half of the year alone. Even after upgrading its original forecast, it was still behind the curve. Forecasts are not destiny—optimism is warranted.
Opposition parties sometimes seem almost to want Britain to need a bail-out—to will debt to rise, growth to slow or inflation to be higher—for their own narrow partisan self-interest, and to paint the worst possible picture. But we should be talking Britain up, not down. This is a great country to live, do business and invest in. I say clearly to hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, believe in Britain or Britain will not believe in you.
I welcome the pro-growth, pro-industrialisation policies in this Budget, particularly the plans to devolve power and funding so that Macclesfield, and every town, can invest in the things that matter to it—the plans to devolve business rates and empower local communities to benefit from the growth that they work hard to generate, and the devolution of income tax powers to follow in 2028.
In Cheshire, we are very excited we are getting our first mayor in May. As Labour MPs in Cheshire, we have campaigned hard to get to this point. We want to replicate in our own area the tremendous journey that Manchester, Liverpool and other cities have had, so that we can unlock our potential. Fiscal devolution is an opportunity and a challenge: an opportunity to write our own destiny, and a challenge to say that if we invest in ourselves, back good growth projects and support innovation, industry and productivity, we can make ourselves richer without being reliant on Whitehall or the outside world. It is an opportunity that we in Cheshire and Macclesfield will seize with both hands. Breaking the link between Whitehall handouts and investment in Cheshire is a huge step towards our having more control over our future, and I support this Budget wholeheartedly.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Last Friday, I welcomed representatives from more than 40 local businesses to my business breakfast. The businesses were of different sizes and from different sectors, but they had the same clear message: the cost of doing business is too high. These are hard-working people. They want to be able to get on, do business, expand and invest in their staff, yet at every turn this Government make it harder.
Six in 10 small businesses feel that the Government are not on their side, according to a recent opinion poll. Higher employer national insurance contributions, increases in the minimum wage and soaring energy bills are squeezing margins, and we can add to that the mounting regulation and burdensome employment law introduced by this Government. Business confidence has been negative for seven consecutive months. Businesses needed a Budget that gave them confidence; instead, they were thrown a damp squib.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. This weekend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whom I respect, told us that she did not think that employers were working people. I invite her to Aldridge-Brownhills so that she can tell that to the people running our hair salons, restaurants, garages and delivery companies. Those are the people who are the first up in the morning to open up their business, leave last and often pay themselves last, after everyone else. That is the harsh reality. They do not stop being working people the moment that they give somebody else a job. That remark tells us exactly how little this Government understand the people who create jobs in our communities.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend raises the matter of extra regulation and extra tax. The people this Government are hurting and impacting on the most are young people, in terms of job opportunities. That certainly seems to be the case in my constituency. Is it the case in hers as well?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I was just about to come to the impact on young people.
Recruitment and training were also raised at my business breakfast. Local employers want to recruit, but finding people with the right skills and experience remains a challenge. Employers need a more flexible apprenticeship system that gives young people the skills and experience that local businesses are looking for. With almost 1 million young people outside education, employment or training, it is time to close the gap between the skills that employers need and the opportunities that young people can access. We need training that leads to real jobs, apprenticeships that work for employers and a welfare system that expects those who can work to do so.
Ministers need to give businesses the confidence to recruit, yet the Government’s answer is always to spend more and tax more. Their decisions will have added £75.1 billion to the tax burden by the end of this Parliament, with taxes forecast to reach their highest level on record. Families and businesses across my constituency are being asked to pay for a Government who cannot live within their means. We cannot revive our high streets by taxing businesses out of business and into closing their doors. It is time that the Treasury assesses the cumulative impact of its tax increases and this Government’s policy choices on jobs and investment, before more livelihoods and more opportunities for the next generation are lost. The Prime Minister may like writing a blank cheque, but what he really needs is a reality check from businesses such as those in my constituency.
Let me speak about a sector that is close to my heart—hospices. For families in Aldridge-Brownhills, hospices such as Acorns children’s hospice and St Giles hospice provide care, comfort and support at some of life’s most difficult moments. Their staff, volunteers and fundraisers make an extraordinary contribution, but charitable generosity cannot keep pace with rising costs indefinitely. As Hospice UK has made clear, this Budget failed to address the funding crisis, even as hospices are cutting frontline services.
There is a crucial distinction between funding buildings and funding care. Capital investment is absolutely welcome, but a refurbished room cannot care for a child; we need the specialist nurses to staff it. When the NHS commissions care from a hospice, its contracts should reflect the cost of providing that care. Hospices need fair funding in all postcodes so they can retain staff and plan services with confidence.
This Budget falls short. It may buy the Chancellor some breathing space, but it offers precious little to my constituents and local businesses. It ducks the difficult decisions, leaves the ballooning welfare bill unchecked and pushes today’s problems further down the road, leaving the country less prepared for tomorrow. Just yesterday, there was a U-turn on indefinite leave to remain, which will only increase the welfare bill. Was that costed in the Budget? I really would like to know.
We have a Government who are more concerned with keeping their Back Benchers happy than with taking the tough decisions that this country needs. The Chancellor may have bought himself time, but it is my constituents who will pay the price.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this Budget debate. I very much welcome the breathing space that this Budget provides for families across Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare. I welcome the additional £450 million spending power delivered to the Welsh Government as a direct result of this Budget, which they will hopefully use to support public services across Wales. That builds on at least £6.5 billion of total additional spending power that has already been delivered to the Welsh Government over this spending review period as a result of decisions taken by this UK Labour Government.
I am also pleased that this Labour Government are backing economic growth in Wales, delivering on our commitment on rail with £30 million to drive forward new stations in Wales, subject to the Plaid Cymru Government confirming that they will match our ambition. The Government are giving families in Wales breathing space through help with the things that matter most: energy costs, fuel, food prices, pensions and wages. Thanks to decisions taken by this Government, around 1 million households in Wales in council tax bands A to D will receive a £100 payment towards utilities. I am also pleased that tariffs have been removed on over 100 food products, helping with the weekly shop. Many of these are small things, but added together, they make a big difference to families across my constituency and across the country. Wales’s patron saint, St David, is famous for asking people to “do the little things”. The context is slightly different, but the principle is the same: taken together, little things can make a big difference.
I also want to highlight the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I declare an interest, in that my brother is a former miner and many of my extended family have also worked in the coal industry. I will focus on the last remaining call, which is to transfer the guarantor’s fund. Many ex-miners were the lifeblood of the community in my part of Wales, not only building our communities but building and powering our country. Many sacrificed their life, and many more sacrificed their health—that was the real price of coal. We owe them a debt. The Labour party has made huge progress on the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme since coming into government. We are the only party to take meaningful steps to put this right.
In the 2024 Budget, the mineworkers’ pension scheme’s £1.5 billion investment reserve was transferred to its 110,000 members, resulting in a 32% pension bonus—around £29 a week. In the 2025 Budget, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme went through the same process, with its £2.3 billion investment reserve transferred to its 40,000 members. That resulted in a 41% pension bonus, or around £100 a week. I am pleased that in this Budget, the Chancellor announced that every penny of the surplus from the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme will remain with those schemes and their members, rather than being divided with the Government.
Crucially, the Chancellor also said that this is unfinished business, and committed to ensuring that the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund will follow. That will finally right this injustice, which miners have faced for too long. However, we need that final piece to be delivered sooner rather than later, for the sake of the many ex-miners who are elderly and the many who are in poor health. Many die every month. I recognise the urgency of this matter, and I pledge that I will continue to work with my colleagues. I say to former miners across my constituency: I will continue fighting for you until you get the justice you have been waiting so long for.
Finally, although I welcome the freeze in fuel duty, I must again raise the scandal of local fuel prices. Fuel prices have remained stubbornly higher than in other areas, particularly in the Merthyr Tydfil part of my constituency. I have noted lower fuel prices in central London than in Merthyr Tydfil; even the Asda store in Merthyr Tydfil was charging around 10p per litre more than in any of its other local stores. When I met representatives of Asda earlier this year, they recognised this, and reduced their prices by 5p per litre within a few days, but the remaining retailers did not follow suit. While the war in Iran has made matters a whole lot worse, the impact in Merthyr Tydfil is worse than in many other local communities.
Although I recognise that the Government cannot force retailers to lower their prices, I have contacted the Competition and Markets Authority to ask for its help in highlighting the unfairness of fuel prices in my community and their impact on my constituents, who feel that they are being unfairly ripped off at the fuel pumps. Building on this Budget, I ask the CMA to come to the table and see what it can do to help my constituents.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Government have labelled today’s debate “fresh hope for the future”, but I regret that the Budget failed to meet the hopes of my constituents. My constituency contains a number of leading spin-out, innovation and engineering companies, from Oxford Ionics to Zero fuels and from the Jaguar and McLaren Formula E teams to Siemens Healthineers. They want to put the area on the map as one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in the country, yet too many face one major constraint: energy. The queue for grid connections faced by many new businesses and developments in my constituency goes far into the 2030s.
Many households in the area are also used to power outages. The Cooper school in Bicester recently had to close for a day because of a lack of power. North West Bicester, a site for 6,000 homes, was delayed by more than two years purely because of a lack of grid connectivity. We now have two proposed mega data centres. Exeter college proposes a new centre south of Kidlington, while a large centre south-east of Bicester will require electricity equivalent to that needed for 1.4 million homes. That is a huge amount for an area already facing energy scarcity. My constituents are worried that the Chancellor’s commitment to pushing data centres to the front of the queue will overload local networks or delay connections for essential new services. The Government must commit to publishing an assessment of capacity before allowing data centres to jump the queue.
I agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor that we need to give more power back to the people and to end the UK’s excessive centralisation in London. In principle, I support the creation of a Thames valley mayor and regional devolution, but devolution must give local communities a stronger voice when it comes to the cumulative impact of development in our areas. New housing, data centres and major infrastructure projects cannot be considered in isolation. They make demands on the same roads, public services and electricity networks, and residents experience the combined impact. The pressure on roads, GP surgeries, schools and utilities must therefore be assessed across the whole area.
Buried in the Budget document is another announcement of real interest to my constituents. There is £150 million of additional funds to support large asylum centres, such as that proposed for site A of MOD Bicester. My constituents and I oppose this scheme for many reasons, but in this Budget debate I will limit myself to the eye-watering costs of converting this derelict storage depot, which has never had accommodation for people, into a village for 1,256 asylum seekers. The best estimate is some £280 million in capital costs and £80 million in annual operating costs, which sums to more than £1 billion over 10 years. That raises serious questions about how far the additional £150 million will stretch. I urge the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and their officials to take a close look at Home Office spending. I fear that they will find once again that the asylum programme is out of control. They will certainly find that building new accommodation at MOD Bicester is a bad deal for the taxpayer.
Turning to hospitality, pubs, cafés and restaurants are key to the health of the high streets of Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock. In the rural villages of my constituency, the local pub, alongside the church and the primary school, is the key local institution. Too many such businesses, including the much-loved Fat Zebra café in Bicester’s Market Square, have been forced to close. Too many others tell me that they are facing mounting and unrelenting cost rises. The changes on business rates relief are welcome, but businesses tell me that they may not be enough to keep them afloat. I urge the Treasury to look again at the Liberal Democrat proposal to cut VAT for hospitality businesses.
This Budget was a missed opportunity for my constituents. It failed to assure them that infrastructure would come first, before major developments. It backed a failing Home Office programme for large asylum centres. It failed to deliver a stronger local voice, despite promises of devolution, and it failed to support the pubs, cafés and restaurants at the heart of our communities. I urge the Government to give my constituents more hope in the future.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is lovely to be back speaking in the Chamber in a debate on a welcome Budget for the life sciences. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on my pharmacy hat and geek out a bit about the life sciences announcements in this Budget. We have more than £1 billion of private investment in the sector, backed by nearly £70 million of Government funding, supporting 1,000 jobs. We have £500 million in a new research hub in Manchester for Convatec, which makes stoma care products. We have £300 million in a research facility in Oxfordshire for Vertex. We have £200 million in Loughborough for manufacturing respiratory medicines, including the new generation of inhalers. Closer to home, just yesterday Ministers announced £21 million for the west midlands clinical commercial catalyst, with Coventry University among the partners. That is investment in British research, in manufacturing, and in skilled people who work in both sectors.
I also welcome the Chancellor’s decision to remove VAT on orphan drugs—rare disease treatments—providing direct care for compassionate use and early access schemes. That will make it easier for people to access new treatments and continue their care. However, access is not only about the newest treatments; it is also about people’s ability to get the medicines on which they already depend. We heard recently that Europe’s last fully integrated medicine factory, in Austria, is considering closing down, due to Chinese competition. That should make us think carefully about where our medicines come from, because in Britain we rely heavily on medicines and active ingredients from India and China. With tariffs returning and global supply chains becoming increasingly uncertain, we cannot afford to depend on a handful of countries or factories for medicines that patients simply cannot afford.
We have seen supply problems with Creon, the pancreatic enzyme treatment used by people with cystic fibrosis and pancreatic cancer; with particular formulations of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and phenobarbital, medicines used to treat epilepsy; and with ramipril, a common drug used by millions of people to treat high blood pressure and heart conditions. As any pharmacist knows, missed treatments can have an impact on health, and can mean that a condition being managed at home ends in an emergency admission. That is worse for patients, and it costs the NHS more.
Although I applaud the work that the DWP is doing to help more people with health conditions into work—and I look forward to the Milburn review—if someone with epilepsy cannot reliably get their anti-seizure medication, how can we expect them to work, let alone to be productive? If someone cannot get the medicine they use to keep a heart condition stable, and as a result they become too unwell to work, how can we talk about improving Britain’s productivity? Ensuring that people can manage their health conditions, stay in work and contribute to our economy must be part of that conversation as well.
I welcome the Government’s £520 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund and the Chancellor’s additional £20.4 billion of financial capacity for the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank. The Government have made a strong start in attracting investment, but we also need to be strategic and proactive about where that investment goes. I therefore ask Treasury Ministers, Health Ministers and Business Ministers to work together to establish which essential medicines and ingredients are more critical, where our supply chains are most vulnerable, and where manufacturing in Britain can make the biggest difference. Let us then use some of that finance to attract private investment and build up our manufacturing capacity before the next shortage becomes a crisis. We have excellent scientists and researchers; let us make sure that we have the capacity to make and reliably supply the medicines on which patients depend.
Finally, I want to say a little about what the Budget means for my constituents. More than 40,000 local people are set to benefit from the £100 payment towards their energy bills this winter, and that help is very welcome. For those working in our shops, pubs and care homes, the increase in the national living wage to £13.21 next April will mean more money in their pockets. I particularly welcome the additional business rate relief for our high streets, supporting the independent shops, cafés and pubs that are so important to our communities, along with the removal of the relief from vape shops. Our high streets are about more than shopping; they are places where neighbours meet, where local people make a living, and where we take pride in our communities.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Some have dubbed this a “steady as she goes” Budget. That has been interpreted differently by those on different sides of the debate: some have taken it as praise while others have taken it as a criticism. You might be surprised to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I fall on the side of that being a criticism. That is because I hold the really controversial view that avoiding market turmoil is a minimum requirement for a Budget; it is necessary but not sufficient, especially given the challenges we face in this country.
I accept that we face constraints, given the war in Iran and everything that is doing to the country’s finances, inflation, energy prices and so on, but we have more challenges to face up to. This Government actually recognise those challenges. They have commissioned reports on welfare reform, but they have pushed it to the other side of the Budget. They have a Chancellor who recognises that we need a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but those decisions, too, have been pushed further down the track. They understand that growth has been appalling in this country for a long time, yet they have not revealed what their plan for growth will be. These are all known issues that are unaddressed in this Budget, and I think that is a massive missed opportunity.
That is not for want of measures in this Budget. There are a record-breaking 98 measures in the Budget, but they add up to the lowest total value we have seen for a very long time. Let us get into some of those. The Government have praised themselves for their £100 energy support package, and who can be churlish about £100 in times like these? But the truth is that the scheme is insufficient and poorly targeted. The tragedy is that we had an energy crisis in 2022, when we had to deliver huge sums of money, almost universally. Everybody said, “We cannot let this happen again; we must have a much more targeted scheme in future.” Four years on, what is the system we have? We are relying on the valuations of properties from 1991 to target our support. What a failure of Government. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of low-income households are now set to miss out on support, and those most in need of support will not get enough.
Looking at all the “breathing space” measures combined, those in the very poorest deciles will get, on average, just £15 more than all the others. This Government could have done far more to deliver on breathing space. For instance, they could have looked to the Liberal Democrat proposal for an essential energy guarantee, which would be more targeted and would provide more support at the right income levels. This has been a real failure of Government.
A second measure for which the Government have been praising themselves is the bank tax and the contributions that they have got that sector to make. We called for a bank tax and so we broadly welcome it, but why did they not go further? The banking industry expected this measure to be permanent and expected it to be set at 8%, and bank shares went up when we found out that that was not what the Government were going to do. In the Treasury Committee this morning, we heard from people in the banking sector, who said that they did not believe the tax would affect competitiveness and that they would be unlikely to pass on the costs to the consumer. Basically, the banks have been getting £1 billion a week this year because mortgage rates and interest rates are so high. They could have been squeezed some more, and this Government failed to do it.
On living standards, this morning the Resolution Foundation described the situation as “catastrophic”. The 2010s was the worst decade on record, with 14% growth in real household disposable income. For the 2020s, the OBR’s growth forecast is 1.4%. This is a tragedy for every working family in Britain, and that is before we get on to the cost of doing business or the spending pressures that are pencilled in for down the track. Courtrooms, classrooms and councils are all set for real-terms cuts under this Government—it is all in black and white. That is their proposal to come.
All of this can be solved in only one way: via growth. I said at the beginning of my speech that there is a lack of a growth plan, but there is one waiting on the table for the Government. We would like the Prime Minister to stop having an open, frank conversation with himself on Europe, and to actually start putting forward some concrete proposals such as rejoining the single market. That is the quickest single measure to boost growth in this country, and we should get on with it.
This Budget has deferred decisions on welfare, defence, Europe, public services and growth. The Prime Minister came into office promising to end 40 years of neoliberalism, but it will surely make its 41st birthday. It has been a missed opportunity that the Government will come to regret. Budgets do not come around very often—just ask any of the six Chancellors in the last six years. Political capital is a depreciating asset—it is best to spend it early, and the Government have utterly failed to do so.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The theme of today’s Budget debate is “fresh hope for the future”, so I would like to take the opportunity to review the pledges that I made to my constituents at the general election, how this Budget helps to deliver on them and, given that the Government have said we are at the start of the process, my fresh hopes for the future. But since Opposition Members are so interested in getting into a conversation, I will deal with them first.
Last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a Budget that is the best-received Labour Budget in 23 years. That has been indicated very clearly, because the public and the markets have accepted it as a fantastic development. You can hear the disappointment from Opposition Members. You can hear that they are desperate for their attack lines, which are not getting through, in order to get public attention back on them, but what have we actually heard? From the Opposition Front Bench we heard about £30 billion of unfunded tax cuts. That is what the Conservatives’ plan is so far. On their own figures, the figure is £30 billion so far, but that is exactly what happened with the Liz Truss mini-Budget. They have learned no lessons from exactly that economic situation in what they put to us today.
I promised my constituents that we would have a thriving local economy and support for the town centre, and Crawley’s economy is thriving. Anyone looking at it would have to accept that. Our major employers in the area are expanding. Developments such as the Government-funded Crawley Innovation Centre are bringing forward the new generation of technologies that will generate further economic growth in this country. Business rate changes are making it easier for properties on the high street. Many of the reforms set out in the Budget are going to make things considerably easier for people. High street rental auctions will enable us to tackle people who own property but, for their own financial reasons, are not putting people in. My hope for the future is that we can get further rate reform, and start addressing the unfair practices in the delivery industry that are allowing that sector and online retailers to kill off many of our high street businesses.
My second pledge is to have housing that delivers for local people. We have the first-time buyer scheme—“Your First Home”—and first-time buyer ISAs. We have planning reforms coming through. We have £432 million for ending rough sleeping. We have over £40 billion for the biggest investment in affordable housing in a generation. We have new towns, and greater rights for private tenants through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We are delivering for people on housing. My hope for the future is more funding for affordable housing, moving away from the current financial structures, direct delivery from the Government, an end to hope value and housing revenue account reform.
I have said that I want a better future for Crawley’s children, and what do we have? We have paid maternity leave so that fathers can spend the first critical weeks with their children, and more fathers can set the tone for their relationship to develop. We have the expansion of 30 hours of free childcare and SEND reform coming forward. We have the return of Sure Start—I do not know why it has new branding—in our communities. We have an end to the two-child poverty trap, which Opposition Members begged us not to remove. We have the expansion of free school meals, and the fastest reduction in poverty of any first-term Government in this country’s history. My hope for the future is that we continue to work towards ending child poverty, with action on those not in employment, education or training, ensuring every SEND child gets the support they need and creating real social mobility.
I pledged real action on crime and antisocial behaviour, and we have the neighbourhood policing guarantee, an end to the £200 threshold for shoplifting, and new offences, including respect orders to ban repeat offenders from public places. We have preventive departmental spending, so we can really put in place the action necessary to protect our communities. My hope for the future is that we take the gloves off the police, bring in judicial reform to make it easier to send criminals to jail, make better use of automated technology and make greater use of on-the-spot penalties.
Lastly, on a better resourced NHS that is there when people need it, we have the NHS 10-year plan and national plans for diseases such as cancer, rapid action on waiting lists, new capital investment, a huge expansion of diagnostic equipment and record investment in our national health service. My hope for the future is that the service focuses on keeping people well, rather than addressing their needs only when they are sick, and that we move services back into every postcode, where possible.
There should be no limits on the aspiration of this Government or those of our constituents for our country. We should look at the progress that has already been made on the ills that affect our society. This Budget is taking us another step closer to the future that we all seek, and I look forward to many more Budgets from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This Budget might be described as the “John Lennon Budget”—it expects us to imagine a better future. Actually, the Chancellor’s performance was more like a better Lennon lyric:
“Life is what happens to you
While you’re busy making other plans”,
because this Budget was long on platitudinous plans and short on decisive delivery. Leaving aside the self-evident exponential crisis of welfare spending—I say self-evident, but perhaps I should explain that benefits are due to hit £431 billion—there are three macroeconomic weaknesses in the Budget, which I will seek briefly to highlight.
The Prime Minister may say that he has to wait for the Milburn and Timms reviews, but while he is doing so and those plans are being hatched, 13.5% of all young people in the UK were not in education, employment or training in January to March this year. One million people aged 16 to 24 are without a job, training or education. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), this is a waste of talent on a scale that is a national scandal. The Budget represented a wasted opportunity to address those issues and, in particular, to build the skills that might enable those people to gain a necessary job. The failure to address that may become the defining characteristic of this Administration.
These are not new problems. I was the Skills Minister, as some people in the Chamber will know. I was well aware of the root causes of NEETs and how we might address them. We managed to reduce the number that we inherited in 2010 by almost 300,000 by 2015, and I was also able also to build up the number of apprenticeships to the greatest number in modern times: over 500,000. Since then, that number has dwindled. It is only by equipping people with skills that have economic value—skills that allow them to the best they can be—that we can also sustain an economy which is desperate for those skills.
What successive Governments have done instead is to import labour. Every time we import labour and every time we make it easier to do so, we displace the investment in our own workforce, both in the young people I described and in the existing workers who need to be reskilled or upskilled. The myth was perpetuated, largely by the Treasury—
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am always happy to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he share my disappointment and dismay with this fact—that, for every young Brit who is hired today, 27 young foreign workers are hired? Young people are being locked out of the labour market because of mass immigration.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Young people are being forced to compete with those foreign workers for a scarce number of jobs. The only people who support that policy are dim-witted bourgeoise liberals and hard-hearted plutocrats, because both of them glory in the idea of foreign labour. That foreign labour is edging Britons out of jobs and, by so doing, weakening our economy.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman surely has not missed the evidence that, since his party’s botched Brexit deal, it has become more expensive to do business in the UK, businesses are wrapped up in red tape, and many businesses have moved abroad, taking good, high-quality jobs with them. We have a NEETs crisis in this country, caused by many different factors. One of the reasons that there are graduates who cannot get jobs is because his party’s ridiculous Brexit deal has driven businesses abroad. If we get back into the single market and make doing business cheaper, those businesses will come back here and create jobs for British young people.
Sir John Hayes
I was going to address the issue of trade later, but the hon. Lady has encouraged me to do so now. The truth is that the balance of payments has been a neglected subject in this Parliament and for successive Governments for decades. We never sold as much to Europe as Europe sold to us, and that balance was out of kilter for the whole time that we were members of the European Union.
Sir John Hayes
No, I will not give way again, because there is only so much you can teach the Liberal Democrats!
The balance of trade figures was once a pivotal announcement in Parliament and for Governments. That has been forgotten as we have chosen to import more and more goods into this country, and to make fewer and fewer. The hon. Lady will recognise that, given that I represent a rural constituency that grows a lot of the food we consume, I am particularly sensitive to the fact that we have made ourselves dependent on foreign food imports. That is preposterous. We need to shorten supply chains and make ourselves more economically resilient. As the Prime Minister said, actually—
Sir John Hayes
I was about to make a point, but I will then give way once more to see whether I can teach the hon. Lady something more. As the Prime Minister said, we must remanufacture—we must build our manufacturing capacity again. Successive Governments have failed to do this. I do not claim any credit for any political party, and I certainly claim no credit for the Liberal Democrats.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely contradicting himself. He has simultaneously said that we need to shorten supply chains to improve our food security while defending the very trade barriers that prevent British importers and exporters from getting food to each other on a shorter supply chain. It was the right hon. Gentleman’s party that agreed the terrible trade deals with New Zealand and Australia that have put up food prices and undermined British farmers. Would he like to apologise for that? After 10 years, we are still teaching the Conservatives how damaging their trade deals were.
Sir John Hayes
I mentioned my record on apprenticeships. I was in the coalition Government when I was able to bring about that outcome, with the full support of Liberal Democrat Ministers. It was Vince Cable, actually, as Secretary of State, who understood the need to build skills and train domestic workers so that we were not dependent, in the way that I described, on European goods or goods from anywhere else in the world. We just need to make more of what we consume. It is not hard to work out.
I said that I would deal with one or two other things, and time is pressing. Productivity is a macroeconomic problem that has faced all Governments. Declining productivity over time means that we spend a great deal of money on things from which we do not get a great deal of outcome. Our productivity is worse than some of our key competitors. The Government need to focus on that; the previous Prime Minister and his Ministers said that they would, but there was little about that in the Budget.
To summarise, I think it was Disraeli who said, “Men are not the victim of circumstances; they create circumstances.” It is not enough to blame context for the failure to address the macroeconomic problems of skills, productivity and immigration. More must be done, and done soon.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
This past weekend, out on the doorstep speaking to constituents in Clwyd North, I was reminded once again that the issues that people care about most are often very different from the arguments that dominate social media. Away from the toxicity and division that can sometimes fill our feeds, people were not so interested in political point scoring. Instead, they wanted to talk about the practical challenges they face every day: paying their bills, accessing healthcare, supporting their families and making their money go a little further.
The message I heard time and again was that people can see that this Budget is responding to those everyday pressures, despite global challenges. They welcome measures that will help with the cost of living, whether that is support with rising bills or action to bring down the cost of everyday items in their shopping baskets. These may be small changes in isolation, but when people are balancing a household budget every month, small savings can make a big difference.
They welcome the £100 payment towards energy bills and the extension of the 0% VAT rate on electricity bills. They welcome the removal of the gas standing charge, too. This change, which has long been called for, will mean that households pay only for the gas they actually use; for too long, households have paid unavoidable fixed costs regardless of how much energy they use. This is a welcome step, but I want to see real progress on electricity standing charges, too. Many families in north Wales are rightly frustrated that they pay some of the highest standing charges in the country—paying before they have even switched on a light. We have heard the Chancellor make it clear that removing the standing charge for electricity is the next area of focus, and I will be pressing for that commitment to be delivered so that my north Wales constituents have a fair deal.
Of course, I heard local people talk about public services. I heard concerns about waiting lists, access to healthcare, and support for additional learning needs in our schools. No one pretends that money alone will solve those challenges, but extra investment will give us a far better chance of tackling them. I therefore welcome the extra £450 million of additional funding coming to Wales, which builds on the largest funding settlement since devolution, delivered in the spending review by this Labour Government. My constituents want to see shorter waiting lists, better support for children and stronger public services. They want to see funding translated into results. It will be up to the minority Plaid Cymru Government in Wales to make that happen by getting on with the day job, with fewer consultations and more action.
Finally, one thing that genuinely encouraged me on the doorstep was a sense that people were starting to see politics as more connected to their everyday lives. There was support for our new Prime Minister, with one constituent saying, “I could imagine the Prime Minister standing on my doorstep having this very conversation.” That comment stayed with me, because it was not just about the Prime Minister; it was about feeling heard. People want politicians who speak their language, who understand the pressures facing them and who are focused on the issues that matter to them most.
This Budget responds to many of the concerns that people have raised with me in person, while providing welcome additional investment and opportunity for Wales. I will continue working to ensure that the people of Clwyd North see the full benefit of that investment.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Last Wednesday my constituents in Eastleigh looked to the Chancellor for real help with the cost of living. While some of the measures that he announced are welcome, I am afraid that this Budget lacks ambition, and is short term and poorly targeted. According to the Resolution Foundation, the one-off household energy payment based on council tax band rather than need means that 1.4 million low-income households in higher bands will miss out, while the scrapping of gas standing charges will save the typical household just £1.83 a month. The cuts to VAT on electricity and fuel duty both end next July, long before the OBR expects pressure on family budgets to ease.
For constituents like Susan, a widow who lives in a park home in Fair Oak, the Budget offered very little. She is off the main gas grid and has no choice but to heat her home with liquid petroleum gas, which is far more expensive and is not protected by the energy price cap. Her £100 payment will barely touch the sides, and scrapping standing charges does nothing for her. Will the Minister set out what support the Government will provide for off-grid households like Susan’s, who rely on liquid petroleum gas and are not protected by the energy price cap?
The Chancellor’s decision to raise the threshold for small business rates relief from £12,000 to £18,000 is welcome. However, the policy does not live up to the headline, benefiting only a limited number of businesses in Eastleigh. On Thursday, I hosted a post-Budget business breakfast in my constituency. Lucy, who runs Telmar CNC, a precision engineering firm in Chandler’s Ford, told me that her rates bill has doubled in six years, and manufacturers like her business got nothing. Jane runs Elite Hair Salon, which, as a microbusiness, is too small for the changes to make any difference. She told me,
“Overall, this Budget has done little to support my business or many others within the hair and beauty sector.”
I welcome the extra small producer relief. However, raising alcohol duty yet again in February will hit the very pubs and drinkers that small brewers depend on, and that is why we oppose it.
We are approaching Remembrance Sunday; and, in the current climate, ensuring that our armed forces are properly equipped is more urgent than ever. In Eastleigh, Stuart, who runs GW Martin & Co, has welcomed the Government’s commitment to small firms in the defence investment plan, but he told me,
“We would like to see greater urgency in funding this necessary investment as we have capacity and capability to respond quickly, which will create jobs, growth and revenue.”
Instead, the plan to reach 3% of GDP on defence has been pushed back to next year’s spending review.
James, who owns JLMS—an apprenticeship provider—told me,
“This was not a Budget for youth employment.”
The payment for taking on an apprentice has not gone up in five years, while the cost of employing and training a young person keeps rising. The Chancellor had a choice. He could have reversed the increase to employer national insurance contributions, which has sent job vacancies to a five-year low. Instead, he told young people to wait for another review.
On plan 2 student loans, this Budget was again silent. It was an opportunity to reverse last autumn’s deeply unfair decision to freeze the repayment threshold from April 2027 for three years. With the minimum wage rising and the threshold frozen, we are approaching the point where a graduate on the minimum wage could have to start repaying. I urge the Treasury to scrap the freeze and link the threshold to average earnings.
I am pleased that the Chancellor has finally listened to Lib Dem calls to scrap the carer’s allowance cliff edge. That is a welcome first step, but it will not come into force until 2030, and carers trying to balance work with looking after a loved one need this safety net now, not in four years. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward its introduction so that carers do not have to wait until 2030?
Eastleigh needed a Budget with real ambition, but this one falls short. I urge the Chancellor to go further.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am glad to support this excellent Budget. I welcome and agree with the Chancellor’s praise for his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), whose commitment to secure economic foundations has helped to fund sustained public investment and deliver growth. It has helped the Chancellor rightly to offer breathing space now and fresh hope for the future.
I will focus on the latter, but, on breathing space, the Budget delivered, with 41,760 households in my constituency receiving the £100 household energy payment. As someone whose professional career was in the private sector, I was particularly delighted to see the two-year business rate freeze, which will benefit 336 local retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Rugby, Bulkington and the villages.
There was much in the Budget, too, on fresh hope for the future. The words of the Prime Minister are important in this context. In his Labour conference speech, he said:
“Hope comes from honesty…It comes from saying the things politicians usually avoid.”
It is what I call hard-headed hope. We need what I call the responsibility revolution: a focus on what each of us as individuals or organisations should contribute—or indeed sacrifice—rather than on what entitlements we are to receive. We older folk have a responsibility to the next generation, so my speech will focus primarily on the physical embodiment of fresh hope for the future: our young people. There can be no more important long-term issue than their interests.
In addressing a long-term challenge for those at the opposite end of the age spectrum, the Prime Minister set out in his Labour conference speech how the Government will adjust the pension triple lock, which is a bold and much-needed move. He also said that
“we will need to show the same boldness for our young people, too.”
The Budget did that in several ways. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcements of the Your First Home equity loan scheme and the first-time buyer ISA. That young people are priced out of affordable housing is a national scandal.
Thousands of people in my constituency will also appreciate the much-needed 3.9% increase in the national living and minimum wage. The young entrepreneurs allowance is a vital pro-young people, pro-entrepreneurship measure. Let us encourage young people across the country to consider entrepreneurship as a viable career option.
However, we need to go much further to provide hope for the future. We need to keep going until we can truly say that our young people are equipped sufficiently to be the architects of the future rather than tenants in a world designed by the older generation and all too often shaped by their interests. I would like to see the appointment of a Minister for younger and future generations sitting in Cabinet to scrutinise existing and future policy and legislation through the lens of how it benefits the next generation. We also need an independent body to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, so how about an office for intergenerational fairness?
Last year, I coined the phrase “youth triple lock” because I wanted to focus attention on young people’s needs and the need for some rebalancing. I suggest an above-inflation increase in the student maintenance loan. The Prime Minister hinted at that in a social media post with the Chancellor when he said that student loans are
“one to come back to.”
I also suggest free bus passes and something on housing, which, as I stated earlier, was covered extensively by the Chancellor’s excellent Budget.
There remains a risk that the social contract with our young people is fraying, so let us show that our Labour Government are not slowing down but accelerating our efforts to empower young people. Our role is not just doing what will make us popular with a plurality of mainly older voters; we need to rebalance things, because investing more in our young people is in the best interests of our economy as they are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the workers, the business owners, the public servants and much more of tomorrow. We must unleash their potential. More importantly, it is the moral thing to do; it is the fair thing to do; it is the Labour thing to do.
I commend the Budget for all its measures, and in particular those regarding young people. As ever, measures to empower young people are a down payment on the future and, as with all healthy investments, regular, judicious and generous investment pays dividends in the long run. I hope that the 10-year plan will be another opportunity to demonstrate that to the younger generation.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Given the time constraints, I will keep my remarks as short as possible. Although there are things that are welcome in this Budget , such as business rate relief and energy cost relief, it does not meet the challenges my constituents in Yeovil are facing, let alone pave the way for the biggest change in a generation that this Government keep saying they are going to deliver.
For a start, rural communities have been completely overlooked again. The £100 off most people’s energy costs is great, but it is not means-tested, and is matched to a broken council tax system. For us in rural Somerset, the biggest issue is the price of heating oil, which has doubled in the last year. What we needed was an urgent price cap— I have spoken to residents who have said they are not heating their homes because they cannot afford heating oil. That is unfair, and the Government need to provide real help.
There was nothing in the Budget for farmers, the backbone of our rural economy. That adds insult to injury, given Labour has increased taxes on farmers, while cutting the farming budget in England by a further £100 million and locking farmers out of funding by running applications for the sustainable farming incentive as if they were selling Glastonbury tickets—believe me, I know how hard they are to get. That is not just bad for Somerset’s economy; it threatens our food security at exactly the time we need to be strengthening it. That is why we Liberal Democrats have called for the farming budget to be increased by £1 billion a year.
More broadly, by missing many of the big-picture challenges, the Budget has failed my Yeovil constituency.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for rural communities on heating oil, farming and other issues, but may I add the failure of this Government to extend the rural fuel duty scheme? My rural North Cornwall constituency does not have buses running to hospitals, educational opportunities and jobs. Does he agree that the Government missed an opportunity to extend that scheme to help our rural constituents?
Adam Dance
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the biggest issues we have in Somerset is that even if there is a bus, sometimes it is so delayed, it is four hours late and students cannot get to college.
The can has been kicked down the road to the spending review next year as to how the Government plan to meet their NATO commitment of spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Yet again, that leaves many of the cutting-edge defence firms that are the beating heart of Yeovil’s economy in uncertain times. Similarly, there was nothing in the Chancellor’s speech on education, when 70% of schools across England have had less funding in real terms than in 2010 and we have a growing SEND funding black hole. Investment in education is an investment in the future of this country and a sure-fire way to drive growth, so it is disappointing to see that funding solutions to this issue have also been kicked down the road.
One of the biggest issues impacting growth is how we do taxation. Business relief is great, but I do not know how many more of us have to call it “the broken business rates system” before the message gets through. So many businesses have contacted me since the Budget saying, “It is great, you have helped some, but you have not helped us. We are at the point of closing our doors.” Business rates need abolishing and replacing with a commercial landowner levy.
That is not all, however. Council tax is one of the biggest challenges raised by Yeovil constituents, because the system is out of date and we need bold Government action to change that. Unfortunately, the Government have decided not to rise to those challenges in this Budget and the people of Yeovil will continue to suffer the consequences of this Government’s inaction.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the final day of the Budget debate. It is a Budget that this Government can be proud of, a Labour Budget, a Budget that will deliver fresh hope for the future, and a Budget that will put £100 back into the pockets of 44,430 households in Dagenham and Rainham. Though the council tax rebate of £100 to help with energy bills might not sound like much, with the energy bills breathing space scheme, coupled with the Government’s other measures, such as no VAT on electricity till July ’27, the abolishing of standing charges on gas bills and capping new levies on energy bills at 0% until 2030, we are taking action to reduce household energy debt in every postcode. With such a focus on making utilities affordable, I cannot help but feel hopeful that the failing water companies who extort us for resources will one day be brought back into public ownership, finally ending the race to the bottom that Thatcherism started, where profit margins and shareholder bonuses are put above quality of service and the people that rely on it.
Speaking of services and the fresh hope that last week’s Budget set out, I wholeheartedly welcome the move to finally open up Stratford International, providing Eurostar access in east London. I have no doubt that this investment will provide a much-needed boost to the local economies in some of the most deprived areas of the capital. While that gives my constituents easier access to Europe, those living at Beam Park in the south of my constituency are still waiting for the train to Fenchurch Street. In fact, those residents are still waiting for the train station, which was promised to new homeowners and renters by the last Conservative Government, only for the plug to be pulled and promises to be broken. My helpful suggestion is that perhaps we should ask the last Government to own that decision. Despite the absence of an announcement that would deliver for Beam Park, I remain tenacious in my pursuit of the vital infrastructure that my constituents in Dagenham and Rainham were promised, and I very much hope, given the renewed focus on transport in London, that the £13.9 million shortfall to deliver this station can be found.
While my campaign for Beam Park station continues, my campaign to deliver a new and expanded emergency department for the Queen’s hospital in Romford, which serves my constituents, has been won, thanks to this Labour Government. We campaigned for £35 million and this Labour Government, ahead of their landmark Budget, awarded the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust £42 million to redesign the accident and emergency unit at Queen’s hospital. The party that built the NHS is now ending corridor care and delivering an NHS that is fit for the future.
On the subject of health, it would be remiss of me not to mention environmental health, not least because of the Rainham volcano, a burning historic landfill that blights the health of the community in part of my constituency. Given the sheer scale of historic landfills in the country, I was disappointed not to see reinvestment in the Environment Agency to help these problems, but I am hopeful that, as the Government transform Britain, I can continue ticking off my pledges from 2024. If any Ministers are listening, I have covered my wish list in this contribution.
As the Member of Parliament for a working-class constituency often described as London’s red wall, I was overjoyed to hear the Chancellor unveil plans to deliver paid paternity leave for self-employed workers. I am honoured to serve under my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) as deputy chair of the all-party parliamentary group for tradespeople, and I know that this policy will give fresh hope to the plumbers, electricians, brickies and other tradesmen who will benefit from paid paternity leave from April 2029, giving self-employed dads the opportunity to be at the start of family life when it matters most. This is a real win for the work of the APPG, and it will make a tangible difference to family lives in Dagenham and Rainham, which is home to thousands of tradespeople and small business owners.
I will bring my contribution to a close very simply, as I started. This was a Budget the Government can be proud of: a Labour Budget that delivers respite for today and fresh hope for the future.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a former county councillor.
It is safe to say that I have not been inundated with emails praising this Budget or crediting it for tackling the thorny issues that my constituents face. Those eligible will welcome the £100 energy bill payment going towards their soaring bills, but the more than 10,000 of my constituents reliant on heating oil will wonder where they are going to find the rest of what has often been a £500 price hike on their oil bills. They will also be asking why the Government have cut VAT for those who rely solely on electricity but are happy to rake in double the VAT receipts from others who face those soaring bills. Removing VAT on those bills would put another £50 back in the pockets of those who have to fill a 1,000 litre tank. The Government are benefiting from a VAT windfall, and it is time that they gave that back to the people suffering from these higher costs.
Rural communities in general are struggling as a result of this Budget. In particular, schools are close to their crisis point in too many villages in North Norfolk. Earlier this year, Corpusty primary shut its school gates for the last time. It was heartbreaking for the families affected, and for the children, who were losing the only school that most of them had ever known. We fought tooth and nail against that closure—unlike, I should say, either the Conservative or Reform administrations at County Hall, who stood idly by. I warned anyone who would listen that Corpusty was the canary in the coalmine. Its fundamental challenges were not unique, and it was an indicator of a worrying trend that needs to change. I am deeply fearful of what comes next, because more school leaders and parents are telling me their concerns about their local schools.
For all their best efforts, headteachers just cannot make the books balance. It is not their fault; they are being failed by a funding formula that simply does not appreciate the realities of rural life and the importance of rural schools to their communities. In places where there is a fall in the number of children and young people, schools are crying out for a funding package that can help them stay afloat and adapt to a difficult financial and demographic environment. They should feel reassured by the falling rolls funding mechanism, which triggers a £140,000 payout to local authorities through the dedicated schools grant whenever there is a drop of 10%, year on year, in an area’s pupil census. Despite that drop being the reason why that money is coming forward, there is no requirement for it to be spent on those schools, or the issue of falling rolls. It is clear that both sides need to change their processes. The Government need to be more prescriptive about ringfencing, and I will argue that it is not an outlandish ask for falling rolls funding to be dedicated to falling rolls. On their side, the local authority cannot just use this as another sticking plaster to cover educational funding crises.
If we do not get a grip on the schools crisis, we face challenging times in our rural communities. If we lose the schools, we lose the working-age population. If we do not fund rural schools properly, whole communities suffer. If there is no local school, the area is not a viable place for a young family to live. That means no one of working age to do the inherently rural jobs in farming, or in the energy industry or defence. In a community without working-age people, there is no one to staff the doctor’s surgery, provide care or even pour a cup of coffee on a Monday morning.
We must act now if we want our cherished rural and coastal communities to flourish, and if there is to be good growth in every postcode, there must be cross-governmental support for small rural schools. The Government’s goals—not just for education and economic growth, but for transport, housing, climate change, food security and even defence—all depend on a vibrant future for our rural communities, yet this Budget’s measures are just another example of the Government working in silos, which is not working for our rural areas. It is time to re-establish hope for rural communities by backing small schools.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on “fresh hope for the future”, and that title could not be more timely. Across the world, we are living through a period of uncertainty unlike any that many of us have experienced in our lifetime. The challenges we face today are different from those faced by previous generations. Alongside the traditional military threats, we face cyber-attacks, threats to our critical national infrastructure, hostile state activity and economic instability across the globe. In a world like this, national security cannot be an afterthought. In my constituency, we have known that for generations; it is the backbone of the economy and our community. For many of us, defence runs in our blood and in our ancestry, but for too long, communities like mine were asked to believe Conservative promises. We were repeatedly told that defence was the highest priority, yet year after year, we saw programmes delayed, budgets squeezed, and our industry and economy hanging in the balance. That disrupted the lives of my constituents and undermined our national security.
The Conservatives claim that they are the party of defence. They stand here today and make more promises that they cannot fulfil. By the time they had left office, the National Audit Office was warning of an “unaffordable equipment programme”. They were running up a bill of tens of billions of pounds that they could not pay. In Barrow, those failed promises have a cost. It impacts investment decisions, training and development opportunities, the supply chain industry and, most critically, confidence for working families that they can put food on the table. That is why this Budget matters. It builds on previous work from the Government to support our national security, and it moves us away from the short-term thinking that characterised the Conservative years.
The full funding of the defence investment plan gives industry, workers and communities the confidence that this Government’s commitments are backed by resources, not just rhetoric. Fully funding the DIP sends a powerful message—one that my constituents are well aware of: by investing in defence, we support and empower our communities, our businesses and our national security. Through the defence investment plan, we will deliver stronger military capability, protect our at-sea nuclear deterrent through building up to 12 SSN-AUKUS submarines, and help supply chain businesses all over the country to reach their full potential. We are doing this partly through the innovative defence financing taskforce. For a long time, I have called for a financing and procurement system fit for the modern age. Too many small and medium-sized enterprises are held back by complicated bidding processes, timeline pressures and a risk-averse culture. This taskforce is the first step in addressing those issues. Like many of my colleagues, I firmly believe that it is a priority for us to reach 3% of GDP on defence spending. This is why I was glad to hear the Chancellor confirm last week that the details will be set out at next year’s spending review. This Government are prioritising investment in defence and ensuring that the path to 3% is built on sound financial planning, rather than soundbites.
Hope does not only come in the form of long-term investment, though; it also comes through addressing issues that are smaller-scale but no less important. I want to thank the Government for listening on an issue that I recently raised with the Prime Minister. Just two weeks ago, we spoke in this Chamber about my constituent Ian, who requires access to a life-extending medicine. After the June announcement that the application of VAT would be reformed, the drug’s developer withdrew from the scheme through which the drug was provided. Ian was left with no remaining options. With nowhere left to turn, his family were left with an awful choice: find the money to fund the huge cost themselves or, even more unfairly, lose remaining time with their loved one. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement on VAT and donated medicines. Creating an exemption for medicines is a practical and compassionate measure that will ensure that life-changing treatments can reach those who need them the most.
For Ian, this Budget has provided something priceless: hope for his health, and hope that the Government are listening. That is what links this Budget together. Whether it is the apprentice in Barrow looking towards a skilled career in our defence industry, the local business planning to expand with confidence because of long-term investment, or a constituent gaining access to life-extending medication, this Budget is about creating the conditions for a better future. Barrow and Furness has always stepped up when our country has needed us. This Budget demonstrates that, in turn, this Government are stepping up for Barrow and Furness.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
There has been quite a lot of chat about future generations throughout this Budget debate. I feel like I have aged a lot over the last four months in this place, but I want to speak today on behalf of a younger generation and, more importantly, the young people who live in my constituency.
Although he is not in his place any more, I would like the Secretary of State to put himself in the shoes of a young person in my constituency—a young person who has come to me in the last few days to tell me that since the Chancellor’s announcements last week, they are feeling not hopeful, but fearful. I would like the Secretary of State to imagine that he is a young person who has been to university, worked hard and made personal sacrifices to do everything that he was told he was supposed to do. I would like the Secretary of State to understand what it feels like to be a 21-year-old today, and to try to see how much breathing space there really is for entire generations of young people, who feel more hopeless than ever before, who have been let down time and again by successive UK Governments, and who, in my constituency, despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, were dragged out against their will, and so have come of age in broken Brexit Britain.
Let us imagine that this young person in my constituency studied for their undergraduate degree in an English or Welsh university and took out the standard tuition and maintenance loan. This young person might now have £60,000 of debt—an amount that they will watch rise year on year, even after they start paying it off, because this Government have changed the terms of a contract that young people signed in good faith. Because the Chancellor has failed to reverse the cruel repayment threshold freeze implemented by his predecessor, young people face the reality of paying off their student loans for the entirety of their working life. Many young people, my peers included, have said that they feel that they will never be debt-free, and I want the Secretary of State to understand how it feels to be a young person at the beginning of their career, staring at that much insecurity and financial instability.
In Scotland, we do not punish people for pursuing higher education, but our young people who choose to study elsewhere in the UK face consequences that were previously unimaginable. Debts have moved past stifling, and are now simply oppressive. To me, that speaks of a Government who are comfortable targeting low-income graduates for tax revenue, squeezing young people’s disposable income and making it impossible for them to save.
If this young person finds a job—perhaps in hospitality, for which Labour has refused to cut VAT—and they are paid the minimum wage, they will earn enough to make student loan repayments, at 9% of their earnings. Given the ever-rising cost of living, there is almost no chance that they will be able to make savings. They likely find it near impossible to get to the end of every month in credit. Because of Labour’s personal allowance freeze, that young person will see a larger chunk of their income eaten by taxes, without gaining any purchasing power. I want the Secretary of State to imagine how it feels to be a young person who, on payday, instead of feeling financially secure, feels despair.
Many young people across Scotland and my constituency, and further afield, cannot rely on financial support from their family. If that young person is renting a flat, they are likely to see their energy bills increase again in January, taking the total to more than £1,000 more than Labour initially promised, and dwarfing any minuscule changes made by announcements last week. In Scotland, that young person might be one of the 800,000 Scots now paying higher gas bills to subsidise English taxpayers, or one of the 150,000 Scots relying on heating oil who receive no support at all for that—this Labour Government so often forget about rural communities. That young person will be watching as the Resolution Foundation predicts that the disposable income of the average household is set to fall by £1,000. For a young person who is already struggling to put fuel in their car, that is a terrifying concept.
For a young person on the cusp of their adult life, who has done nothing but work hard, but who is staring in the face of job insecurity, the fear of never receiving a state pension, and the certainty that they will never be able to afford a house, and who has lifelong student debt hanging over their head and monthly costs that completely consume their earnings, the Budget is cold, hard confirmation that the new iteration of a Labour Government is no better than the last. Young people in Scotland deserve to feel hopeful, and to have ample opportunities to learn, save and work. That is not what they get from this Labour Budget.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
It will come as no surprise to hear that I will talk largely about Cornwall. This Budget brings welcome hope to Cornwall; we also have a bespoke devolution deal on a Cornwall-only strategic authority footprint, which respects our unique identity, and we do not face the futility of having a mayor acting in parallel to our single unitary authority. That fresh hope comes with £2.7 million of good growth funding, a share of the £150 million uplift to capacity funding, and local control of the new overnight visitor levy.
Cornwall welcomes millions of visitors, but our communities carry that pressure without receiving the investment needed to manage it. If properly designed, the levy could be a revenue stream that funds the infrastructure needed to unlock Cornish reindustrialisation and build fresh hope across our communities. The Government must recognise that if we have a single-foundation strategic authority, it is a pointless waste of taxpayers’ money to install an elected mayor in parallel, as an ideological quid pro quo for accessing extra funding and powers.
Sir John Hayes
Cornwall is similar to Lincolnshire in some of the challenges that it faces, particularly regarding the delivery of public services in a scattered rural area. Will the hon. Gentleman join calls for more action on heating oil? Many of his constituents will be dependent on heating oil, as people are in my constituency, but there is precious little about that in the Budget. I hope that we can create cross-party consensus that more must be done.
Perran Moon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I remind him that there was a support package in the Budget, which I will talk about a little later.
I welcome the Government’s focus on fiscal prudence and economic competence, and their determination to crowd in private investment in order to rebuild our economy. Since 2024 the Government have doubled the fire power of our financial institutions to more than £200 billion. Cornwall has seen the value of anchor investment in our tin, lithium and tungsten industries. Additional capital for the national wealth fund sends a signal of confidence in Cornwall’s critical minerals and their contribution to Britain’s economic security and energy resilience.
Cornwall has vast untapped economic potential through our internationally renowned resources of critical minerals. The Conservatives ignored those resources and abandoned Cornwall, but this Government are taking welcome action to bring back Cornish tin mining and bring back fresh hope to our communities. However, the Government must go further and faster to ensure that these vast resources are not offshored by competitive nations, to the detriment of UK plc.
There is also a risk that Cornwall will be disadvantaged precisely because we have chosen a model of devolution that reflects our national minority status. A key offer for foundational strategic authorities has been business rates retention, but Cornwall council has had that since 2017. Mayoral strategic authorities can also access a £1.5 billion borrowing facility and negotiate strategic place partnerships with Homes England, but Cornwall cannot currently do that either. With 25,000 homes on the social housing register, getting the deal and its associated funding would be transformative for Cornish house building and we will not stop demanding that.
In Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, house prices have risen almost 18% in five years, compared with 6.4% across England and Wales. Young people increasingly feel that owning a home where they grew up is beyond their reach, so the first-time buyer ISA and the £4.7 billion Your First Home scheme offer fresh hope. Alongside the 100% council tax premium on empty homes, they could make home ownership possible again for a new generation of Cornish families.
On energy, this Budget fully demonstrates how this Government are on the side of remote communities such as ours in Cornwall. One in seven households in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle rely on heating oil, compared with one in 29 nationally. With heating oil prices up 82% since the start of the Iran war, the two-year suspension of tariffs on kerosene is welcome, but I hope that is a first step and not a final destination. The same is true for the £100 household energy payment for over 43,000 households in my constituency, the additional £100 million for targeted energy support, the commitment to abolish domestic gas standing charges and the extension of zero VAT on electricity to July.
However, in my capacity as chair of the APPG on electric vehicles, I have some concerns about the signals we are sending to the automotive sector. The continued uncertainty over the zero emission vehicle mandate risks weakening investment in Britain’s position in export markets. Charging 20% VAT on public charge points penalises drivers without a driveway or a home charger. Although an eventual road tax for EVs is understandable, introducing it in 2028 through an unwieldy scheme risks discouraging adoption when demand needs to accelerate.
All things considered, this Budget is welcome for Cornwall. Each of the wins, from heating oil to energy bills, and from housing to devolution, comes alongside a vast improvement in the fundamentals of the British economy since the last election, despite strong global headwinds. The Government are restoring credibility and competence to the British economy, we are creating breathing space for our constituents, and we are rebuilding our reputation with our closest neighbours, our allies and our friends in the European Union. It is in the British national interest to do so. Rather than the withering disdain and distrust of the Conservative Government, this Government are engaging proactively, and I thoroughly welcome that.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
One million—that is the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment stands at 14%. That is a scandal and a crisis. Far from giving young people hope, this Budget throws them under a bus, frankly, because it is fundamentally unfair. We are losing a generation.
This Budget is unfair to the 16-year-old who has finished their GCSEs and wants to start working, but who faces zero opportunities to find an apprenticeship or learn a skill. It is unfair and offers no hope to the 21-year-old who has done the right thing and studied for a degree, but who has come out with a qualification that is not opening any doors and has instead saddled them with crippling debt and directed them to the welfare office to claim out-of-work benefits.
This Budget is also unfair to the British taxpayer, who currently lays out £22 billion a year in student loan payments. That is a taxpayer who will see hundreds of billions of pounds never repaid; a taxpayer who faces chronic shortages in our labour market, particularly in the NHS, construction and hospitality. We have a lost generation, and this Budget does nothing for our young people.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that we need to recalibrate our economy around the highest level of skills. Too many young people are directed into academic education—I use “academic” in the broadest sense—only to find themselves jobless, and too few have the opportunity to learn something vocational, technical or practical that would give them the chance to get a job and not take on huge debts.
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point that I am about to make.
How did we get to this youth unemployment crisis? For the past 30 years, starting with Tony Blair, we have sold one promise to young people: that they need to get a degree, regardless of what it is or where it is from, and they will be set up for life. However, for so many young people today, that has been exposed as a lie. We have 700,000 graduates currently unemployed, some 400,000 of whom are claiming welfare. Average graduate debt stands at £50,000, average graduate salaries are falling, and graduate hiring is disappearing.
For many of those young people, it is not so much that they have taken out a student loan; they have been saddled with a life sentence. It is no wonder they cannot start saving, buy a house, get married or think of starting a family. They are being crippled by the system, and this Budget does nothing to support them.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
One aspect of the Budget that will make a huge difference to young people in my area is the £2.5 billion investment in a partnership with Rolls-Royce. That is great for civil and military aviation and will be used to create a lot of jobs for young people in my constituency. Does the right hon. and learned Lady welcome that measure, or would she rather we had not done it?
Suella Braverman
I am afraid that is just a drop in the ocean compared with the enormity of the challenge we face. I will come on to skills and apprenticeships in one minute, but I will dwell on how we got to this great university scam, as I call it.
We have some of the best universities in the country, and I will always defend them, but our universities are failing many of our young people and offering awful value for money. Some of the courses are not worth the paper they are written on. Is it really right that vice-chancellors are earning huge salaries but offering awful job prospects? Do some of them really deserve their £200,000 or £300,000 salaries when their institutions are offering job prospects for only 40% of their graduates? No. Do we really need courses in politics, sexuality and gender, with a vice-chancellor on more than £200,000? No. That is all while we have gaps in our NHS, construction and hospitality. That is why a Reform Government would deal with this issue. We would reduce the student loan budget by 20% and invest the billions saved into helping our country. We would train up British doctors and nurses and scrap the arbitrary cap on medical training places.
Let me say a word about immigration, because it has been a big factor. Many universities have got fat on foreign students. I am afraid that I have to say it: the last Conservative Government opened the floodgates to international students. It is something that I started to reverse when I was Home Secretary. As a result, universities have been selling immigration, not education. As a consequence—as I said earlier—for every young Brit who is employed in this country, 27 young foreign workers are also employed.
Suella Braverman
I am sorry, but I do not have much time. I will try to come back to the hon. Lady.
What I have described is locking our young people out of the labour market. A Reform Government would put British workers at the front of the queue for British jobs. That used to be common sense, but today it is controversial.
Moving on to apprenticeships and skills, I am afraid that this Budget is conspicuously silent on investing in skills, apprenticeships and the vocational trades. The number of apprenticeships has almost halved over the past decade, particularly among small and medium-sized businesses and for entry-level positions.
John Slinger
The right hon. and learned Lady, speaking about apprenticeships, has essentially said that nothing has been done. Does she acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his Budget speech, specifically spoke about how
“Today’s Budget provides £100 million for a local apprenticeship service to match young people with local firms, funded from savings in welfare fraud and error”?—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 311.]
Suella Braverman
The reality is that £100 million is a small amount compared to the enormity of the challenge that we are required to face, as I said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies). Employers are not taking on young people—that is a fact and it is borne out by the statistics. Employers are not taking on apprentices, because it has become too expensive for them. It has become heavily regulated and bureaucratic, and the training requirements are now too rigid.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Can the right hon. and learned Lady remind us of what her Government did, and what she did when she was in government, to increase apprenticeships?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady is on a weak point there, because it was the last Conservative Government who started the apprenticeship movement, and apprenticeships peaked at around 600,000 in 2016. I was very pleased to champion apprenticeships in my constituency, and thousands of young people in Fareham and Waterlooville have taken them up, but that number has been halved—we are now at about 300,000 apprentices.
A Reform UK Government would introduce an apprenticeship wage credit. We would pay small and medium-sized enterprises 30% of an apprentice’s salary to help them with the cost of taking on a new person, investing in our future and in young people. I want to live in a country where a young person is able to enjoy opportunities to prosper, work hard and thrive in their life, regardless of where they come from, what their parents did or the kind of school they went to.
I am afraid that this Budget offers precious little to our young people and zero hope to the next generation, and is a real disappointment for our young people, who are crying out for hope and opportunity. That is why I will be voting against it tonight.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on fresh hope for the future, including for the businesses on our high streets and my constituents who rely on them. Last week’s Budget, delivered by a Labour Chancellor, was the Budget that people in my constituency need. They know that our high streets cannot become hubs for criminal activity while legitimate businesses are priced out and run down. They also know that our high streets cannot remain clusters of vape shops and gambling premises, and cannot continue to withstand these hits without serious ramifications for the future of our communities up and down this country. I am proud that this Labour Government are making the right choices by putting place over profiteering.
Too many of the constituents and businesses that I represent feel that day in, day out, their finances are being stretched beyond what is palatable or fair. I understand that, the Prime Minister understands it, and it is clear from this Budget that the Chancellor understands it. My constituency of Heywood and Middleton North has so much potential, and its people are determined to see a sense of pride, vibrancy and purpose return to their neighbourhoods. I want to focus my remarks today on the high streets that have been eroded because of a sustained lack of investment, but that can prosper again and provide much-needed respite for responsible businesses, with power directed to leaders with the means to turn things around. That is what I heard from the Budget last week. The £1 billion package announced by this Chancellor will mean that businesses in Heywood and Middleton North will see their business rates frozen, reduced or cut to zero. The measure will apply to around 600 properties in my borough, and we are also taking more businesses out of paying business rates by increasing small business rate relief thresholds for retail, hospitality and leisure premises.
Businesses that enrich our communities are getting the focus they deserve. The choice at the heart of this is how we differentiate between those businesses that strengthen our high streets and those that weaken them. For years now, my constituents have seen vape shops and similar premises pop up en masse and corrode the ties between local people and the high streets they once knew. That is why I fully support this Labour Chancellor in not extending business rate relief to those businesses, but instead throwing our full backing behind those who are building back our towns piece by piece. That measure sits alongside the steps announced by the Government earlier in the year.
We are determined to revoke the outdated “aim to permit” rule in the Gambling Act 2005, which restricts councils’ ability to refuse new betting shops, even where there are strong local concerns. Additional planning permission will be required for vape shops to finally give local people and councils a say over where they open and to stop them from opening near schools. That is alongside a doubling of the maximum duration of closure orders for dodgy shops to give investigators more time to gather evidence and secure prosecutions. I have been calling for this for some time, because I have seen the scars that these illicit operations have left on high streets in Heywood and Middleton. It cannot be right that residents are forced to watch authorities scramble as these businesses skirt accountability and reopen weeks later. It is time that we sided with good businesses and made it clear that good practice is the only practice that will be tolerated.
There is a moral argument that we must engage with and win. Residents, shoppers and businesses in Heywood and Middleton North are all completely justified in not wanting the continued proliferation of these shops. They want to see civic ties, family ties and social ties restored on our high streets, rather than ample profits for endless vendors that exploit working-class communities, run down public health and chip away at the communities they once knew. That has been made clear not only in the Budget, but in the publication of last week’s cross-Government strategy, “Hope on the High Street”, which includes £210 million to transform derelict buildings into the new anchors of our high streets.
In closing, I want to put on record my thanks to the businesses, business leaders and workers who are the pillars holding up the high streets of Heywood and Middleton North. Each week, I visit businesses from Heywood market through to Middleton shopping centre, and they are making an immense difference to the towns I represent. Whether it is Tilly’s Tea Room or Pecado in Heywood, Waffle Co in Middleton, or Honey Café on Boarshaw, these are the businesses that we need to be supporting, and we should demonstrate to them that their contribution to our communities is recognised and valued. I am proud to stand here today and speak on their behalf, and I am proud to stand here as part of a Labour Government who are well and truly on their side.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I would like to address the barriers that businesses are facing right now that make them not so hopeful about the future. The south-west is home to many innovative businesses that employ local people and generate growth across the region, such as Drift Energy and Luthmore.
Based in Bath, Drift Energy is developing a first-of-its-kind sailing vessel that harvests wind energy on the move. This groundbreaking innovator would reduce UK reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase domestic green hydrogen capacity and open new manufacturing and maritime innovation opportunities. CBI Economics has estimated that by 2032, Drift Energy could deliver nearly £200 million in growth through operations in the south-west alone. Luthmore is a south-west business that has developed a first-of-its-kind battery-enabled alternative to the gas combi boiler. It currently employs 42 people—a figure that is forecast to double to 80 within the next nine months, making it a significant local employer. With the right support and conditions, these businesses could generate real growth in postcodes across the south-west.
The Government say that they will cut business costs and support innovation, but the measures in this Budget do not go anywhere near far enough in addressing the financial challenges that these businesses face. The Budget fails to address a significant funding gap—the gap between the points at which seed investment funds and venture funds respectively feel comfortable enough to begin investing in a business. As the financial markets continue to suffer, the risk appetite of venture funds decreases, which means that companies must reach a significantly greater maturity before they can be funded from these sources. The innovation loan and grant schemes, which have been separated into regional districts, and agencies such as the clean growth fund were meant to plug that this gap, but they are now approaching investments in a similar vein to commercial venture capital: they are looking for greater and greater reduction of risk. That forces innovative businesses that develop first-of-its-kind technology to seek funds from international sources, often with a requirement for operations to be moved away from the original region.
These businesses want to employ local people, but the Budget does not address the failure of Government policy to support businesses to mass-manufacture in Britain. There are no local incentives that would reduce costs and enable them to compete with international manufacturers. British businesses moving abroad is not good growth in every postcode. The Budget leaves the future uncertain for those businesses, making it harder to employ local people, harder to trade with local businesses, and easier to move abroad and ultimately prevent the growth that we all want.
I also want to address, very briefly, the unwelcome and short-sighted cuts in the warm homes plan and the boiler upgrade scheme. This decision is of profound concern in respect of not only our climate commitments but the basic health, security and wellbeing of many households across the country. As fossil fuel prices surge, the boiler upgrade scheme is cutting bills for people across the country, employing thousands, and improving the resilience of homes by breaking the link with oil and gas. The boiler upgrade scheme is more than a grant to help households; it is creating a UK industry that can deliver cheaper heating, skilled jobs, greater energy independence—and, yes, growth. I urge the Government to reverse this disastrous decision and immediately restore full funding to our warm home commitments.
We all want growth. I have drawn attention to a few things that make growth very difficult for businesses across the south-west and across the country, and I hope that the Government will consider them.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
For many of my constituents in Liverpool West Derby, the cost of living crisis means a daily struggle to keep the heating on, pay the rent and put food on the table. I welcome any measures that ease that struggle, and the direction of travel from the Budget last week was really welcome, but “breathing space” is nowhere near enough when 14 million people are struggling to put a meal on the table tonight. People need to see a credible plan to improve their living standards and tackle the shameful poverty and hunger that we see across the country.
The Trussell Trust reports that between 2024-25 and 2026-27, the number of people experiencing severe hardship grew by 500,000. That included 115,000 children, and there would have been more, but thankfully we scrapped the two-child cap. We cannot ask families to keep making sacrifices while offering them so little prospect of things getting better. We see the unrest across Europe as a result of this feeling of hopelessness with politics and politicians. The Prime Minister has, thankfully and rightly, identified the damage caused by 40 years of neo-liberal politics. Reversing the damage requires true radical action on a scale that matches the hardships that our communities face, and nowhere is that damage highlighted more than around our kitchen tables.
In September, the Right to Food UK Commission published its final report. We heard evidence from across the United Kingdom—from communities speaking directly to us. What we heard should really shame this House. We heard about parents missing meals so that children can eat, people in work relying on food banks, and families choosing between heating their homes and feeding themselves. At a community session in London, a stone’s throw from this Chamber, one woman put it in three words: “Rent eats first”. The rent is paid, then the energy bills and then the debts. Food is whatever is left. That is the plight of millions in all our communities.
The commission’s central finding is clear: people are going hungry because they cannot afford the food that is available. Low wages, inadequate social security and the rising cost of essentials are leaving families without enough to live on. These are failures of policy that require political action. The question is no longer whether we can afford a right to food; it is whether we can afford to carry on without one. In Liverpool, a woman giving evidence said simply:
“A right to food is a right to exist.”
She was spot on, because we are already paying for failure. Updated analysis from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission puts the wider economic and social costs of Britain’s unhealthy food system at £298 billion a year—up from £268 billion two years ago. That includes more than £100 billion in direct costs across healthcare, social care and welfare, alongside the enormous costs of lost productivity and diminished quality of life. Those figures cover the wider unhealthy food system, so tackling food insecurity and making healthy diets affordable must be absolutely central to the Government’s mission.
We pay through our taxes, our public services, our health and the opportunities denied to our children. The question is whether we carry on accepting these costs, or invest in preventing them. Alongside the wider reforms that we need, the Right to Food UK Commission has set out an initial package of practical measures, including universal free school meals, holiday food provision, and proper funding for community kitchens and hubs. Our initial asks are fully costed, with funding identified through tax reforms put forward by Lord Prem Sikka. We have set out what needs to be done, what it would cost and how it could be paid for. Whether the Government choose to act is now a question of political will.
The Right to Food UK Commission’s modelling estimates that we could create about £100 billion-worth of wider economic and social benefits over two decades. That includes improvements in health, education and people’s ability to participate in society. Behind those calculations are outcomes that every Member of this House should want: children arriving at school ready to learn, parents able to feed their families without skipping meals, and fewer people developing avoidable illnesses. These are investments that can improve and lengthen people’s lives. That is why the commission calls for a statutory right to food, backed by resources, clear duties and accountability. It means clear legal duties on the Government and independent scrutiny, so that Departments cannot pass responsibility between themselves while families continue to go hungry.
Members from across the House have joined me in calling for a right to food in the next King’s Speech. I ask the Government to listen, work with the Right to Food UK Commission, and commit to the legislation needed to deliver lasting change. Hunger really is a political choice. The Government have the power and responsibility to end it and give millions, in every postcode, hope again in politics.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This is a Budget that puts community first. It is a Budget for families, who will benefit from support on energy costs over the cold winter, and for much-loved high street businesses, with cuts to business rates. With the announcement of a Thames Valley mayoral strategic authority, it is a Budget that delivers devolution, so that decisions that affect Bracknell Forest and our wider region can be taken in our region.
I have heard from countless families across Bracknell Forest about the cost of living pressures that they face because of skyrocketing fuel and energy costs as a result of the war in Iran, so I strongly welcome the announcement of a new £2.6 billion energy bills breathing space scheme, which will provide £100 in direct support for over 30,000 families in Bracknell Forest, helping them to keep their homes warm this winter. I also welcome the extension of the 0% rate of VAT on electricity until July 2027, and the removal of gas standing charges so that people are charged only for what they use.
I know that the prices we have seen at the pumps in recent months are a huge source of anxiety for many across Bracknell Forest. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the pressures on motorists that have been caused by increasing fuel prices, and have extended the 5p cut on fuel duty to July 2027. They have also frozen rates, and made permanent the more generous mileage rates for both employees and self-employed people who use their own vehicles for work. These measures will have a real impact on households across Bracknell Forest, especially over the coming winter months.
Supporting households is an essential and extremely welcome priority in this Budget, but I also welcome the clear signals that this Government have given to local businesses. Wonderful local cafés, restaurants, pubs and shops drive our local economy, but I have heard from too many that are struggling in this challenging environment and that have been forced to consider raising prices or cutting staff. For that reason, I was delighted to see the Chancellor announce that he will increase the small business rates relief thresholds for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that about 47% of all RHL properties in the south-east will pay no business rates at all.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right about small businesses, particularly small retail businesses, playing a pivotal role in the health of communities, and that the Government have done the right thing in the way he described. However, those businesses are also suffering from online competition and edge-of-town or out-of-town development that is taking footfall away from town and city centres. Does he support a call for the Government to be tougher on edge-of-town development, so that we concentrate footfall where it is needed most?
Peter Swallow
Absolutely, which is why I welcome the measure in this Budget. It means a direct tax cut for over 250 small businesses in Bracknell Forest, directly funded by increasing VAT compliance on those online marketplaces. It is right that the small businesses that thrive on Crowthorne High Street in my constituency, and across Bracknell and Sandhurst, do not face unfair competition from the big online marketplaces. That is a decision that this Government have rightly made in this Budget.
This Government do not just talk about growth in every postcode, but recognise that our high streets are at the heart of achieving that growth. On that note, growth in every postcode means recognising the unique barriers holding back growth in every region of the UK. For the south-east, one of the biggest barriers to regional growth has been the slow progress of devolution. That is why I am delighted that this Budget also commits to a mayoral strategic authority for the Thames valley. Nobody knows the specific local and regional challenges we face better than our own local community, and no one is better placed to solve them. Devolution will bring more powers for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, more funding for our region and a more joined-up approach on regional transport, skills and public services.
This is not just about local business. In the south-east, we can proudly say that we are home to some of our most loved and most critical national businesses from Waitrose, which has its headquarters in my constituency, to our defence sector whose contribution to the economy is estimated to be £3.6 billion in 2025. We are also home to one of our greatest and most innovative British assets—our life sciences sector. So I welcome the opportunities that a more regional approach to our economy will create. This is a Budget that backs our region to do what it does best, which is to drive growth across the Thames valley and the whole of the UK.
All these measures will strengthen our social fabric, boost our local economies and build resilient communities in these challenging times, but there is no community without security. As war continues to rage in Ukraine and the middle east, and as hostile actors swamp our information sphere and sow division in our society, we cannot afford to delay delivering the support we need for defence. That is why it is so important that the Chancellor has put forward a Budget that delivers fully on our commitment to fund the defence investment plan, and ensures we remain on track for the NATO target for defence spending to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Alongside plans for a new multilateral defence mechanism and additional investment through the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank, this Budget treats our security with the gravity it deserves, after decades of underfunding by the Conservative party.
The Budget is a clear demonstration that this Government have listened to the concerns of families and businesses in Bracknell Forest, and have decided to act on them. It meets the challenge of today with pragmatism and the promise of tomorrow with ambition. I know it will not solve all the challenges facing businesses and families in Bracknell Forest, but gosh, it is a darn good start.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on a Budget delivered in an extraordinarily difficult global economic climate and with limited fiscal headroom. Yet I do believe that it will be remembered as both radical and important in prioritising cheaper energy and focusing on prevention, which is a massive step. Fiscal devolution and supporting high streets and entrepreneurs are significant measures that will ultimately bring significant benefits to the residents of Rossendale and Darwen, particularly now that Lancashire has an opportunity to join the mayoral pathway. On that point, I take this opportunity to urge the leadership of Lancashire county council to listen to businesses and community leaders and finally agree to a mayor and grasp the huge opportunities that this Government have offered.
More broadly, the Chancellor has balanced immediate support and the need for breathing space, with long-term reforms needed to build a global economy for the 21st century. At its heart, the Budget lays the foundations for a reindustrialisation strategy capable of bringing good jobs to places that need them most. This vision resonates powerfully in Rossendale and Darwen and across the UK. Making more things in more places means secure, well-paid jobs and a more resilient country.
That is why we established the Reindustrialisation Research Group, bringing together over 90 Labour MPs to support the Prime Minister’s vision and help translate it into action. It is good to see the Budget addressing the key questions that have been raised ever since the Prime Minister first championed the idea. First and foremost is clarity on objectives. That is important, because if we judge economic success only through national GDP, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, pursuing the easiest growth while overlooking the towns and communities that were left on the sidelines for far too long. Instead, reindustrialisation must deliver good growth everywhere, spreading jobs, hope and opportunity across the country.
The Chancellor has been clear that reindustrialisation is also essential to national resilience. We must once again produce the steel, fuels, chemicals and other things that we need to be secure in a turbulent world. In understanding that, we see that reindustrialisation is far more than just a rebrand of the modern industrial strategy. Supporting high-growth economic clusters is vital, but it cannot be the whole answer. As the Red Book itself states:
“Reindustrialisation means more good jobs around the country. It means more towns and cities making and innovating and having a stronger role in the national economy.”
This is a UK-wide project to build the great British businesses of the future, whatever and wherever they may be, combining our proud manufacturing heritage with world-class innovation, creativity, research and development. That means tackling the constraints holding firms back, and the Budget is clear on what they are: high energy costs, limited access to finance, procurement and so on. Addressing those at a national level while drawing on the power of devolution, and supporting businesses through powerful local partnerships, provides a comprehensive approach to unleashing the potential of British manufacturers.
We need to take up the challenge with urgency. We must recognise that right now we are losing good businesses, ones that could compete and win if only they were on a level playing field. So, the first step towards reindustrialisation must be to halt deindustrialisation. Among other things, that means further action on industrial energy costs. We called for an extension of the British industry competitiveness scheme to all manufacturing companies in the Budget. I realise the constraints the Chancellor was under, but we must recognise that this is unfinished business. We need to continue to look at all options for immediate measures.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a really powerful speech about the importance of reindustrialising our communities and halting deindustrialisation. Does he agree that we need to do everything we can to get the ceramics impact fund, which was designed by the Government to support the ceramics sector, out of the door and into businesses where it can make a difference as soon as possible?
Andy MacNae
Absolutely. Ceramics is one of those industries, along with steel, chemicals, fuels and so on, that is foundational to our economy. It is part of our national resilience and our national story. It is vital that we retain it in the interests of a safe, secure and stable country, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
We need the structure to effectively deliver reindustrialisation and we need to be clear that that requires a whole-Government approach. It needs dedicated capacity empowered to drive implementation, and policy co-designed with businesses and trade unions.
Finally, we need to turn ambition into measurable national objectives. The ReRG proposed a target of 1 million additional jobs in production by 2035. That would help to rebalance our economy and ensure that prosperity is felt in every part of Britain. The forthcoming 10-year plan is our opportunity to make that vision real. I urge the Government to build on the Budget and work with the ReRG, businesses and trade unions to back British manufacturing and ensure we deliver good jobs in every community.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events.
I welcome the Budget from the Chancellor and I particularly welcome his announcement that the UK Government will provide £6 million for the Scottish Event Campus in my constituency. That is a vote of confidence in the SEC, Glasgow and the events sector more generally; hope for the future, grounded in proven past and current success.
The SEC plays an essential part in underpinning Glasgow and Scotland’s position as a global events and conference destination, and this funding recognises that. Today, the SEC generates more than £605 million in economic value, welcomes 2.5 million visitors a year and supports 5,300 jobs. The investment in this Budget will help to multiply that economic and social contribution, unlock private investment in the campus’s further development and create more jobs, while supporting the wider Glasgow, Scottish and UK economies.
Given the SEC’s success in hosting COP26 and events for both of Glasgow’s Commonwealth games, this investment will help to secure Scotland’s position as an ideal location for future international conferences, exhibitions and live entertainment. It also helps to shape a city that treats the River Clyde as a cultural and economic asset. The success of the Riverside Museum and the Govan-Partick bridge is a testament to what can be achieved when the Clyde is recognised as an asset. This Labour Government continue to prove through investments like the local growth fund and this funding that they take seriously the task of making Glasgow city region a prosperous and attractive place to live and do business.
I also welcome the Budget’s recognition that the central belt of Scotland, from the west coast to the east coast, is home to vital industries and world-leading research. Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of hosting the University of Glasgow here in Parliament to mark its 575th anniversary. It certainly has a long and successful track record, but it also has the research and innovation to drive economic growth now and in the future. I hope that this funding for the SEC will show how important the campus is to that wider regional picture.
However, to ensure that the SEC remains competitive against our international rivals, we must continue to invest in the city’s skills and infrastructure for tomorrow. The up and coming visitor economy growth strategy must also deliver a more cohesive, cross-Government approach to supporting business events.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events, I see at first hand how the events industry benefits the wider economy. VisitScotland estimates that the Scottish events industry brings £6.1 billion to the Scottish economy each year. Some of the biggest economic benefits from the events sector come not from one-off sporting or music events, but from business events such as conferences and trade shows. These events tend to last longer, so visitors spend more time at the destination, use more hotels and support more local restaurants, bars and cafés. Industry estimates indicate that UK conferences and meetings generated £22.5 billion for the national economy in 2025, up from £19.3 billion in 2024.
I very much welcome the specific commitment in the Budget to invest in the Scottish Event Campus, both as a significant investment in this key project in Glasgow and as a clear indication from the Chancellor that this Government acknowledge the economic importance of the events sector across the UK. This is a Budget that is focused on the livelihoods of today and the economy of tomorrow.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome much of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in the Budget, but tonight I will speak of our NHS, for we will not grow our economy if we are not well.
Norfolk and Suffolk foundation trust is the mental health trust that serves my constituents, and it has been transformed thanks to its brilliant staff and inspired leadership—I thank all of them. Last week I learned that some of the teams have been early adopters of AI, using it to transcribe patient consultations. More time with the patients and less time staring at computers—imagine that!
Some of us remain suspicious of AI in healthcare, but who here has not asked their phone about a symptom or a medical worry? Many GPs already use AI-assisted triage to tackle the dreaded 8 o’clock rush. I am therefore pleased to hear that we will fund the technology that will increasingly shape our health service. Let us embrace it, not fear it.
I welcome the Government’s approach to healthcare, but much remains to be done. Too many of our patients are being asked to be just that: patient. We have record NHS staffing and resources since the pandemic, yet activity has not increased proportionately. Why is that? How much genuinely improves people’s health? We know that health depends on housing, wealth and much else besides. Falling life expectancy in some of our communities and the problems in maternity services demand urgent political attention.
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of funding for surgical robots, having heard how they are helping patients at West Suffolk hospital, but frankly, if I were asked where I would invest taxpayers’ money, my answer would be: in primary care and neighbourhood health centres.
Sir John Hayes
Of course I respect the hon. Gentleman’s professional expertise, which I do not share, but much of what he has said so far is counterintuitive. My constituents tell me that what they want from the health service is personal interaction—to form a meaningful relationship with a GP, surgeon or specialist. That is how trust is built, not through machines, AI and robots.
Dr Prinsley
If the right hon. Gentleman simply listens to the next part of my speech, he may be reassured. Let us build on GP partnerships and shift resources from hospitals to communities. We could have centres that are open in the evening, at which there are specialist nurses, mental health professionals and pharmacists. These would be places where the patients know their doctor, and the doctor knows their patients.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman, a medical professional, recognises the importance of primary care. We spend a fraction of what the NHS spends on chronic care on primary care. Just last night, I hosted a reception for the Independent Pharmacies Association, which I know will be grateful for his words.
Dr Prinsley
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Keeping people healthy and at home, wherever possible, should be supported by our developing national care service. It is a simple but transformative move, and I am delighted that our Government will fund it.
In Suffolk, seven new NHS dental practices have been announced, including two in Bury St Edmunds. I applaud the organisation Toothless in Suffolk for its advocacy, but the dental contract must be reformed. Why has this been delayed? A new dental school is opening at the University of East Anglia, and we must ensure that graduates choose NHS dentistry, rather than private practice.
It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee for the Health Bill. I welcome the single patient record, alongside the retention of Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Patient voices and independent safety investigations must remain central. Some of our political opponents suggest that the NHS has had its day and advocate for an insurance-based system. I profoundly disagree. My father joined the NHS at its foundation in 1948, having served as an RAF medical officer. I spent more than 40 years as a surgeon, and my son works as an A&E doctor in London—78 years of continuous family service to the NHS. Perhaps the NHS is in my DNA. It is certainly in the DNA of the Labour party.
Finally, I want to say something about medical research. We celebrate Jenner, Lister and Fleming, but let us remember the extraordinary British scientists of my lifetime, including Nobel prize winners Crick, Hodgkin, Milstein, Nurse, and Hassabis, whose AlphaFold work revolutionised protein structure prediction. There are many others, including the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), the unsung Harold Hopkins. Their achievements remind us why supporting scientific research must remain a national priority. I remain a great optimist for our NHS—there is fresh hope for the future—but we must cherish our NHS. We must invest in it and protect it.
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Gentleman cherishes the NHS; does he agree that the single patient record, of which he speaks so eloquently, must be delivered by sovereign British technology?
Dr Prinsley
I do not claim to be an expert on the selection of software programmes for the single patient record, but I believe that a single patient record will be transformative. If we ever lost our NHS, we would never ever get it back.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Budget is predicated on inspiring hope and building a fairer, more equal society. I welcome and support that. Crucially, to deliver that, we need to understand and learn from the past.
After world war one, the country became more inward-looking. Adopting the economics of austerity led to low growth, mass unemployment, the general strike and the great depression. Two decades later, we had another war, but after world war two, the Labour Government really did grasp the politics and the economics of hope. We created a social security system, built the NHS, and nationalised our mines, steel, railways and even the Bank of England, all as we emerged from the ravages of a war in which towns and cities were bombed and half a million of our people died.
We do not even need to look as far back as that to see the politics of hope in action. The 1974 Labour party manifesto said that it would tackle the severe economic problems of the day with democratic socialist policies, the aim being to secure
“a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families.”
Five decades on, we again need that degree of ambition.
We live in significant times. The most terrifying set of questions we have in this place is on defence. We constantly hear, “We’ve got to get to 5%. Let’s cut welfare to do it. Let’s issue war bonds. Let’s get ready for war—we’re already at war.” Among the clamour for increased defence spending and defence of our way of life, it does not often get mentioned that nearly 4 million people use food banks, and that we have 14.5 million people living in food insecurity. The “Be Ready” campaign encourages people to stockpile three days-worth of non-perishable food; how do we think people living in food insecurity will manage that? Where on their list of priorities is buying a power bank or a wind-up radio, when they are debating whether to put their heating on or to eat a meal? Constituents regularly tell me that there is too much month at the end of their money; doctors tell me how under-resourced the health service is; teachers tell me that kids are turning up to school exhausted from hunger; and community groups and churches across Alloa and Grangemouth tell me that they are starting to make warm spaces available again as we head into winter, so when politicians and media commentators talk about people making sacrifices, I find it insulting.
In Clackmannanshire, residents are expected to have 55 years of good health, making it one of the regions of Scotland with lower healthy life expectancy. In Grangemouth, people generally die younger than in the Falkirk council area, and before the Scottish national average. This Budget has committed billions more to military spending that will inevitably go to private capital firms and arms manufacturers; all the while, the cost of living crisis rages on, and public services are still under the most immense pressure. The political choice we face is between weapons and war, and wages and welfare. We should bear that in mind, as well as the 14.5 million people who are hungry while we talk about hope.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To accommodate all Back Benchers, the speaking limit is to be dropped to four minutes.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Budget introduced by the Government on Wednesday last week was billed as delivering “Breathing space for today” and “fresh hope” for tomorrow. Those are indeed noble sentiments from a Chancellor and Government determined to make things better for working people, even in these most difficult of times.
War rages in the middle east and Ukraine, and none of us knows when the conflicts will end, or the scale of their impact on our country and economy. What the people of Watford know is that the cost of living crisis is still very real. Certainly, when I talk to residents in my constituency, I hear that the cost of day-to-day living is a tough challenge for many. Since the 2024 Labour landslide, Chancellors have tried to make things better for people, fixing the foundations of our economy and delivering growth in the toughest of times. I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget; my right hon. Friend has managed to deliver something for most people, and for that, I and my fellow residents will be grateful.
Britain has had the joint-highest growth in the G7 this year. That is brilliant news, but what matters to the great British public is feeling the effects of that growth in their pockets. To that end, the announcements from last week show that Watford wins with Labour. The £100 energy bill relief for those in council tax bands A to D will help my fellow residents; it is a real cash injection to help with energy bills, and 37,140 households in Watford will benefit from it. Further, the extension of the zero VAT rating on electricity bills through to the summer of next year will help people through the cold winter and spring months, which is welcome indeed. The Chancellor’s plan to abolish the standing charge on gas bills will deliver further financial help, as will the continued freeze on fuel duty. Watford residents are car users, so that will help them, just as the £2 cap on bus fares in January will help those who rely on public transport. Meanwhile, the first rail fare freeze in 30 years is already delivering for those on the train network.
Businesses on the high street will welcome the small business rates relief threshold for retail, hospitality and leisure. That will help around half of those in the sector in our region of the country. Those who do not benefit from the exemption will see a real-terms freeze in business rates for ’27-28 and ’28-29, which is welcome, especially as things remain tight. In Watford, that will help 662 businesses and a further 373 in Hertsmere, which is where the Bushey part of my constituency is. The measures will bring vibrancy back to the high street.
Under the new devolution arrangements, Hertfordshire, the county that my constituency is in, will become a mayoral strategic authority, and that will help unlock further the potential of the town and the county to deliver a brighter future, with more jobs and opportunities. Housing remains a challenge across the country, but in Watford, the cost of housing can be prohibitive; people who grew up in the area are sometimes forced out by high prices. That is why I welcome the Your First Home initiative. The help for first time buyers will really help people to make a home in Watford.
After being elected to this place, I became involved in the campaign for better paternity rights organised by the Dad Shift, and I was particularly pleased to see the hard-working campaign achieve a victory, when the Chancellor granted paternity pay to self-employed dads. That is definitely another move that will help families welcoming a new member—of a very different variety—in Watford. Turning to the other end of the age spectrum, I welcome the end of the cliff edge for those delivering care. I have also full-throatedly supported the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and I welcome the measures designed to help in that respect. In conclusion, this Budget was designed to provide breathing space for today and fresh hope for tomorrow. It delivers that for Watford and the wider community, and I wholeheartedly support it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
This Budget is aimed squarely at people struggling with the cost of living—good! In a year when one in five UK households have experienced food insecurity and there are 9 million people in severe hardship, according to the Trussel Trust, the Government should make no bones about putting them first. The Government have identified where household budgets are being pinched the most and have redistributed wealth accordingly.
Slashing bills for 80% of households in England is no small thing, and I am glad that the Welsh Government have since announced that they will use the consequential funding to extend the benefits to my constituents in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr. A high proportion of my constituents are reliant on heating oil, so I especially welcome the fact that the payment will be applicable to those off the gas grid. That, when combined with the scrapping of import tariffs on kerosene, could amount to a real reduction in heating costs.
Let us hope, though, that the additional £450 million that the Budget allocates to the Welsh Government for public services is spent wisely, at a time when three out of four of Montgomeryshire’s hospitals face the loss of all their beds, all their X-ray services and all their minor injuries units. Returning to tariffs, I applaud their removal from a wide range of everyday goods. It is appalling to hear these measures spoken of as small fry by the Conservatives, when it is the poorest in our society who are affected most by such price rises. In providing that bit of breathing space, the 3.9% rise in the minimum wage is another positive step.
The surest way to improve our food security, however, is to produce more at home, and that means supporting our farmers, so I welcome the suspension of import tariffs on fertiliser and the extension of reduced duties for red diesel. These measures will make a difference to the agricultural sector, which has taken a body blow this year in the form of the Iran war driving up input costs, compounded by a summer of severe droughts and wildfires, and further compounded by an outbreak of bluetongue. Threats to our national security are compounding, too, from climate change, AI-enabled cyber-attacks and a new age of interstate conflict, but we cannot forget about the basics. As an island nation, we must have domestic resilience in food production. You will have to forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but food security is national security.
Let me end on fiscal devolution. The experience in many parts of Wales is that devolution is unfinished business. Powers have been devolved to the Senedd, but not to our regions and communities such as north-east Wales or the Marches. I am happy to hear that English local authorities will start to retain more business rates from next year, but I would like to see greater detail on how the Government are working with the devolved Administrations to realise the benefits of regional governance across the UK. This Government, like any Government, will be judged on how they improve the material conditions of hard-working people. It is that target on which this Budget is rightly focused.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that it is unconventional to crowdsource one’s speech on the Budget, but I happened to do my annual online Budget Q&A last night, and it was an absolutely joyful experience. The key themes that were raised with me were: is this Budget bold enough; and what does it do for our communities here in the Cities of London and Westminster? Members will be delighted and perhaps unsurprised to know that the key questions raised by my constituents are very similar to those that are being raised here in the Chamber.
It is really clear to me, as it is to my constituents, that this Government cannot control every challenge beyond our shores, but we can seek stability, strengthen our resilience and support those most in need. The foundations for a more stable economy were established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) when she made the tough choices to stabilise our economy. What we need now is for families to have confidence that they can plan for the future. Businesses need confidence to invest, expand and create jobs, and our economy needs confidence that public finances are being managed responsibly. That is why this Government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and credible fiscal rules is so important.
Economic credibility is not an abstract concept discussed only in this Chamber in Westminster; it affects mortgage rates, investment decisions, business confidence, household budgets and, increasingly, whether people can afford to own a home of their own. That is in stark contrast to the damaging effects of the mini-Budget that the Conservatives want us to forget, but we very much remember it and, sadly, our constituents remember it through their day-to-day budgets. This Government rightly take a responsible approach, and I particularly welcome those measures that are supporting enterprise, investment and job creation. My constituency, the Cities of London and Westminster, has more jobs than people in it, and every day we see the contribution that businesses make to our economy, from small independent firms to globally recognised companies.
Economic security must also include housing security. Far too many people, particularly in London, cannot afford a home of their own. What was particularly important to me in this Budget was the announcement of £432 million of additional investment to stabilise support for the most vulnerable. It was an absolute honour to welcome the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to my constituency on Monday, where we recognised the long-standing work of frontline rough sleeping outreach workers. This was a long-standing call from those who work in the sector to recognise the skilled work they do every single day to help the most vulnerable. I am proud that this Government have made the decision to make long-term investment to keep people off the streets. Not only is it the right decision and the compassionate decision—
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Rachel Blake
I will not give way—we will hopefully move to a vote soon.
This is the right moral decision and the right compassionate decision. It aligns with our values—it should align with everybody’s values—and it is also the right economic decision. It is not in the interests of public spending to allow people to live on the streets. I pay tribute to the work of the Connection at St Martin’s, which hosted us that day.
We have seen the risks that the Opposition are prepared to take with our economy. This Government are taking a responsible approach, which enables us to make those investments in some of the most vulnerable in society. I commend this Budget to the House, and I commend this responsible approach to fiscal discipline, which allows us to make those important political choices.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in this Budget for my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden. Some of the measures include £100 for 41,000 of my residents. They will benefit from this immediate support with their energy bills as we seek to tackle the cost of energy crisis. The measures also include the expansion of paid parental leave to self-employed people, which will help around 90 new families in my patch every single year, and the business rates relief for businesses with rateable values of £18,000 or less, which builds upon and goes further than the previously announced plans to increase business rates relief on pubs from April 2027.
I know how hard our pub and shop owners work and the huge contribution they make to our local communities. I must give a shout-out to my local, the White Bull in Oswaldtwistle, which has recently undertaken plans to extend its dining area, and where I would be delighted to treat the Minister to lunch if they were to come and visit—I strongly recommend the Hungarian goulash.
I will focus on two main substantive issues in this Budget. First, I welcome the commitment to a mayor of Lancashire. This Labour Government have made it clear that having a mayor is firmly on the table for Lancashire, and at my business event last week, with over 130 leaders from across east Lancashire, business leaders were clear that they want this to happen as quickly as possible. Therefore, it is time for Reform-led Lancashire county council to stop delaying and get behind a mayor for Lancashire, which is key to unlocking our economic potential.
But even better, we do not have to wait for a mayor for us to get going. Following the calls from many Labour colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), the Budget includes a commitment to capacity and capability funding for areas that are progressing towards a mayoral strategic authority, which will put £7.7 million of funding into Lancashire from next year. Alongside that, there is the development of the local growth funds, with a total of £80 million for non-mayoral areas to support priority projects that will support their economic growth and development.
Secondly, I turn to what this Budget does for entrepreneurs. Some of these measures include the increases to the trading allowance, a proposed young entrepreneurs’ allowance and £200 million of additional funding for female founders. Furthermore, there is a significant set of plans to support early-stage and scale-up funding, with a commitment of an extra £5 billion to the British Business Bank, £450 million of which is allocated to a new venture debt product to help innovative firms access capital without immediate equity dilution.
Over the past year, I have been raising with Ministers the challenge faced by these businesses during their pre-commercialisation so-called “valley of death” and the opportunity to help low-carbon technology businesses in Hyndburn and east Lancashire that face this barrier through funding the RedCAT proposals that I have shared. RedCAT provides businesses that are trying to produce new products for their first identified customer, and I hope that through these combined announcements there may be ways of funding RedCAT. I urge Ministers to meet me to work out how we can overcome some of the siloed approaches within Government to unlock this and unlock economic growth not just in Hyndburn and Lancashire, but in other parts of the country.
This Budget goes a long way towards helping my constituents through these difficult global headwinds, as well as outlining a broader ambition to reshape our energy markets and the economy for the future in a way that delivers good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart. Devolution is the chance for Lancashire to take control of our own future and stop having to come cap in hand to Westminster. While we work towards this, I will continue to work with Ministers to deliver the jobs, opportunities and growth that Hyndburn desperately needs.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I am the Member of Parliament for Darlington, the home of “No. 11 North” —the Darlington economic campus. I want to put on record my thanks to Beth, Joe, Laura and all the civil servants who worked round the clock to ensure that we could deliver the Chancellor’s first Budget. The Treasury campus in Darlington was the brainchild of the previous Government, and it was funded by this Government to the tune of £118 million for a brand-new hub. It is proof that the best interventions from this place garner cross-party support.
I am sure that everyone in this Chamber will agree with investing record amounts in defence to support our world-leading armed forces and defence industry; backing British inventors, innovators and founders, so that if someone has a great idea here, we will make sure they can succeed here; £100 cashback in January for energy bills for 45,000 households in Darlington, and hundreds of thousands more across the country, which is much needed and well received; and hope for our high streets, with a freeze on business rates and an increase in the business rates relief threshold to £18,000, which will benefit 222 business in Darlington. I am particularly pleased to see that these measures are paid for by the global e-marketplaces and by taking the relief from those pesky vape shops. The country and, I am sure, their representatives across the House can all support that.
What seems to divide the House is how we should deliver it. It is right that this Government, under this Chancellor, continue their commitment to fiscal responsibility. We must reduce the amount we are paying on debt interest. I welcome the fact that those who have made record profits off the global insecurity that has driven cost of living pressures on households across our country will pay a little bit more through the bank levy. The truth remains that we will not spend more than we earn, but despite record investment, incredible world-leading growth sectors and an army of grafters—yes, in every postcode—we are getting battered by global storms. That is not the fault of the Conservative party, but we feel that the severity of the impact is. I welcome this Budget’s ringfencing of spending on preventive policies and services. Preventive funding should be ringfenced.
If the last Government had rediverted the money that they saved through short-term cuts into upgrading the grid, building new nuclear, building new renewables to create energy security, building new hospitals, building council homes—or building any homes—or building roads, building railways or, indeed, investing in our armed forces, perhaps they would still be trusted with an ounce of public money. Instead, they proved to a whole generation that they should not have the keys to Whitehall. They oversaw some of the worst business deals on record, incentivising hotel use by private contractors to house people seeking asylum and outsourcing our pensions, our social care and our post. They failed to prepare for the pandemic, and then they crashed the economy, leading to the fastest annual fall in living standards since records began.
Yes, this Government have more to do. I welcome the myriad interventions the Chancellor has made in this Budget aimed at protecting our economy, our industry and our security.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not need to choose between cheaper and cleaner energy, as the two can exist in harmony? One of the ways in which that will happen is the abolition of gas standing charges, which will save 23 million homes £45 on average. That is just one of the good things this Labour Government are doing not just to tackle our climate crisis, but to put more money into people’s pockets.
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree. The standing charge policy has come up on the doorstep and has really cut through, so I am delighted to see it.
So yes, Darlington is home to “No. 11 North”. Yes, it is home to the world’s first passenger railway, and home to pease pudding, and it is soon to be home to a brand-new multimillion-pound STEM training centre, backed by £16 million from the last Budget, backed by industry and backed by £5 million of Pride in Place funding. Yes, we do have all that, but we are way more than all those things; we are a test case for good growth and we are bucking the national trend. We are a resilient, investable ecosystem. I grew up in a part of Darlington that was historically called Hopetown. We had hope 200 years ago, and we hope again.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Much of the discussion on the Budget has focused on the national level, and rightly so, but for my constituents the true test is whether life in Aylesbury and the villages feels any different—whether decisions in the Budget translate into thriving local businesses, stronger communities and more confidence in our futures. I was out knocking on doors at the weekend, and one lady said to me, “This town is miserable now, isn’t it?”, which always pains me to hear. She said that when she wakes up on a Saturday, she does not head into Aylesbury; instead, she will go over to Tring or Wendover, where she can park cheaply and easily, and find all the shops and cafés she needs. In some ways, she has a point. Over the last decade or two, we have lost many of the shops, pubs and cafés that we used to have, but I know that our town has huge strengths and potential, and this Labour Government’s Budget helps us to start to turn a corner.
The fact is that our towns do not thrive by accident. They rely on entrepreneurs who are prepared to take risks, family businesses that have served their communities for generations, and independent retailers that give our town centres their character and identity. These are not simply economic actors; often the same people are sponsoring local sports clubs and community events—I think, for example, of the long partnership between Xpress Labels and Aylesbury United—and they help young people get into work. If we are serious about the future of our high streets, we have to back those businesses to succeed. We have to do that nationally and locally, as Aylesbury town council does very well.
I have spoken to many businesses that tell me that business rates remain one of their biggest cost pressures, and the brilliant organisation Buckinghamshire Business First has also raised that issue with me. I welcome the decision to expand small business rates relief and take thousands more local firms out of business rates altogether. Across Buckinghamshire, 2,000 businesses will now be paying no business rates at all. That makes a real difference to small businesses that are trying to invest and take on staff. I also welcome the real-terms freeze in business rates for the next two years for all our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. I know that the additional 20% relief for pubs, social clubs and most live music venues will be welcomed by many constituents who have written to me about these matters.
I welcome the focus in the Budget on support for entrepreneurs and early start-ups. We should be making it easier for people with a business idea to take that first step, which is why the decision to triple the tax-free trading allowance from £1,000 to £3,000 is important. Whether someone is testing a new business idea, turning a hobby into a source of income, or exploring self-employment for the first time, that measure helps to remove barriers and encourages enterprise. I am pleased to see the introduction of the young entrepreneurs allowance, to help young people trying to get into work. I also celebrate further support for female entrepreneurs in the Budget through the new scale-up programme for female founders, and the additional backing from the British Business Bank. We have many brilliant entrepreneurial women in Aylesbury—I think, for example, of Carys Dorritt at The Polka, a digital marketing agency—and we should absolutely be on their side.
Helping our businesses to flourish is just one part of the transformation that I want to see in our town centre and on our village high streets. From creating more spaces for young people to improving our green spaces, and from improving public transport to sorting out parking, there is much more to do, but backing businesses that are the beating heart of our towns and villages is a great place to start.
If anyone doubts that change is possible, they should take a walk along the High Street opposite Vale Park. For eight years, residents have been campaigning to remove the ugly and dangerous scaffolding that blocked the pavement on the main route into town, and I have been pleased to support them—and finally, last week, we won! You may ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, “What’s the deal with a pile of scaffolding at this late stage in the debate?” Well, what was supposed to be a temporary fix became, over eight years, a sign of how little Buckinghamshire council seemed to care about our town. But it has gone now; we have proved that we can start to change things, and I am hopeful about what is next.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back Bencher, Dave Robertson.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I am always a little worried when Members cheer because I am last!
I join colleagues in recognising and supporting important measures in the Budget that will give people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages—the place I call home—valuable breathing space. There are 34,790 households across my constituency that will receive £100 directly into their bank account in January because of this Budget. That comes on top of the removal of VAT from energy bills, the return of the £2 bus fare, and the promise to get rid of standing charges on gas. Haulier businesses have also been supported by the delay to the fuel price escalator. We could go on and on and on. Any of those changes on their own will not be the end of the cost of living crisis, but I am already hearing from people back home who are so happy that this Government understand the importance of giving them that breathing space in their personal finances.
The changes to small business rates relief announced by the Chancellor in the Budget will mean that many businesses in our town and city centres and in our villages will be lifted out of paying any business rates at all, and many more will see a smaller bill. Fifteen premises in the centre of Sankey’s Corner in my constituency will be taken out of paying that bill at all—that is a huge number of shops that will now have more money to put back into their businesses and the community. I have been unable to get the total figure for how much will be saved there, but it looks like it will mean an investment into that community of anywhere between £50,000 and £100,000 per year forever. That is a real investment in a high street in Burntwood by this Government.
Similarly, of around a dozen shops on the high street in the village of Fradley, four will no longer be paying business rates at all and a further four will have their bills cut because of this Budget. On top of that, across Lichfield and East Staffordshire, some 764 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see their rates frozen in cash terms because of decisions made by this Labour Government.
I am pleased that the Government are pressing ahead with plans for devolution across Staffordshire and Stoke. While the previous Government pushed power and funding into the West Midlands conurbation and the East Midlands combined authority, they gave a cold shoulder to the county to the north. This Government are prepared to step up and give our county the powers, and drive the economic growth, to bring good jobs across our area. Just yesterday, I spoke to the principal of South Staffordshire college about the importance of getting these powers to where they need to be, so that our skills training can meet the needs of our local area, especially the rural areas of my constituency and the wider county. The economy needs workers, and ensuring that those workers have the skills they need is something that is so important to areas like Staffordshire. I am excited to get the decisions on skills made in the right places.
There are a few other points that I wanted to pick up, but in the interests of time I will turn finally to the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The pension schemes for former coalminers and mineworkers have been poorly set up for so long, so I am very pleased that this Government have moved even closer to delivering the justice that coalfield communities—like mine, in Burntwood, Handsacre and the surrounding areas—deserve. The end of the Treasury grabbing half of the scheme surpluses should be applauded; the end of the standstill clause so that bonus pensions can be guaranteed should be applauded; and the previous return of the investment reserve to the people who earned it should be applauded. All those steps for communities should be applauded, and they simply would not have happened without a Labour Government.
However, there needs to be action on the last remaining piece of the jigsaw: the final reserve—the guarantor’s fund. The commitment from the Chancellor to move quickly on this, and the commitment this week from the Work and Pensions Secretary this to happen in weeks not months, have been really welcome, but we cannot wait. Miners have already waited for far too long. Every day, miners leave the scheme. Every day, we lose people. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We must push for them, because it is their money—they earned it—and this Labour Government need to do what we should always do: stand up for our mining communities.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken a part in the debate over the last four days, in particular the more than 40 Members who have spoken in the debate today.
If I may, I will mention the contributions made by a few Members on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about the important issue of protecting the green belt. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said that this was one of the most centralising Budgets, despite the rhetoric. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a beautiful speech about looking for a chair for his wife, and talked about the delivery charges that penalise people in rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) talked about the importance of business confidence and the fact that it has been in negative territory under this Government for seven months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) talked about the importance of job losses because of Labour’s decisions and made the absolutely true point that if Labour MPs understood economics, they would not be socialists. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) made an important point about competition for grid connectivity in his constituency, which is a matter of importance across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a reference to John Lennon, which was a cultural reference about two centuries more modern than I was expecting him to make!
We heard a series of excellent speeches from Members on the Conservative Benches and some interesting speeches from Members on the Government Benches, trying to pick through parts of the Budget to talk about. Let me point out the speech by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who is also the Chair of a Select Committee. In her speech, she demonstrated what is best about the Select Committee system. Yes, she is a Labour MP, but she stands up for all MPs in the way in which she holds this Government to account.
There has been a consistent message from Members on the Conservative Benches: that this Budget has left the British people facing higher inflation, higher interest rates, greater borrowing and more debt than was promised last year—that this Budget will leave families worse off, not better off.
May I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Here we are—two working people. Did I get that right? This was a Budget of “fiddly” bits, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was a “nothing” Budget, according to the CBI. It was
“remarkable for its lack of action”,
according to the Resolution Foundation. It was,
“big in size but small in ambition”,
according to the Institute for Government. They are not wrong.
The most surprising aspect of this “kick the can down the road” Budget is that the debate managed to last four days. After four days of debate and a week of scrutiny, the abiding sense is that this was a Budget of missed opportunities: a missed opportunity to demonstrate that we are serious about defence; a missed opportunity to get people off welfare and into work; a missed opportunity to spell out the tough decisions needed to curb public spending, eliminate the deficit and cut our debts; and a missed opportunity to support young people wanting to fulfil their potential but finding it hard to get work or worried about their debts.
Even the Prime Minister sees this Budget as a missed opportunity, lamenting that it is not “ideal”. I mean, how bad does a Budget have to be for the Prime Minister to disown it before we have even voted on it? Now we have it from Labour MPs themselves: this Budget is as bad as Liz Truss’s Budget—that is true. But the point is that Liz Truss’s period in office was short, sharp and over in a moment. The problem with this Labour Government is that the pain is long, and we are still stuck with it.
On defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) spoke yesterday of the genuine threat of war. Just days ago, the Government told us to prepare for war in 1,000 days, but at the Budget the Chancellor said that he needed more time to work out how to fund defence. Let us get this straight: the commitment to spend 3% of GDP on defence was a matter of principle for the Chancellor in the summer, but, by this Budget, it had become a matter of inconvenience. How can anyone trust his words?
The Chancellor says that he has a target for 3%, but he has no commitments and no plans. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), called that “lamentable”, and he is right. However, in opening the debate on Thursday, the Defence Secretary said that he did not care—that he did not care about the views of the Chair of the Defence Committee. What an arrogant dismissal from a Minister who is barely 15 weeks into the job! No one in this Parliament has a monopoly on wisdom, least of all the Defence Secretary.
The OBR says that spending will increase by over £100 billion, to exceed £430 billion by the end of the forecast period, but the Budget contains no plans to bring the ballooning welfare bill under control. The Chancellor seemed confused and a little lost. In his speech last Wednesday, he said:
“As the Prime Minister and I have both said, we will bring down the welfare bill, and we will do it in a Labour way.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 311.]
The next day on Radio 4, when asked whether the welfare bill would be reduced before the next election, the Chancellor said,
“There will be a reduction in the benefits bill. We’ll do that in a Labour way.”
That seemed pretty clear, but the Chancellor was then forced to clarify that when he said yes, he really meant to say no. He said that it was
“not correct to say that we’re going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament”,
so there we have it—the Labour way to cut welfare is “Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but yeah.” As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said, it is a “Little Britain” farce from a “Little Britain” Chancellor.
As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said on Thursday, the UK Government’s finances are walking along a cliff edge. With our national debt at 100% of GDP and with the Government continuing to tax and borrow more, he was right to do so. You do not help the disadvantaged in our society by dodging hard choices and going broke; you make their lives much harder. A Budget that ignores the warning signals and buries its head in the sand is a Budget that is deliberately increasing the risk to those least able to cope. Rather than cut borrowing, Labour plans to borrow nearly a quarter of a trillion pounds more over just the next two years, costing every British household an extra £476 per year in additional debt interest. That is not smart, and it is not fair—not to this generation, and certainly not to future generations.
The Chancellor praised his “fiscal discipline”, but he knows that he is standing on quicksand. Let us be clear: by voting through this Budget, Labour MPs are voting for real-terms cuts to the schools budget, the prisons budget and adult social care—it is there in the documents, in black and white—but they will not vote for real-terms cuts elsewhere. They do not have the backbone for tough decisions. The Chancellor will have to start work on how to raise taxes yet again to fill the £49 billion hole in his finances. The British people should be under no illusion—a fourth tax-raising Labour Budget lies ahead, with massive tax increases to fund Labour’s addiction to borrowing, big government and more welfare.
This Budget is not a fair Budget. It raises taxes on savers for being prudent and reducing their dependency on others. It raises taxes on people who rent out their properties so that someone else can have a roof over their head. It snatches away tax relief for people who start a business—not to become a billionaire, but because it is their passion and they want to create a small nest egg for when they retire—and it introduces new taxes at a time when the tax burden is already far too high.
A Conservative Government would not shirk their responsibilities to make big decisions. We would take the hard decisions to reduce welfare, improve the productivity of public services and cut back on overseas aid and the size of the civil service, with 50p of every pound saved going to reduce our deficit under our golden economic rule. That is a Conservative plan for governing now, with a team who have deep experience of the world outside politics and a leader with the backbone to see our country through to a more secure, more prosperous and fairer future.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
This Budget provides breathing space now and fresh hope for the future, which is the focus of today’s debate. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members across this House who have made contributions—not only today, but over the four days of the debate on this Budget—on the action we are taking in government to steer Britain through the global economic storms, kick-start good growth in every postcode, strengthen our national security and chart a new course for our country in the years ahead.
Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), rightly stressed the challenges we are facing because of the storms in the global economy. We have heard a lot from Opposition Front Benchers—most of it hot air—but there was not a word of apology for calling on this Government to join the war in the middle east that is driving up energy costs, inflation and the cost of Government borrowing. We cannot wish away these global economic storms. Instead, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out a course to steer this country through them.
We have chosen to use some of the fiscal headroom established last year to absorb the impact of the Iran war and to protect the economy, British businesses and family budgets. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) rightly said, fiscal discipline underwrites every policy of this Government. We will meet the fiscal rules in full, and for the first time, in the third year of the forecast. Last year, borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years as a percentage of GDP, and it continues to fall across the forecast.
We will not take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) or the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). They like to claim that they were innocent bystanders who just happened to be Treasury Ministers at the time of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. We all know that they were the architects of the mini-Budget. The shadow Chancellor still maintains, and said as recently as September, that there were a “lot of good things” in the mini-Budget, and to this day the British people are paying the price for his failure. Liz Truss’s stint in office might have been short-lived, but the impact was long-lasting.
The contrast with this Labour Government could not be clearer. I am proud that the IMF has said that the UK stands out as a country where
“action to reduce debt and deficit has been taken decisively”.
It has said that we will have the lowest deficit in the G7 by 2029. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) rightly said, the British economy has proven more resilient than many predicted, including Opposition Members. Indeed, it has defied expectations. The Tories and Reform like to talk down our economy, but the fundamentals of the British economy are strong. Public investment is up. Business investment is up to its highest level in 10 years. Productivity has finally turned a corner, and we had the joint-fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister talks about people talking down the economy, but the Joseph Rowntree Trust says that Labour is overseeing the sharpest fall in living standards in 65 years. I wonder whether she thinks it is wrong. If she does, how much are the Government overseeing in terms of declining living standards?
Emma Reynolds
The last Parliament was the worst Parliament on record for living standards. Since the last election, living standards have increased by 1.8%. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the executive summary from the OBR, which stated:
“As a net importer of energy, the rise in energy prices constitutes a negative terms-of-trade shock for the UK, which pushes up on inflation and lowers real household disposable incomes.”
Those are the global headwinds we are facing.
Graham Stuart
Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Minister will be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that constituents of mine—families—will be at least £440 worse off in this Parliament. It will be the worst Parliament ever. There is no covid and no new Ukraine impacting on energy prices. Can she answer my right hon. Friend’s question? Is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation wrong or right?
Emma Reynolds
What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that wages have risen faster in the first two years of this Government than they did in the first 10 years of his Government, so we will take no lectures from him or his party.
Against this backdrop, the Chancellor is providing immediate breathing space for families and businesses. Our £100 household energy payment will support 20 million households in England. That is 80% of households, and it will be paid for by a time-limited 3% increase to the bank surcharge, which the Conservatives will oppose in the Lobby.
We are going further on bills, by extending the removal of VAT on electricity until July and extending the 5p cut on fuel duty, and next year we will abolish gas standing charges. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), and many others, for welcoming this energy support package. Overall, in 2026-27, households in England are estimated to benefit by about £160 on average from the support that we are providing on energy, according to new analysis published this morning. Households on the lowest incomes are expected to benefit the most, with the bottom 20% benefiting by about £230 on average, almost four times as much as the top 20%. Because we know that higher energy costs are a challenge for business too, we are reducing bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary earlier. That will help to support the British firms at the heart of the future of Britain’s reindustrialisation.
Beyond energy, we are supporting families by giving self-employed dads paid paternity leave, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for welcoming that measure. We are backing British businesses and high streets, and here I would like to correct the record. Of course the brilliant men and women across the country who run small businesses are working people, and I thank them for their contribution to our local economies and our local high streets—the bakeries, the cafés, the restaurants, the beauticians, the hairdressers, the local pubs, and so much more. In the first week of this new Government in July 2024, we cut an extra 20% from business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues from April next year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for her invitation to the pub in her constituency, and I look forward to going there to eat the goulash.
In this Budget, the Chancellor has gone further by taking 70,000 more small retail, hospitality and leisure properties out of paying business rates altogether. For all other businesses in those sectors, we are freezing their business rates in real terms. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith)—my constituency neighbour—for what she said about that change in business rates, and the 2,000 small high street businesses across Buckinghamshire, including Aylesbury and indeed High Wycombe, that will be taken out of business rates altogether. To pay for this—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell)—we are increasing machine games duty for higher-stakes machines, and we are carving out adult gaming centres and vape shops from business rate reliefs. We are also ensuring that online marketplaces collect and pay VAT, which they should be doing already.
Many Members have mentioned young people during the debate. We want young people to have the chance to earn, learn and get on. As the Chancellor has rightly said, we have a moral duty to the next generation. We are raising pay for low-paid workers, while being careful not to price young people out of that crucial first job. We have also expanded access to work experience, and provided record funding for apprenticeships. We have introduced a scheme for first-time buyers, and have capped student loan interest rates at 6%.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) mentioned the mineworkers pension scheme. It is this Labour Government who returned the investment fund to the members of the scheme in a previous Budget, and in this Budget the Chancellor has rightly introduced a measure to ensure that not a penny of the surpluses will come back to the Government. Instead, 100% of surpluses will go to the scheme members. As for the outstanding issue of the guarantor’s fund, the Chancellor has made it clear that we will go on to ensure that the full transfer takes place.
As well as making decisions to provide breathing space now, the Chancellor took action for the long term to kick-start growth throughout the country, which is the only way to keep Britain’s families and Britain’s finances secure for the long term. That begins with, first, delivering the most ambitious devolution package in a generation. We are putting power in the hands of local leaders because they know the right levers to pull to drive growth and job creation in their local areas.
Secondly, this Budget delivers radical reform of our energy system, because our priority is to bring energy costs down to help British business to compete and British households to cope. We will only buy and build new projects where they lower bills and can connect to the grid. We will further break the grip of international gas prices on our bills by moving more of our old renewables on to fixed-price contracts, and we will build cheaper, faster grid connections through GB Grid.
Wera Hobhouse
Given that the Minister has just said that the Government want to support households but also move away from expensive fossil fuels, why make cuts to the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes plan?
Emma Reynolds
We are securing energy in our country and giving people an energy support package, as I outlined.
Crucially, we are putting an end to the Tories’ practice of loading levy costs on to bills, because, unlike them, we are determined to bring down energy bills for families.
Thirdly, we are supporting companies to start, scale and stay in the UK. We are introducing a new founders’ relief for founders of high-growth companies, and a new young entrepreneurs allowance to cover a year of living costs for young founders while they turn their ideas into businesses. Crucially, and as recommended by the women in tech taskforce, we are establishing a new scale-up programme to support female founders. The British Business Bank will also double its commitments to women-led businesses.
Finally, we have taken action to tackle the big challenges facing our country—most importantly, on defence. The first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe, and I am proud that this Labour Government have driven the biggest boost in defence spending since the end of the cold war. At the Budget last week, we took difficult decisions to reprioritise budgets across Whitehall in order to fund the £15 billion defence investment plan in full. At the spending review next year, we will set out the details of how we will meet our NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. Crucially, that includes setting a target of 3% by 2030. This is a “credible path” to the UK meeting our NATO commitments—not my words, but those of the NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, who has welcomed our plans.
I know that there is plenty of disagreement in this House on the measures in the Budget, but there is one area where I think we agree: we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people and Government of Ukraine. This Budget provides £10 billion of additional economic and military support for Ukraine. Together, we are sending a clear message to Moscow that Britain will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
This is a Budget built on fiscal discipline. It charts a way through difficult global economic headwinds. It provides breathing space for families and businesses now. It kick-starts work on the big changes needed to put this country on a better course on devolution, energy and defence, and it will deliver good growth in every postcode and strengthen our national security. This is a Budget built on Labour choices—breathing space today, and fresh hope for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2027-28.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Income tax (main rates)
Resolved,
That for the tax year 2027-28 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
3. Income tax (default, property and savings rates)
Question put,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2027-28 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2027-28 the property rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the property basic rate is 24%,
(b) the property higher rate is 44%, and
(c) the property additional rate is 49%.
(3) For the tax year 2027-28 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 24%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 44%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 49%.
(4) In consequence of the provision made by paragraphs (2) and (3), sections 5 and 7 of the Finance Act 2026 (which had set the property rates and savings rates for the tax year 2027-28) are repealed.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
Alcoholic strength of alcoholic product | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
Less than 3.5% | £10.41 |
At least 3.5% but less than 8.5% | See Table 2 |
At least 8.5% but not exceeding 22% | £32.01 |
Exceeding 22% | £35.54 |
Description of alcoholic product (of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but less than 8.5%) | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
(a) Still cider (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength not exceeding 5.5% | £10.86 |
Beer | £23.61 |
(a) Spirits, wine and other fermented products (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | £27.82” |
Description of alcoholic product | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
Alcoholic products of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | £8.97 |
(a) Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | £9.36 |
(a) Beer, spirits, wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% (but less than 8.5%) (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | £20.34” |
Alcoholic products, other than spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 10.41 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5.80 | 52.05 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 5.22 | 675.38 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.90 | 1,262.35 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.74 | 1,914.67 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,696.54 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.86 | 2,696.54 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 8.06 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5.80 | 40.30 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 5.22 | 663.63 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.90 | 1,250.60 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.74 | 1,902.92 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,684.79 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.85 | 2,684.79 |
Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 10.86 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 3.02 | 54.30 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.82 | 190.39 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.61 | 281.46 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 342.17 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 342.17 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.10 | 342.17 |
Beer of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 22.81 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 13.15 | 114.05 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 11.83 | 1,527.76 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 6.58 | 2,859.02 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 3.94 | 4,338.49 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 6,111.78 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -1.94 | 6,111.78 |
Wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 27.82 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 3.10 | 139.10 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 3.10 | 278.80 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.55 | 434.02 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 588.67 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 588.67 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.17 | 588.67 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 25.47 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 3.10 | 127.35 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 3.10 | 267.05 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.55 | 422.27 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 576.92 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 576.92 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.16 | 576.92 |
Alcoholic products, other than spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 8.97 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5 | 44.85 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 4.50 | 581.95 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.50 | 1,087.77 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.50 | 1,650.42 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,325.60 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.74 | 2,325.60 |
Spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 6.62 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5 | 33.10 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 4.50 | 570.20 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.50 | 1,076.02 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.50 | 1,638.67 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,313.85 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.73 | 2,313.85 |
Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 9.36 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.61 | 46.80 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.57 | 164.33 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.53 | 242.80 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 295.50 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 295.50 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.08 | 295.50 |
Beer of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 19.54 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 11.33 | 97.70 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 10.20 | 1,315.61 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 5.67 | 2,462.58 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 3.40 | 3,738.43 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 5,269.44 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -1.67 | 5,269.44 |
Wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 20.34 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.27 | 101.70 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 2.27 | 203.77 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.13 | 317.18 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 430.58 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 430.58 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.12 | 430.58 |
Spirits, of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 17.99 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.27 | 89.95 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 2.27 | 192.02 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.13 | 305.43 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 418.83 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 418.83 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.12 | 418.83”. |
Point of Order
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) claimed twice during today’s debate that 27 young non-EU migrants have been hired for every young Brit since 2020, but the reality is very different. The report that the right hon. and learned Member was referring to has been debunked. If the actual numbers of employed young people, not the increases in the number of payrolled young people, are used, 10 UK under-25s are employed for every one non-EU national. I ask for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members of this House can be asked to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she informed the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville before referring to her.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can see that the hon. Lady is nodding. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of hon. Members’ speeches, and any Member who wants to correct the record should contact Hansard. The hon. Lady has most definitely got her point on the record.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I would like to start by talking about FISH, although not the aquatic kind, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the topic of this debate.
FISH stands for Friends in Sickness and Health. It is a wonderful charity in the village of Sonning Common in my constituency. Among other things, its volunteers run a minibus service for older residents and residents with disabilities to enable them to more easily get around the villages in my area. Their minibuses are perfect for providing people who would otherwise really struggle to leave the house with a trip out to the shops or to the market. Morrisons, I am told, remains ever popular, and the extra space on the bus is vital for bringing back all the shopping.
FISH are not alone either in my constituency. Henley HandyBus, supported by Henley town council, operates daily, and the Woodcote Volunteers host events, providing transport to their monthly tea parties. But it was Sonning Common’s FISH group that brought to my attention the issue of D1 licences when we met in October here in Westminster. The Minister is likely to be familiar with the issue, but I will briefly describe it in the words used to explain it to me.
A category D1 licence gives a driver permission to drive a minibus with up to 16 passengers and weighing up to 7.5 tonnes. Prior to 1997, all new licences were issued with this category as standard. In 1997, that changed, and now D1 minibus driving licences require an additional test. This happened for a very understandable reason—to enhance safety—and it brought us in line with other similar countries, but it also created a problem.
Community transport services have become dependent on an ever-decreasing pool of drivers who qualified prior to 1997. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am confident that means that neither you, the Minister or I have D1 licences. The reality is that more than half of community transport operators report having insufficient D1 drivers to meet demand. According to the Community Transport Association, 81% of community transport operators are not confident that they will have enough D1 drivers to sustain their services in as little as three years’ time.
What is even worse is that once a driver gets to the age of 70, they automatically lose their D1 category licence unless they apply to retain it, and they must do that every three years. Again, that is for very understandable and sensible safety reasons, but the upshot is that 99% of all D1 licences in Great Britain are held by drivers in a narrow age band of 47 to 69.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this incredibly important issue. It is the same in my constituency of Strangford; local independent bus companies provide a lifeline for the vulnerable, elderly and schoolchildren, yet the operators are facing incredible pressures, from rising fuel costs to regulatory burdens and an acute shortage of qualified D1 licensed drivers. If we are to prevent rural communities from being cut off, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must step in with targeted support to assist our local operators with driver recruitment, training and operational funding across the UK?
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Gentleman mentions D1 licences and a wider range of issues that face community transport organisations, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard his points.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Recently I hosted a roundtable of community transport organisations that was chaired by VASA, which operates in my constituency and is supported by Stratford-on-Avon district council. They are a lifeline for residents, often elderly residents, who otherwise struggle to reach medical appointments and other services. Does my hon. Friend agree that community transport should be recognised as a core part of our transport network and as essential infrastructure, especially in rural areas, and should be embedded in future national and local transport policies?
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank my hon. Friend for her very sensible intervention. My own local authority in Oxfordshire also heavily supports community transport organisations. I am sure that her proposals were heard by the Minister.
Over the next five years, more than 3 million D1 licences are likely to be lost as drivers reach 70—equivalent to one in five of all D1 licences. We are therefore facing a ticking time bomb as qualified drivers age out at the top and are not replenished enough from below.
Without decisive action from the Government, there will be serious concerns for the future viability of community transport.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am a massive supporter of Mendip Community Transport. In fact, my village has a community transport minibus, which is an absolutely essential lifeline, particularly in such a rural area where we have no buses. What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that if someone wants to undertake a minibus driving test in my area, they must travel some long distance and the test can cost up to £2,000, which seems extraordinarily expensive?
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank my hon. Friend for that addition to the debate. I was aware of the costs, which I will come on to, but I had not been made aware previously of the distance that some drivers may need to travel to carry out a test. That would be an additional barrier to enabling volunteers to do what they love doing most.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might reasonably ask, “Why don’t people just take the test?” A test is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone driving 7.5 tonnes of fast-moving metal to pass—we accept that; no one is disputing it—but it is how difficult and how costly that test is that matters. How proportionate is the test to the social benefits of community transport? How easy are we making it for people who want to do good in their community, giving up their time for others, to do so? If we make it too difficult, they will just say, “What’s the point?” and move on to something else. At the moment, drivers must pass an additional theory test, a practical test and a medical assessment, all to the tune of up to £2,000.
Setting a cost of up to £2,000 might make sense in terms of passing on the administrative costs of the testing regime to the customer. I can see how we might have got to that point rationally. The Minister may be able to confirm whether a profit is made on the testing regime; if that is the case, I ask him to look into that. I argue that the social and economic benefit of having more minibus drivers able to run local community services should be taken into account.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I am listening intently to what he is saying and will listen intently to the Minister. I have seen at first hand the Volunteer Friends charity in my constituency, which runs a medicar transport service and supported shopping service. The issues that he has raised show how there are problems in the sector and how we need to do everything we possibly can to facilitate people to volunteer to help the community. I have seen with my own eyes just how important that is.
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights just how widespread the issue is and how keenly it is felt in all corners of the country.
Rural constituencies like mine rely on volunteer transport to plug the gap between private motor vehicle usage and commercial for-profit bus companies. Many rural routes are not profit making and have no hope of being so. The alternative is clear: if we let community transport die a slow death, we will see more social isolation, with all the health and social care costs associated with that. We will also see councils come under pressure to step in with taxpayer-funded schemes and subsidies. At a time when the Government have cut my local authority’s funding, it is hard to see how that can happen. Why should it when we have a pool of people willing to volunteer? For the volunteers, it is rewarding work that gives meaning to people’s lives, providing an opportunity to give back and be part of something really special.
I put on the record my sincere gratitude for all the hard work that volunteers put in every day and the contribution they make. Two of those wonderful volunteers are John Pearman, the FISH transport co-ordinator, and David Whitehead, the chair of FISH volunteer centre. They do excellent work to co-ordinate half a dozen drivers and look out for opportunities to recruit new volunteers.
John told me how he found three potential new drivers, but once they had understood the costs and time needed to update their licence to D1 status, all withdrew their interest, even with the offer from Sonning Common health centre for free medical testing for volunteer minibus drivers. David and John therefore completely rely on the 47 to 69 age band, with the band becoming ever narrower each year.
When thinking about how to move forwards, the Government do not have to start from scratch. The 2022 call for evidence on driving licensing took views on the minibus licensing regime from over 2,000 respondents. Although most respondents supported a change in current licensing arrangements, no substantial actions have since been taken to improve the status.
The Government have pointed concerned parties towards exemptions that already exist for D1 licences. However, the Community Transport Association notes that those exemptions make no meaningful change in availability of drivers. The exemptions allow those with a standard driving licence issued post 1997 to drive a lighter minibus weighing up to 3.5 tonnes. However, nearly three quarters of all vehicles in the UK’s community transport fleet are minibuses with between 9 and 16 seats, often with weighty accessibility features. Larger vehicles give local charities, community groups and social enterprises the flexibility they need to operate effectively, with more affordable costs.
Tessa Munt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way for a second time. I would like to point out that a number of community minibuses are electric vehicles, and their batteries make them very much heavier, which, along with accessibility equipment such as wheelchair lifts, automatically take their weight way over the 3.5 tonne limit.
Freddie van Mierlo
Of course, we want to encourage a shift to more sustainable and greener forms of travel, while still maintaining a good cohort of drivers. I will not take any more interventions because I know we have to move on.
More than one in 10 organisations have changed their service delivery model, often replacing conventional minibuses with cars or lightweight minibuses, resulting in lower capacity, increased costs and operational complexity. However, drivers of those lighter vehicles are not eligible to be paid, unlike those with the standard D1 licence, adding further to the burden.
So how can we help community transport? The CTA has put forward a proposal. It is not a blanket minibus licence for all drivers—not a return to 1997. Instead, the CTA proposes a targeted intervention to allow drivers to acquire a D1 licence to drive a minibus for non-profit organisations. The licence would draw on minibus learning programmes that already exist and require the driver to complete a training-based upgrade accredited by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, similar to the minibus driver awareness scheme, or MiDAS, which is a national programme of quality-assured education and training for the community transport sector. This approach was supported by respondents to the Government’s 2022 call for evidence. The CTA proposal requires an online theory test, a short practical session, and on-road and medical assessments, but, crucially, with a cost of under £300. The proposal allows the number of drivers to be increased in a safe way, using an established information and learning assessment.
Will the Minister say in his remarks whether he has considered the CTA’s proposals? I caveat that by saying that I am not a road expert and the CTA’s proposals may not be 100% the answer, but surely the Government can come up with a regime that achieves both aims: safe roads and a thriving community transport sector. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on the points that I have raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate and on raising this important subject. I am grateful to him for giving the House the opportunity to reflect on the enormously valuable contribution that community transport makes to communities across the country. I want to begin by putting on record this Government’s strong support for the community transport sector and our appreciation for the staff and volunteers who make those services possible.
I pay tribute to FISH, in this plaice, for doing a fantastic job. [Laughter.] It really does make a splash for all the right reasons. The people there are o-fish-ally doing a great job—I could not resist that, as the hon. Gentleman gave me a heads-up that he would mention the charity.
On a more serious note, community transport can provide a real lifeline, particularly for older and disabled people, those who are vulnerable or isolated and people living in rural areas where other public transport options are limited. It helps people get to work, education, healthcare and other essential services. Just as importantly, it allows people to see friends and family, take part in community life and maintain their independence. The scale of that contribution should not be underestimated.
Community transport operators providing around 13.8 million passenger journeys each year. This is ultimately not just a debate about driving licence categories or regulations; it is about people’s ability to get where they need to go and to remain connected to the communities in which they live. That is why the Government provide practical support to the sector. The Department for Transport provides the Community Transport Association with an annual grant to support its work with its members and the wider sector. We also make available up to £3.8 million each year to eligible community transport operators through the bus service operators grant, helping operators with their running costs. A 60% uplift has been added to community transport claims until 31 March 2027, with further support during the current period of increased fuel costs.
Our support is not simply about direct financial assistance. We want community transport to be properly recognised as part of the wider transport network. We encourage local authorities to consider community transport within their local transport planning and to look at how those services can complement conventional fixed-route bus services and improve connectivity. That is particularly important in places where community transport fills gaps that other transport services cannot easily fill.
I turn now to the specific issue that the hon. Member has raised today: the rules governing the driving of minibuses. I recognise very clearly the concern within the community transport sector about the availability of drivers with category D1 entitlement. Prior to 1997, someone obtaining a car licence was automatically granted the restricted category D1 entitlement—commonly known as D1(101)—allowing them to drive a minibus when it was not being driven for hire or reward. The automatic entitlement ceased for people passing their car test from 1 January 1997. Since then, drivers have generally needed to pass an additional test to obtain a category D1 entitlement, although there are limited circumstances in which a holder of a category B car licence may drive a minibus without a full D1 licence.
The practical consequences are that drivers who retain a category D1 through those so-called grandfather rights are gradually getting older, and the number of drivers with D1 is gradually reducing. I understand the concern that this creates for community transport operators, which have traditionally relied on this cohort of drivers. The CTA has made the case strongly that a diminishing pool of D1 drivers is making recruitment more difficult and imposing additional costs on organisations that need to train new ones. I want to acknowledge the constructive work that the association has done in bringing this issue to the Government and to Parliament; during Community Transport Week in October, the CTA held an event here in Parliament and launched its white paper, setting out its case for changes to the licensing arrangements. The Department is aware of that proposal and we are actively reviewing it.
I recognise the seriousness of the concern behind that work and the effort that the CTA has made to develop a practical proposal. At the same time, however, the Government must consider any proposed change to driver licensing arrangements very carefully. This consideration also takes place within the wider framework of the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published earlier this year. The strategy reiterates the Government’s commitment to reducing those killed and seriously injured on our roads, and to ensuring that road safety impacts are properly considered when developing transport policy. Any changes to driver licensing arrangements therefore need to be assessed in terms not only of accessibility, workforce availability and operational benefits, but also in terms of their implications for road safety outcomes.
I had a look before coming here tonight, and I can tell the House the statistics from 2025, the last full year of pass rates for D1. Of the 3,069 tests taken, 2,511 were passed but 552 were failed. Under some proposed changes, those without this D1 qualification could potentially be driving minibuses, and we can see how important safety is when considering the implications of any changes. Minibuses can carry up to 16 passengers in addition to the driver. They can weigh up to 5 tonnes and be driven at speeds of up to 70 mph. The responsibility placed on the person driving such a vehicle is therefore different from that involved in driving a private car. Also, many of the passengers who depend on community transport are themselves older, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. While I absolutely recognise the pressures facing operators, road and passenger safety must remain at the heart of our consideration of any changes to the licensing regime.
Tessa Munt
Can I ask the Minister how many accidents there have been involving community minibuses in the last two or three years, please? If he does not know, might he be able to write to me with that information? I realise this is a very serious matter, and I just wondered how many incidents there were.
Simon Lightwood
I commit to write to the hon. Lady on that matter, as I do not have the information to hand.
Of course, what I have said does not mean that the Government should close their mind to reform—quite the contrary—but it does mean that we must be satisfied that changes designed to make it easier to obtain the necessary entitlement do not introduce unacceptable risks for minibus passengers or for other road users.
That balance between flexibility and safety is not a new question. In 2022, the previous Government held a substantial call for evidence to look at potential reforms to driver licensing regimes, and one of the questions considered was whether people holding a category B car licence should be granted entitlement to drive category D1 minibuses. The review ran between August and October 2022, and deliberately sought evidence about whether reforms could widen the pool of minibus drivers while maintaining the safe use of our roads. The response demonstrated significant support for the change, but that is not by itself the same thing as evidence that the change can be made safely. The Department’s assessment of that exercise was that, although there was strong support for extending driving licence entitlement, the evidence presented was not sufficient to allow us to fully understand and assess the associated road safety risks. I understand that the Community Transport Association does not agree that the evidence currently available justifies maintaining the existing position. That evidence gap is, however, important. It is why the Department has continued to say that any potential relaxation of the D1 requirements needs to be considered alongside the implications for road safety.
I do not want the hon. Member for Henley and Thame to take from what I have said that the Government are insensitive to the problem he has described—far from it. We recognise the demographic issue affecting holders of D1 grandfather rights. We recognise what community transport operators are telling us about recruiting drivers. We recognise the argument that the costs and practicalities associated with obtaining a D1 entitlement may be particularly challenging for small, community-based and not-for-profit organisations. Through its proposal for reform, the Community Transport Association believes that it can address those pressures while providing appropriate safeguards. We will consider that contribution seriously, but we will also continue to place passenger and road safety at the centre of our consideration.
I hope Members across the House would agree that those two objectives—of supporting the sustainability of community transport and ensuring that people can travel safely—should not be regarded as opposing ambitions. Our task now is to determine how best to secure both.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Administrative Court (Recording and Broadcasting) and Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Administrative Court (Recording and Broadcasting) and Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026.
Sarah Sackman
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
The two orders before the Committee today are all about open justice. Taken together, they extend the broadcasting regime that already operates successfully in our courts. Specifically, they remove the prohibitions on recording in three areas: first, proceedings in the administrative court which is part of the High Court; secondly, proceedings involving litigants in person in the Court of Appeal; and thirdly, the magistrates court, to enable the recording and broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by the chief magistrate in open court.
The filming and sound recording of court proceedings is generally prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, but the Supreme Court has allowed filming since it was established in 2009, and a small number of further exceptions are set out in secondary legislation. Orders specifying the circumstances in which those prohibitions may be lifted can be made with the concurrence of the Lady Chief Justice.
Broadcasting of court proceedings has been expanded carefully and incrementally over time, and has been a successful and important route to increasing public access to, and understanding of, our justice system. Following the example of the Supreme Court, filming was extended to the Court of Appeal in 2013, and then to sentencing remarks in the Crown court, where the first broadcast took place in July 2022.
There is clear public interest in understanding more about what happens in our courts, and growing expectations that we should take advantage of technology to expand access to courts, allowing for greater flexibility and transparency. The two instruments before the Committee will build on that success by extending broadcasting further, supporting wider public access to our justice system. In all circumstances, the final decision on whether filming is permitted will rest with a judge. That will ensure that there is always in each case a judicial assessment of the extent to which broadcasting is appropriate.
The two orders take broadly the same legislative approach as earlier instruments made under section 32(1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Consistent with previous practice, each court has a separate recording and broadcasting order. The judiciary supports these policy changes. The extension of broadcasting to the administrative court was specifically recommended by the judiciary-led Transparency and Open Justice Board. The Lady Chief Justice, whose agreement is required under section 32 of the 2013 Act, has indicated that she is content with the draft orders.
Extending broadcasting to the administrative court will increase public access to proceedings that frequently determine matters of significant public importance, including challenges to public authorities’ decisions through judicial review. I might add, on a personal note, that I thought it would take getting elected to Parliament for my mum to watch me on telly. Had I known that broadcasting of judicial reviews in the administrative court was going to be enabled, I could have stayed there. Well, there is always hope for life after Parliament, isn’t there?
This order will allow the recording and broadcasting of proceedings taking place in open court, including submissions to the judge and any exchanges arising from them, and the judge giving or summarising their judgment. The first order also removes the existing restriction on broadcasting proceedings in the Court of Appeal that involve litigants in person. That restriction was originally intended to protect unrepresented parties and to avoid broadcasting only one side of the case, which could offer a distorted view of proceedings.
The current framework prevents the recording and broadcasting of all proceedings involving a litigant in person, except for the court giving judgment. Our experience since broadcasting was first introduced into the Court of Appeal in 2013 is that this blanket approach is disproportionate and no longer appropriate. In practice, litigants in person very rarely appear in the Court of Appeal, and those who do are often legally trained. The change will therefore allow submissions and exchanges with the court to be filmed in cases involving litigants in person, subject as always to judicial permission.
The second order will allow the broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by the chief magistrate in open court. Building on the existing approach in the Crown court, that represents a careful and measured first step into the magistrates court, focusing on some of the most high-profile cases. Allowing the public to see and hear the judge explain a sentencing decision, rather than simply learning the outcome, will help to improve understanding of how and why sentences are imposed.
Filming will be strictly limited to the chief magistrate passing sentence, and will not include victims, witnesses, defendants or other court users, or indeed any other part of the proceedings. The chief magistrate will be able to refuse permission or impose further conditions alongside reporting restrictions, including where remarks contain particularly sensitive details, to protect the victims of crime.
The legislation allows for filming to take place via livestreaming, which is managed by the court itself, and broadcasting, which involves third-party media organisations, but to begin with, we intend filming in the administrative court and the magistrates court to be broadcast. That will build on established court broadcasting arrangements, working with experienced broadcasters who have been filming proceedings in our courts for many years.
As under the existing Crown court and Court of Appeal arrangements, broadcasters, rather than His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, will meet the cost of filming. Where broadcasting is live, a short delay will allow transmission to be stopped if an unexpected incident occurs or sensitive information is disclosed. That provides an important additional safeguard to protect the proper administration of justice.
The extent and territorial application of these instruments is England and Wales. I assure hon. Members that these statutory instruments will increase public access to court proceedings while preserving judicial discretion, protecting the interests of victims and other court users, and ensuring that the effective administration of justice and the dignity of the court are upheld.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
As the Minister has outlined, these two orders make changes to the rules on recording and broadcasting court proceedings, and we support them. The previous Conservative Government took a number of steps to improve the transparency of the courts and to help the public to understand better how judicial decisions are made. Those steps included allowing proceedings in the Court of Appeal to be broadcast and, from 2022, allowing judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown court to be filmed and broadcast. The aim was straightforward: people should be able to see and better understand how our courts work, while victims, witnesses and defendants continue to receive appropriate protection. These orders build on that approach.
It is important to note, as the Minister said, that this is not an unrestricted right to film proceedings. Recording and broadcasting will remain subject to the written permission of the court and to any conditions that the court considers appropriate in the interests of justice.
The first order also changes the arrangements in the Court of Appeal. At present, where a party is not legally represented, the ability to record and broadcast proceedings is limited. The order removes that restriction, meaning that submissions by litigants in person may also be recorded and broadcast—again, where the court gives permission and considers it appropriate. There is no obvious reason why the fact that somebody is representing themselves should automatically prevent proceedings from being broadcast, although there will inevitably be more sensitive matters for the judge to consider with unrepresented individuals.
The second order concerns magistrates courts, allowing sentencing remarks delivered by the chief magistrate in open court to be recorded and broadcast. Again, this is a relatively narrow measure. It does not introduce general broadcasting of magistrates court proceedings; recording is limited to the chief magistrate delivering sentencing remarks, in a way familiar to us from other courts. The defendant, witnesses and other participants will not be filmed, and existing reporting restrictions will continue to apply.
Allowing the public to hear directly from the judge why a particular sentence has been imposed may improve understanding of sentencing decisions. That is particularly important in serious or high-profile cases, where a headline reporting the length of a sentence may not explain the aggravating and mitigating factors that led the court to its decision. There is, therefore, a clear public interest in greater transparency when it can be achieved without compromising the rights and safety of those involved.
However, I would like to raise with the Minister the related topic of improving the transparency of sentencing remarks, which at the moment are published intermittently. Even I, a shadow Justice Minister, can find it difficult to get hold of the sentencing remarks when a case is reported in the news—very often they will not have been broadcast—and the same is certainly true of court transcripts. Can the Minister update us on giving shadow Ministers greater access to court remarks in high-profile cases, whether sentencing remarks or otherwise, to enable us to do our jobs better?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec.
The Liberal Democrats support these orders. As the Minister outlined, they build on existing broadcasting practices across the judicial system to expand the broadcasting framework for the Court of Appeal and to permit recording and broadcasting in the administrative court, and in the magistrates court for the most high-profile magistrates cases.
The UK Supreme Court has been broadcast since 2009, the Court of Appeal since 2013 and Crown court sentencing remarks since 2020, with the first Crown court broadcast in July 2022. Transparency in the criminal justice system is essential for public trust. It is crucial that justice is not just done, but seen to be done. These orders will support open justice and make the administration of justice and the rule of law more accessible.
I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. First, following the power outage of the Google cloud network that caused chaos across the court system on 20 October, does the Minister know of any evidence that the broadcasting of proceedings has ever caused delays in our court system? Does she have any concerns that expanding the use of digital technology the system could delay proceedings?
Secondly, justice is obviously made more accessible by the provision of court transcripts to victims, which we have discussed many times. Many victims are unable to attend the entirety of hearings or trials, and court proceedings can be very complex and difficult to follow, especially when it comes to sentencing decisions. Although we welcome the progress made in the Sentencing Act 2026 on providing Crown court sentencing remarks free of charge, the Government must go further. I know that the Minister is keen on that, so will she outline what more she hopes to do in respect of court transcripts to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done?
Sarah Sackman
I am very grateful for the contributions to this debate. It is fantastic that we have consensus and support for both orders, which, as others have said, are concerned with open justice and with demystifying what happens in our courts. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman put so well, this is about justice being seen to be done, not just being done. The orders will enable that, building responsibly and incrementally on past reforms, and I believe that all of this can only improve public confidence in our justice system.
On the questions about the availability of transcripts, the hon. Gentleman will know that our ambition is to extend their availability, enabled by the rapid developments in technology that are allowing real-time transcription. However, we must be mindful of the costs, not least because transcription involves appropriate safeguards, such as redacting some of the remarks. Nevertheless, we took significant steps in the Sentencing Act, as the hon. Member for Chichester rightly acknowledged, to make transcripts of sentencing remarks available to victims. That is a big step forward.
We are looking to make transcription more widely available, not just in the criminal jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions as well. That is why we have made real headway in the immigration chamber. At the same time, we must be mindful of doing this properly and in a phased way that balances the very real cost to the system with other competing priorities, of which we are all very much aware, particularly when it comes to backlogs in our courts.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has raised the issue of access to sentencing remarks with me before, and I understand where he is coming from. However, he will know that he can apply to the court in the usual way to access sentencing remarks, and it is a matter for the judge. I know that he, like other hon. Members, takes an interest in particular cases, but we cannot privilege access for Members of Parliament; it is ultimately a matter for judicial discretion.
Dr Mullan
If the Minister sees a case that she is interested in and wants to gain a better understanding by seeing the sentencing remarks—this is separate from victims—does she get told that she has to apply as an MP would? I am asking not as an MP, but as a shadow Minister with particular responsibilities as part of His Majesty’s Opposition.
Sarah Sackman
The Government have to apply in the same way. If they are not a party to the case, they have to ask to get the remarks from the court. We have to preserve the court and the judge as the gatekeeper of the process. If access to the remarks is justified, they will no doubt be made available.
A question was asked about the outage experienced not just by our courts, but by other private and public sector bodies. In a week when fridges in different parts of Europe have been damaged by cyber-attacks, and systems have gone down, we have had a reminder that although we want to open up, digitise and modernise systems, it is important that we provide for contingencies when they fail.
When the Google platform went down, it showed that the systems in HMCTS were actually relatively robust, and the courts carried on working. Obviously, although the intention was for people to be able to view proceedings, that was temporarily unavailable, but it did not mean that court cases could not go ahead. As people will know, there was a series of pretty high-profile cases—there always are, particularly in some of our criminal courts—that were being closely followed by the media, many of whom would have been present in court. The question of what delays can be caused by such things is therefore apt. It depends on particular circumstances. In the Google example, there were not really any delays. In the vast majority of courts around the country, proceedings could go ahead, but when evidence is being given remotely, one can imagine circumstances where the systems going down present a problem. We want to encourage remote hearings because that is often the most efficient way for proceedings to go ahead.
I know that operational colleagues in HMCTS are ensuring that, as we continue to modernise our courts—as we must—we do so in a way that ensures that there are back-up systems, so that when problems like the Google cloud outage occur, there is back-up so that proceedings can go ahead even if they are not broadcast. It is preferable that they are, which is what the measures allow, but a judge managing a court has to balance competing considerations: do we want the case to go ahead on time even without the broadcast, or do we want to wait for another day because it is so important that the world can see this being done? It is right that we leave those sorts of decisions to our judges, who are well positioned to take them.
I hope that hon. Members agree that the orders are necessary and a good thing, and I commend both of them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026.—(Sarah Sackman.)
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 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 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A reminder that the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause to speak again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which the amendments appear on the amendment paper.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I apologise, but I am struggling to hear you. I am partially deaf, so I just wanted to ask that everyone speaks as clearly as possible. Thank you so much.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 18, and insert—
“it is the Lower Thames Crossing.”
This amendment would restrict the application of the Bill to the Lower Thames Crossing.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, on the first day of line-by-line consideration of this important Bill. Whenever I sit on a Bill Committee, I seem to be opposite this Minister. We spent many happy weeks together on the Employment Rights Bill earlier in the Parliament. I look forward to the next few weeks.
I genuinely believe that a lot of the Bill has cross-party consensus, certainly between the Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, as we explored in some of the evidence sessions the other day and on Second Reading, there are some question marks over many aspects of the Bill. We will no doubt explore those in future debates in Committee and later in the passage of the Bill in our House and the other place. For now, however, my proposition through this amendment is that we should seize on where we have agreement in order to get progress on a project that I think all parts of the House wish to see built, namely the lower Thames crossing. The amendment therefore seeks to restrict the Bill to just the lower Thames crossing.
In other parts of the Bill, we have genuine consensus, such as on the provisions for barrier-free tolling on roads such as the M6 and the Mersey tunnel, but that could easily be brought forward in separate legislation. The real purpose of the amendment is so that the Government can get on with the lower Thames crossing, which we very much want to see happen, particularly Labour Members in the direct locality of the crossing, as well as a number of Conservative Members from Kent and Essex.
If we can do that, I think we will see speed that we do not often see in infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. Last week, we heard evidence about the differentials between us in the United Kingdom and our nearest neighbours in France and how they get stuff built faster and cheaper. For once in this Parliament, why do we not grasp the nettle, take what we agree on and move forward with it, having the debate on the other aspects further down the line?
One of the arguments I make is something I have seen throughout my political career in this place, in local government and as an activist: the importance to trial a new model to prove that it works. This is innovation for the lower Thames crossing, so let us test it, try it and work out the gremlins before the Government, whoever that might be at that point, come forward with other projects that could be financed and secured through the RAB—regulated asset base—model and the innovations in the Bill. I will ask the Minister a few questions on that.
Given that so much of the media and debate narrative has been about the lower Thames crossing, what other projects do the Government think might come forward or could be financed through the model proposed in the Bill, other than the lower Thames crossing? If literally nothing else is on the table, why are we legislating in this place for something that no one has the first clue about what it might be for? We can all gather around the point on the lower Thames crossing, but we may have divergence on other projects, in particular if no one can name a single one of them.
The framework brought forward by the Bill is open ended. The public we serve in all our respective constituencies would expect us to have far greater clarity on precisely what any law that we pass in this place is for. My constituents and those in the constituency of every other right hon. and hon. Member can understand and get behind the lower Thames crossing; it is far more difficult to get behind an abstract, which they cannot see, touch, breathe or smell, and so on. I put it to the Minister, therefore: accept the amendment and let us get an Act on the statute book that can move forward at pace—that favourite political phrase, at the moment—to get the lower Thames crossing built.
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. During the evidence sessions, the Minister was categorical that his intention was not for any other road to be covered by this, so I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister why he would not agree to the amendment, since he is so adamant about no other need for the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reasserting my argument. I hope that the Minister can answer the question. Some speculation has been that the Government want to avoid a hybrid Bill on the lower Thames crossing, and believe you me, Mr Dowd, I see the pitfalls of hybrid Bills in my own constituency, with 35 km of a certain railway being built through the middle of it, but I do not see a real argument why a hybrid Bill would be necessary. Why can we not talk explicitly about the lower Thames crossing in this piece of legislation?
I know the Minister to be a reasonable man, with whom we share agreement on this particular point of the lower Thames crossing, and on a determination to get on with it, so I gently ask him why we cannot have this piece of legislation on something that all parties can get behind. Later, we can have the debate on the other matters, which will take more time to get right with parliamentary scrutiny, but meanwhile we can move forwards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members in Committee for attending. I hope that we will all learn a little as we go along. I start by recognising the desire of the shadow Minister to reach consensus wherever possible. As the Committee goes on, I am sure that he will find that he is in agreement with me 90% of the time. If not, the Committee will ensure that we are in agreement with the Government position.
The hon. Member makes a lucid argument, which I am here to address. The amendment’s intention is very clear: it would restrict the Bill’s application to the lower Thames crossing. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire to seek clarity on what other projects this legislation might be used for, and it is the case that the Bill has very much been made with a single project in mind—the lower Thames crossing. However, I think that naming the project in the Bill would undermine our attempt here to set up a framework for potential future uses.
It is clear that under the intended operating model, ownership and operations of the Dartford crossing would transfer to the new regulated private sector entity, which would be responsible for operating and maintaining both the Dartford crossing and the new lower Thames crossing, ensuring a consistent and reliable service. It is important to have both crossings covered, because that will ensure that they are operating in an integrated way. The amendment specifically refers to only the lower Thames crossing, but restricting the Bill in that way would undermine the Government’s intention. Were the legislation used only for the lower Thames crossing, that would undermine its purpose of building a framework for major road infrastructure, and we should not unnecessarily constrain future Governments where this financing approach may be appropriate.
The shadow Minister tempts me to come up with a shopping list of potential projects, but the truth of the matter is that, at the moment, the lower Thames crossing is the only suitable project. It is probably worth flagging that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed under a Conservative Government, created a power to create tolling roads and I think only one project has ever been built under that legislation. That is not to say that the same will happen here, but getting the lower Thames crossing right will give us confidence moving forward, if a suitable project arises in the future. We do not want to constrain future Governments in this way.
It is also worth bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the amendment having potential procedural consequences, such as the potential risk of hybridisation, which is of course a matter for the House. As the shadow Minister said, the amendment would risk hybridising the Bill, meaning that it would introduce additional parliamentary stages and considerable delay to the delivery of the lower Thames crossing. Hybrid Bills are often used for projects that do not have planning consent, and which need planning consent via Parliament, but that is not the case for the lower Thames crossing.
As we all know, the lower Thames crossing has finally got planning consent, and it already has a very long history. As we discussed on Second Reading, we know that the original work to address the capacity issues around the Thames goes back as far as 2009. Risking hybridisation of this framework Bill would put at risk the timetable for this legislation, and therefore the financing and, ultimately, the delivery of the new crossing.
The 2025 autumn Budget confirmed the importance of harnessing private investment to build the lower Thames crossing, unlocking the next stage of delivery for one of the UK’s most important infrastructure projects, but I am afraid that the amendment would risk the opposite happening. Of course, the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment on Second Reading recognised the urgency of this particular project, so I gently suggest that, were we to accept amendment 46, the progress that has been made would be put at risk of further delay. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I hear and understand the points that the Minister has made, but the key word he used in his response was “risk”. Although I accept that such risk can exist, I cannot and do not accept that it cannot be mitigated or worked through. The most powerful question all of us have to ask, particularly when Members find themselves in a ministerial position and wanting to make progress on manifesto commitments or on other things the country needs—and that the Government perceive the country needs—is not one about procedure. We must ask: how? How do we make this happen without a hybrid process? How do we make this happen in the fastest possible way?
From the research I have done, though the risk exists that some would argue that a hybrid process would be the only way forward, I can see that there are pathways to doing it as more straightforward legislation, with a usual Second Reading, Bill Committee, Report and Third Reading before we get to the other place. Therefore, we will press this amendment to a vote. We want to show our commitment to building the lower Thames crossing but not write a blank cheque for other schemes.
Greg Smith
I certainly will. I am always happy to give way and have a discussion on these matters—that is fundamentally what we are here to do in line-by-line scrutiny.
Jim Dickson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The Minister has made it clear that it is incredibly important that the mechanism we are setting up today not only works to get the lower Thames crossing constructed but integrates the work at the Dartford crossing, so that tolling is equalised and traffic is hopefully distributed properly across both crossings. The lower Thames crossing is there to take the pressure off the Dartford crossing, which is a single point of failure that leads to costs not only for the economy but for my residents in delays, air quality and all sorts of adverse life consequences. Does the hon. Member not understand that, if we limit the Bill to the lower Thames crossing, there is a possibility that we will not be able to undertake the integration between the two entities, and that the point of what we are doing in this Bill Committee will therefore be lost?
Greg Smith
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. In theory, it is in exchanges like this that we—the four of us from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the crowds from the Government side, as fits our current Parliament—can work to improve the Bill, if there is a willingness to do so. I understand his point, and I would be very open to something that connects things by limiting the scope to the lower Thames crossing and the existing Dartford crossing, which affects his constituents so considerably. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman in other debates on that point.
The wider point still stands. The Bill is writing an open-ended, unpredictable future under this model, beyond the projects that all of us can get behind and support and that our constituents will understand. No matter where they are in the country, many people wish to get down to Kent, perhaps to Dover to get on a ferry and go to France, and they will find themselves behind the wheel—worse still, with the kids in the back screaming—because of the delays getting to the Dartford crossing. Therefore, everyone can get behind the need to get this project done, but let us restrict it to this project, albeit with—I state this for the record very clearly—integration with the existing infrastructure for the Dartford crossing. The very worst thing we could create with any new project, of which the lower Thames crossing is a good example, is an unintended impact on existing road networks, crossings, tunnels and so on.
The integration has to be there, and I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point on that. However, the core principle of this amendment—it will be no surprise that we fully expect to lose the vote given the current parliamentary maths—is to put down a marker of our support for the lower Thames crossing but also our scepticism about the way this model could be applied to other unnamed schemes in the future.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, after “strategic” insert “and local”.
This amendment expands the general duty of the ORR so that it must consider and avoid adverse impacts on local roads, as well as the strategic road network.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.
This amendment would remove the ORR’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out lines 39 and 40.
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 68, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert
“after the Secretary of State has published its guidance to the ORR under section 1(5).”
This amendment prevents the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published the guidance to the ORR on how it must undertake its regulatory functions under the Act.
Zöe Franklin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clause 1 obliges the Office of Rail and Road only to
“have regard to…avoiding adverse impacts for the strategic road network”.
That creates severe statutory asymmetry that will potentially leave council-maintained local roads completely unprotected. The amendment would correct that omission by elevating local road protection to an equal statutory footing, requiring the regulator to actively evaluate and mitigate traffic displacement, road surface wear, and congestion on local surrounding roads caused by potential toll avoidance. Surrounding A roads and B roads managed by local highways authorities face accelerated asphalt degradation when heavy commuter and freight traffic diverts from tolled highways and creates potentially massive uncompensated repair backlogs for local council tax payers. We all know the challenges that our local roads face under our local highways authorities.
Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, cautioned the Committee that drivers faced with a toll will naturally choose local, free alternatives, creating negative traffic impacts across adjacent networks. That must be taken into account. The evidence of Ralph Smyth, from the Transport Action Network, highlighted that creating private toll infrastructure without a statutory duty to protect adjacent road networks breaks the integrated transport planning and leaves local highways authorities without recourse.
Why does clause 1(3)(b) explicitly protect National Highways’ strategic network from adverse impacts while leaving local council roads to absorb the traffic gridlock and financial fallout of toll evasion and avoidance? Will the Minister accept amendment 37 to ensure that the regulator has an explicit statutory duty to protect local communities and local highways authorities from toll diversion impacts? I intend to push the amendment to a Division.
Greg Smith
In this group I wish to speak to amendments 47, 48 and 68, tabled in my name. I will also speak to amendment 37, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. The unintended consequences that we sometimes see from infrastructure projects must not be brushed to one side; they must be taken seriously. I was in a small hamlet in my constituency at the weekend. The unintended consequence of something as simple as a road diversion in Oxfordshire—I have to say it, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is an Oxfordshire MP—forced a considerable volume of traffic through that small hamlet, causing considerable distress in narrow rural lanes. The same could happen from any major infrastructure scheme.
We have heard in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading about the concerns that traffic displacement immediately surrounding the lower Thames crossing can be a serious problem for communities and for people trying to get their kids to school, get to work and go about their daily lives. Those local roads are the very veins that flow the traffic to the newer infrastructure projects as they are built. They are the roads off which people predominantly live—nobody lives on a motorway, on a bridge or in a tunnel. Therefore, without due regard for how we ensure vehicle movement through those roads from people’s houses, businesses, schools, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries to those new major infrastructure projects, such as the lower Thames crossing, nothing will work. This is almost the very definition of needing joined-up Government, joined-up planning and joined-up approaches to anything that we build in this country, including the lower Thames crossing and the other potential future unnamed projects that the Bill would allow for. The official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. If the Liberal Democrats push it to a Division, the Conservatives will vote for it.
Moving on to the other amendments in group 2, amendment 47 would remove the Office of Rail and Road’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Bill. The amendment is not an attack on the environment or anything like that; it is about getting the balance right between getting infrastructure built and doing it at the lowest possible cost. We saw in the oral evidence sessions, and I have certainly seen in my research, that one of the things wrapped up in sustainability is—through separate order but fundamentally coming back to the wording in clause 1—the banning of the use of diesel plant in construction. White diesel runs between 20p and 25p a litre cheaper than hydrotreated vegetable oil, which is the current primary alternative that can be used instead of diesel plant—although, it has to be said, it is not a drop-in fuel; it requires mechanical changes to fuel filters and other parts of the vehicle to be operational. Banning the use of diesel plant will just drive up the cost, which ultimately be borne by payers of tolls.
Greg Smith
I will in one second; I will finish my point. The hon. Gentleman knows I will always give way where I can. The cost will ultimately be borne by toll payers on the lower Thames crossing and in any other scheme that could be built under the Bill. That is a position that I do not think any of us really want to see. We know from other debates that there seems to be either an unwillingness or an inability to name what the toll on the lower Thames crossing will cost, but we can be sure that the clauses on sustainable development and the duty for sustainable development that the Opposition are seeking to remove, such as clause 1, can only possibly drive the cost up.
Jim Dickson
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and it is absolutely in the interests of my constituents for tolls to be as low as possible, and therefore for cost to be controlled through the project. However, is he mindful of the evidence that the National Highways executive director for the project, Mr Palmer, gave when the Committee spoke to him on Thursday? He said that the cost of HVO and electric plant together was comparable with that of continuing with diesel, and that in any event, that element of the project cost is extremely marginal to the overall cost of delivering the lower Thames crossing. Attempts to prevent measures that will make the project sustainable and
“the greenest road ever built”,
which my constituents care about, are therefore pretty futile, given the overall size of the project.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that we will not find consensus on that point. I accept that Mr Palmer gave us his view of the world, which was that there was no differential in price. However, any simple look at the market prices of white diesel and HVO shows that the differential very much exists. That is not even a point of debate; it is in the market price. Also, later in the Committee’s oral evidence session, we heard evidence that the building of the road pales into slight insignificance compared with everything that will use the road. Operational vehicles powered by either petroleum or diesel will still be the vast majority of vehicles using the lower Thames crossing, which clearly has not been taken into account.
Alison Griffiths
In the evidence session, we heard from Mr Palmer that he had not taken different quotes from organisations looking at the differential cost between HVO and white diesel; all the quotations were based only on HVO. Therefore, his assertion that they were comparable in price was based on his view alone.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It struck me that in his answer, that witness did not necessarily say that there is no differential in cost, but that his duty was simply to get a quote for HVO, so he would not take a quote on any other fuel source. That goes contrary to my view of the world, and my belief that we would all be better served if we as Members of Parliament, and politicians at large, did not just accept what we were told, and instead properly challenged and looked at the consequences of everything. There is a failure to challenge and say, “Hang on—isn’t white diesel 20p or 25p a litre cheaper?” If I were in the Minister’s place, I would push back on National Highways over that to ensure value for the toll payers of the future.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Does the hon. Member understand how construction procurement works? National Highways would not have specified a particular fuel type; it would have specified an outcome, and the contractors appointed would have chosen how to meet that. That outcome was set out in the development consent order signed under his Government. Is he suggesting that the Government should interfere in the activities of contractors working on the lower Thames crossing? Given that fuel cost is less than 1% of the Bill cost, does he really think this is an issue we should be focusing on?
Greg Smith
I know the hon. Gentleman has a background in this field, and I respect his point of view. I accept that fuel is a small part of the Bill cost, but small parts, if allowed to persist unchallenged, eventually become large costs for the toll payers.
On the point the hon. Gentleman made about the DCO, as I put my hands up to in the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, the previous Government got things wrong. We Conservatives paid a heavy price for that in July 2024, just as the Labour party paid a price for getting things wrong in government in previous general elections. Under our new leadership, we are putting our hands up to some of those mistakes and challenging some of those parts of the past that we think should be put right. The DCO that he referred to was signed under the last Conservative Government, but I would put it to any incoming Government—the Government in which the hon. Gentleman serves as a Back Bencher in particular—not just to accept that and say to the contractors, “Just follow everything that went before. Don’t question it. Don’t look at it again”, but to ask questions and say, “Will this deliver ultimate value for future toll payers on the lower Thames crossing?”. That is not interfering with contractors; it is actually setting contractors free to be able to come to market without the restrictions that clause 1 places on them in this instance and that the DCO placed on them in other instances. It would enable them to offer better value to future toll payers in this scheme and to the taxpayers of this country in other schemes.
Mike Reader
Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should go back and change the DCO to remove the climate targets? I decided after the evidence session to speak to some planning lawyers, and they told me that that would add at least five years to the delivery of this programme. Is he advocating for stalling the lower Thames crossing for another five years?
Greg Smith
No, I do not think we should stall the project. I was very clear in my comments on group 1 that the Conservatives want to see the lower Thames crossing built. We want to see it as a major road building priority for this country, and therefore anything that adds delay is something that we do have to think very seriously about. However, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of any of us to find a way to lower costs without having to relitigate and relegislate on absolutely everything. We should apply a bit of common sense, which is precisely what amendments 47 and 48, by removing that duty from both the ORR and the Secretary of State, would do in this instance.
I very much hope the Committee will consider those amendments in the spirit in which they are intended of delivering value and speed on this project. Indeed, while HVO is in fairly plentiful supply in this country, even with the global challenges we face at the moment, it is not in as plentiful supply as white diesel.
Amendment 68 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It would prevent
“the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published the guidance to the ORR on how”—
how is the critical word here—
“it must undertake its regulatory functions under the Act.”
I have noticed from having debated other Bills in Committee during this Parliament that there seems to be a bit of a theme of kicking many features of intended legislation into the long grass for future publication; it happened with the Employment Rights Bill, as was. Governments from time immemorial have done that, so it is not a point I make just to the current Government, but I invite the Committee to reflect on it more widely.
Our constituents send us here to do things in their best interests and in the best interests of our country, yet too often, including in the Bill, we are in a place where we straightforwardly say that we are going to pass a law but too much of it has to come later. Too much of the regulation that will actually shape the Bill will come far down the road so we cannot be confident as Members of this place, whether we sit on the Opposition Benches or the Government Benches, precisely what it will look like.
I ask the Minister to give examples of how duties will be applied and whether they could actually form an override of the main task of delivering and regulating roads built under this scheme, including the lower Thames crossing. I confirm that we will support amendment 37, and I hope that the Committee can back amendments 47, 48 and 68.
Justin Madders
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I welcome the hon. Member for Guildford to the Committee and thank her for moving her amendment. The concern she raises through the amendment is that the impact of licensed roads on the surrounding network should be properly considered. However, that does not mean that we need to extend the Office of Road and Rail’s general duties in clause 1, nor does it mean that the licence holder would be free to disregard the impact of its activities on surrounding local roads, because clause 1 reflects the scope of the licensing regime concerning trunk roads. The Bill deals with the impact on local roads in other, more appropriate ways elsewhere, for example under clause 4.
Before a licence can be granted, the licensing authority must consult appropriate persons exercising functions in relation to highways. That enables local highway authorities to feed in their views where roads may be affected. The relationship does not end once the licence is granted; clause 8 also allows the ORR to require the licence holder to co-operate with other highways authorities as part of the licence. The framework for the Bill provides a route for local road impacts to be addressed, without extending the ORR’s overarching duty beyond the roads it is regulating. Local roads are considered as part of the Bill, which provides appropriate ways for their interests to be considered without extending the overarching statutory duties beyond the scope of the licensing regime. The existing provision provides the appropriate balance between ensuring that the wider impacts are considered and giving the ORR a clear and workable statutory duty.
In terms of the specifics of the lower Thames crossing, it is difficult to see what this other local road crossing the Thames would be and how it would be affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has explained so clearly, that is one of the reasons why this project is crucial. I would therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to amendment 47 from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. It would remove the ORR’s duty to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act. We have deliberately designed those duties as a balanced package. The ORR’s principal focus remains the interests of road users, alongside the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of licence holders to finance their activities. Sustainable development is one of the wider considerations that the ORR must have regard to when carrying out those functions—it does not override the principle considerations.
This is not a novel duty; it is an approach consistent with established economic regulatory regimes in the energy and water sectors, where sustainable development forms part of the wider statutory framework within which independent regulators operate. Projects put forward under this legislation will involve significant infrastructure works, including the construction and improvement of roads. This can have significant environmental and wider impacts, therefore it is right that sustainable development, including the consideration of environmental impacts, is expressed in the duties in the Bill.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. Can the Minister give us any idea of how much the sustainable measures are actually costing on the project?
Justin Madders
I do not have any particular details on that, so I will write to the hon. Member. The requirements on sustainable development originate from the Environment Act 2021. I know he was not here at that time, but that was a piece of legislation brought in under the then Conservative Government. Under section 19 of that Act, Ministers are required to have due regard to the Government’s environmental principles policy statement when making policy. Those principles ensure that environmental considerations are built into policy making from the outset, as is the case in this Bill, so we are not breaking new ground or doing anything different from what has been done before on sustainable development.
There are real factors to bear in mind in delivering major infrastructure, and it is right that we consider them as part of our consideration of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, whose constituents are affected by this Bill, would want the local environment to be considered.
I turn now to amendment 48. I think the general thrust of the arguments here will be the same, because the approach we are taking is consistent with established economic regulatory precedents, as seen in the energy and water sectors. The Secretary of State’s primary focus remains the interest of users of trunk roads in England, particularly the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities. As I have already stated, sustainable development does not override those considerations. Decisions under this framework should take into account the wider public interest factors set out in the clause and not focus on any single consideration in isolation.
To respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked about diesel, as we have already heard, the evidence is clear that this is at best a marginal issue in terms of costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South suggested, reopening this question could lead to significant delay on the project.
Of course, the DCO has been settled for a considerable period. It has brought significant benefits already, in particular large landscape-scale environmental enhancements of semi-natural habitats, woodlands, species-rich grasslands, open mosaic habitats, and wetlands. This approach will support a greater, more diverse range of wildlife than areas such as agricultural land or amenity grasslands. By making LTC a tunnel and extending it, the project will avoid protected wetlands on the banks of the River Thames, helping to reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats such as the marshes special protection area and Ramsar site. That will be of benefit to the wider community, and the suggestion that we withdraw that element of the Bill is regrettable.
Amendment 68 is in this group of amendments, but I do not think the shadow Minister spoke to it, so I seek your advice, Mr Dowd, as to whether we are dealing with it now.
Justin Madders
Did you? I must have missed that.
In effect, amendment 68 would force the Secretary of State to publish guidance for the ORR under section 1(5) before the Act came into force and would simultaneously remove the Government’s ability to make regulations ahead of particular clauses coming into force.
Amendment 68 would mean that the vast majority of the Act cannot come into force until the guidance of section 1(5) is published, but there would be nothing meaningful to issue guidance about until the Act is in force, because the bidding would not have happened, we would not know who the investors would be, and therefore we would not know what the ORR would have to provide guidance on. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State could not meaningfully provide guidance.
I turn now to clause 1 stand part and the overall duty that will guide the ORR in carrying out its functions under the Bill, which we have probably already covered in some detail. The ORR must act in a way that it considers best supports the interests of users who use highways covered or potentially covered by the licensing regime. That includes future users, which is important because the ORR might make decisions about a road before construction works or improvement works have been completed.
When carrying out this duty, the ORR must consider the efficient and economical construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of those highways. It must also consider the need for licence holders to be able to finance their activities required under the licence. Of course, those are not the only considerations for the ORR. It must also have regard to safety, as I have said, as well as sustainable development, competition and the effects of its decisions on the wider strategic road network.
The clause also reflects the principles of good regulation. ORR’s regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and they should be targeted only when action is needed. ORR must also have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Clause 1 places road users at the heart of ORR’s role, while ensuring that it takes account of safety, efficient delivery, financial viability and the wider public interest. That is an important framework, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jim Dickson
It is clearly incredibly important to all users of this future infrastructure and the present Dartford crossing that the ORR is as capable and fully equipped as it can be to carry out its duties. Up to now, the ORR has been more equipped on rail than on road, even though it has considerable responsibilities for roads at the moment. A recent report commissioned by the Department for Business and Trade indicated that the ORR needed to increase its skills and capacity in order to do this work. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and all other future users of the infrastructure that the ORR will be fully equipped, have full capability and be able to discharge its duties under the Bill?
Justin Madders
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the duties set out in clause 1 can be delivered to the best of the ORR’s ability. The whole purpose of the RAB model is that we have a functioning and effective regulator, so resourcing it is vital.
Greg Smith
The Minister is making an eminently sensible point about the ORR’s ability. Given that the Department for Transport, in relation to the Railways Bill, is playing down the ability and role of the ORR, will he assure the Committee that the framework being set out is deliverable by the ORR and that it is a capable organisation to take on this important work, when the other arm of the DFT is suggesting that it is not for railways?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. The Bill’s purpose is to give the ORR the powers and ultimately the responsibility to regulate this model. It will be able to levy the licence holder to finance that particular work. A great deal of preparatory work is already going on to ensure that the ORR is capable of delivering the important functions set out under the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister just made the point that the ORR is not yet capable of delivering this. What is the plan from the Secretary of State and the Minister to deliver an ORR that has that capability? We also heard in evidence last week that the ORR does not believe that it is ready for it either.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. There is a plan in place, but it would be a bit ridiculous for us to have everyone ready now when the legislation has not been passed. I assure her that a number of considerations are already taking place about having the right skills. We heard evidence last week that there is confidence that the right skillsets and people will be in place to provide the important functions that the ORR will have to deliver under the legislation.
Clause 2 sets out the overarching duty that will guide the Secretary of State when exercising functions under the Bill. It mirrors the duty placed on the ORR in clause 1 and ensures that both key decision makers operate within a consistent statutory framework. As the Bill gives important functions to the Secretary of State and the ORR, it is therefore important that decisions made by each are guided by the same overarching objectives and principles.
The clause requires the Secretary of State, like the ORR, to act in a way that furthers the interests of road users. In doing so, the Secretary of State must balance a range of important considerations, including efficiency, safety, sustainability and the impact of decisions on the wider strategic road network. These duties are underpinned by established principles of good regulation, helping to ensure that decisions are transparent, accountable, proportionate and targeted only when action is needed. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I remain unconvinced about local authorities not having that statutory duty, so I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 19 to 26.
This amendment would ensure that licences could only be granted for the construction of new roads.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 44, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that such improvement creates at least one additional continuous traffic lane along the entirety of the specified highway section.”.
This amendment sets a strict physical threshold for what legally constitutes "increasing capacity", preventing minor roadworks, junction tweaks, or smart motorway conversions on existing roads from being used as a pretext for introducing tolls.
Amendment 81, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a highway specified in a proposed licence is to become a trunk road, the licensing authority must consult any relevant local highway authority, mayoral combined authority or combined county authority before granting the licence.”.
This amendment would require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road.
Clause stand part.
Greg Smith
The amendment would ensure that licences could only be granted for the construction of new roads. The key word is “only”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in detail why the Government think a licence should extend beyond simply the construction of a new road, and how the Bill prevents modest works being used to justify a toll-backed licence. This goes to the crux of what we are debating today and of what we are being asked to consent to, on behalf of all our constituents who are motorists and who use the strategic road network; I am sure they will enjoy the new lower Thames crossing once it is constructed, but they are concerned that some of the drafting of the Bill opens a back door and a pathway to enabling things that most people, looking through any lens of common sense, would consider to be minor to allow for increases in tolls or, indeed, new tolls.
I do not think that anyone who backed the lower Thames crossing would necessarily be willing to back something that did not itself support, say, a major new piece of road infrastructure, be that the lower Thames crossing or anything else. We explored that point a lot in last week’s oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading. I commend the Minister for his clarity at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and in his oral evidence in the Boothroyd Room last Thursday about how the Government have—that favoured political phrase—“no intention” of delivering new tolls for other projects. That perhaps includes things as simple as new cameras, line painting that makes the road a bit clearer or smart motorway provisions—not that I believe there is anything smart about smart motorways.
The Government say they do not intend to use any of those mechanisms to introduce new tolls. We therefore have to ask ourselves a question, which is why the Opposition tabled amendment 82. If what the Minister has said is a clear signal and there genuinely is absolutely no intention—for the record, I believe the Minister—why not put it on the face of the Bill? Let us say clearly and unequivocally that the Bill is only about the construction of new roads in the United Kingdom—well, I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South that Scotland is not included in the Bill’s scope—
Greg Smith
Or Wales.
Can the Minister rise to the challenge? Can he make a legislative commitment in line with his words at the Dispatch Box and in oral evidence, and accept amendment 82? If the Government are reluctant, or straightforwardly do not want, to accept the amendment, I fear those questions are forever going to persist in the minds of British motorists and of all road users, be they driving a car themselves or reliant on a car’s passenger seat to be taken wherever they want to go. That is an important point of principle on which the Minister must surely accept the view out there in the country, and the view of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. He should put it on the face of the Bill.
Douglas Lumsden
I am struggling to understand something about the Bill. If an improvement is made on a small section of a 100-mile road, is it clear whether tolls could be introduced for the whole road or just for the section that was improved?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which is really one for the Minister. He highlights one of the key points that the public out there—all our constituents—will be asking about what this really means. As best, the current scope of the Bill allows for a bit of a lawyer’s paradise and for the issue to be argued over for many years and decades to come; at worst, it straightforwardly allows precisely the fear that my hon. Friend outlined.
Let us just have clarity. It is a simple amendment. We are not asking for the world. We are saying we are broadly with the Government on introducing this model for the lower Thames crossing, but there has to be that legislative certainty that does not allow for mission creep from where the current Minister sees the world, under this legislation, compared with where any future Government might wish to try to take it. The Opposition do not believe that tolls should apply beyond the construction of wholly new roads. There should not be the mission creep that is currently allowed, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I tabled amendment 82.
Also in this group is Opposition amendment 81, which would
“require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road.”
There is considerable concern in the country about this issue, particularly from councils and a number of mayors. There is certainly concern from the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, who is arguably the best mayor in the country at the moment—he is a very old and dear friend of mine, if I need to declare an interest. Whenever I try to do the journey from Buckinghamshire to Suffolk, where my in-laws are, I am frustrated by the fact that, the minute I hit Cambridgeshire, the traffic stops and everything seems completely dug up. I will immediately phone him to have a go, but he will continually push back and say, “But the Government haven’t given me any highways powers or authority!”, whereas we know that other mayoralties in the country have them.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd—I hope you are not too distraught about not having been in the Chair for some of the other very exciting transport Bill Committees that we have had this year.
I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Minister. We understand where he is coming from, because the Committee heard evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation about the danger of clause 3 being used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, which is something that the Minister has assured us will not happen.
Our amendment 44 takes a different approach to the problem of excluding non-new roads altogether. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the idea of tolls and fees is reasonable in principle, and it is used quite widely in Europe, but the safeguards must be clear. That is why our amendment 44 would require a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads, which we are defining as a continuous extra lane, to show a genuine improvement in the road’s capacity and to justify any introduction.
I agree with the shadow Minister on clause 3, in that so much of the Bill relies on us to take it on trust that the Government will do the right thing with the extensive powers that it creates. There was a good article in The Economist a few years ago about the problem with the good chaps theory of government, which has been an historic feature of the British so-called constitution. The problem is that it is difficult to take things on trust and rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a Bill as it was intended, because a Bill cannot force the hand of a future Government, but future Governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. We therefore have some concerns about that and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
We support the shadow Minister’s amendment 81. It is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities and important to involve them in any major changes to their areas that could increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community, so we would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division.
Subject to what the Minister says, at this point we would be keen, with your permission, Mr Dowd, to press amendment 44 to Division.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to amendment 82, standing in the shadow Minister’s name and my name.
On the face of it, clause 3 looks quite straightforward. The licence would be granted for “works involving”—not delivering, just involving—
“the construction of a highway specified in the licence”.
However, granting a licence for being involved in the work set out in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), which our amendment 82 would remove, would make the ORR responsible for determining what is fair and transparent in terms of a toll that could be charged in future for that work. Again, to be clear, the clause does not talk about delivery; it just talks about involvement, so there is a total lack of clarity.
The ORR will rely on a code that has not yet been written and that will not come before this House, so we will have no say in what it looks like. As far as I am aware, there will be no cost-effectiveness constraints on the licensee, so the toll could be considerable. Nor does the toll need to end when the costs have been recovered. Paragraphs (b) and (c) create the prospect of a never-ending toll upon our constituents for what could be a pretty unspecific piece of work.
To return to the points already made by the shadow Minister, a licence should be granted only for the construction of new roads. If we want to look at future roads, the code should be subject to a parliamentary vote at a later stage. Obviously the Committee has voted against this, but to return to our earlier discussion, we would prefer to be looking at two specific roads: the lower Thames crossing and, potentially, the associated Dartford crossing. Without those constraints, however, this piece of legislation is very problematic. I support the amendment.
Douglas Lumsden
Last week, we heard that the Bill is potentially a Trojan horse. We could have narrowed its scope earlier to just the lower Thames crossing with amendment 46, but that was ruled out. We also have issues with what constitutes an “improvement…increasing the capacity”. We have heard that that is not necessarily a new road, or even a new lane built along the whole length of the highway; it could just be smart cameras or other little improvements that increase capacity slightly.
We have had some assurance from the Minister that this will not be a Trojan horse Bill and that it will be used only for the lower Thames crossing, but as we know, Ministers change, Governments change. We are meant to put that all down to trust. The amendment therefore makes it quite clear that this has to be a new road, and the measure would only be able to be used on that new road.
As things stand, I think we are leaving too much down to interpretation—leaving too much to having faith in Governments that may come and go. This is probably the most important amendment that we will look at today, so I think it is vital that it is included in the Bill to make it as clear as possible that the Bill applies just to new roads. It even should apply just to the lower Thames crossing.
Justin Madders
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this group. Without doubt, the scope of the licensing regime is an important subject, including which road schemes can be brought in and—as amendment 81 refers to—how local authorities should be consulted.
Turning to amendment 82, I thank the shadow Minister for raising the issue of the circumstances in which a licence can be granted for improvements to existing highways. He asked why the licence would extend beyond the construction period. The simple answer to that is that the model is deliberately designed around the whole life cycle of major infrastructure, not simply the point at which it is built. That is why the Bill provides not only for construction, but for qualifying capacity-enhancing improvements and the subsequent operation and maintenance of infrastructure within the regime.
In particular, things such as the lower Thames crossing, a very expensive project, will need consistent and persistent maintenance and repair. That matters because one of the benefits we seek from this model is strong long-term management of assets. The regulatory framework provides ongoing oversight, with incentives to manage operating costs and maintenance investment efficiently over the life of the infrastructure. Removing capacity-enhancing improvements would unnecessarily restrict the framework. It would mean that the model could not be used for major upgrades to existing road infrastructure, simply because the project involves improving an existing road rather than constructing an entirely new one. For example, a significant reconstruction of an existing bridge to add capacity, or a new tunnel that increases the capacity of an existing highway, could be excluded from the regime.
Douglas Lumsden
I asked this question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and I will ask the Minister the same. When this Bill comes into play, if an improvement were made on one small section of a road, could a toll be introduced for the whole length of that highway, or could it be introduced only for the small section where the improvement was made?
Justin Madders
That would be where clauses 1 and 2 come in, which should give the hon. Member sufficient reassurance. It is important to say—I will use scouse terminology, if you do not mind, Mr Dowd—that I think the arguments coming forward are a bit jarg. I do not know if that is a phrase the Committee is familiar with, but it is a bit of a scaring-the-horses moment—a bit of a ride on the ghost train. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to expect from the Opposition. They are trying to create a scare story where none exists. I have to be clear, as I was on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions, that improving an existing road does not mean that the road will automatically be brought into the regime or be subject to tolls.
Justin Madders
I will just finish.
Establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement comes with significant costs, so for small-scale improvements such as the setting up of a speed camera, it is just not going to be financially viable for anyone to consider it. In practice, it simply would not be justified, or work, in any way. We are clear from the evidence that we heard last week that the model will make sense only for projects of sufficient scale, where the benefits of bringing in long-term private investment justify those costs.
Members should be clear that I know that what I say on the record is relevant to the intention of the Bill, and that that will be something that any future court will take into account.
Justin Madders
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand the arguments he is putting forward, and I reiterate that I believe his intent—but we are not being asked to put his intent on the statute book; we are being asked to put the words that are printed in the Bill on to the statute book. Therefore, to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, is it conceivable, under the Bill as currently written, that if, at some point down the path, a new road licensed under this Bill that carries a toll has another enhancement built into it under a new licence—a bridge, a crossing or whatever it might be—that enhancement could have a new and separate toll added just for that small section, compared with the entire length of the original road?
Justin Madders
We are very clear that the clause is about the specified highway. It is about the trunk road. It is about the protections in clauses 1 and 2. I will simply push back that, if there was some secret plan to expand road tolls, there is already legislation in place that would allow us to do that. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed by the hon. Member’s party in Government, created the powers to introduce road tolling. If there was a secret plan to do that, we would not need to bring forward legislation. This is about setting up a new regulatory model to bring in investment for particular projects.
Alison Griffiths
I refer back to the intervention that I was going to make earlier, which was about clarity. The Minister said several times that he was being very clear, but I would gently suggest that the legislation is not very clear. That is the point that several of us are making: we are in danger of passing legislation that may not deliver what is perhaps intended by the Minister at this stage. It is at a point where a future Government, perhaps not as benign as others, might abuse the wording of the legislation. We are really just looking to ask the Minister to be clear in the Bill, not just in his words.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and her description of “benign”, which I will frame and put on my wall at home.
The Bill is clear. There are reasons why we have to look at the existing network, particularly when we consider what is happening in the lower Thames crossing. The simple economics of this would not be attractive to investors if we were going to broadly open up road charging across the country—as I say, there is already legislation that would enable us to do that. The clause is about setting up a specific financial model, which will have strong regulation and will enable capacity-enhancing improvements to be made to the road network. As I say, it is very clear that there are sufficient protections already within the legislation to avoid the situation that Opposition Members are concerned about.
Turning to amendment 44, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising the question of capacity-enhancing improvements. We will be clear that this framework is intended for major road infrastructure, not for minor changes to the road network. There are practical constraints on the use of this model. Again, as I have referred to, clauses 1 and 2 require the ORR to act in the “interests of users” of the highway specified in licences or proposed to be specified. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to act in the
“interests of users of trunk roads in England.”
Both have regard to the principle that regulatory action should be proportionate and targeted only where it is needed. I am not entirely sure that the amendment would deliver the changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am concerned that, while he is talking about an extra lane, he has not put any de minimis length on that, which might give a future non-benign Government encouragement to take it further than is our intention.
We have to be clear that establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement carries substantial costs. It must be sufficiently large and economically viable for that financing approach to make sense. We heard evidence that the geography of this country is such that simply adding lanes on here and there is not a viable option. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman not press his amendment to a Division.
The shadow Minister spoke to amendment 81. I hope I never have a call from him when he is feeling frustrated—I am not sure how that would go for either of us—but he made an important point about ensuring that local and mayoral authorities are notified where there may be a proposed scheme. It is of course the case that the Bill already ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted. As set out in clause 4, before any licence can be granted, the licensing authority must publish the proposal, which must also be shared with the relevant bodies, expressly including the strategic highways company and any other appropriate bodies exercising highway functions. At least 28 days must be allowed for representations from those bodies.
Different projects will affect different places and different authorities. Therefore, the right consultees will depend on the project. As we have seen in recent times, the structure of local government can change, so it would not make sense to hardwire into legislation that particular types of authority should be consulted, because that could become outdated.
Greg Smith
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that we might move on from either a local authority or mayoral model? Those are the two that we have at the moment, and no one is suggesting anything else, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be the case that we move on from the environment, which we are trying to lock into the Bill with amendment 81, of local authorities and/or mayors.
Justin Madders
Of course the answer to that is that we cannot predict the future. In 2010, the idea of a mayoral combined authority was nothing more than a glint in George Osborne’s eye. It is about future-proofing the legislation: it does not make sense for us to come back at a later stage to add in extra consultees, because the Bill already has the correct powers to ensure that the licensing authority must consult appropriate bodies. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond both to the circumstances of individual projects and to changes in local government structures over the life of the legislation, which will be significant, because of the LTC project.
Clause 3 is at the heart of a lot of the debate today. The clause establishes what a licence is, what it can authorise and the circumstances in which one can be granted. The purpose of the licensing regime is to provide the framework through which private investment can support the delivery of strategic road infrastructure. In simple terms, clause 3 allows a licensing authority to grant a person a licence giving them the right to charge tolls on a highway specified in that licence. But that right is not freestanding; it is granted in return for the licence holder securing specified works to the highway.
The works fall into three main categories. A licence may support the construction of a highway; it may support the improvement of an existing highway, where the purpose is to increase its capacity; and, where a highway has already been constructed or improved under this licensing regime, it may provide for its maintenance, operation or further improvement. If another highway is specified in the licence, the licence may also authorise the licence holder to charge tolls in respect of that highway. That is an important point about the structure of the regime. Clause 3 is not simply a general power to allow private companies to charge motorists; the authority to charge tolls is tied directly to the licence holder securing the highway works specified in the licence. In addition, clause 3 does not allow the model to be applied indiscriminately across the road network.
We have heard the concern about the measure meaning a change to existing roads. A small improvement to an existing road, such as a smart motorway camera, does not automatically mean that that road will be brought into the regime or become subject to tolls. A highway can be included in a licence only if it is, or is to be, a trunk road in England, or part of one. The licensing regime created by this part is therefore deliberately confined to that network.
Clause 3 also sets out who may grant the licences. When the regime first begins, both the Secretary of State and the ORR will be licensing authorities. This is known as the “initial period”. Put simply, it is the period for dealing with the first licence under the Bill. Once the first licence has been issued, the initial period will end and the ORR will become the licensing authority. The end of the initial period will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
It is important to say that there is an additional safeguard during that initial period. The ORR cannot itself grant a licence without the Secretary of State’s consent. Where the Secretary of State gives that consent, the decision must be published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected. Where the Secretary of State grants the licence directly, a copy must be provided to the ORR as soon as reasonably practicable.
Clause 3 should also be read alongside the safeguards in the rest of the licensing framework. In particular, clause 4 requires consultation before a licence can be granted. The proposal must identify both the works to be secured and the highway on which tolls would be authorised, and there must be at least 28 days for representations. A licence cannot be granted unless that consultation requirement has been met.
That is an important safeguard because bringing a road into this regime is of course a significant decision. Before a licence is granted, those likely to be affected have an opportunity to understand what is proposed and make representations. The licensing authority must go through that process before deciding whether the licence should be granted.
It is also important to be clear that, whether we are talking about a new road or a capacity enhancing improvement, the regime is confined to the trunk road network. A highway can only be included in a licence if it is, or is to become, a trunk road in England.
We will come later to clause 81, which makes the necessary changes to the existing trunking provisions in section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 so that a new highway built under this licensing regime can become a trunk road. It does not create a blanket new power to designate any road as a trunk road; rather, it enables the existing process to work for the new type of highway.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for giving way. This should be the easiest intervention to reply to—I only wish to ask him to speak more slowly so that I can understand what he is saying.
Justin Madders
Apologies to the hon. Member.
Taken together, these provisions mean that the Bill can support both new strategic roads and significant capacity enhancing improvements, while remaining firmly focused on the trunk road network. The licensing authorities will also exercise their functions within the overarching statutory duties we have just debated. Those duties put the interests of road users at the centre of decision making, while requiring consideration of matters including efficiency and economy, safety, the wider strategic road network, sustainable development and competition.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, particularly on amendment 82. However, as the debate has moved on, the official Opposition are actually no further forward on the clarity we seek. The Minister likes to paint a picture of us looking for a scare story or something that would be more befitting of trick-or-treating last Saturday night; that is not what the Opposition are seeking to do. We are seeking clarity. We are seeking, through the usual procedures of this House, to check that the Bill in front of us does what it says it is going to do, without having an unintended negative consequence.
In the answers the Minister has given about whether we should restrict the measure to the construction of a new road in its entirety, we still do not know the answer to whether it is feasible, to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South made, that a licence could be granted for a subsection of a road that already has a master licence for the entirely of its run.
In his response, the Minister made reference to the installation of smart motorway cameras. I accept the point on a simple set of cameras. What is still unclear is whether a motorway that is part of the strategic road network, and is not currently designated as a smart motorway—the M40, which runs in part through my own constituency, is an example—could suddenly find itself with a licence, and therefore a toll, if it is permanently changed to an all-lane running motorway by turning what we currently know as the hard shoulder into a permanent running lane. I categorically do not want that scenario, but as this Bill is drafted it is unclear at best whether that would be permitted.
Therefore, without repeating it, I come back to the core argument that, for the Bill to work as I think the Minister intends it to, it should restrict the operation of a new licence to the construction of new roads, as amendment 82 makes clear.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) publish an independent assessment evaluating whether alternative transport investments, including rail and bus connectivity, could fulfil the transport requirements of the proposed licence.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to evaluate whether alternative transport investment, including rail and bus, is needed and suitable before granting a license to upgrade or build new highways infrastructure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(v) any mayoral combined authority, combined county authority or local highway authority whose area includes, or is likely to be affected by, a highway specified in the proposed licence.”
This amendment would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities who may be affected.
Amendment 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—
(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and
(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”
This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.
Clause stand part.
Olly Glover
I want to be clear at the beginning that we are keen to press amendment 87 to a vote.
Amendment 45 would mandate an independent modal shift and alternative transport assessment before any new highway tolling licence could be granted. It would prevent multibillion-pound road schemes from proceeding in isolation without evaluating whether rail passenger, rail freight or bus upgrades could deliver better value and lower carbon emissions. There is a clear need to reduce pressure on the Dartford crossing and improve connectivity in the south-east of England via the lower Thames crossing. But so far, the Labour Government appear to be looking only at roads-based means to do so.
I grew up in Staines, which is very close to junction 13 of the M25 and which road nerds will know is the busiest segment of motorway in Europe. When I was growing up and the M25 was new, it had three lanes, which then increased to four and eventually to five. Seeing the M25 permanently under upgrade was the accompaniment to my youth and adolescence. Do people who use that section of the M25 now find it a joyous driving experience, one that is entirely bereft of stress and complaint, or do they still consider it to be what Chris Rea once called a “road to hell”? They still consider it a road to hell, because while the M25 is of course a useful asset, one of the challenges of increased road investment is that very often that capacity gets absorbed and it does not address some of the wider transport challenges.
There is a clear need to improve rail connectivity in the region alongside the lower Thames crossing project. There is currently no Kent to Essex rail connection and very limited provision for channel port freight to move by rail—only by road. There are developed proposals on the table to upgrade the Kent railway network and the Barking freight terminal via High Speed 1 as part of the plan to significantly increase rail freight through the channel tunnel.
As Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network argued in front of the Committee last week, granting certainty to a major private road scheme can make it significantly harder for regional mayors or local authorities to promote sustainable alternatives like rail, tram or bus upgrades. Ben Garratt of Logistics UK noted that while road capacity is needed at Dartford, rail freight connectivity to ports plays a vital role in national supply chain resilience and must be integrated into transport planning.
Why should Ministers grant a potentially century-long highway licence without first publishing an independent evaluation of whether rail or public transport investment could solve the bottleneck? If we are to move towards achieving our environmental goals and providing good transport for those who cannot, will not or cannot afford to drive, serious investment in other infrastructure and public transport is needed alongside improving the road network.
Amendment 87 would make it mandatory to publish a local road impact and mitigation report. Toll-avoiding traffic that diverts into surrounding residential streets and local A roads could cause severe congestion, noise, air pollution and safety hazards for nearby communities. The amendment would force the licensing authority to assess the exact financial cost of extraordinary road wear imposed on “adjacent local highway authorities” such as Kent, Essex or Surrey—or whatever they are called now as part of local government reorganisation. As Declan Pang, the director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, warned us last week, traffic displacement and unmitigated local congestion can drive significant indirect costs across local economies and businesses.
I will turn briefly to Opposition amendment 78, which we support. It would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities. That would go some way towards addressing some of the deficiencies of clause 4, which leaves it quite open as to which organisations need to be consulted. Clause 4 does not explicitly list local highway authorities, local planning authorities or emergency services—among others—as mandatory statutory consultees. In his comments, I hope the Minister will address why clause 4 is so open and why it does not explicitly name local highway authorities and emergency services as mandatory statutory consultees.
Greg Smith
I will start with amendment 78, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage hit the nail on the head regarding why we tabled this amendment. We have come back to what I fear will be a familiar theme as we go through the clauses of this Bill in Committee: the openness, at times fuzziness, of the drafting, which leaves too much open to the imagination.
Ill-defined legislation that then gets caught up in the courts forever, with lawyers forever arguing over what was really meant, gives none of us, certainly none of our constituents, our local authorities or those areas of the country that have mayors—mine does not—the clarity that they need and want from this Bill. So amendment 78 really is a very clear and straightforward amendment. It was not tabled with any intent to undermine or derail the Bill, or push it off course, but to give the Government an opportunity to lock in something that gives clarity to the important institutions out there that we and our constituents rely on to deliver local services.
Local authorities and councils—in my case Buckinghamshire, which is also the highways authority covering my constituency—and in other parts of the country, mayors like the Mayor of London, where we are right now, and as per my earlier reference, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, should be locked into the process. I cannot see a single argument why the Government would not want that clarity in the Bill. If they have an in-principle opposition to that, there needs to be a very clear and compelling reason not to simply include the status quo of local authorities, mayors, mayoral combined authorities and the emergency services, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage said, in the Bill. I cannot see us moving away from a local authority and mayoral model, but in any future Government—we cannot predict changes—I am sure it will not be difficult to update the legislation to bring those authorities and institutions into effect.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if a proposed highway scheme touches an area or impacts local traffic nearby, the local authorities covering that ground need to be kept in the loop? The amendment simply ensures that local highway authorities, combined authorities and mayoral authorities get a copy of the notice right at the start. It ensures that local councils responsible for the surrounding roads are not left out of the loop so that they can plan for traffic and protect local roads for the local people.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which goes to the heart of what we are talking about here: projects not on the strategic road network but that are important to local people—roads or indeed other forms of transport, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke of—will be integral to getting traffic flows and people on to the new schemes that the Bill would enable. Not shutting out and turning our back on the other authorities that are part of the all-important jigsaw puzzle of our road network in its entirety, which feeds into and feeds off the lower Thames crossing or other schemes that the Bill would enable, surely has to be all important.
Alison Griffiths
I listened to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in the Chamber yesterday espouse the future of her devolution programme, which of course encompasses many strategic authorities and regional mayors and is at the heart of the Government’s programme. It seems inconceivable that this Bill specifically excludes them. I urge the Minister to join us in a spirit of cohesion and future clarity. Let us show our constituents what we can do when we work together. We can improve legislation, and the Minister would be working hand in glove with the Secretary of State to deliver that, so I encourage him to support us.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend adds to the argument for amendment 78. For the sake of the record, I should say that those mayoral combined authorities are not excluded; they are just not explicitly included and named in the Bill as important stakeholders in our road system that will ensure that any new scheme functions properly and well, and does not lead to the unintended consequences I spoke of earlier. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Olly Glover
I did not seek to say that we should not have more cars or support private road users, merely that the reason a lot of people choose to drive is that it has been the relentless direction of policy going back decades. The rail network has significantly contracted, and a lot of investment has gone into motorways. Does the hon. Member accept the clear statistics showing that far fewer young people are learning to drive and they need alternatives? We cannot rely on continuing to promote the private motorcar over everything else.
Greg Smith
I am not sure the private motorcar has been promoted over everything else. I accept the challenge the hon. Member lays down about the issues young people have securing a driving test in a timely manner, but the statistics out there absolutely show that—whether it is people commuting to work, travelling for leisure or a holiday, getting kids to school or whatever—the majority of miles travelled across the totality of the country are by private car. That is why the Bill seeks to ensure that the lower Thames crossing is built and there are potential future capacity increases elsewhere: so that the vast majority of our constituents—outside of the country’s major cities, like London, which have tube networks and more frequent bus services—can use their cars. We take issue with amendment 45. I will reflect, when we break for lunch, on whether to report to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that the Liberal Democrats have called the junction to Staines on the M25 a “road to hell.”
Amendment 87, which would provide for a comprehensive assessment of the impact on local roads, has more to be said for it. I will not repeat the arguments I made earlier about the importance of the local road network supporting any new infrastructure. There is some merit in the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. This is something we should all reflect on. We must try not to look at the road network as if it can be compartmentalised into the strategic road network and local roads, but to see the two as part of a single ecosystem that cannot be separated.
Justin Madders
I turn first to amendment 45. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising whether alternative transport investment should be considered before a licence is granted. I have to say that I have never been entirely clear whether the Liberal Democrats support the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Gentleman’s comments push him more into the “no” territory, but as the Bill progresses we will no doubt see whether they can support it.
Olly Glover
Given that the Minister was putting words in my mouth, let me clarify my view. We do support the lower Thames crossing, because the Dartford crossing is under pressure and there is no resilience when it closes, but that does not mean that we support only the lower Thames crossing. The problem with policy over decades—I disagree with the shadow Minister on this—is that it has been roads, roads, roads, and motorways, motorways, motorways. It should be not either/or, but both.
Justin Madders
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s clarity. I understand his argument, but it is probably a bit late now. The assessment on alternative transport options belongs in the scheme appraisal and the business case process, not in this Bill, which is about whether to grant a licence in the first place.
The Association for Consultancy and Engineering was clear in its written evidence that schemes must be
“sufficiently developed before financing and procurement decisions are taken.”
As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, the development consent order has already been issued, and all the issues that he talked about were considered. It has been approved, and construction is under way.
The Bill is not about which road should be built; it is about creating an additional financing and regulatory framework, which can be used where there is a need for a road scheme. It is not about putting roads ahead of rail or bus transport. That will be considered through the earlier business case process. Requiring that to be assessed again once the licence has been granted would duplicate the work and add delay. As hon. Members have said, there is an urgent need for this scheme to proceed, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
On Opposition amendment 78, we debated a similar point when we discussed amendment 81. The shadow Minister did not press that amendment to a vote, but given the gusto with which he advanced his argument today, he may press amendment 78. I will not repeat the point that have been made, but clause 4(1)(b)(iv) requires that consultation includes
“such other persons (including persons exercising functions in relation to highways) as the licensing authority considers appropriate.”
So the assurances that Opposition Members seek are there in black and white.
If we are too prescriptive, we may not cover every type of authority. At the moment, we know exactly what the local authority structures are but, as we have seen in recent years, that can change, so it would not be prudent to hardwire that into primary legislation. The Bill rightly allows the licensing authority to identify and consult the appropriate bodies exercising high-risk functions for the scheme. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond to the circumstances of individual projects and changes to local government structures over the lifetime of the legislation.
On amendment 87, I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. We absolutely recognise that major road schemes can have impacts on surrounding local roads, and they need to be properly considered—indeed, the lower Thames crossing is proceeding because we want to improve the conditions on the local roads—but I do not believe that the amendment puts the consideration in the right place.
Licences granted under the Bill are about bringing qualifying trunk road projects within the new financing and regulatory framework. It is not the process through which the underlying impacts of a road scheme are first identified and addressed. Those impacts, including changes to traffic and congestion, should be considered through the development and planning of the road scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, traffic forecasts were assessed and considered as part of the development consent order, which is the appropriate stage for such considerations. Carrying out that work again would delay the project and duplicate work that has already been completed.
Clause 4 sets out the requirements that must be met for consultation before a licence can be granted under the Bill. It ensures that the grant of a licence is subject to a clear, transparent and accessible consultation process, giving those likely to be affected a proper opportunity to make representations before the licence is granted. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 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 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Today we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. In accordance with the programme order for this Bill, if the Committee is still sitting at 5 pm, the Chair will put the questions necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion. There can be no debate after 5 pm.
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during 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 together for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
New Clause 25
Review of non-statutory first responder organisations
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, review the list of first responder organisations which are not public authorities (‘non-statutory first responder organisations’) for the purposes of assessing whether further organisations should become non-statutory first responder organisations.
(2) Any review under subsection (1) must—
(a) have regard to the need to maintain a system for identifying victims of modern slavery which is effective, ensures appropriate and timely safeguarding of potential victims, and provides appropriate and timely access to support;
(b) be based on regular review and analysis of—
(i) the number of referrals received through the National Referral Mechanism from statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations, and any changes or trends in the number of referrals received or the proportions received from statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations;
(ii) the geographic areas from which referrals are received and the types of exploitation to which they relate, any changes or trends in such data, and whether there are any identifiable gaps in reporting related to geography or exploitation type.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to annually review whether further organisations should be registered as non-statutory first responder organisations, based on the capacity and needs of the system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
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 26—Review of training for first responder organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the training and guidance provided to first responder organisations.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the quantity, quality and content of training currently provided to first responder organisations;
(b) the training needs of first responder organisations, and the extent to which these needs are met by current training provision;
(c) any gaps or weaknesses in the training currently provided to first responder organisations;
(d) any further resources which are required to meet the training needs of first responder organisations.
(3) A report on the findings of a review under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the training and guidance provided to first responder organisations which assesses the quality of current provision, the needs of first responders, any gaps in current provision, and any further resources required.
New clause 27—Resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, review the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations.
(2) A review under this section must have regard to the need to increase the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of non-statutory first responder organisations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you back in the Chair today, Mrs Barker.
I am speaking today in support of new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which I tabled and which address the issues faced by non-statutory first responder organisations. As we know, people suffering from modern slavery cannot self-refer themselves into the national referral mechanism. These new clauses are a vital part of making sure that we fulfil our duties towards victims of modern slavery.
We have designated statutory and non-statutory organisations that are known as first responders. Those organisations have a duty to refer potential survivors of trafficking and modern slavery into the NRM when they identify indicators of trafficking that suggest somebody may be a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery. However, the number of non-statutory first responders in the UK has not kept up with the increasing demand for referrals into the NRM. We know that the percentage of referrals from non-statutory first responder organisations is dropping. That does not mean a lack of demand, but rather a lack of capacity; it means that the number of non-statutory first responders has not kept up with the increasing demand for references into the national referral mechanism. I believe that the Government need to take action on this, hence these new clauses.
Non-statutory first responders play an absolutely crucial role in the identification and support of survivors. Many organisations that support potential victims report that many survivors are afraid of public authorities, the statutory first responders. They worry that the statutory first responders will, for example, prioritise criminal investigations over the survivor’s safety and that these FROs might have information-sharing policies with other Government agencies, as we have discussed when debating earlier amendments.
These organisations find that their service users are better served with referrals made by non-statutory first responders. We can see in the evidence that the data suggests that referrals made by non-statutory first responders are more likely to get positive decisions in the NRM. That suggests higher quality service and referrals, along with support to gather the evidence provided about potential victims and getting those people properly referred in to the support that they need.
Between the second quarter of 2025 and the second quarter of 2026, referrals made by non-statutory first responder organisations received a positive reasonable grounds decision in 81% of cases. The rate of positive decisions for referrals by local authorities was 73%, while it was 62% for police referrals and just 47% for the other Government agencies. That suggests a lack of capacity in those organisations, but also systemic issues around collecting evidence and making the appropriate support available so that the right disclosures can be made.
Higher-quality referrals of the kind made by non-statutory first responders also make the job of NRM decision makers easier and faster. Their work leads to a more efficient use of the public purse as they cut down on the need for reconsiderations. However, many of these organisations report a lack of capacity, which in some cases leads to potential victims being turned away. In many cases, potential victims have also given up looking for a non-statutory first responder at that point. As an MP, I am not a first responder of any kind, but in my casework I have had people come to me with indicators of modern slavery, and I found it hard to find the right first responder organisation and to reassure that person that they would be able to get hold of them. For my casework, I would love to have more non-statutory first responders available in my area.
The evidence underscores the urgent need to increase the number of non-statutory first responders through an open tender and transparent application process to deal with increased demand for referrals, reduce the postcode lottery in access to support for survivors of modern slavery, and reduce the stigma around referrals. That is the ultimate call of new clause 25: to hold a review to look for new non-statutory first responder organisations.
I have also tabled new clause 26, which asks for a review of training for first responder organisations. We need high-quality and specialised training for first responders. That is integral to successful victim identification and would ensure better quality and more efficient decision making. Statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and non-first responder organisations have said that there are serious gaps in first responder training provision. In fact, many officers in statutory first responder organisations are unaware that they are first responders, which means that Home Office toolkits and information hubs alone are ineffective. My new clause would ask for a review of the quantity, quality and content of training, ensure that such training reaches the organisations who need it, and make a report on the review available to the Houses of Parliament.
New clause 27 would, again, tackle the issues that I have outlined. It asks for a review of the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations. The capacity issues faced by first responders highlight their lack of resources to make enough referrals to keep up with the increased number of survivors who need them. First responders do not receive dedicated funding to discharge their responsibilities, which can significantly affect their capacity to fulfil their role effectively. In practice, it can limit their ability to allocate specialist staff, undertake first responder duties and ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet demand and to respond to the people referred to them and other organisations that raise cases with them.
Accordingly, there have been many calls for the further allocation of resources to non-statutory first responders and the need to enable survivors to access identification and support through the NRM. We are asking for a review of current resourcing for first responders, to get some evidence of the scale and impact of this issue, identify gaps in capacity of service provision and assess how that affects the identification of and support for potential victims. Such a review would also help to determine what actions, resources or structural changes are needed to address those gaps and ensure that first responders are able to discharge their responsibilities effectively. It would also ensure that we, as a country, are discharging our duties towards the victims and survivors of modern slavery.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
As always, Mrs Barker, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wish a good morning to honourable colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which seek to introduce statutory reviews relating to first responder organisations. Modern slavery is a brutal crime that strips people of their dignity, and the Government remain unwavering in their commitment to tackling this abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the right protections and support they need to recover and rebuild their lives. The Government recognise the vital role that first responders play in identifying potential victims of modern slavery and referring them into the national referral mechanism. Work is ongoing to consider the support and training needed for first responders as part of the implementation of the Bill to ensure a robust end-to-end system.
However, the Government do not consider these new clauses necessary. Mandating specific reviews in primary legislation would duplicate existing activity, reduce operational flexibility and create additional statutory reporting requirements without improving outcomes for potential victims. The existing framework enables referrals through a broad range of statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders, demonstrating that existing arrangements are well established and operating effectively.
We have recently introduced a range of improvements to support first responders, including enhancements to the NRM referral form and the publication of the first responder toolkit, which provides practical guidance to support high quality referrals. We keep the operational effectiveness of the first responder system, including the training and support available to first responders, under regular review. We continue to consider evidence from operational engagement, published data, stakeholder feedback, and the lived experience advisory panels that were attended as part of the recent call for evidence on victim identification. I am particularly grateful to the survivors who shared their feedback, which continues to inform our work.
I reiterate that, since taking office in 2024, this Government have demonstrated their commitment not only to improving identification and support for modern slavery victims, but to tackling modern slavery in all its forms. That includes, but is not limited to, clearing the unacceptable NRM backlog in just two years. As a result, victims are now spending less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, which helps them with their recovery. We have improved support for adult victims through the procurement of a new support for victims of modern slavery contract, replacing the current modern slavery victim care contract. We have also invested £25 million to deliver a new contract, which will provide national coverage of the independent child trafficking guardianship service across England and Wales from 2027 to support child victims.
We have introduced a change to support skilled workers leaving exploitative employers and moving to new, safe employment. We have provided a more cohesive response to labour exploitation, by introducing stand-alone offences for child criminal exploitation and cuckooing through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and by creating the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Act 2025. Those changes seek to collectively tackle modern slavery and make the operating environment tougher for those who commit these horrendous crimes and more supportive of those affected by them.
I will refer to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. She is right that the overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders. In the year ending June 2026, a total of 25,373 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office, a 5% increase compared with the year ending March 2026. Of those, 93% of were made by statutory first responders and 4% were made by non-statutory first responders. Our established position is that an effective first responder cohort is essential to victim identification and that the operation of the first responder system should be kept under review through existing policy and operational processes.
The Home Office engages regularly with statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and other stakeholders to identify operational challenges and opportunities for improvement. As I mentioned, we recently introduced the updated referral form, first responder e-learning and the first responder toolkit. The recent call for evidence on victim identification gathered evidence relevant to the operation of the NRM and continues to inform policy development. The Home Office continues to consider opportunities to strengthen support and training for first responders, informed by stakeholder engagement and calls for evidence.
I think I have responded to the hon. Member’s points. We continuously review and develop processes relating to first responders. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have set out, we do not support these new clauses, and they should not be added to the Bill.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the detail in the Minister’s response, and I am content to withdraw the new clause. However, I would very much like the points around resourcing to be tackled, and I do not think that that was covered in the Minister’s response. She might agree to write to us with more about the resourcing of non-statutory first responders and the future plans for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
IIAA: publication of data
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the publication of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
(2) The data required by this section must be updated and published at least every three months.
(3) The data to be published under this section must include—
(a) the number of appeals submitted to the IIAA;
(b) the number of decisions made by the IIAA;
(c) the outcomes of decisions made by the IIAA;
(d) the proportion of people submitting appeals to the IIAA who had legal representation;
(e) the number of appeals waiting to be processed by the IIAA;
(f) the length of time taken for a decision to be made on an appeal by the IIAA;
(g) the number of appeals that were withdrawn before being heard by the IIAA;
(h) the number of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6; and
(i) the outcomes of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6.
(4) The data published must, where possible, be broken down by—
(a) the type of appeal;
(b) the nationality of the person submitting the appeal;
(c) the gender of the person submitting the appeal; and
(d) the age of the person submitting the appeal.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter (as is the case for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal), of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (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 31—Large-scale asylum accommodation: publication of costs—
“(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to provide, or arrange for the provision of, asylum accommodation at a large-scale asylum accommodation site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish an assessment of the expected costs associated with the site before accommodation is first provided at the site.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the estimated cost of acquiring, leasing or otherwise securing the use of the site;
(b) estimated capital expenditure required for the construction, conversion, refurbishment or adaptation of the site;
(c) estimated annual operating and running costs;
(d) estimated total expenditure over the period for which the site is expected to be used;
(e) the estimated cost per person accommodated at the site;
(f) a comparison with the estimated costs of reasonably available alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation; and
(g) the principal assumptions on which the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (f) are based.
(3) If, before accommodation is first provided at the site, there is a material change to the estimated costs published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a revised assessment.
(4) In this section—
‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided—
(a) under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
(b) as support under section 95 or 95A of that Act in a way mentioned in section 96(1)(a) or (b) of that Act, or
(c) under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
‘large-scale asylum accommodation site’ means a single site at which asylum accommodation is intended to be provided for 300 or more persons at any one time.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the estimated capital, running and overall costs of a proposed large-scale asylum accommodation site, together with a comparison with alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation.
New clause 64—Local impact and safeguarding assessments for high-capacity asylum accommodation sites—
“(1) Before designating a site for use as high-capacity asylum accommodation, or materially increasing the capacity of such a site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment in respect of the proposed designation or increase in capacity.
(2) A Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment must assess the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed designation or increase in capacity on—
(a) public safety and community safeguarding;
(b) local policing and other emergency services;
(c) the provision of health and social care services;
(d) local authority services, including housing, education and children’s services;
(e) community cohesion and the wellbeing of persons living or working in the surrounding area; and
(f) the capacity of local public services to respond to additional demand arising from the proposed accommodation.
(3) In preparing an assessment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant local authority or authorities;
(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the site is situated;
(c) the relevant integrated care board;
(d) the relevant fire and rescue authority; and
(e) such other public authorities or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The assessment must—
(a) identify reasonably foreseeable risks and pressures arising from the proposed accommodation;
(b) consider the likely scale and duration of those risks and pressures;
(c) identify measures proposed to prevent, mitigate or manage those risks and pressures; and
(d) identify any additional resources or coordination between public authorities considered necessary to manage the anticipated impact.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘high-capacity asylum accommodation site’ means any site used for asylum accommodation purposes with a potential capacity of 300 or over people.
‘a material increase in site capacity’ is defined as any plan to increase the capacity of an asylum accommodation site by 100 or over people.”
This new clause would require an impact and safeguarding assessment to be carried out on a potential high-capacity asylum site before the site can be granted approval or have its capacity increased.
New clause 65—Reporting of serious incidents in asylum accommodation—
“(1) Any provider of accommodation under arrangements made by the Secretary of State for the provision of asylum support must report serious incidents occurring at, or in connection with, that accommodation to the relevant police force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a serious incident is an incident which gives reasonable grounds to suspect—
(a) that a serious criminal offence has been committed or attempted;
(b) that a person has suffered serious physical injury or sexual violence;
(c) that a child or vulnerable adult is at immediate risk of serious harm;
(d) that there has been a credible threat of serious violence; or
(e) that any other circumstance involving a serious risk to the safety of a person requires police notification.
(3) Where a provider becomes aware of a serious incident, the provider must—
(a) notify the relevant police force without undue delay and, where there is an immediate threat to life or safety, immediately;
(b) take reasonable steps to preserve relevant records and evidence;
(c) record the incident, the time at which it became known to the provider, the time and method of notification, and any action taken in response; and
(d) notify the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision within three months of passing the Act about notifications under subsection (3) including—
(a) the information to be included in a notification;
(b) the form and manner of notification; and
(c) the handling and onward sharing of reports, including with other Government departments and bodies exercising national security or research security functions.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) A provider who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(8) For the purposes of this section ‘serious criminal offence’ has the meaning given in section 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (Involvement in serious crime: England and Wales orders).”
This new clause will require any serious incidents that occur at asylum accommodation sites to be reported to the relevant authorities.
Tom Gordon
I am tm;1speaking in support of new clauses 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Let me be clear—these new clauses do not challenge the Government’s responsibility to accommodate people seeking asylum. They ask two simple things: that before a large site is chosen, the Government show us that it is suitable, and that before public money is committed, they show us what it will cost.
New clause 30 would require the Government to publish an assessment of every large site, covering transport, healthcare, policing capacity, safe pedestrian access, safeguarding, infrastructure, the alternatives considered and the impact on the local community. It would also require consultation with local authorities. New clause 31 would require the Government to publish the full costs, including acquisition, capital expenditure, running costs and cost per person, alongside a fair comparison with alternative options. If those estimates changed materially before a site opened, the assessment would have to be revised.
Why propose these new clauses? Because the urgent Crown development route allows the Home Office to bypass much of the usual planning scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock has seen the consequences of that at MOD Bicester in his patch, where up to 1,256 people could be housed for 10 years. The sewage arrangements rely on tankering, which would not work at full occupancy. The electricity plan assumes generators, because the existing supply cannot be relied on. The environmental screening assumed buildings no higher than 6 metres, while the plans allow buildings up to 12 metres. Local people had just 10 days to make representations, and there were no pre-application discussions with the highways authority.
My hon. Friend’s analysis also suggests that the scheme could cost more than £250 million to establish, and over £1 billion across 10 years. There are serious questions about suitability, infrastructure and value for money. They deserve proper answers before the public are committed to such a substantial bill. The concerns are not confined to Oxfordshire; in North Yorkshire, my part of the country, the proposed reopening of the former Royal Air Force site at Linton-on-Ouse also raises many of the same questions. In 2022, the Home Office proposed accommodating asylum seekers there. The scheme was subsequently abandoned, but only after significant public money had already been spent. Now the proposal is back.
On 15 July, North Yorkshire council passed a cross-party resolution opposing the proposal, and I join colleagues from across North Yorkshire and York in supporting the council leader’s letter to the Minister. It is worth noting that the Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, has also opposed those plans, which is interesting when we consider the Government’s devolution agenda; they want to empower mayors to make planning decisions, yet seem keen to ignore them when those decisions are coming from the centre.
The concerns set out in the letter read almost like a checklist of the issues that new clause 30 would require the Government to assess. The proposal is to accommodate over 1,000 single adult men beside a village of approximately 600 people. The primary school is very nearby and the site covers 680 acres, raising many important questions about security and safeguarding. Public transport, local services and support networks are limited; the surrounding roads are rural and prone to flooding; there are serious questions about the capacity of water, sewage, drainage and electricity infrastructure; and there is no mains gas.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will speak to new clauses 64 and 65, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and me, and to new clauses 30 and 31.
Everyone in this Committee wants to see the end of asylum hotels. The Government’s plan is to move people on to large sites—former military bases housing hundreds at a time. As we have heard, new clauses 30 and 31 would require consultation and published costs first. The Opposition are sympathetic to the arguments that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has just made, but consultation and costs alone are not enough. Communities need to know that the risks have been properly assessed and that when something goes wrong, it will be acted upon. It is not fair to leave communities feeling unsafe and ignored.
That is what new clause 64 would do. Before any site for 300 or more people is designated or significantly expanded, the Home Secretary would have to publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment after consulting the council, the police, the NHS and fire services. That assessment would ensure the identification of foreseeable risks to public safety before a site is approved, not afterwards. It would set out the pressure a site would place on policing, healthcare, social care, housing and education, and the additional funding, staffing and resources needed to manage it, so that local services are not left to absorb an unsustainable burden with no warning and no plan.
It would also close a significant gap in the law. Currently, there is no requirement to assess the impact of such sites on community wellbeing or local safety. Decisions with enormous consequences for towns or villages can be taken without the public having any say at all. That is totally unacceptable. Under new clause 64, large sites and significant increases in capacity would face proper scrutiny before approval and because the assessment would be published, local people could see for themselves what the effects are likely to be and what plans are in place to ensure those impacts will be mitigated. I hope the Committee recognises how new clause 64 would deliver transparency and accountability for communities and taxpayers.
New clause 65 deals with what happens once a site is open. It would require providers to report serious incidents to the police, including instances of serious violence, sexual offences, physical injuries, credible threats of violence and cases where children or vulnerable adults are at risk. Failing to do so would be an offence itself. There is currently no statutory duty at all, and recent reporting has shown that serious incidents have too often gone unreported. The new clause would set clear reporting requirements and ensure consistency so that practice no longer varies from one provider to the next. It would create a record of when an incident became known, when it was reported and what action was taken. It would require the Government to set clear rules for how incident information is reported, handled and shared.
The situation in Epping last year showed us what happens when communities lose confidence and feel that risks are not being assessed and incidents are not being acted upon. It is obvious that large sites in communities concentrate significant risk. They need clear, consistent, enforced rules.
How many large sites do the Government plan to open and where? Is there any duty on providers currently to report serious incidents to the police? I will push new clauses 64 and 65 to a vote, and I hope that the Committee recognises their importance for our communities and constituents across the country.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire completely, but I want to make a separate point. I have some sympathy for the Minister. Last week, we rightly criticised the Government’s approach on hotels; now, we are rightly criticising their approach on large sites. The argument might be, “Well, what are the Government expected to do?” I urge them to take a wholly different approach.
A few weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee went to Denmark. Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues, but it is far subtler than that. Their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire Graham King millions, if not billions, Denmark uses non-governmental organisations. The Red Cross runs the asylum centres rather than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not-for-profit basis. If they make a profit, the money goes back into the asylum centre or is given back to the Government.
That wholly changes the tone. In Denmark, we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres, but volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers to deliver the accommodation—accommodation that I accept is needed, although the Government must improve and speed up their processing of claims.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the contributions this morning. As Members across the House will know, when the Government entered office in 2024, the use of hotels to house asylum seekers was widespread. That was clearly impacting the confidence that the public had in the Government to run an efficient and cost-effective asylum system.
Hotels are a visceral and visual representation of the previous Government’s failure to establish any form of coherent strategy for dealing with the issue of asylum accommodation. Hotels taken away from communities act as lightning rods for social unrest. They represent the removal of a lever that the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interest in the area and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community.
That is why we are working relentlessly to house asylum seekers fairly across the country, and we have a manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the public expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number of hotels down to, I think, fewer than 160. I look forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.
Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels; it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of that commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites.
To answer the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, two sites are already operational: Wethersfield, which was opened under his Government, and more recently, Crowborough. Three more are in the pipeline, undergoing various reviews and planning permissions. Those sites provide basic and safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be as self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on-site services such as health and safeguarding services, which lessen reliance on overstretched local facilities.
In terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety. Specialist security will also be on site 24/7, with CCTV and strict sign-in procedures for residents.
To be extremely clear, although I understand that there is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area, I categorically reject that. In September, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.
As I hope I have outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities while giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision-making process. Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to make use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. That approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK.
Tom Gordon
Let me press the Minister a little further. In my speech in support of the new clauses, I spoke about the lack of capacity when it comes to sewage and electricity and the lack of consultation with local government. Will the Minister not acknowledge that and try to empathise with those individuals and authorities on the inappropriate nature of these sites? Will she look again?
Anna Turley
When we apply for planning permission or urgent Crown development, all these issues are taken into account as part of that planning process and decision making by the Secretary of State.
Anna Turley
I have some responses to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. That also includes consultation with local authorities. All the application processes have a due window for local authorities to make their applications, and all of that will be considered in the round. I will give way.
Tom Gordon
Can the Minister explain and outline why she thinks that both the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council and her Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire have got it wrong in their opposition to these sites?
Anna Turley
As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman will know clearly that “nimbyism” gets used quite a lot. It is important that local authorities quite rightly make representations, whatever their political party, on behalf of their local areas, and we would expect that as part of the planning processes. All those representations will be taken into account when the decisions are made.
I will respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, going back to the engagement with local authorities. As I said, we recognise their importance, but a single statutory model would not reflect the different circumstances, planning routes and stages of development that apply to individual sites. It could duplicate existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal.
A point was also raised about publishing costs and assessments. We will be as transparent as we possibly can, whenever we can. We have to balance publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data and site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. As hon. Members can imagine, that is all extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance.
The reforms that we are looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control at the border. This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and, in particular, handing our hotels back to the communities.
To give some statistics behind the Government’s reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was 46% lower than when the Government entered office. There are 71% fewer people staying in hotels compared with the peak in September 2023. As I mentioned, that has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently in operation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am listening to the Minister talking about taking people out of hotels, which of course we all support and want the Government to be successful at. Can she provide any justification, because I cannot see one, for housing a large number—more than 1,000 asylum seekers or refugees—in a community that is smaller? How can that ever be right? It does not even matter that those people are refugees and are not from this country—1,000 extra people on the side of a smaller settlement seems to me crazy. It seems to be something that should not be able to happen.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are not housing them in the community. They are being housed on a specific site that is self-contained and away from the community. All their needs are met on that site. Where they are not met, they are transported usually to larger places—cities or towns. That is certainly the situation at the two sites we have at the moment at Wethersfield and Crowborough. They are taken specifically for their needs and requirements, but it is very rare, as a whole, that those individuals leave the camp of their own volition. They have to sign in and out. The sites are self-contained. They are not in the village; they are separate, on a self-contained site.
This Government made a manifesto pledge to end hotel use because the right level of hotel spend is zero. We stick by that. That is how we will restore public confidence in the system.
As Members will know, this is only a small portion of the drastic work we are undertaking to fix the broken immigration system. Alongside our accommodation reform, we are restoring control of the wider asylum system through faster case progression, reduced backlogs, increased returns and stronger border security, with the intention of reducing the overall demand for accommodation.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know he has a long-standing interest in delivery and delivery partners. We have protocols and agreements with those organisations. They have high standards to fulfil and, if they do not do so, we will review their contracts. We keep that under review all the time.
I turn to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and specifically to new clause 30, which
“would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities and other public bodies considered appropriate, and to prepare and publish a site suitability assessment before a site is used to accommodate 300 or more people as part of the asylum support system.”
Similarly, new clause 64 would require the Home Secretary to
“prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment”
before designating a high-capacity asylum accommodation site or materially increasing its capacity.
I thank hon. Members for highlighting the importance of effective engagement on new asylum accommodation sites, safeguarding residents and understanding the impact on local services and communities. The Government agree with that objective. Site selection and mobilisation already involve assessment of safety, safeguarding, service capacity and local impacts, supported by widespread engagement with local authorities, the police, health partners and other relevant bodies. However, the new clauses would impose a rigid statutory process and publication requirement before a site could be approved or expanded. That would create significant overlap with existing planning processes, which would delay delivery and reduce the Government’s ability—
Blake Stephenson
If the Government are not willing to concede that there should be a rigid statutory process, would they accept that those safeguarding risk assessments should be made available, so that there is transparency for the local community? I know the Minister said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, that those asylum seekers are effectively not living in the community because they are in a camp outside, but they are free to come and go into their local communities. It is important that the Government commit to providing safeguarding impact assessments to the local community.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We take safeguarding very seriously. That is all undertaken as part of the process when we make those decisions and contracts, and we keep them under review all the time. I refer to the point I made earlier: the police, particularly at Wethersfield, have said that there has been no discernible impact on crime. I just wanted to reiterate that, but I take his point.
New clause 64 also applies fixed thresholds, which may not reflect the circumstances of an individual site or the scale of local impact. A smaller site may require intensive engagement, whereas an increase of 100 places at a larger, established site may not create the same pressures. The Government consider that existing operational assessment and engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.
Tom Gordon
I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, which outlines the Government’s views. I do not think it adequately addresses the issues that Crown development routes pose in bypassing much of local planning scrutiny. The Minister also made the point that the Government want to be as transparent as possible. I do not think that this place should let them off the hook on these issues. The questions about the suitability of sites were not adequately answered, so I will not withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 38—Use of immigration data to develop artificial intelligence—
“(1) Personal data obtained or generated in the exercise of functions relating to immigration, asylum, nationality or modern slavery may not be used to train, fine-tune, test, evaluate or otherwise develop an artificial intelligence system.
(2) Any contract for the provision of an artificial intelligence system used in connection with those functions must prohibit the supplier from retaining or using such data for any purpose other than providing the service and must require the deletion of such data upon the completion of the task for which it has been provided.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an interview record, witness statement or account given by a person remains personal data even where names or other direct identifiers have been removed.”
Siân Berry
The purpose of my new clauses is to ensure that the Government stop using artificial intelligence systems to shape life-changing—and, in some cases, life-or-death—decisions about people’s protection, liberty and removal until they can show that they are lawful, accurate and open to challenge.
This debate is not solely about the future, because that goes on in the present: the Home Office already deploys two AI tools in asylum casework. The asylum policy search tool has operated since July 2025, and the asylum case summarisation tool was rolled out to all decision makers in April 2026. Both tools use OpenAI’s GPT-4.
According to the Department’s own impact assessment, those tools summarise around 17,500 asylum cases every month, including interviews in which people share traumatic experiences relating to torture, persecution, their sexuality, faith and politics. A machine condenses those detailed accounts into the summary, which a decision maker reads before deciding whether that person will be sent back. That is the human cost at stake.
The Home Office and the Minister need to deal with those issues—particularly the legality of that practice. The Home Office ignored its own AI playbook when introducing those tools. Neither is listed on the algorithmic transparency register, there is no independent audit and testing of the policy search tool has now stopped altogether. As far as I can see, the Government’s only justification for using those tools is speed, rather than quality or someone’s human right to have their evidence in a life-or-death case considered in full by another human. When the cost of an error is a person being returned to danger, speed is not a safeguard and does not equal justice. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its working or justify its decisions. The Minister must deal with those points if she wishes to dismiss the new clauses.
New clause 37 is simple, but it is also comprehensive and precise. It says that no decision with a legal or a similarly significant effect on a person and relating to protection, leave detention, removal, support or trafficking may be made by, or with the help of, an AI system that processes their personal data. Subsection (3) makes it clear that any “summary, transcript, translation,” or “search result” generated by AI and given to a decision maker counts as assistance.
A human who reads a machine’s summary of an interview is already seeing the case through the filter of that machine. If the summary omits a detail that shows an account’s credibility, the decision maker may never know to look for it. That is unacceptable when a person’s life or freedom is at stake. Subsection (6) matters, as the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 currently lets the Home Office set aside people’s data rights. That subsection ensures that the exemption cannot be used to involve AI in those decisions.
New clause 38 protects the data itself. Asylum interviews hold the most sensitive information that the state collects, about health, sexuality, religion, political opinion, criminal allegations and details of children. The Department’s own impact assessment for the ACS and APS tools ticks every one of those categories. People give that information to claim protection; they do not give it to train commercial AI. New clause 38 would set out that the data may not be used to build, train or test AI systems, and that suppliers must not keep or reuse it.
Subsection (3) closes an obvious loophole. An asylum account does not stop being personal just because the name is removed. In so many cases, the story itself identifies the person because of the detail that must be included. The impact assessment for the asylum case summarisation tool records that no other party is involved in processing and names no processer, even though the model is supplied by OpenAI and is hosted on Microsoft’s Azure platform. Parliament is entitled to know what those contracts say. New clause 38 would put the answer to that beyond doubt.
Relatedly, I am also concerned about the appeals systems set up by schedule 3 and clause 13, which we have debated. Under the new appeals authority, if an adjudicator cannot see whether AI shaped the decision under appeal, the appeal cannot correct it. Changes need to be made to schedule 3 to require the Home Office to say, in every appeal, whether AI was used in the original decision, and to produce any output that was relied on. The legislation, through amendments that I hope the Government will introduce, needs to state that an adjudicator may not use AI to decide an appeal, judge credibility or write reasons. Credibility is a human judgment about a human being, and such decisions are about people’s human rights. To ensure that the conditions stay that way, restrictions on AI must be added to the Bill.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clauses 37 and 38, which address an important issue. It is right that, as technology develops, we continue to monitor it and do everything we can to use it effectively and responsibly.
New clause 37 would effectively bar the use of AI systems in immigration and modern slavery decisions in all but a small number of highly limited circumstances. It would apply to any decision made by or with the assistance of AI systems. That would include the prohibition of summaries, transcripts or search results being relied on or made available to a decision maker. The Government are fully committed to implementing AI systems in a responsible way, in line with our legal and ethical obligations, which we take seriously. We have in place robust policies and frameworks that guide our approach to adoption of AI systems. All new AI tools must undergo mandatory evaluation and insurance, and we have in place measures to ensure that staff who use such tools are provided with clear guidance and ongoing training on how to use them responsibly. We also have in place measures to ensure that where AI systems are used, they are adopted in a transparent way, with clear mechanisms for accountability.
The UK general data protection regulation, or GDPR, already sets out robust safeguards to protect the rights of an individual who is subject to a solely automated decision that has no meaningful human involvement. For example, under article 22C of the regulation, safeguards are required where a significant decision is based solely on automated processing and based entirely or partly on personal data. Those safeguards include measures that
“provide the data subject with information about decisions...enable the data subject to make representations…enable the data subject to obtain human intervention”
and
“enable the data subject to contest such decisions.”
Together, those existing legal, ethical and governance safeguards already require careful consideration of the rights and interests of individuals when deploying artificial intelligence. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Government remain committed to ensuring that AI systems are adopted in a fair, responsible and ethical way.
However, we must also recognise that AI is creating new opportunities. AI has the potential to greatly transform the way in which the Government carry out functions and provide services. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister said that the UK will put AI at the heart of our G20 presidency next year, and that we will bring the right people together to deliver on the potential for AI to be used for good, while guarding against the risks. This new and powerful technology can increase speed and consistency across our services, providing a better experience for those who interact with them.
Siân Berry
The Minister mentions speed and consistency, but I am worried about quality and bias. Given that AI is trained on what is currently on the internet, and given the biases that exist in society, is she confident that credibility decisions and recommendations will not be subject to racial or gender bias, for example?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point—we have all seen issues of ingrained bias in the media—but we are ensuring that we have safeguards in place. AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. The Government are committed to responsible and evidence-based AI adoption guided by robust policies, ethical frameworks and transparent governance. That includes mandatory evaluation and assurance for all new AI tools, including ongoing staff training in responsible AI practices and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that every deployment of AI upholds public trust and meets our legal and ethical obligations.
Operational efficiency time savings, as measured during the pilot, are set out in the pilot evaluation. A high volume of detailed information is gathered during the asylum decision-making process and interviews. Decision makers who have had access to the case summary are able to effectively identify areas of review to aid the decision-making process. We will continue to review and improve the tool’s outputs for the benefit of decision makers. The output of the tool is deliberately designed not to provide enough information for the decision maker to make their decision. It is there to aid them in the decision-making process and direct them to the information that they need to do that more efficiently.
I want to re-emphasise the mitigations we are putting in place to protect public safety and national security from AI harms. They include new offences targeting AI-generated child sexual abuse materials and the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, and the extension of the paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated material. We are also working with industry and the AI Security Institute to understand and address AI-enabled harms. We have introduced measures that will enable authorised organisations to safely and easily test AI systems for harmful and illegal outputs, which will help to identify vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, improve safeguards and prevent criminal misuse.
To reiterate, data protection law applies to any processing of personal data, including personal data processed by or for the development of AI systems related to immigration functions. Where solely automated decision making—any decision taken by automated means and without meaningful human involvement—has taken place for a decision that has legal or similarly significant effects, there are specific provisions in place. The Home Office does not undertake solely automated decision making, but uses AI in various roles across the system, such as translation, summarisation and other assistive roles. The use of those AI systems is governed by data protection law where personal data is processed, and by the Home Office’s internal AI use policy. The Information Commissioner has also published guidance on how to apply data protection law to AI, which is reflected in the Home Office’s processes and policies.
As I have said, AI can support our decision-making process, particularly by reducing the time that decision makers spend on basic, time-consuming tasks, allowing them to focus their attention and human expertise, to which the hon. Lady referred, where they are most beneficial. AI tools are already assisting asylum decision makers. The asylum case summarisation and asylum policy search tools are already in operation. Our evaluation of those tools shows that their use can reduce the time taken to carry out some decision-making tasks, creating new efficiencies. The Home Office published those evaluations, demonstrating our commitment to transparency.
It is right that we work to harness those opportunities for the benefit of those we serve. The Government’s position is that AI will have a significant part to play in transforming our public services and ensuring that the immigration system remains fair and sustainable in the future, while not placing unnecessary burdens on UK taxpayers. The new clause does not add to the safeguards already in place, but it does significantly restrict our ability to realise the benefits of AI in delivering better public services now and in the future. I do not believe that that it is proportionate or desirable.
New clause 38 seeks to prevent personal data relating to immigration, asylum and modern slavery from being used to train and develop AI models, to prevent suppliers of AI systems from retaining or using such data except to fulfil their obligations in providing the service, and to include redacted information within the definition of personal data for immigration purposes. AI systems must be tested and evaluated using real-world data to ensure that they are accurate, safe and effective. By prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for those purposes, the new clause would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data. Taken alone, it risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated.
Siân Berry
As I said in my speech, the impact assessment for the summarisation tool states that no other party is involved in the processing of people’s personal data. I think the Minister has confirmed that data is passed back into OpenAI and Microsoft systems for training by the tools. Would she be prepared to put that in writing for us so that we can look at it again?
Anna Turley
Yes, I am happy to respond and clarify. I reiterate that by prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for these purposes, new clause 38 would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data.
Taken alone, new clause 38 risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated. The Government are committed to responsible AI adoption, so that is not tenable. In conjunction with new clause 37, however, the cumulative effect would be that AI could not be developed using, or deployed within, immigration and other related functions. That would prevent the use of AI to improve the efficiency and security of the immigration system and to protect the vulnerable, even where it is effective, efficient and ethical to do so.
The use of any personal data in the development of AI systems related to immigration and related functions is also governed by the UK GDPR, as I have said. Existing GDPR obligations impose rigorous processes to ensure that the processing of personal data is lawful, proportionate, secure and transparent. They also require those processing personal data to consider whether anonymous or pseudonymised data could be used to achieve the same result.
The Home Office manages AI suppliers through procurement, contractual and assurance controls designed to protect personal and Government data. Our AI policies have introduced appropriate contractual provisions. Contractual controls, including non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses, expressly restrict how any Home Office data is processed and used—for example, Home Office contract material requires authority data to remain within the supplier’s secure environment.
Lastly, the intent of new clause 38(3) is already covered by data protection legislation, which provides the legal definition of personal data. The test for determining whether data is categorised as personal data requires a holistic assessment as to whether that data can be used to identify an individual, and does not rely solely on whether direct identifiers are included within it. Altering that definition through new clause 38 would have wide-ranging impacts, including on the definition of personal data offered in new clause 37.
For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clauses and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.
Siân Berry
I am afraid that I am not convinced that the Home Office has the right protections in place under current law or through the Bill. I detect that the Minister is not completely sure of the grounds that she has given for dismissing the new clauses, or that safeguards are in place for privacy and the most sensitive personal data in current and future use of AI.
I suspect that I have made the Minister think more about this today, so I hope that she will seek further information and consider introducing further measures to the Bill in its next stages. For now, pending further debate, I am happy not to press these two new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Further provisions relating to the prevention of slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Duty to prevent slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) A relevant organisation must take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking arising or occurring in—
(a) its own operations;
(b) the operations of any franchisee or subsidiary undertaking; and
(c) the operations, products or services of any person in its supply or value chain or other business relationship.
(2) In determining what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section, regard must be given to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section within 12 months of passing of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate an enforcement authority with responsibility for ensuring that relevant organisations comply with the requirements of this section.
(5) The enforcement authority may, where it is satisfied that a relevant organisation has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this section—
(a) issue a public censure notice;
(b) require the organisation to take specified compliance, prevention, restoration or remediation steps within a specified period;
(c) require the organisation to compensate any persons adversely affected by the noncompliance;
(d) impose a monetary penalty of up to 5% of the organisation’s global turnover;
(e) exclude the organisation from participation in public procurement procedures for a period determined by the Secretary of State.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant organisation” means—
(a) a body corporate or partnership, wherever incorporated or formed, which carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom, supplies goods or services, and has, inclusive of any subsidiary undertaking, total turnover of £36 million or more;
(b) a public undertaking within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“value chain” includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the commercial organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.
54B Responsibility for slavery or human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) Where slavery or human trafficking occurs or is identified in the supply or value chains of a relevant organisation (“O”), O is responsible for such slavery or human trafficking if—
(a) any activity of O causes or contributes to the occurrence of the slavery or human trafficking, or
(b) the occurrence of slavery or human trafficking is directly linked to O’s operations, products or services by O’s business relationships.
(2) O is not responsible for the slavery or human trafficking if it is proved that O had taken reasonable and proportionate steps under section 54A.
(3) Where O is responsible for slavery or human trafficking, O commits an offence.
(4) Where an offence under subsection (3) is committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, partner or other senior officer of O, that person also commits the offence.
(5) A party guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) in the case of a relevant organisation, and any director, manager, partner or other senior officer of that organisation who commits an offence under subsection (4), to an unlimited fine;
(b) in the case of an individual—
(i) on summary conviction, to an unlimited fine, with such a fine being proportionate to the degree to which they were responsible for slavery or human trafficking;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to an unlimited fine, or to both.
(6) A person adversely affected by any slavery or human trafficking for which a relevant organisation is alleged to be responsible may bring civil proceedings against that organisation, whether or not criminal proceedings have been commenced or concluded in respect of the same conduct.
(7) Civil proceedings under this section may be brought by the person who claims to have been adversely affected by slavery or human trafficking (a “victim”), the Secretary of State, or any person acting on behalf of a victim.
(8) For the purposes of this section, “relevant organisation” has the meaning given in section 54A.’”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This new clause would require organisations to take steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking in their operations, and make organisations or individuals responsible for slavery or human trafficking liable to fines or imprisonment unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 40—Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour—
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—
(a) goods of a specified description,
(b) goods from a specified country, region, facility, undertaking, sector or industry, or
(c) goods involving a specified person,
as goods presumed to be made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour.
(2) An organisation which trades in the United Kingdom must publish on its website, as part of any slavery and human trafficking statement prepared under section 54 or otherwise, details of whether the organisation—
(a) makes available on the United Kingdom market,
(b) imports into the United Kingdom, or
(c) exports from the United Kingdom,
any goods designated by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for a right of appeal against any designation.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on compliance with this section and on the action organisations are to be required to take to reduce or eliminate their involvement with designated goods.
(5) In this section—
‘forced labour’ means forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization, and includes forced child labour and labour or services exacted under slavery, servitude, human trafficking, debt bondage or any other form of coercion; goods are made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour if forced labour has been used at any stage of their extraction, mining, harvesting, production, manufacture, processing, packaging, transportation or storage, at any stage of an organisation’s value chain;
‘value chain’ includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.’”
This new clause would permit the Secretary of State to designate goods as being presumed to involve forced labour and require organisations to publish whether they sell, import or export goods so designated.
Blake Stephenson
New clauses 39 and 40 raise an issue about which there is strong feeling across the House: goods made with forced labour, including in Xinjiang, entering British supply chains. Experienced and well-respected right hon. and hon. Members have drafted these new clauses carefully to be within the scope of the Bill, and they would, I think, like to hear the Government’s view on the moral and economic questions that arise—actually, having just said that, I believe that all those who have put their names to the new clause are right hon. Members.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that:
“The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 12, Q13.]
That figure matters more with every month that passes. From 14 December 2027, products made with forced labour cannot be sold in the European Union, whether they are imported or made there. The United States already bans them. Once those two markets are closed, those goods will look for the next open market, and there is a risk that, without action, that market will be the United Kingdom.
Goods made with forced labour are artificially cheap. British businesses are already expressing concern that they are being undercut by cheaper Chinese imports. Surely the risk is that the problem intensifies after other markets close their doors to such goods. Modern slavery already costs the UK up to £60 billion a year, and at present it is the taxpayer who pays to deal with exploitation after it has happened. UK firms that trade with the EU will have to meet its forced labour ban by 2027 anyway. There is widespread concern and a case to consider.
New clause 39 would create a new regulatory regime for large businesses, making them responsible for keeping forced labour out of their supply chains, with penalties of up to 5% of global turnover. New clause 40 is narrower. It would let the Government designate high-risk goods and require businesses to disclose whether they trade in them—the foundation that any import ban would need—and addresses a widely shared concern. Can the Minister explain what the Government’s policy is on preventing the import of goods made with forced labour, and when they will report their review of responsible business conduct?
Anna Turley
New clause 39 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to impose a duty on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more and all public authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains or face criminal and civil penalties. New clause 40 would also amend the Modern Slavery Act, to allow the Secretary of State to designate goods presumed to involve forced labour, and to require organisations trading in the UK to publish a statement, either in their reporting under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act or otherwise, if they make, import or export any such goods.
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses. Their cross-party nature gives us reason to explore them in more detail. I want to reassure the Members who tabled the new clauses and members of the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. We recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses take effective action to identify and address risks within their operations and supply chains.
Clauses 44 to 49 of the Bill strengthen the current reporting requirements under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, raising expectations on businesses and public sector organisations to better report and act on exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger consequences for non-compliance. They sit alongside a range of other measures that we have taken to address forms of modern slavery, including forced labour.
For individuals and employers involved in modern slavery, there are criminal sanctions. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers known to use forced labour. The National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025 require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks and take responsible and proportionate measures to address them. Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti-forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and the developing countries trading scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations.
New clause 39 would go considerably further than the existing transparency regime and other measures we have in place to prevent modern slavery. I recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), in whose name it was tabled, to strengthen corporate action. However, a new duty of this nature, particularly one carrying potential criminal liability, could place a significant new burden on businesses. I was listening intently to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire but did not hear any sense of the financial implications of the new clause for businesses. We need to understand that this would be quite a considerable expansion of the duties that we put on businesses, which may have quite a considerable cost for them. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be keen to ensure that we do not place further and disproportionate burdens on businesses in this country.
To impose such a duty, we would need to ensure that it is properly considered alongside the wider UK framework for tackling forced labour and other harms in supply chains. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has undertaken a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct. That was an evidence-based appraisal of the UK’s policy approach, its impact and, crucially, options to strengthen it further. The Government are considering the findings and will set out our position in due course.
On new clause 40, the Government again recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. However, the proposed designation mechanism raises important questions about the evidence and the threshold required to designate goods, how decisions will be made fairly and consistently, and what would be expected of businesses dealing with designated goods. Section 54 of the 2015 Act and the accompanying statutory guidance are clear that no industry is immune to the risks of modern slavery. We encourage organisations to actively identify, monitor and mitigate any risks pertinent to their operations and supply chains, rather than rely on a list of at-risk goods published by the Government.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. I am sure the right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses will be grateful and will find that useful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to UK immigration and asylum legislation
“(1) In respect of any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) the Human Rights Act 1998 is of no effect and must be disregarded in the interpretation and application of such legislation;
(b) any such provision must be read and given effect to as if there were no mention of or reference to the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) a Minister of the Crown will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure;
(b) no immigration officer, court or tribunal may give any regard to the interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to UK legislation about immigration, asylum or deportation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 60—Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—
“In Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Article 8 of the ECHR), after section 117A insert—
‘117AA Relationship with the Human Rights Act 1998
(1) Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to this Part.
(2) A decision of the Secretary of State, or of a court or tribunal, that is made in accordance with this Part is not to be regarded as unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of public authorities) by reason only of incompatibility with Article 8.’”
This new clause would make Part 5A an exclusive code for Article 8 in immigration cases by disapplying the interpretative obligation in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and providing that decisions taken in accordance with Part 5A are not unlawful under section 6 of that Act.
Matt Vickers
The British people are fair, but what they cannot stand is people who break the rules getting the same as or better than people who do not. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that we welcome, but time and again it identifies the right problem but stops short of a solution. Nowhere is that clearer than on human rights law.
New clause 41 says that for immigration, asylum and deportation law, the Human Rights Act 1998 would have no effect. Our laws would mean what Parliament wrote. No officer, court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 would make part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—the article 8 code—final. Courts would not be able to reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it would not be unlawful just because it clashes with article 8.
Let me say why we tabled the new clauses. This is not about being against human rights. The Conservatives believe in the rule of law and protecting people from persecution, but the rule of law means laws made by this Parliament, applied as this Parliament intended. Over the past 25 years, the Human Rights Act has given the courts the job of reading words into immigration law that Parliament did not put there, and the effect has been to move the most important decision that any country makes—about who gets to stay—away from the people the public can vote out. That matters for democratic consent.
When people see a foreign criminal who abused children remain here because a judge felt that removing him could impact his family, they do not blame the judge; they blame all of us—Members of every party. They conclude that their votes do not change anything and that politicians are powerless or do not care. That corrodes trust in the whole system and hands a gift to those who want to tear it down rather than fix it. Our motivation is to restore the simple principle that Ministers decide, Parliament holds them to account, and the public holds Parliament to account at the ballot box.
There is a fairness point, too. The protections in our law should exist for the people who need them most: the genuine refugee and the victim of trafficking. Every time those protections are stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their legitimacy, and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we have seen.
In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge decided that deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them. When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable, and sent it back to be heard again. A convicted child sex offender used his own children’s family life as a shield, and it took an appeal just to get the case reheard.
That was not a one-off. A Zimbabwean paedophile was due to be deported in 2021, but a judge blocked it. Why? Because, among other things, his criminal record for child sex offences meant he was likely to face hostility from the authorities if he went home. Let that sink in: the very crimes that should have guaranteed his removal became part of the reason he could stay. Most people in this country would find that not just wrong but upside down. A law that turns a conviction for abusing children into a shield against deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.
In 2014, this House put part 5A into law to stop exactly that sort of outcome; 12 years later, the Government are back amending the same sections through clauses 18 to 20 of this Bill. Why? Because the courts keep reading our laws through the Human Rights Act and finding exceptions that Parliament never meant. The Law Society told this Committee that the Government’s new definition of family life is a big narrowing of article 8. Fine, but if the Minister wants those words to survive their first trip to court, she needs new clause 60.
Look at Rochdale. Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf were members of the grooming gang convicted in 2012 of sexual offences against young girls. Rauf trafficked a 15-year-old girl for sex. They were stripped of their British citizenship. Then they spent seven years fighting deportation on article 8 grounds, while living in Rochdale near their victims. They finally lost in 2022. This summer, the Government were still in talks with Pakistan about removing them, and the Home Office has not said whether either has gone. Seven years of article 8 litigation for men who did that to children just is not acceptable.
Look at Reading. Khairi Saadallah’s asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard that he had killed people in Libya before he came here, yet for years he was in limbo, refused but not removed, because of the risk on return to Libya. In June 2020, he murdered three men. The coroner found their deaths were “probably avoidable”.
Remember, too, June 2022, when a rule 39 indication issued late in the evening by a judge whose name was not then disclosed grounded a removal flight already on the runway. Under new clause 41, that decision would rest with a Minister, answerable to this House.
None of this is new to the House. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 said that it was for a Minister of the Crown, not the courts, to decide whether to comply with a Strasbourg interim measure. Parliament passed it. This Government repealed it in full through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent last December.
The question for the Minister is not whether this can be done; it is why her Government chose to undo it. Meanwhile, at the end of June, 21,294 foreign offenders due for deportation were living in our communities, up more than 2,000 in a year. If the Minister agrees that Parliament should decide who stays in this country, she should support the new clauses, and I commend them to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling the new clauses, which would require the Government to limit the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in immigration decisions.
Both new clauses seek to give greater weight to the wording of our domestic immigration legislation and would provide less scope for human rights challenges in UK immigration cases. However, they are likely to result in our domestic immigration legislation, and action taken under it, being found to be incompatible with the ECHR. The changes could reduce the ability of UK decision makers, including the courts, to resolve human rights issues, and they would increase the number of cases going to Strasbourg. They would undoubtedly create greater uncertainty in the relationship between domestic law and the UK’s convention obligations.
I do not want to relitigate all the discussions we have had over many days in Committee, but hon. Members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged. We are clear that we are fully committed to the European convention on human rights. That commitment includes respect for our obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act to deliver meaningful reform and ensure that we have an immigration system that has the consent of the British people.
Removing the duties and protections provided by the Human Rights Act would create greater confusion and inconsistency in decision making while reducing the UK’s ability to resolve human rights issues domestically. The Human Rights Act remains an important part of our constitutional arrangement and reflects the UK’s long tradition of protecting fundamental rights, enshrining those set out in the ECHR—which we helped to establish—while preserving parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, and Parliament retains the final authority to determine how any incompatibility is addressed. Within that system, our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review.
As set out in the Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the balance between the individual’s article 8 rights and the public interest needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of the Bill. The proposals set out in the Bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence. We will clarify and tighten the application of article 8 to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. That can be done while ensuring that article 8 protections remain available to those who genuinely need them.
The Government played a leading role in securing the Chişinău political declaration, which was agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe member states on 15 May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure that the convention remains effective in the face of modern migration challenges, and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system. Together, all 46 member states supported a clearer, shared approach to applying the convention in line with established European Court of Human Rights case law. At its heart, the declaration recognised that national Governments and courts are usually best placed to assess the facts before them, including the application of article 3 protections and the balancing of article 8 rights against the public interest. That is how this Government are delivering reform: strengthening the system domestically while helping shape its operation internationally. We are addressing modern migration challenges by improving how the system operates in practice, not by stepping away from it. We need a seat at the table.
The UK is committed to complying with international law, including by implementing judgments of the ECHR and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely; indeed, in the last 10 years there has only been one immigration-related judgment concerning article 8. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on justice, such as police data and surveillance, as well as family court procedure. The Court has also reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, including by making it clear that they should be used only where there is evidence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm, which I welcome.
For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clauses. I respectfully invite the shadow Minister to withdraw them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 43—Disregard of certain claims, applications etc—
“(1) The duty in section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) applies in relation to a person who meets the three conditions of that section regardless of whether the person—
(a) makes a protection claim,
(b) makes a human rights claim,
(c) claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or
(d) makes an application for judicial review in relation to their removal from the United Kingdom under this Act.
(2) If a person who meets the three conditions of section (Duty to remove persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) makes a protection claim or a human rights claim within subsection (4), the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible.
(3) A declaration under subsection (2) that a protection claim or a human rights claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and no right of appeal under section 82(1)(a) or (b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (right of appeal to the Tribunal) therefore arises.
(4) A human rights claim is within this subsection if it is a claim that removal of a person from the United Kingdom to—
(a) a country of which the person is a national, or
(b) a country or territory in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity,
would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).
(5) In this section—
‘application for judicial review’ means—
(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an application to the High Court for judicial review,
(b) in Scotland, an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and
(c) any other application to a court or tribunal which is required by an enactment to be determined by applying the principles that would be applied by a court on an application within paragraph (a) or (b).
(6) References to a claim include a claim—
(a) that was made on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) that has not been decided by the Secretary of State on the date on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove people who have entered the UK without leave under NC42 even where a person makes a protection or human rights claim, claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking, or seeks judicial review.
New clause 55—Entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom—
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8(1) (exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases), after paragraph (c) insert
‘or—
(d) the person has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027;’
(3) After section 8A, insert—
‘8AA Persons ineligible for leave to enter and remain, entry clearance or ETA
No person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027 may—
(a) be given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) be granted an entry clearance; or
(c) be granted an electronic travel authorisation.’”
This new clause would prevent any person who has ever met the three conditions specified in NC42 from being able to enter the UK.
New clause 56—Limits on grants of British citizenship—
“(1) For the purposes of this section, an ‘ineligible person’ is a person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave).
(2) An ineligible person is not entitled to be registered as a British citizen, British subject or British overseas territories citizen under any of the following sections of the British Nationality Act 1981—
(a) section 3(2) or (5) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);
(b) section 4(2) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens etc);
(c) section 5 (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens having connection with Gibraltar);
(d) section 10(1) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);
(e) section 13(1) (resumption of British citizenship);
(f) section 17(2) or (5) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);
(g) section 22(1) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);
(h) section 13(1), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);
(i) section 27(1) (registration of minors as British overseas citizens);
(j) section 32 (registration of minors as British subjects).
(3) In relation to an application made by or in relation to an ineligible person, the Secretary of State may not—
(a) cause the person to be registered as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen under any of the following provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981—
(i) section 3(1) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);
(ii) section 4A (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: further provision for British overseas territories citizens);
(iii) section 10(2) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);
(iv) section 13(3) (resumption of British citizenship);
(v) section 17(1) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);
(vi) section 22(2) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);
(vii) section 13(3), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);
(b) grant to the person a certificate of naturalisation as a—
(i) British citizen under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British citizenship by naturalisation);
(ii) British overseas territories citizen under section 18 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by naturalisation).”
Matt Vickers
Together, these four clauses would mean that people who come here illegally are removed, cannot block that removal with last-minute claims, can never come back lawfully, and can never become British citizens. Take a man who lands on a beach in Kent on 1 December 2026, having paid a smuggling gang with no visa and no permission, and having come from France, a safe country. Under new clause 42, he meets all three conditions. He needed leave and did not have it; he entered without permission; and he arrived after 30 June 2026, the day this Bill was introduced. The Home Secretary had to remove him to his own country or a safe third country. He claimed asylum; under new clause 43, that claim would be inadmissible, there would be no appeal and a modern slavery claim or judicial review would not stop the duty either. If he later applied for a visa, new clause 55 would say never, and new clause 56 would say that he could never become a British citizen. The message to the next person on the beach in northern France would change from, “Get across, and you will probably stay,” to, “Get across, and you will be sent back for good.”
Anna Turley
I thank the Conservatives for their new clauses in this group. The main thrust of the new clauses is to restore the duty to remove, which as the hon. Gentleman set out bears a striking similarity to their failed Illegal Migration Act 2023. In fact, new clause 42 seems to copy and paste direct excerpts from that Act.
I will take a moment to remind the Committee exactly what happened when the 2023 Act received Royal Assent: asylum decision making stopped. Not a single decision was made, but arrivals continued. That led to an enormous backlog of cases, which we have to overcome in order to prevent the system from being completely overwhelmed. Everything that came afterwards was a direct result of that decision. More and more hotels housing migrants opened every week, and the cost of housing migrants skyrocketed.
This Government ended that chaos, restarted decision making, removed more than 80,000 people—up by more than 50%—reduced hotel use, with fewer than 160 now in operation, and brought down the cost of the asylum system by almost £1 billion. Incredibly, however, the Opposition want to take us back.
This Government have made significant progress in reducing the number of small boats, down from the highs we saw under the previous Government. As of 13 October, arrivals are down around 40% on 2025, and the annual record for crossings remains 45,774 arrivals in 2022; the number of organised immigration crime arrests and other disruptions are at record levels; our work with France has prevented more than 50,000 attempted crossings since the general election; and more than 60% of small boat events have been prevented this year.
The new clause sets out three conditions that this rehashed duty to remove would apply to. In essence, the Opposition argue that any individual without the legal right to be here should be deported, but I highlight what I said, that more than 80,000 individuals with no right to remain in the UK have been returned or removed from the UK since the 2024 election.
Matt Vickers
Does the Minister think that fewer than one in 10 of those people who arrive illegally being removed is the right thing? Does she believe that people who arrive illegally should be able to go on to become British citizens?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made substantial improvements on the removals, which are up more than 50%. Our intention is clear. I hope he has heard our announcements, here and yesterday, that mean that people who arrive on that route will face an extra penalty. They will not be able to settle within five years, as they would have been able to under his Government; they will now have to wait approximately 30 years to be able to settle in this country.
In the year ending July 2026, there were 12,412 voluntary and enforced asylum-related returns, 10% more than in the previous year. In support of those outcomes, between July 2024 and July 2026, the Home Office operated 167 charter flights, alongside the tens of thousands of returns made on scheduled commercial flights. Removing those with no right to be here is a key pillar of the work of the Home Office to tackle illegal migration. The crux of the argument set out in the new clauses comes through with the drafting set out in new clause 43. It states that all forms of protection, human rights and modern slavery claims should be declared inadmissible without any suggestion of where the claimants could be safely and lawfully returned.
As hon. Members opposite will know, many individuals come to this country seeking refuge from torture, degrading treatment, exploitation, political persecution and death. This country has never turned its back on those who genuinely need our help, and under this Government, it is not about to start doing so. It is also interesting that the new clauses are essentially copied and pasted from the Illegal Migration Act. If this scheme was such a deterrent, how come despite that threat, small boat arrivals were higher in the first half of 2024 in the run up to their scheme than in the first half of 2026? The reality is that any third country scheme needs to be feasible and in collaboration with other international bodies and partners, because a scheme that will not work is no deterrent at all.
New clause 55 is another copy and paste from the Illegal Migration Act. It seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in new clause 42 from ever entering the UK—whatever the circumstances. This completely removes the discretion of the Secretary of State from granting leave to enter. Additionally, new clause 56 would place limits on the ability to grant forms of British nationality to those entering the UK without leave.
I recognise that we are in familiar territory here. These new clauses mirror in part similar provisions that were placed into the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and apply them to a wider cohort. The House will recall that on taking office in 2024, steps were taken first to suspend the operation of the Illegal Migration Act and then to repeal it completely last year in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.
It will be no surprise to say that, having already taken such steps, we cannot accept this clause which would reverse the position again while extending its principles to even more people. That does not mean that we do not recognise the concerns that these measures might be said to address and the need to confront attempts to circumvent immigration control. However, rather than rely solely on statute, we have already made substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area and have also successfully defended those changes when challenged in court. We have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without the required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. That approach sends out a strong message that arriving unlawfully will not result in citizenship for the vast majority of individuals, while still retaining an essential element of flexibility for the rare deserving case.
The Committee will forgive me for saying that it is disappointing that in the two and a half years that they have been out of government, the Members opposite seem to have no new solutions to the problems of illegal migration in this country, and instead wish to reheat an idea that so spectacularly failed the first time around. The Government reject these new clauses, and will instead get on with the job of bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system.
Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact but we are not complacent. We know that there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that is why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these crossings, strengthening international co-operation against people smugglers and ensuring the swift return of those with no right to be here.
It is pertinent at this point to remember the goals of this Bill in the light of the inheritance that this Government received. The goals of this Bill are simple: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees and to offer protections under human rights law for those who are in genuine need and close loopholes that have too often been abused so as to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so.
This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities and make sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come. For the reasons outlined, I invite Members to withdraw the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We can pass all the laws we like, but if nobody carries out the removals, nothing changes. New clause 44 would require the Home Secretary to set up a dedicated UK removals force within six months. Its job would be clear: remove foreign offenders, illegal entrants, visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and illegal workers and return them to their home country or a safe third country, and work with the police and use facial recognition and shared biometric data to find people with no right to be here.
I will give the Government credit: returns have gone up, but let us be clear where much of that capacity came from. Most returns of small boat arrivals since 2018 have been to Albania under the returns arrangement the last Government agreed. The Government inherited that and built on it, which is fair enough, but let us look under the bonnet. In the year to June 2026, there were 9,669 enforced returns. Voluntary returns passed 30,000, many paid up to £3,000 to go, and nearly half of those who took up the scheme last year were Brazilians. Would the Committee believe it? How many of those people would have gone anyway? Paying people to leave is not enforcement. Now look at the size of the job. The Home Office made 116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%—tens of thousands of refusals. More than 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting deportation, and fewer than 6,000 foreign offenders were returned in the year.
Failure to remove has a human cost. Emad al-Swealmeen had his asylum appeal dismissed in 2015, and he was not removed. Six years later, he detonated a home-made bomb in a taxi outside Liverpool women’s hospital. Khairi Saadallah was refused, convicted, and left in limbo for years before he murdered three men in Reading. Ahmed Alid’s claim was refused, and three years later, he was still in Home Office housing in Hartlepool when he killed Terence Carney.
Why have we tabled the new clause? Because a law that is not enforced is worse than no law at all. It tells people that the rules are for show. Every time a refused asylum seeker, a visa overstayer or a foreign offender stays on with no consequences, it sends a signal around the world that the UK is a soft touch and it tells the public at home that the system has given up. We want enforcement to be a priority, with its own leadership, budget and accountability to this House, so that Ministers can be asked a straight question, “How many have they removed?”, and they have to give a straight answer. Right now, removals are spread across immigration enforcement, escort contractors and the police, who all have other priorities. The new clause would create one body with one mission and the resources and powers to do the job. That is how we would stop a refused claim turning into permanent residence by default. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 44, but I do not agree that it is necessary. The functions and powers of the removal force proposed in new clause 44 already exist within Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, which are directly accountable to the Home Secretary.
Most of the functions set out for this proposed new removals force are functions that law enforcement agencies already carry out. Without wishing to repeat myself, I reminded the Committee earlier that we have carried out over 80,000 returns, which is a 52% increase, as the hon. Member was generous enough to acknowledge. We have done so at a time when similar duties were already in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
I will highlight again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries, which has delivered clear results. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and to increase returns. In August, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time required to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. They are just a couple of examples.
As Members will be aware, we have also leveraged our visa system to positive effect. Earlier this year, after threatening Namibia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with visa penalties, the Home Secretary secured returns co-operation from all three countries. Restructuring the work of law enforcement agencies, which are already seeing a large increase in the number of returns, into one organisation would also be a costly distraction—a shifting of the deckchairs—from the effective work that is already being carried out.
I have said previously that there is plenty more work to do and that the Government are not complacent. The measures in clause 20, which has already been debated, demonstrate a real and material way in which the Government can increase the volume of returns of foreign national offenders. Simply moving around powers and creating new organisations at great public expense is not a credible way to achieve that. For those reasons, I reject the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Finality of decisions—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made a decision in respect of a protection claim or immigration claim.
(2) Any decisions or conclusions of the Secretary of State are final and are not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court or tribunal.
(3) In particular—
(a) the decision maker is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision;
(b) the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision.
(4) The court of supervisory jurisdiction is not to entertain any application or petition for judicial review in respect of a decision relating to a protection claim or an immigration claim that it would not entertain (whether as a matter of law or discretion) in the absence of this section.
(5) In this section—
‘decision’ includes any purported decision;
‘first-instance decision’ means the decision in relation to which permission (or leave) to appeal is being sought;
‘the supervisory jurisdiction’ means the supervisory jurisdiction of—
(a) the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or
(b) the Court of Session, in Scotland,
and “the court of supervisory jurisdiction” is to be read accordingly.”
This new clause would prohibit judicial review for all immigration decisions except on vires grounds (where the Secretary of State has exceeded their statutory powers).
Matt Vickers
This group of new clauses is about ending the endless cycle of claims, appeals and challenges. New clause 46 would set four simple rules: someone should make all their claims at once; they should back them with real, checkable evidence; they should not contradict what they have said; and there is only one appeal. Later claims are inadmissible unless something has genuinely changed in someone’s home country, and claims based on how someone has behaved since arriving are disregarded.
New clause 54 makes the Home Secretary’s decision final, with no possibility for judicial review, except where she has acted outside her legal powers. That builds on what Parliament has already done. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced late without good reason. This Government kept that Act. New clause 46 takes the same principle to its logical conclusion: if something was not raised at the start, and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all.
Three cases show why that should be so. Abdul Ezedi raised his conversion to Christianity only on his third attempt. The Home Office warned he was using religion for his own ends; he could not answer basic questions about the faith. A judge granted him asylum anyway. In January ’24, he attacked a mother and two little girls with a corrosive substance in Clapham.
Emad al-Swealmeen came here on a visit visa claiming he wanted a holiday, and then claimed asylum as a Syrian. The judge rejected his account in its entirety in 2015. He converted after his appeal rights were exhausted, made a fresh claim under a different name and had yet another appeal outstanding on the day he set off a bomb outside Liverpool Women’s hospital—more than six years after he first lost his case.
Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai arrived in 2019 claiming to be a 14-year-old orphan. He was in fact an adult who had murdered two people in Serbia with a Kalashnikov on his way here. He was placed with a foster carer and given a place at a school. In March ’22, he stabbed a 21-year-old to death.
Under new clause 46, a claim built on a false identity, a false age, a new name or a conversion after arrival would not get off the ground. Under new clause 54, a decision made would stick. That is not harsh; it is how most people assume the system already works.
Jamil Ahmed is a Pakistani national living in Scotland. He was convicted in 2008 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16. In 2013, he was convicted again for the same offence against another girl and for sexually assaulting a teenager, and jailed for three and a half years. He was made subject to a deportation order and lost his appeals twice. After a legal fight lasting the best part of a decade, he finally won at the upper tribunal—on the basis that the reporting of his crimes would put him at risk if he went home. That took nearly 10 years of litigation, but under new clause 54 a decision would have been made. It would have been final, and he would have gone.
These new clauses are motivated by a simple belief that a fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It also does not serve the taxpayer, who picks up the bill for the hotel, the support, the lawyers and the tribunal, and it does not serve justice, because a decision that can be reopened again and again is not really a decision at all.
We should get it right first time, give people one fair appeal, and then let the answer stand. That is how every other part of public life works, and asylum should be no different. The system is drowning. More than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, each taking around 61 weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that there were nearly 330,000 open cases across our tribunals earlier this year.
Furthermore, the Government already accept the principle of finality. Clause 1 has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the Minister tell the Committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary? I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling these new clauses. The Government are committed to an asylum system where claims are considered promptly and fairly, and where any abuse is investigated and swiftly dealt with. The core issue that new clause 46 seeks to address—that all claims related to an asylum case should be made at the same time—is already well covered in existing policy and legislation.
Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 sets out that an asylum claimant’s credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late. Similarly, verifiable and objective evidence clearly describes the kind of supporting evidence that we would expect to see where reasonably available.
I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Stockton West with stories of asylum abuse—many of which he has detailed—such as claims being made on the steps of charter flights, but we cannot support the new clause. It would substantially restrict our ability to consider the full circumstances of an individual case. As he will be able to imagine, there are good reasons why relevant information or evidence might become available only after an initial application has been made, and it is important that it be considered.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 47 is one line long, and would abolish legal aid for applications or claims about a person’s immigration status or right to be in the UK. Immigration and asylum legal aid cost £59 million in 2024-25, which paid for more than 64,000 pieces of work. The Government have since added a £20 million-a-year uplift to the fees. Under this Government, more taxpayer money goes to immigration litigation, not less.
Let me put it simply: a family in Stockton who cannot get legal aid for a dispute with their employer or for most family court cases are entitled to ask why it is there for someone who came here illegally to fight their removal. Since 2012, legal aid has been taken away from large parts of civil law for British citizens, and immigration should not be the exception. It shapes behaviour: more than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, and more than a third of asylum appeals are withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there is very little cost to having a go. We have already heard about what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to.
Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be justified. Right now, families across the country are being asked to tighten their belts. When budgets are stretched, the public expect legal aid to go first to British citizens who are facing eviction, domestic abuse or the loss of their children before it goes to funding challenge after challenge against removal.
This is not about denying anyone their day in court, but about deciding who the taxpayer should pay for and being honest about it. This new clause would save money, cut last-minute challenges and put the British taxpayer first. I think most people would say that that is not an unreasonable expectation. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Anna Turley
New clause 47 seeks to remove the availability of legal aid for immigration cases. As hon. Members know, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters involving vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, and separated migrant children. Legal aid is not granted automatically, and applications remain subject to both a means test and a merits test. Legal aid is available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, separated migrant children, and those challenging immigration detention decisions.
Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked why we continue to fund legal aid for immigration matters specifically. As I said, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters, particularly for those involving vulnerable individuals, victims of domestic abuse—
Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 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 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(v) any mayoral combined authority, combined county authority or local highway authority whose area includes, or is likely to be affected by, a highway specified in the proposed licence.”
This amendment would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities who may be affected.
Amendment 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—
(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and
(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”
This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.
Clause stand part.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I think where we got to before we adjourned was that we would withdraw amendment 45, but press amendment 87 to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—
(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and
(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) The ORR must review each licence it issues at intervals of no more than five years, or at such shorter intervals as the ORR considers appropriate.
(5) The matters the review must examine include, but are not limited, to—
(a) whether the licence holder is abiding by the terms of the licence,
(b) the satisfaction of road users with the services provided by the licence holder,
(c) whether the tolls charged represent value for money for road users,
(d) the financial performance and resilience of the licence holder, including the returns generated from toll revenues, and
(e) the impact of the operation of the highway and the tolls charged on traffic volumes and congestion on surrounding roads.
(6) The ORR must publish the results of the review required under subsection (4).”
This amendment would require the ORR to review each licence every 5 years to ensure that the licence holder is providing a good service.
Clause 6 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. You missed some exciting debates this morning; I hope we can maintain the standard this afternoon.
The clauses in this group relate primarily to the licensing regime. They are about making sure that the regime works, not just when the licence is granted but throughout its life. The Bill provides a clear process for applications, the duration of licences and continuing regulatory oversight to ensure that licence holders are properly held to account.
Clause 5 makes provision for applications for licences under the new licensing regime. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how applications must be made. Those regulations may cover the form and manner of an application, the information and documents that must accompany it, and any application fee. The Secretary of State must consult the Office of Rail and Road before making such regulations.
The clause also enables a licensing authority to require an applicant to provide any further information or documents that it reasonably needs to determine the application. That will help to ensure that licensing decisions are made on the basis of sufficient and relevant information. Once a decision has been made, the licensing authority must notify the applicant as soon as is reasonably practicable. If the application is refused, the notice must explain the reasons for that decision and give the applicant at least 28 days in which to request reconsideration. That ensures that the applicant understands the basis for the refusal, and has an opportunity to ask the licensing authority to reconsider it.
If the licensing authority upholds its decision not to grant a licence after the reconsideration period, the applicant may appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Clause 5 establishes a clear and transparent application process, while providing flexibility to specify detailed requirements in regulations and appropriate safeguards where an application is refused. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 6 makes provision for the duration of licences granted under the Bill. A licence may be granted for a specified period. Where no period is specified, the licence will remain in force until it is revoked. That allows the duration of a licence to reflect the circumstances and requirements of the particular project.Where a licence has been granted for a specified period, the ORR may extend that period with the approval of the licence holder. This ensures that a licence cannot be extended without the agreement of the licence holder.
The clause also requires the ORR to give the licence holder appropriate notice of its intentions. At least one year before the end of a specified licence period, the ORR must tell the licence holder whether it proposes to extend the licence.This requirement provides the licence holder with certainty and sufficient time to plan for the extension or expiration of the licence and the future operation of the highway.Clause 6 therefore establishes a clear and flexible framework for the duration and extension of licences, while ensuring that licence holders receive suitable notice before a time-limited licence is due to expire.I commend it to the Committee.
I will turn briefly to amendment 49 once we have heard from the shadow Minister.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. Let us see if we can rise to the Minister’s challenge of maintaining this morning’s quality of debate.
Amendment 49, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, essentially requires the ORR to review each licence at least every five years and to publish that review. The review would include compliance, user satisfaction, value for money, financial performance and resilience, toll returns and—continuing a theme of some of the amendments we discussed this morning and that flows through the entire Bill—the effects on surrounding roads off the trunk road network and the strategic road network that are the feeders to the new infrastructure: the lower Thames crossing and potentially others that the Bill enables.
I put it to the Committee and particularly to the Minister: why should a long-term licence not be subject to a mandatory review period published at least every five years, although I am open to other suggestions on the period? This is something that will impact motorists from across the whole country, particularly in the case of the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Member for Dartford has already expressed concerns about the impact on local roads. If a licence is granted for much longer than that—and I cannot see how it would not be, in order to bring realistic commercial payback under the tolling arrangements—what if it is a complete disaster? What if things do not pan out as everyone expects them to?
We do not want things to go wrong, but let us face it: sometimes they do. Often they do not go wrong due to any eventuality that has been foreseen. We would not have done it in the first place if there was a plan that saw things going wrong. But when things do go wrong, we need clear answers from those accountable to those paying the tolls on these roads, and indeed to the Government who will have set up the scheme in the first place. That goes in many respects to the conditions that the Minister spoke to in clause 6 around timely notice.
I gently say to the Minister: yes, it is important for an operator to get timely notice of any change, whether that is termination of a licence as it comes up to its expiration or an extension, but what is missing in clause 6 is anything that addresses the point about things going wrong. What if the Government need to step in and salvage a pretty horrendous situation that we might conceive of in future?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a good case; clearly, things need to run well in the interests of road users, the infrastructure provider and local residents. However, clause 11 already provides for the modification of the licence after the grant, which surely includes most of the things he is calling for—that is, an ability to issue a notice and to say that the licence needs to be modified for some reason to do with the operation of the infrastructure.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right that there are measures in clause 11 that would address that issue, but we are currently discussing clauses 5 and 6, and the Minister’s comments reflected the fact that clause 6 only refers to extensions of a licence as opposed to reviews of a licence.
I cannot imagine that any of us, whatever walk of political life we find ourselves in at any one moment, would not want to have a statutory review period, so that all of us can question whether a contract is working as well as we want it to. Frankly, there are many projects I can think of that I wish we had had review periods for in the past, because we might have been able to pick up things that were going the wrong way.
If the Minister and the Government do not wish to have a five-year review period, I would welcome suggestions about what sort of review period would be acceptable to them. If they do not want a review period at all, there needs to be a pretty good case for that.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. Once a company gets a road licence, it should not just be left to run it indefinitely, without any checks. A review every five years would force the regulator to consider the facts, including whether drivers are getting value for money and whether tolls are pushing extra traffic on to surrounding local streets. Publishing those findings would keep the operators accountable to the public.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes the case incredibly well. This discussion is about transparency; it is about openness. It is about saying to those who in the future might receive a licence to run the lower Thames crossing or any other piece of road infrastructure that might be financed through this model that they are still accountable to the public and to the Government, be that the current Government or any future Government.
Such reviews will give us transparency and a clear light on what is going on, so that—to go back to the earlier debate today—any future schemes, which no one can name yet, that might be financed under the scheme created by the Bill could be improved upon by reviews of the operation of the lower Thames crossing in the future. Let us not put a date on when it will actually get built; every state project ends up being built more slowly than originally intended. But five years into the operation of the lower Thames crossing, why would all of us collectively—as parliamentarians or as the general public—not want to know how it was going?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I was also reflecting upon the fact that the tolling is almost open-ended. From a competitive perspective, in any regular private sector organisation it would be expected that at the end of a licence or a contract, there would be a competitive tender period. If a road has already been built and, as we now know, the maintenance of that road will then become part of a tolling operation, surely we should consider regularly—my hon. Friend said potentially every five years, but I am open to other suggestions—and on a competitive basis which company should operate it going forward, because once a road is built there is no reason why it should be the original road builder that does so.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes some interesting suggestions. I challenge the Government to reflect upon—[Interruption.] One Government Back Bencher is leaving already, it seems.
Greg Smith
It’s getting closer! [Laughter.]
Maybe the Government can go back and reflect on that, and before Report, when the Bill returns to the whole House, they will have a sensible suggestion or counter-proposal on the table for how we properly monitor and review the operation of these licences.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution. I enjoy when he and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton riff off of each other—it is like a remake of “Dempsey and Makepeace”; I hope they put themselves forward for the leading roles. To be fair to the shadow Minister, I think that he is coming from the right place on this. It is important that we have assurances that the licences work and deliver the appropriate standard of service, and I agree that we need to hold licence holders to account, but I will explain why I do not believe that amendment 49 is the right vehicle for doing that, if Members will pardon the pun.
First, I do not think that we should fix a five-year review cycle in primary legislation. The appropriate level and frequency of any regulatory scrutiny could change over the life of a licence. A newly established licence may require a different approach from a mature licence, and different projects may present different issues. If this amendment was accepted, we may not actually have the lower Thames crossing operational five years into the licence. When we looked at how best to frame this, because the shadow Minister raised an important matter—
Greg Smith
The amendment is very clear in saying, “review each licence”. That is not to say, “treat each licence as if they are identical,” because of course as time passes there might be different regulatory set-ups or safety standards that a new licence is granted under. We are very clear that each licence must be reviewed every five years, as opposed to—as I think the Minister is trying to argue—treating them all the same.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman may unwittingly be making my point for me, which is that we want to have regular consideration and an ongoing process from the regulator. We looked at how existing licencing regimes work, including, for example, the Civil Aviation Act 2012. As I am sure he realises, there is no review period specified in that Act, because in practice the Civil Aviation Authority regularly reviews and updates the licences that it has issued. The fact that there is no specified review period has not hindered it in carrying out that role. It is apparent from how the Civil Aviation Authority operates that it takes a proactive approach; that is what we are trying to do here. It does not wait five years to spot a problem and deal with it, but deals with problems as they arise. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that as a preferable approach to waiting five years between reviews.
Secondly, a number of the issues listed in the amendment are already reflected in the ORR’s statutory duties. Clause 1 puts the interests of road users at the heart of the ORR’s role. It also requires the ORR to have particular regard to efficiency and economy, and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities, as well as to have regard to matters including safety and impacts on the strategic road network. Under clause 1(5), the Secretary of State can provide guidance to the ORR about how they would like it to interpret or carry out its duties, and the Secretary of State can update that if they are not satisfied with that interpretation. Those duties are continuing duties under clause 1; they do not suddenly trigger after five years or at any other arbitrary point.
Compliance with the licence is also already covered by the Bill’s regulatory regime. Part 4 gives the ORR powers for monitoring and information gathering, and provides for enforcement when licence conditions are not met. Clause 7(5) requires the ORR to keep tolling conditions imposed on the licence in clause 7 under review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, clause 11 gives powers to amend licences. The shadow Minister talked about the absolute disaster scenario, which we hopefully will not see, but clause 12 gives powers to revoke licences. Therefore, there would be no need to wait five years, and I think it is clear that the flexibility and ongoing review that the Bill sets out is the correct approach.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The amendment is asking for a couple of specific things to be in the review:
“the financial performance and resilience of the licence holder, including the returns generated from toll revenues, and…the impact of the operation of the highway and the tolls charged on traffic volumes and congestion on surrounding roads.”
In the interest of transparency, does the Minister not think that it would be good for the general public to see the main criteria in the amendment?
Justin Madders
I was about to sit down, but there are publication requirements in clause 78, which will deal with a number of the issues that the hon. Member referred to, so I request that the Committee reject the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Tolling and other mandatory conditions
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to compensate affected local highway authorities for extraordinary maintenance costs, traffic management or congestion mitigation arising from any increased traffic as a result of vehicles avoiding tolls on the chargeable highway.”
This amendment ensures that local authorities are compensated for the knock-on costs of increased traffic on local roads as a result of drivers aiming to avoid the toll road.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to establish a scheme for issuing automatic partial or full refunds of tolls to users in the event of significant traffic delays as a result of roadworks on the specified highway.”
This amendment would ensure that license conditions must include automatic refunds for drivers who face severe delays as a result of roadworks.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 72, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
“after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions including proposed arrangements for setting toll levels and approving any increases.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions including tolling arrangements.
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Amendment 39 would create a mechanism for compulsory compensation for local councils as a result of additional traffic due to people avoiding tolls.
Local council taxpayers must not be forced to subsidise private toll road profits by picking up the repair bill for local roads damaged by heavy diverted traffic. As Declan Pang of the Road Haulage Association noted in front of the Committee last week, local A and B roads are heavily used by small businesses and hauliers, and severe wear caused by toll evasion can hurt the wider local economy.
Placing compensation in clause 7 would make it a binding legal condition so that private operators cannot bypass or negotiate away the wider impacts. One of the reasons I have tabled the amendment is because of the problem with the current roads funding formula. It is based overwhelmingly on miles rather than use levels. Higher use of existing roads would not necessarily lead to more funding for local authorities as a result, so we need a mechanism to deal with that.
Amendment 40 would, in effect, extend the delay repay concept from the railway to toll roads. It would mean an automatic toll refund scheme that issues partial or full refunds to drivers trapped in severe congestion, roadworks or operator-induced disruptions would come into existence. Motorists paying premium commercial tolls expect a reliable, free-flowing journey and should not be charged full price when the operator fails to maintain traffic flow.
Drawing on European tolling models, the Italian network has a motorway refund system, which creates a direct financial incentive for operators to clear incidents and manage roadworks efficiently. Currently, operators do not always manage to do that here. We are not necessarily saying that that is the right system for the UK context, but it is an illustration of what is possible and an example that the Minister may wish to consider.
As Edmund King told the Committee last week, if drivers pay a higher toll under an independent business model, it must work both ways, giving drivers money back when the road fails to operate properly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Greg Smith
I largely wish to comment on amendment 72 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but before I do so, I will speak briefly to amendments 39 and 40.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage makes a good point about the increased use of local roads that feed vehicles on to new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, or indeed bring motorists—be they private motorists or haulage operators—off those pieces of new infrastructure. The current modelling that finances local highway authorities—predominantly councils—up and down the land has no mechanism whatsoever for acknowledging the point that the hon. Member makes. When traffic flows are massively increased on an existing road, those surfaces very quickly degrade and start to resemble the surface of the moon. I am sure we all see that in our own constituencies. It something that drives all of our constituents—and me—absolutely potty on a daily basis.
I see that in my own constituency, where we have seen a large amount of big infrastructure being built over recent years, such as East West Rail. That happens where compounds are put in for heavy goods and groundworks vehicles. The traction zones where those vehicles are accelerating to pull out, or braking to come in, as they go to site, move earth away and bring aggregate in, very quickly degrade.
It makes sense to take into account where an existing local road—one that is owned by a local highway authority and is the responsibility of local council tax payers—is suddenly asked, as they will be in the case of the new lower Thames crossing and potentially other schemes in the future, to be used for infrastructure projects. There should be a flow of funding, either from the licensee or from the Government through the Department for Transport, and ultimately the Treasury, that ensures that council tax payers in local areas are not asked to pick up the bill—as my council has been asked to do for roads broken by HS2 construction—for the construction of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes under the Bill. Indeed, they should not be asked to pick up the bill for the ultimate operation of them, either. I have some sympathy for amendment 39 tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.
Amendment 40 is a more problematic proposition. I do not disagree with the sentiment. No one can tell us what the toll on the lower Thames crossing would ultimately be, but we can presume it to be commensurate with the M6 toll, where an average vehicle pays £7 or £8. Therefore, it makes eminent common sense, and is surely reasonable, that someone would be entitled to some sort of compensation, or money back, if they paid the toll but then got snarled up in a traffic jam and just sat in a queue that they could have sat in on the original M6 anyway. I have sat in a jam on that road many times over my life.
The problem with the proposition that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has put forward is how that would be determined. With trains, delay repay is very straightforward: what time does the train ultimately pull into the destination station? That is very clear: it is either on time or a number of minutes late. Certainly, since Chiltern Railways was nationalised, I have been on late trains from my constituency every single day, but that is beside the point.
However, how is that level of delay really determined in a private vehicle? Everyone’s journey will be slightly different. What is to stop someone from deliberately driving slowly in order to avoid paying the full toll, artificially making their journey seem longer? Is it for the ORR to determine whether someone has had a longer than usual journey? How will they determine that without—and I do not want to sound all conspiracy theorist—some level of state snooping on people’s exact movements in order to determine how long that journey actually took them?
Olly Glover
The shadow Minister gives me an opportunity to say something I omitted from my notes—despite everyone’s obsession with Google, it is incapable of formatting a document properly when it is printed, but that is for another day. The Italian model calculates a base amount for roadworks, plus an extra amount for time lost. One qualifies after any delay on a trip up to 30 km, after a 10-minute delay on trips of 30 to 50 km, or after a 15-minute delay on trips over 50 km. I do not know how they determine that. It may be through some sort of monitoring system, and we already have that in many formats, such as automatic number plate recognition. The Italians are not generally well known for welcoming state surveillance. That is just one mechanism, and I am sure that many options are available using 21st-century technology.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am sure that the Italian model works well to make the number of minutes delayed commensurate to the compensation paid, but he himself acknowledges that he does not know the manner in which it is determined. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to look at options—
Greg Smith
There are no coalitions here. There is only one audition going for the next general election, and it will not be looking toward our side of the House.
If there is a sensible solution that does not involve state snooping on our motorists as they use this new infrastructure, the principle that someone has paid their money and should expect a quick journey time is a fundamentally good one, and it should apply.
Amendment 72 would prevent the Bill from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the proposed licence conditions, including—this is the $64,000 question, though I hope not literally—tolling arrangements. Throughout the debates so far, a number of questions have been asked about that. I understand the technical nature of the answers, but bluntly, that does not cut it with our constituents. No one can answer how much it will actually cost motorists to use the lower Thames crossing or how the tolling mechanism will be regulated to give clear, unambiguous rules about how a toll must be set and if there will be any caps on it, so that drivers, motorists, private cars and hauliers alike can have confidence in what is coming.
That is simply what amendment 72 seeks to do. The public should know how tolls will be set and how any increases—an equally important point—will be approved before the regime starts operating. It is not good enough for the road to be built and for people to then find out that they cannot afford to use it. Why should Parliament commence the Act before those conditions are published? If the Minister can come back with some clear guidance and rules around that, we will be much closer to full-throttled support for what he is trying to do. We want the lower Thames crossing, but we do not want it at a rate that nobody can afford to use.
Alison Griffiths
When I spoke earlier to amendment 82 to clause 3, it was with this exact issue in mind. We failed to get that amendment passed, so the improvement and maintenance of these roads will be paid for through tolling. However, we know that the “fair and transparent code” the ORR will decide on will not be put to a vote in Parliament. It therefore becomes even more important that on the tolling for these roads, we require a report from the Secretary of State that sets out the conditions and proposed arrangements for toll levels and the approval of increases. Without that, there is no control or stopgap for these tolls. The tolling does not end when costs have been recovered by the operator, so we could have a very open-ended tolling situation.
Given that it is going to one operator, we do not know how cost-effective maintenance will be. Will they be required to go out to tender on this? If a report is coming to the Secretary of State before we set tolling, that will create a position where we have greater control.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I am trying to understand the Opposition’s position, because it seems that they want the Government to intervene in setting the tolling price, but they have also called for a strengthened and independent regulator. I am trying to understand their proposed position.
Alison Griffiths
We are looking for clarity and making sure that our constituents are looked after in this process. At the moment, our constituents are left liable for whatever costs are coming down the track, with only the ORR’s code, which this place will have no say in, to set what those costs will be. Given that the Government do not wish to put in place a limit on the length of a licence, all these things concurrently are creating a situation where constituents, quite rightly, may be wondering what exactly it is that they are paying for.
Shivani Raja
We are generally in agreement that it is essential that both transparency and cost control sit at the heart of this framework. Drivers and local businesses deserve to know exactly what they are being asked to pay before any tolling arrangements are introduced. We cannot expect motorists to accept potentially significant and unexpected costs without first having a clear understanding of what those charges will be, and how they will be determined.
Amendment 72 is about ensuring proper scrutiny before decisions are made and effectively locked in. By requiring licence conditions and proposed toll levels to be published before the Act comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to examine the arrangements and understand the potential impact on roads users and motorists.
Ultimately, people deserve transparency, accountability and certainty. We must ensure that the interests of drivers and local businesses in all our constituencies are properly protected, and that no one is left facing unexpected costs without having had the opportunity to understand them.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their amendment.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage tried to make a noble case for something that this Government are already dealing with through the record funding for highways maintenance that we have announced and are already delivering on. I understand the thrust of his argument about compensation to local highway authorities for displaced traffic. The right approach is to undertake an assessment of the whole strategic road network, to understand what improvements and likely increases to overall capacity could achieve more widely. Then, we should assess the impact if we do not proceed.
Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce congestion, not increase it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said on many occasions, we know that his part of the country is already at bursting point. We know what happens when things go wrong at that vital section of the strategic road network. There are already local problems as people try to find alternatives to avoid the congestion it has caused. That is clearly not because people are trying to avoid the toll, which has been in place for many years; it is actually about the lack of reliability at that vital pinch point. The answer is not to compensate people for delays caused by trying to avoid that unreliability; the answer is to make the Dartford crossing more reliable so that people actively choose that road.
Olly Glover
The Minister, as he has in a few of his speeches, is talking as if the Bill is only about the lower Thames crossing, but it is not. It is much broader than that, as he has acknowledged, although it is focused on the lower Thames crossing. If the Bill was just about the lower Thames crossing, I might well agree with his argument, as there are no alternatives in that particular case. But as drafted, it is not just about the lower Thames crossing, is it?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Bill is scheme-agnostic, but as the lower Thames crossing is the only scheme we currently have in mind, it is helpful to draw examples from that for why the amendment is not acceptable.
It is probably also worth pointing out that I am not aware of any other such toll schemes operating in this country at the moment. Is it his position that this compensation measure should be extended to the Mersey tunnels or the Mersey Gateway crossing, for example? My local transport authorities might be interested to hear that, and they might wonder where the funding would come from.
As I have said, the whole purpose of the Bill is to create the regulated asset base model that will fund the crossing. It will be a separate income stream from the general roads budget, and those who benefit directly from the new infrastructure will pay for it. It will improve the reliability of the whole network, which is the correct approach and is far more effective than trying to compensate people for an already overstretched and failing network.
Greg Smith
I genuinely do not think the Minister and I are that far apart, because I do not disagree with anything he has just said about getting the new infrastructure to work in the interests of motorists. Where I think he has perhaps missed the point that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and I have made is that, in order to get traffic flows on to that new infrastructure, in many cases it is conceivable that local roads will see a much higher level of use than they do today. Therefore does the Minister acknowledge that getting new infrastructure up and running well, in the interests of motorists at a price they can afford, will have an impact on the rest of the road ecosystem, mainly falling on those local authority-owned and financed roads?
Justin Madders
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but I cannot say I agree with it because the traffic is already on the local road network. The whole purpose of the Bill is to take that traffic away. It is worth reiterating that we do not intend to do a deal at any cost. We need to do the right deal for road users and make sure this legislation has the necessary protections in place for them. Heaping more costs on to the project by bringing in a wide and broad compensation package would have unintended consequences.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage mentioned the perceived unfairness of the road maintenance formula, which the Department is committed to reviewing, but I cannot accept his amendment and I say the same about amendment 40. That would insert a mandatory licence condition requiring an automated refund system to be provided by a licensee. As I have already stated, the amendment would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve. The shadow Minister talked amusingly about people driving deliberately slowly to try to get a repayment. I am not sure people would be that Machiavellian, but maybe those are the circles he mixes in.
It is fair to say that road users rightly expect well-maintained roads, and they expect operators to minimise disruption in line with their network management duties. However, safe roads require maintenance, and maintenance sometimes requires roadworks. An automatic refund requirement would disincentivise operators from undertaking necessary maintenance and roadworks. It would give them a financial incentive to postpone what might be necessary maintenance. The better approach is to hold operators to account for how they manage expenditure and deliver the service, rather than create an incentive to put off essential work.
Olly Glover
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. On amendment 40, the Minister said that delay repay could incentivise toll road operators to do less maintenance, but I disagree. It would incentivise them to do maintenance efficiently and at appropriate times, such as overnight, rather than making a case for recreating the Conservative party’s cones hotline of the 1990s. One sometimes sees plenty of cones and lane closures out there with very little work taking place.
In light of the shadow Minister’s offer to work collaboratively on a proposal, and of my offer to help him with his conspiracy theories of state suspicion, I will leave amendment 40 for another day. However, I will press amendment 39 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 7, line 23, leave out paragraph (l).
This amendment removes paragraph (l) from clause 8(2) because the provision is considered unnecessary.
Justin Madders
Amendment 1 is a small amendment to remove an unnecessary paragraph from clause 8(2). Paragraph (l) currently specifies that a licence may have a condition prohibiting transfer of the licence unless it is done under the provisions set out in clause 14. That is not necessary, as compliance with the provisions is already required by clause 14 itself. This is therefore a minor tidying-up amendment to remove an unnecessary provision, which I hope the shadow Minister will be able to support.
Clause 8 allows a licensing authority to include additional project-specific conditions in a licence, which will sit alongside the conditions that must be included under clause 7. That flexibility is important because each project will be different, and the licence needs to reflect the particular road, works and arrangements involved.
Conditions may set out what the licence holder must, may or must not do. They may also control how the licence holder carries out its activities. For example, conditions may cover the use of land, the licence holder’s financial arrangements, and requirements relating to the design or operation of the highway. A licence may also require the licence holder to follow directions from the Secretary of State or the ORR on matters specified in the licence. Conditions may cover the provision and publication of information, co-operation with highways and planning bodies, and the referral of particular matters to the ORR for a decision. A licence may also require the licence holder to meet costs incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out functions connected with the licence.
The list in clause 8 is not exhaustive, and it is not designed to be. That ensures that a licence can include any other appropriate conditions needed for the project. I think the overarching principle is pretty clear from the list in subsections (2)(a) to (2)(k), but I will give the Committee a bit more detail.
Paragraph (a) is about making sure the licence holder is financially stable and resilient. It gives the ORR the option to lay out things such as the level of debt the licence holder can have.
Paragraph (b) is about making sure that all the things a licence holder must or may do in respect of the road are spelled out in the licence, such as that it must construct the road, for example.
Paragraph (c) is about how the licence holder does the things that are spelled out in the licence. For example, that might be abiding by the planning conditions laid out in the planning permission for a scheme.
Paragraph (d) is about detailing the consents that the licence holder will or will not need for certain actions.
Paragraph (e) makes it clear that the licence holder must abide by directions from the Secretary of State or the ORR.
Paragraph (f) makes sure the licence holder refers appropriate matters to the ORR.
Paragraph (g) makes sure the licence holder is clear that it has to pay the Secretary of State for any costs incurred by the Secretary of State on its behalf.
Paragraph (h) makes sure the licence holder co-operates with National Highways or a local highway authority, for example, when fulfilling its duties under the Highways Act 1980, to give one example.
Paragraph (i) is about the information that a licence holder may be required to share with the ORR or others.
Paragraph (j) is about making sure that land acquired for the building of any scheme under the RAB model—for example, land acquired for environmental mitigation of the lower Thames crossing—is used for its intended purpose and not for some other purpose. For example, if the land was designated for environmental mitigation but the licence holder tried to build a housing estate on it instead, that would be a breach of the licence.
Lastly, paragraph (k) is probably the easiest to explain, because it is there to ensure that the licence holder abides by the licence, particularly in making sure that the correct standards of road construction and operation are used.
Clause 8 therefore provides the flexibility to tailor each licence, while ensuring that the licence holder’s responsibilities are clear. Because the licence will change over time, depending on the stage of the project, the clause needs to reflect that. For example, the road that the licence holder is required to construct will be complete at some point, so a construction condition will then no longer be needed. As I have said, the clause is not an exhaustive list but is designed to ensure that a licence can include any appropriate conditions needed for an individual project. I commend the clause and amendment 1 to the Committee.
Clause 9 enables the Secretary of State to determine standard conditions for licences granted under the Bill. These conditions will provide a clear, consistent baseline across the new licensing regime to give licence holders, investors, the ORR and road users certainty about the core obligations that apply while avoiding unnecessary repetition in individual licences. These standard conditions must be published and provided to the ORR, and they will then be incorporated into each licence by reference, unless the Bill provides otherwise. Conditions published after a licence is granted will not apply to the licence automatically.
Clause 9 also preserves appropriate flexibility. The licensing authority may exclude or modify standard conditions when granting a licence, where that is justified for the project. Clause 10 requires publication, consultation and protections against undue competitive disadvantage before the licensing authority may do so. Clause 9, therefore, provides a combination of regulatory consistency and proportionate project-specific flexibility.
Clause 10 sets out the safeguards that apply where a licensing authority proposes to exclude or modify a standard condition when granting a licence. Before excluding or modifying the condition, the authority must publish a notice setting out the proposed change, its effect and the reasons for it. The notice must be sent to the other licensing authorities, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons, and at least 28 days must be allowed for representations. The licensing authority may proceed only if it considers that the change will not unduly disadvantage either the licence holder concerned or any other licence holder in competing with others. If it proceeds, it must publish the final change, explain its effect and reasons, and state how representations were taken into account. This clause therefore ensures that project-specific flexibility is exercised transparently, proportionately and without distorting competition.
I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these clauses and Government amendment 1. He will be pleased to know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to Government amendment 1. We might ask why such an obvious duplication in the Bill was not picked up before it was published, but we will perhaps leave that for another day.
Speaking more widely to clauses 8 to 10, though probably more in the realm of clause 8, I would be grateful if the Minister could visualise some of the scheme-specific variations that he spoke of. With only the lower Thames crossing really in anyone’s eye under the provisions of this Bill, can he give us some practical, concrete examples of where such scheme-specific variations may come about, to help the House, the Committee and our constituents to fully understand the scope?
Clause 8(2)(a) talks about conditions
“relating to the financial resilience of the holder of the licence or otherwise relating to the holder’s financial arrangements”.
The Minister directly referred to how much debt a licensee might be allowed to have, under the scheme of a licence. I do not object to that as a core principle, but if it is to be the case that something can be laid down as clearly as how much debt-gearing an operator or licensee is permitted to have, surely it can also be written into any licence not necessarily the exact pounds and pence of what any toll can be, but some sort of ruling that says a toll must be proportionate to, for example, the overall build cost over a certain number of years. Maybe, as we are talking about debt-gearing to build infrastructure such as the lower Thames crossing, a licence could say that the toll must not be any more than the total debt divided over how many years the Secretary of State or the ORR deems the licence to cover.
That is the most important question flowing through all the amendments and all the debates on this Bill: how much are the tolls actually going to cost people to use these roads? I fully accept that a pounds and pence figure is very difficult to conjure up, but surely clause 8(2)(a) would give us the ability to set the parameters of a toll. If we can set the debt limit, we can surely set limits for the tolls.
Justin Madders
I think the shadow Minister supports the amendment, which is good to hear. On his question about other potential variations, conditions could cover the use of land, the design or operation of the highway, information sharing and co-operation with other bodies. Because the Bill is scheme-agnostic and creates a framework designed for the long term, it really is not possible to be any more specific than that; indeed, I think it is prudent for us to keep a broad thrust in the Bill.
On the shadow Minister’s other point, the Bill already contains safeguards for tolling levels; he need only look at clause 7 on tolling conditions, which sets out some of the safeguards through the ORR. I hope that gives him some reassurance. I acknowledge that he recognises—I think—that we are not going to be able to set a precise toll in legislation. I say there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that it will be set at a proportionate level; I suspect he does not agree, but I believe that those safeguards are clear in the Bill.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Modification of licence conditions after grant
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 11, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
“(9) Nothing in this section prevents the modification of a licence by a scheme—
(a) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (transfer schemes) in reliance on paragraph 2A(3)(b) of that Schedule, or
(b) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 (highways administration transfer schemes) in reliance on paragraph 5(6)(b) of that Schedule.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments 29 and 35.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 11 to 13 stand part.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Clauses 14 and 15 stand part.
Justin Madders
I will start by addressing the clauses in general; if I dive straight into the amendments, it may overcomplicate the debate on what is already a fairly complicated Bill. The clauses set out how a licence can end or be transferred, where the licence holder has requested it. Further to amendments 2 to 4 and 22 to 25, licences can also be transferred under the provisions set out in schedule 1.
For the regulated asset base model to function properly, it is important that transfers of licences can take place and that the process is set out clearly. For some schemes under the RAB model, the same person might hold a licence for a very long time. At some point, however, the licence may well need to change hands. The clauses will allow for that to happen, and set out clearly the conditions that the regulator may deem it appropriate to apply in granting its consent.
Government amendment 2 allows for licences to be transferred under the transfer schemes in schedule 1 as well as under clause 14, and ensures that Government amendments 29 and 35 achieve their objectives. Those amendments allow for the transfer of a licence through a transfer scheme, as well as under clause 14. Amendment 2 makes it clear that provisions relating to modifying licence conditions post grant do not impinge on the ability to make incidental modifications to a licence when it is partially transferred under schedule 1 or schedule 3, once amendments 29 and 35 are made. When only part of a licence is transferred under those schedules, incidental modifications to the terms and conditions of the licence may be necessary to ensure that the licence can be split and continue to operate effectively.
Once it has hopefully been amended, clause 11 will enable a licensing authority to modify licence conditions after a licence has been granted. That power is necessary, because the licences may govern major infrastructure over long periods. The conditions may need to respond to changing operational, financial or regulatory circumstances, and the clause provides a controlled process for doing so. Before making a modification, the authority must publish the proposed change, the effect of it and the reasons for it, and must allow at least 28 days for representations.
If the authority proceeds, it must publish the final decision, explain how representations were considered and give at least 28 days’ notice before the change takes effect. The licence holder may appeal specified modifications to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. During the consultation period, the Secretary of State may also direct the ORR not to make a proposed modification. Clause 11 balances the necessary flexibility with transparency, accountability and effective rights of challenge. I therefore commend amendment 2 and clause 11 to the Committee.
Clause 12 provides a clear process by which the ORR can revoke a licence with the agreement of the licence holder or in accordance with the terms of the licence. That is necessary because a long-term licence may need to end before its stated expiry date, which the clause ensures can happen through an orderly and—importantly—transparent statutory process.
Before revoking a licence, the ORR must publish its proposal, explain its reasons and specify the proposed revocation date. It must allow at least 28 days for representations. If it decides to proceed, it must publish the decision and the date on which the licence will be revoked. The notices must be brought to the attention of those likely to be affected, and copies must be sent to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. During the representation period, the Secretary of State may direct the ORR not to revoke the licence. The clause therefore provides necessary flexibility, and contains transparency, oversight and an orderly transition.
Clause 13 provides for the revocation of a licence where necessary in the interests of national security. Strategic road infrastructure may be of national importance; therefore, the statutory framework must contain a clear mechanism to act where continued operation under a particular licence would present a national security concern. The power is deliberately narrow. The Secretary of State may direct the ORR to revoke a licence only if satisfied that revocation is necessary in the interests of national security.
The ORR must then publish a notice of the direction in a manner appropriate to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be affected, and must send that notice to the licence holder, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. The notice must specify the date on which the licence is revoked. Clause 13 provides a focused national security safeguard, while the wider provisions in the Bill ensure that responsibility for the highway can continue after revocation. I therefore commend clauses 12 and 13 to the Committee.
Government amendment 3 ensures that clause 14 refers to both the conditions and terms of a licence in relation to transfers—[Interruption.] I hope that wasn’t a comment on my amendment.
Justin Madders
Amendment 3 makes it clear that licence transfers under clause 14 are subject to the conditions of the licence, as well as its terms. Conditions relating to licence transfers may be imposed on licences under clauses 8 and 9, as the Committee discussed previously. The conditions may affect how and when licence transfers are made, and thus it is important that licence transfers under clause 14 are subject to them.
Government amendment 4 ensures alignment between clause 14 and schedule 1, once the schedule has been amended by Government amendment 29. This amendment is therefore interlinked with amendment 29 and is consequential on it. The Committee will come on to discuss amendment 29 later in its consideration, but by way of brief explanation, it allows for transfer of all or part of a licence through a transfer scheme. Without amendment 4, clause 14(1) would prevent transfer of the licence under schedule 1. The amendment fixes that and ensures that clause 14 aligns with schedule 1, which permits transfer of the licence through a transfer scheme, once the schedule is amended.
Clause 14, alongside the processes set out in schedule 1, establishes the statutory basis for transferring the whole or part of a licence. The licences may operate over long periods. It is therefore sensible to provide for a change of licence holder or a transfer of part of the licensed responsibilities, where appropriate. However, a transfer cannot take place without regulatory control.
The licence holder must obtain the ORR’s consent and comply with the procedure under clause 15, and with any relevant terms or conditions of the licence. The Secretary of State may direct the ORR not to consent where that is necessary in the interests of national security. Subject to that safeguard, the ORR may refuse consent only if it considers that the proposed transferee is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence or the part that is being transferred. The ORR may also impose appropriate conditions, which may ensure that the necessary property, rights and liabilities are transferred or created between the parties. Clause 14 therefore provides commercial and operational flexibility without allowing licence obligations to be transferred free from regulatory scrutiny. I commend it to the Committee.
Finally, clause 15 sets out the procedure that the ORR must follow before consenting to the transfer of a licence or part of a licence under clause 14. Before giving consent, the ORR must publish a notice stating that it proposes to consent and explaining its reasons. The notice must allow at least 28 days for representations about the proposed transfer. If the ORR decides to proceed, it must publish a further notice setting out its decision and the date on which the transfer will take place. Both notices must be published in a manner appropriate to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be affected. The ORR must also send copies to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. When sending the proposal to the Secretary of State, the ORR must identify any conditions it proposes to impose on the transfer under clause 14. Clause 15 therefore ensures that transfers are considered openly and on an informed basis, while providing a clear route for an approved transfer to take effect.
I hope that I have been clear for Committee members. Clauses 11 to 15, as amended, will provide the certainty that licence holders need with regard to how their licence may come to an end, or be transferred or revoked. They also provide assurance to the ORR and to the public of the clear processes for how the end of a licence should be managed. I therefore commend the clauses and Government amendments in the group to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I have never been considered a Tory wet, Ms Lewell, but my notes now are, after my acrobatics with them. I particularly apologise to the Hansard reporters when my notes eventually make it to the Official Report at the end of the sitting.
Greg Smith
The Minister suggests an improvement to my notes—I certainly cannot read them any more.
I do not think that there is particular disagreement between the official Opposition and the Government on this part of the Bill, so I just want to pose a couple of questions to the Minister on clauses 12 and 13 on the revocation of any licences. Clearly, a licence may well need to be revoked if things are going horribly wrong, or indeed—as the Minister highlighted in his remarks—if there is a national security concern. The first duty of any Government is to keep citizens safe, and given a national security concern, it is absolutely right that there should be the power to revoke a licence.
What is missing from clauses 12 and 13 is what happens if a licence is revoked, but there is no one out there willing to take it on so that clauses 14 and 15 would come into effect. Who becomes the licensee by default? Is it the Department for Transport? Is it the ORR? Is it someone else? That is not a disagreement with the clauses—they seem relatively comprehensive, and certainly the power given any national security concerns is absolutely right—but who takes over?
What if no company wishes to take on that liability—that licence—and the cost of operating the lower Thames crossing or anything else that is granted a licence? We need clarity on that. Although the procedure set out in the clauses is unobjectionable, the net result in some circumstances is not. I hope those circumstances never come to pass, but we must plan for the worst. We need an answer on that point.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for that important question. The simple answer is that National Highways would become the operator of last resort. As it already operates the adjoining parts of the network, that would be an entirely sensible move. Let us be honest, we do not want to be in that position. At this stage, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which that would apply, because the whole purpose of the RAB model is to provide certainty over the long term—although it is of course right that we have safeguards in the Bill. I hope that response has addressed the shadow Minister’s question.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Transfer of licences
Amendments made: 3, in clause 14, page 11, line 21, after “terms” insert “or conditions”.
This amendment clarifies that a transfer of a licence must be in accordance with any conditions of a licence relating to its transfer (as well as any terms).
Amendment 4, in clause 14, page 11, line 38, after first “under” insert
“a transfer scheme made under Schedule 1 or”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 29.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Holder of licence to be highway authority and traffic authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clauses 16 to 21 engage the fundamental legislative scaffolding required to operate licensed highways by plugging it into the existing legislative framework. The clauses establish clear responsibility for operating and maintaining licensed highways. They give licence holders the legal status and functions they need while retaining specified statutory powers with a public body.
The clauses allow a licensee to delegate, without removing its responsibility or the ORR’s oversight, and protect continuity by allowing a strategic highways company to intervene when a licence holder cannot properly perform its functions. The clauses allow relevant responsibility to pass automatically to the relevant strategic highways company when a licence ends without a replacement. I trust the clauses are uncontroversial but I will go into a little more detail for the benefit of the Committee.
Clause 16 makes the licence holder the highway authority and traffic authority for each highway specified in its licence. That gives the licence holder the legal status to carry out the day-to-day highway and traffic authority functions required to operate and maintain the licensed road. The clause is concerned only with trunk roads covered by the licence, not with the wider responsibilities of highway or traffic authorities. A licensed highway is treated as a highway maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980. That keeps the legal status of the licensed highway clear, even though the works and operation of it are to be privately financed. These arrangements take effect from the date stated in the licence or, if no date is stated, from when the licence is granted. That provides a clear point at which statutory responsibility moves to the licence holder.
Where legislation gives a strategic highways company functions because it is the highway authority or traffic authority for a trunk road, those functions will generally be exercisable by the licence holder for the licensed highway. Development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008 are expressly excluded from that rule. That avoids the automatic transfer of project-specific consents in a DCO. These consents will need to be considered separately as part of specific licensing decisions and can be dealt with separately, as appropriate, either under the Bill’s transfer provisions or under specific provisions of the DCO itself. That also gives much needed flexibility when establishing a new scheme.
Subsequent clauses retain certain functions to the relevant strategic highways company, which is of course National Highways, and provide safeguards for delegation and operational continuity. Clause 16 therefore places responsibility for the licensed highway with the body that will operate it, while preserving the wider statutory framework for trunk roads and other highways.
Clause 17 sets limits on the functions that a licence holder may exercise as the highway authority and traffic authority for a licensed highway. Although clause 16 gives the licence holder that status, certain functions should remain with a public body because of their nature and legal effect. The licence holder may not exercise functions relating to the making of schemes or orders under the Highways Act 1980. It may not exercise compulsory purchase functions under that Act, or functions relating to the making of orders or giving of directions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These are delegated forms of legislation and it is important to have proper public scrutiny of their use.
For those unfamiliar with the details of those pieces of legislation, order-making powers include matters such as changing speed limits, making trunking orders, restricting access to a road or introducing one-way systems. These functions will instead be exercised for the licensed highway by the relevant strategic highways company, which ensures that significant statutory powers, including compulsory purchase and most traffic regulation powers, remain with a public body.
The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about who may exercise highway and traffic authority functions for a licensed highway. It may, for example, be appropriate for certain functions to be exercised by a local highway authority, depending on the specific scheme. Those regulations may provide for a specified person other than the licence holder to exercise one of the functions retained by the clause. They may also allow another specified person to exercise other functions instead of, or alongside, the licence holder. The regulations may also make the modifications needed so that existing highways and traffic legislation operates properly where functions are exercised under the new licensing framework. Clause 17, when read together with clause 16, therefore ensures that the licence holder has the functions needed to operate the highway, while keeping specified statutory powers with an appropriate public body and allowing responsibilities to be allocated clearly.
Clause 18 allows the licence holder to authorise another person to exercise functions conferred on it under this chapter of the Bill, which includes clauses 16 to 22. That provides practical flexibility in how the licence holder carries out its highway and traffic authority functions. It allows another person with suitable operational capability to exercise a function on the licence holder’s behalf. Where the licence holder authorises a strategic highways company to exercise a function, the clause also allows that company to delegate the function further under the Infrastructure Act 2015, subject to the modifications set out in the Bill.
Of course, the ORR must be able to oversee all of these arrangements. The licence holder must therefore provide any information or documents that the ORR reasonably requests to review how a delegated function is being exercised. Importantly, delegation of the function does not transfer responsibility for it. The licence holder remains responsible for the exercise of the function even when another person carries it out. Clause 18 therefore provides operational flexibility while preserving clear responsibility and regulatory oversight.
Clause 19 provides an important safeguard to ensure that essential highway functions continue if a licence holder cannot properly perform them. It allows the relevant strategic highways company to exercise a licence holder’s function instead of the licence holder in two circumstances. The first is an emergency that the ORR considers has seriously affected the licence holder’s ability to carry out the function. The second is where the licence holder has failed or is unable to discharge the function properly, that failure amounts to a breach of a licence condition, and the ORR has issued a contravention notice. In those circumstances, the ORR must notify both the licence holder and the strategic highways company when the function transfers. If the circumstances justifying the intervention come to an end, the ORR must notify both parties and the function will then return to the licence holder.
The strategic highways company may recover from the licence holder any expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out the function. Clause 19 therefore protects road users and supports operational continuity while ensuring that the responsibility returns to the licence holder when intervention is no longer required.
Clause 20 deals with the acquisition of land needed to carry out works under a licence. I must emphasise that this does not circumvent the normal planning process. For major works, the development consent order will invariably set out the land to be acquired for the scheme in question. It is possible, however, that in the course of a licence for the construction, operation and maintenance of a licensed road, additional land will at some point be required to complete works required to fulfil licence obligations. In some cases, the land needed for those works may not be available to buy by agreement. The clause therefore allows the relevant strategic highways company to use its existing compulsory purchase powers to acquire land needed for the licensed works.
The power will not be given to the licence holder. It remains with the strategic highways company as the accountable public body. The power may be used only where clear statutory tests are met. The strategic highways company must be satisfied that the licence holder has made reasonable attempts to acquire the land by agreement. It must also be satisfied that alternatives have been considered, that compulsory purchase is the better course of action, and that there is a compelling case in the public interest.
Before acquiring land compulsorily, the strategic highways company must consult the ORR. Once acquired, the land must be transferred to the licence holder as soon as reasonably practicable. The strategic highways company may recover from the licence holder the reasonable costs it incurs in exercising the power. Clause 20 therefore ensures that essential land can be acquired where necessary, while keeping compulsory purchase powers with a public body and making their use subject to clear safeguards, as I am sure the Committee would expect.
Clause 21 deals with what happens to responsibility for a licensed highway when a licence expires or is revoked. It is important that the ending of a licence does not create uncertainty about who is responsible for the highway. The clause applies where the highway was covered by the licence immediately before it ended and is not covered by another licence. On the day the licence expires or is revoked, the relevant strategic highways company automatically becomes the highway authority for the highway.
The highway is also treated as a highway maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980. The transfer takes effect automatically. That provides a clear and immediate change of responsibility when no replacement licence is in place. Clause 21 therefore ensures that there is no gap in highway authority responsibility when a licence comes to an end. I hope that answers the shadow Minister in more detail.
Greg Smith
I have a few questions on this group. We have no problem with clause 16. In respect of clause 17, the Minister referenced the setting of speed limits as an example of where functions should be exercisable by persons other than the licence holder—the state, for lack of a better phrase. I do not disagree with the premise—it would be unusual, to say the least, to allow a private company to set speed limits outside our national scheme—but it prompts a question for the whole Bill.
Let us say that a scheme is built, and its original consent, set by the appropriate body, is for a 40 mph speed limit. If the licence holder then makes a representation to the appropriate body in conjunction with the local police force or local authority, it could be determined that the scheme should be converted to a variable speed limit road—we are seeing a lot of those popping up across the country. That could involve quite considerable expense, putting up gantries and having repeater signs with changing speed limits. Where does that fit in with some of the other provisions we have debated? Would that be a capacity change? In theory, variable speed limits speed up the overall journey time and manage congestion spots before they appear, by slowing the whole road down for a bit so that there is not a pile-up. Can the Minister assure the Committee that there would be no back door for a licence holder to negotiate with the appropriate bodies to charge a higher toll because of a change to a variable speed limit system?
Justin Madders
Those were some interesting questions from the shadow Minister. On the first point about the operation of clause 17 and what we have loosely described as “capacity-enhancing improvements”, it is of course the case that the gateway to the licensing regime is through capacity-enhancing improvements in any event. The eligibility for a licence would already have been established under the Act, so I am not sure why additional capacity would create anything different, because the licence would already have been issued by that point. Unless I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman—
Greg Smith
I am happy to explain further. My point is that, with speed limits being set, rightly and properly, by other authorities—there is no disagreement on that point—speed limits could then be used to essentially create new conditions on that road, which could then be used as a springboard to a higher toll or a different set of conditions. The ORR and the licensee could find themselves in a vicious doom loop of disagreement on that point. What I am trying to get across to the Minister is how something that is fundamentally and, I double underline, rightly set by a different authority could become a point of disagreement in the set of licence conditions for any licensee.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s explanation; I think I now understand what he is trying to say. We are entering the realms of speculation at this point—
Justin Madders
And the hon. Gentleman is doing it well. He is speculating that any improvements of that nature would probably improve traffic flow and increase the number of vehicles going through the network. I would say that that was probably more of an argument to reduce returns than to increase them, but the prospect is probably rather too remote for us to say anything more concrete at this stage.
Similarly, in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about when an emergency under clause 19(2) might be called, it would be rather risky for me to set out every circumstance in which that might happen here. It is important to remember that the clause is about the ORR’s view of the licence holder’s ability to undertake its obligations under the licence. There are obviously already a number of provisions in the legislation about the kind of things that the ORR would be able to consider. Trying to pin us down on the specific instances where an emergency might be called would unnecessarily tie the ORR’s hands.
Greg Smith
I understand why the Minister does not want to give an exhaustive list of examples, but if I may slightly confine the question, will he look at the wording in the clause and make it clear, either now or on Report, that when the ORR “must have regard”, the definition of an emergency is specific to that licensee, as opposed to something affecting everyone, such as extreme heat on the road surfaces?
Justin Madders
I will take that away. The test under the clause is the license holder’s ability to undertake the licence. It is probably inappropriate for me to speculate om whether that would apply to the rest of the network or specifically to the licence holder. My instinct is to say that that would not be the question. It is about the ability of the licence holder to undertake its functions, and if they are significantly impaired in the ORR’s view, the source of that impairment is probably not relevant. If it is an emergency that has created the impairment, clause 19(2) would come into effect. However, if, having consulted with officials, I have more to say on that, I will of course write to him.
The Chair
Maybe next time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 17 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Litter functions
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 22, page 16, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under this section must ensure that—
(a) a single authority or licence holder is designated as responsible for litter clearance on each highway specified in a licence;
(b) the identity and contact details of that responsible body are published;
(c) members of the public may report litter and make complaints directly to that responsible body; and
(d) that the responsible body remains accountable for litter clearance notwithstanding any arrangements made with another person to carry out the work.”
This amendment would establish clear responsibility and public accountability for litter clearance on licenced highways.
Greg Smith
Amendment 79, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, tries, like most of our amendment today, to give more clarity about what happens in the event of the scourge that is littering. I cannot imagine that there is any Member of this House who has not been out litter picking along the roads and highways in their own constituencies—not the motorway, but on certain parts of the strategic road network and A roads. I certainly see groups in my constituency doing that on a regular basis. All our constituents are rightly upset when they see litter on the verges and sides of the roads. It gets me incrediblyangry too.
The point that the amendment makes is that a motorist or local resident should not be left guessing who is responsible for litter on a licensed road. Will the Government accept a named and published accountable body and a direct route for complaints under each licence that is issued? If work is outsourced, who remains legally responsible for ensuring that the highway is kept clear? The public-facing accountable body should, in my opinion, at least be clearly defined in the regulations when they come to pass and provision to ensure that is the case—as amendment 79 would—should be written into the Bill.
It would be a disaster if we get this wrong and an accident happens because of severe fly-tipping or litter on any one of these roads. We have all seen severe fly-tipping in our own constituencies and the impact it has, particularly on safety. During debate on the previous group we discussed the extreme heat. There were significant fires in that extreme heat, and glass dumped on the side of the road only exacerbates that particular problem. While I do not want to labour this point at length, I think it is incumbent upon the Government to properly consider this amendment and to see if we can strengthen the Bill through its inclusion.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for moving this amendment as it gives me an opportunity to promote an upcoming litter pick in my constituency, alongside the father of the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, on Saturday morning. We will be doing our bit, as we always do. I pay tribute to all the volunteers up and down the country who do a fantastic job in showing great community spirit. However, I make it clear that the trunk road network is not a place for such activities. Instead, it should be handled by an appropriate body, which is indeed what clause 22 seeks to do.
Regarding amendment 79, the shadow Minister is right to raise the issue of clear lines of responsibility for litter clearance on licensed highways. He is right that there should be a clear responsibility. That is why clause 22 exists. He will not be surprised that existing litter legislation was not drafted to account for privately operated highways under the new licensing framework. Clause 22 therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that existing litter duties can operate properly for licensed highways. That does not mean that responsibility could be handed out arbitrarily. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that litter functions sit with the appropriate body for the licensed highway and with a clear responsibility for them to carry them out. My objection is not to providing clear information as the hon. Member wants; it is about prescribing detailed requirements about contact details for complaint handling on the face of primary legislation. Clause 22 already provides a regulation-making power to establish how these functions will operate.
Clause 22 ensures that the existing framework for litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be applied appropriately to the highways specified in relevant licences. The clause therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that litter responsibilities can operate effectively on licensed highways. The regulations may apply existing duties to keep land clear of litter and refuse to highways covered by a licence. They may also allow the litter enforcement functions to be exercised by or on behalf of a licence holder. In some cases, those functions may sit alongside another body’s responsibilities, in others they may be exercised instead of them. That flexibility ensures that the responsibility can be allocated appropriately for the licensed highway.
The regulations may also make appropriate changes to how existing litter legislation applies to a private licence holder so that it works effectively with licensing frameworks. This will ultimately help ensure that there are clear lines of accountability and no gaps in the management of licensed highways. I therefore commend clause 22 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I recognise the arguments that the Minister has put forward, but I still think the Bill would be stronger with the exact wording of my amendment. However, I accept his assurances and at this moment, although we might return to it on Report, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Transfer schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 22 to 31.
Schedule 1.
Justin Madders
I will take clause 23 and schedule 1 stand part together as clause 23 simply introduces schedule 1. I will then turn to the Government amendments.
Clause 23 and schedule 1 set out how transfer schemes operate under the Bill. The provisions are necessary to make sure that the assets, rights and liabilities necessary for performing the role of the licence holder can be transferred to them. It is vital to enable the seamless transition from a previous licence holder to a new one. The amendments to schedule 1 will ensure that the provisions cover the scenarios that we envisage transfer schemes will need. They enable the transfer schemes to be made from a strategic highways company to its wholly owned subsidiary, permit the transfer of a licence under specified circumstances beyond those set out in clause 14, and allow for a transfer scheme to provide for compensation to be paid to a transferor or third party.
Clause 23 introduces schedule 1, which makes detailed provision for transfer schemes. A licence holder may need property, contractual rights and other legal interests in order to construct, operate, maintain or improve the highway specified in its licence. Existing rights and liabilities may also need to move between the Secretary of State, a strategic highways company, a licence holder or another appropriate person.
Transfer schemes provide an efficient statutory mechanism for making those changes. They can transfer existing property, rights and liabilities and make the supplementary provision needed to ensure that a transfer operates effectively. The detailed powers, procedures and protections are set out in schedule 1. Together, clause 23 and the schedule support an orderly transition into the licensing regime, as well as when a licence is revoked, expired or transferred to a new licence holder. This ensures that responsibility for a licensed highway is matched by the assets and legal arrangements needed to discharge it.
Government amendments 22 and 23 allow for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers of property, rights and liabilities from a strategic highways company to its subsidiary. Amendment 23 adjusts wording to ensure that subsidiaries of strategic highways companies are referenced explicitly in the list of persons for whom the Secretary of State can make a transfer scheme. This is vital to ensure that the transfer of assets, including the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing project, from National Highways to its subsidiary can take place before the transition to the private sector.
The current drafting of schedule 1 only allows a transfer scheme to be made transferring assets to a subsidiary if that entity already holds a licence or is intended to in the future. That would not allow for scenarios in which an intermediate vehicle is set up to hold the assets before a further transfer. This amendment makes that possible and is essential for the proper functioning of these provisions, for scenarios that are likely to occur.
Amendment 24 follows on from amendments 22 and 23 and enables transfer schemes to provide for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from subsidiaries of strategic highways companies to licence holders. This amendment ensures that where assets, rights and/or liabilities have been transferred to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company, they can then be transferred on to a licence holder or person due to hold a licence. That, in combination with amendments 22, 23 and 25, provides for a scenario in which the strategic highways company sets up a wholly-owned subsidiary to hold assets, rights and liabilities due to be the responsibility of a licence holder. It allows for the Secretary of State to then transfer those assets, rights and liabilities on to the licence holder or person due to hold a licence.
Government amendments 25 and 26 reflect the changes in amendments 22 to 24 to enable transfers to and from subsidiaries of strategic highways companies. They make consequential changes to ensure that the definition of “subsidiary” in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 and other references to subsidiaries in the paragraph accurately align with the new drafting in amendments 22 to 24.
Government amendment 27 makes it clear that transfer schemes can include provisions that come into effect at different times. It does not specify that different dates must always be included in provisions. In many cases, it may be more appropriate for the whole transfer scheme to come into effect at once. However, there may be circumstances where it may be appropriate for particular parts of the transfer scheme to come online at the point when the relevant responsibilities in the licence do too.
For instance, in the case of the Dartford crossing, the existing design, build, finance and operate contract will run beyond when the transaction to the private sector is due to take place. When the transfer scheme is made for the Dartford crossing, the scheme will be able to set a later date for certain responsibilities under that contract to transfer, ensuring they can remain with National Highways and its DBFO contractor until the end of that arrangement. Were this not possible, the licence holder would need to delegate their responsibilities to National Highways who would then delegate them to the contractor. While not infeasible, that complicated arrangement can be avoided through the amendment.
Government amendment 28 sets out requirements for when transfer schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities away from a licence holder can be made by the Secretary of State. It means that the Secretary of State cannot make a transfer scheme without the consent of the licence holder and the transferee, where that transferee is not the Secretary of State herself or a strategic highways company, except where the scheme is being made in connection with a licence revocation or expiry.
Setting out conditions that must be met before the Secretary of State makes a transfer scheme will reassure investors that transfer schemes would not be made on an ad hoc basis. In circumstances where the licence is either not being revoked or has not expired it is right that the Secretary of State be required to obtain the transferor’s consent before making the transfer scheme.
Government amendment 29 allows for transfer schemes made under schedule 1 to provide for the transfer of licences granted under clause 3. A transfer scheme may transfer the whole or part of the licence. Clause 14 already sets out a process for the ORR to consent to licence transfers. Where a licence is transferred under clause 14, the Secretary of State will have to make a separate transfer scheme under schedule 1 to transfer the relevant assets, rights and liabilities alongside the licence.
In some cases, it will be more efficient to transfer the licence alongside the relevant assets, rights and liabilities, rather than running two separate processes under clause 14 and schedule 1. That will generally be where a licence transfer is initiated by the ORR rather than the licence holder, for example to split the licence between two licence holders. The amendment will allow for more efficient and streamlined licence transfers in appropriate cases where the ORR initiates a transfer.
Where only part of a licence is being transferred, the amendment also allows for the apportionment of rights and liabilities under the licence and incidental modifications to the licence’s terms and conditions.
I turn to Government amendment 30. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 allows transfer schemes to provide for the payment of compensation. Currently, schemes can only provide for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to third parties who are adversely affected by the scheme. The amendment extends that provision to also allow schemes to provide for the transferee to pay compensation. That ensures that transfer schemes can require the transferee to pay compensation if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in any given case. For instance, in some circumstances it may be appropriate for a new licence holder to pay compensation instead of, or as well as, the Secretary of State.
Douglas Lumsden
I am trying to think of possible compensation schemes. If, for example, a person’s property has been blighted by a new road that has been constructed, who would be liable for that? Would it be the licensee? Would that transfer to a new owner as well?
Justin Madders
The clauses are about the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities. That is why the amendment is in there—to ensure that if there is an outstanding compensation claim, there is a power for the transferee to pay that. We do not want to be in a situation where a party who is trying to exit the arrangements is refusing to meet its obligations. This is a complicated set of amendments, but they are effectively trying to cover all bases in terms of whether there is compensation. It is also about whether a party leaving the agreement is seeking some compensation for costs that they have occurred.
This is a fairly broad amendment, but it is necessary. We obviously hope not to have many situations where licences are transferred in whole or part, but it is prudent to have provisions in the Bill to ensure that those circumstances are catered for.
Douglas Lumsden
I am trying to work out who is responsible for property blight. Would it be the licence holder? Would it be the Highways Agency? Who would it be?
Justin Madders
Property blight would probably be dealt with by development consent orders and the planning process rather than this Bill, which is about the financial and regulatory framework for operating highways. It would probably come before we got to the issuing of licences. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Government amendment 31 further extends the existing compensation provision in schedule 1 to allow transfer schemes to provide for compensation to be paid to transferors as well as third parties. In some cases, it may be appropriate for compensation to be paid to a transferor—for example, where a licence has been revoked on a non-consensual ground set out in the licence. Under amendment 30, the scheme could provide for the compensation to be paid by the Secretary of State or the transferee, as appropriate. The drafting is not prescriptive. Compensation will not always be needed for either the transferor or a third party, but the provision is drafted to make it possible for all relevant scenarios to be covered.
Greg Smith
I will not speak at length; I merely ask some questions of the Minister about the taxation provisions at the end of schedule 1. I think many of our constituents would be surprised to find in the Bill the following provision:
“The Treasury may by regulations make provision for varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect”
in relation to a transfer. The Bill even says that income tax could be varied.
I can conceive of a situation where the ORR finds itself in a sticky spot trying to transfer a licence— perhaps there are not many willing participants—and tries to create an incentive for it to be taken on. Surely, however, to be as explicit as providing for the varying of taxes from income tax to corporation tax and beyond is highly unusual within legislation. Our constituents would normally expect a tax to be a tax. Although there may be, in Budgets from time to time, provisions that allow reliefs, to nakedly change corporation tax or income tax—as my reading of schedule 7(1) suggests—seems an extreme measure. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.
Justin Madders
I will have to disappoint the shadow Minister. I will not be able to give him a detailed explanation today. All I would say is that the schedule does require such proposals to be approved in a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, but I will seek counsel from Treasury colleagues about what possible circumstances this may apply in and write to the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 22, in schedule 1, page 68, line 7, after “company” insert
“, a subsidiary of a strategic highways company,”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 23, which allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a strategic highways company to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company.
Amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 68, line 9, after first “to” insert “—
(i) a subsidiary of a strategic highways company, or”.
This amendment allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a strategic highways company to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company.
Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 68, line 10, at end insert—
“(ba) from a subsidiary of a strategic highways company to a person who holds, or is to hold, a licence;”.
This amendment allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a subsidiary of a strategic highways company to a licence holder or prospective licence holder.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 68, line 13, after “company” insert
“or a subsidiary of a strategic highways company”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 26 (which leaves out provision that a reference to a strategic highways company includes a reference to its subsidiary).
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 68, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘subsidiary’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006 (see section 1159 of that Act).”
This amendment is consequential on amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 68, line 36, after “date” insert “or dates”.
This amendment clarifies that different parts of a transfer scheme may come into effect at different times.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 69, line 10, at end insert—
1A “(1) The power to make a transfer scheme within paragraph 1(1)(c) is exercisable only if the Secretary of State obtains the consent of—
(a) in the case of a transfer within paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) or (ii), the proposed transferor;
(b) in the case of a transfer within paragraph 1(1)(c)(iii) or (iv), the proposed transferor and the proposed transferee.
(2) The consent of the proposed transferor to the making of a transfer scheme is not required where the scheme is made in connection with or in pursuance of the revocation or expiry of a licence.
(3) In this paragraph ‘proposed transferor’, in relation to a transfer scheme proposed to be made, means the person who is proposed to be the transferor; and ‘proposed transferee’ is to be read accordingly.”
This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which a transfer scheme may be made under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 70, line 20, at end insert—
2A “(1) A transfer scheme may include provision for the transfer of a licence held by the transferor to the transferee.
(2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may relate to the whole or any part of the licence.
(3) Where a transfer scheme provides for the transfer of a part of a licence, the scheme may include provision—
(a) apportioning rights or liabilities under the licence;
(b) making incidental modifications to the terms and conditions of the licence.”
This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may include provision for the transfer of the whole or part of a licence.
Amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 70, line 23, after “State” insert “or the transferee”.
This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may provide for compensation to be payable by the transferee, in relation to the scheme, as well as by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 70, line 23, leave out
“any person, other than the transferor or transferee,”
and insert
“the transferor or any person”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may provide for compensation to be payable to the transferor as well as any third party whose interests are adversely affected by the scheme.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24
Charging of tolls
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 24, page 17, line 14, leave out lines 14 and 15.
This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to specify any circumstances in regulations about how tolls must be paid.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21.
This amendment would remove the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the highway.
Amendment 53, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert—
“(9) Before setting the levels of tolls to be charged, the holder of a licence must consult—
(a) road users likely to be affected,
(b) local businesses,
(c) local residents,
(d) local highway authorities whose areas may be affected.”
This amendment would require consultation before tolls can be charged.
Amendment 54, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert—
“(9) A tolling scheme made under this section may not come into force unless it has been approved by Parliament.
(10) On any occasion that the licence holder wishes to increase the level of a toll which is already being charged under a licence, this must be approved by Parliament.
(11) To meet the requirement in subsections (9) and (10), the Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the tolling scheme and levels of tolls to be charged under it.
(12) Regulations made under subsection (11) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require parliamentary approval of road user charging under this Act on each occasion that it was implemented.
Clause stand part.
Greg Smith
The amendments in this group stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The crux of much of what we have spoken about today, and I am sure will continue to speak about at length on this Bill, is the way in which tolls are charged. Our amendments in this group seek to get the clarity that many of our constituents, I am sure, will want on that very question.
The lead amendment is about removing the power of the Secretary of State to specify circumstances in regulations for how tolls must be paid. Amendment 51 is about removing the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the licensed highway. Amendment 53 requires consultation before tolls can be charged. Amendment 54 requires parliamentary approval of road user charging under the Bill—assuming that it becomes an Act—on each occasion on which it is implemented.
The power to determine how a motorist pays should not be an open-ended power to require equipment in vehicles. I simply do not get the necessity or the proportionality of that requirement in the Bill, which is why we seek to remove it. The requirement for equipment in vehicles is almost like taking 10 steps backwards in order to use a tolled road. Certainly, tolls can have those little boxes in a windscreen, which beep as someone goes through a barrier, but as has now been widely proven—over multiple decades—that is just straightforwardly unnecessary.
Here in our capital city, we cannot drive a vehicle without paying the toll that is the congestion charge. That does not involve anyone having to have a little box in their windscreen or any other equipment in their car, because we all have those very straightforward things that have been on our cars for many, many years called number plates. The cameras can very straightforwardly pick any vehicle up as it goes by. By law, we have to have a number plate. If we have not paid a toll, the congestion or ULEZ—ultra low emission zone—charge, the Birmingham clean air toll or whatever against the registration of our vehicle, we get a penalty charge notice in the post. It works. Some of us might not particularly like it, but it works. Why on earth should any toll operator suddenly require any motorist seeking to use the toll roads to stick things in their windscreen or put chips in their car, or whatever it might be?
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem with ghost number plates and other forms of avoiding ANPR, automatic number plate recognition? What would his solution to that be?
Greg Smith
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point—there is certainly a problem with ghost plates, but that is an enforcement problem for the authorities, for police forces, for the Government to crack down on to stop a criminal practice that he is right to say is happening on our streets. I am not convinced, however, that we should legislate for a scheme that will involve the tolling of new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, and require the expense of technology not only going into cars, but to read that technology in cars in order to pay the tolls, when we have a registration system on all our vehicles in the first place.
On those registration plates, we have agreements with many other countries whose citizens could conceivably drive to the United Kingdom from abroad, to ensure that their plates are recognisable as well. In particular in London, therefore, any visitors driving over from France, Belgium, the Netherlands or wherever will, equally, not need to start strapping devices to their windscreens in order to visit our country, to spend their money here and to enjoy the wonderful things we have to offer in England.
I put it to the Minister that this could be a much simpler Bill if we simply get rid of those provisions. I do not want to relitigate the argument about exactly how much the toll is going to be—we still do not know—but before any toll level is set, affected road users, businesses, residents and local authorities should be consulted. Surely that is a straightforward ask.
We heard a lot of evidence from the haulage sector in our oral evidence sessions. The sector already operates on tiny margins; it is very common for a haulage operator, certainly those that I visit in my own constituency, to be operating on as low as a 1% margin. If haulage operators are to be charged these tolls, it is vital that they should have their say, and for that to be put clearly on the record. We should also bear in mind that ultimately all the costs get added to the cost of the goods being transported, so this is an inflation-fuelling measure.
We all know how consultations go sometimes—we do not always get what we want—but the impact that any tolls could have should be clear and on the record, so that when that toll rate is set, it takes into account, if nothing else, the market conditions that will dictate whether people are willing to use that road or will take any measure conceivable to avoid getting on it in the first place.
Any new tolling scheme or any increase to an existing toll should require Parliament’s approval. Why should that decision be left to operators, Ministers or the ORR alone? We need safeguards to prevent unnecessary equipment requirements, and parliamentary control to apply to the level of any charges.
Justin Madders
Amendment 50 would amend the ability of the Secretary of State to reassign responsibility for payment of a toll through regulation. The shadow Minister argues that the amendment would remove the power to specify any circumstances in regulations about how tolls would be paid. The amendment would remove important flexibility from the tolling system and the ability to make someone other than the registered keeper responsible for paying a toll in specified circumstances.
This provision matters, as it is not always possible to trace the registered keeper of a vehicle and there may be situations where it is appropriate for another party to be pursued for payment. That could include hired or leased vehicles, as I am sure the witnesses from last week would attest to. It could also be important where vehicles are registered overseas or following a change of vehicle ownership. Ultimately, it will normally be right for the registered keeper to be held liable for any charges, but that will not always be the case, for the reasons I have set out. It is important that we maintain flexibility.
Clause 24(2)(b) allows regulations to address precisely those circumstances, providing for someone other than the registered keeper to pay the toll where keeper liability would be inappropriate. The question is not whether tolls should be paid, but who should be responsible for them. We would retain the flexibility to make that distinction, rather than impose keeper liability in every case. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 51 would amend the ability for a licence holder to require equipment to be carried in or fitted to a vehicle. It is worth pointing out that just because something is in the legislation, that does not mean there is some dastardly, secret plan to implement it. I will give a practical example of why this power is in the Bill. At the Dartford crossing, before the toll barriers were removed, those who wished to do so were able to set up an account and place a smart tag in their vehicle. The smart tag would speak to the toll booth and open the barriers, charging the registered account. It meant that those who had the tag did not need to open their windows to drop a coin into the bucket at the booth, and it sped up their journey. A similar arrangement applied at the Mersey tunnels.
There are, of course, no longer barriers at the Dartford crossing and the charges are based on the number plates of those who cross. We have already heard why that is not necessarily a foolproof process. But—this is the point of having the clause in the Bill—we do not know what might happen in the future in terms of technology in cars. It is possible that we might not even have number plates at all. Perhaps there will be chips attached to vehicles that have all the user’s data on them, which will be important in tracing the registered keeper. The fact that we do not know how vehicles will develop in the future means that it is important to keep the Bill technology-neutral. That is the purpose of this clause.
Douglas Lumsden
The Minister is right that we do not know what the vehicles of the future will look like, but it should not be up to the holder of the licence to dictate what should be in people’s cars. If we think about the Bill, this is not about just the lower Thames crossing; it could be used for schemes right across the country. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that we would have a different piece of equipment in our car for every scheme that we may be passing through, from one end of the country to the other?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the intervention, but I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that it is important that we keep the Bill technology-neutral because we do not know what might happen further down the line.
Alison Griffiths
I think it is quite interesting that, in an age of acute cyber-security risks, the Minister considers this a technology-neutral position. We have an analogue system that works very effectively and systems that could be controlled by the Government rather than the licensee, which would ensure appropriate cyber-security. The position that the Minister is suggesting is technology-neutral is actually the reverse: it exposes us to acute cyber-risk over which we will have very little control.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I would say that she is making my case for me: we need to keep up with important changes and risk in the cyber-security world. That is why keeping the Bill as technology-neutral as possible is important, because we simply do not know what will be coming next. Giving operators the flexibility to be able to determine what technology is used is an important part of cyber-security moving forward.
Amendment 53 would insert specific consultation requirements into the Bill before a toll can be set. I agree that local communities and those who use the tolls should have a voice. The question is not whether they should have a voice, but how best to secure that engagement within the Bill’s framework of independent regulation. As it stands, the framework places responsibility with the regulator to set tolling requirements through its code and licence conditions, and to enforce compliance. Consultation requirements should sit within those arrangements, rather than be prescriptive in the Bill.
In exercising its functions, the ORR must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency, and keep the interests of users at the heart of its decision making. That is an important safeguard in the Bill, and I hope that it addresses some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. He will know that the Bill establishes a stakeholder group that will directly advise the ORR. Again, I hope that will address the point about the voices of users being heard in this process. I do not believe that the amendment would improve engagement. Instead, it would constrain the regulator’s discretion to determine how best to take forward individual users’ voices, so I ask the Member not to press it.
Jim Dickson
Without wishing to prolong proceedings, it is very important that the exact level and differential of tolls between the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing—this legislation is being used to construct the lower Thames crossing—is properly considered. My constituents are particularly keen that there should not be a differential between the two crossings so that a financial incentive is created to use one rather than the other, somewhat negating the fact that we have the new infrastructure in place. We need to try to balance the traffic between the two crossings, and tolling will obviously be an important part of that. Would the Minister note that? Perhaps we can ensure collectively that that is in the thinking of the licence holder going forward.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe that it would not be in the interests of the licence holder to have a differential scheme, but he is right to raise the importance of that local voice and we believe the legislation as it stands will enable that to happen.
Amendment 54 would, if enacted, see a requirement inserted for Parliament to approve each new tolling scheme. Making pricing dependent on parliamentary approval would introduce uncertainty for investors about the revenues on which a scheme depends. We need a framework that combines effective public controls with the predictability necessary to attract long-term private investment. The Bill seeks to strike that balance through independent regulation. The ORR is a strong independent regulator with a reputation for boosting investor confidence by fostering stable, predictable investment conditions, and it has responsibility for setting tolling requirements and enforcing them. That is the right approach, with robust regulatory oversight within a stable, predictable framework, rather than making prices subject to a separate parliamentary decision.
My concern is therefore not with scrutiny itself, but with the uncertainty the amendment would create for financing schemes under the Bill. It would make those schemes, including the lower Thames crossing, less attractive to investors and harder to finance. I therefore ask the Member not to press the amendment.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments. On the equipment in vehicles point, as I said in my earlier remarks, we are in danger of taking several steps backwards, as he himself acknowledged that there were schemes in the past where we used to wind our window down—literally wind it down, rather than press a button—and then throw a few coins into a basket. That has gone—it is over—and so should that be gone and over and moved to an ANPR system, albeit with the challenges we have around ghost plates to enforce against.
I just do not understand why we would have any interest—this is not a party political point; this is just a practical point for all our constituents—in trying to bring about a scheme that involves boxes and chips and all sorts of things being required to be put into heavy goods vehicles and private vehicles, rather than just using the number plate system that by law we are all required to have on our vehicles.
On the point about consultation, the hon. Member for Dartford made the point incredibly well. Preventing the disincentives to use a new scheme if the toll turns out to be higher than the existing Dartford crossing scheme is a sensible point. The hon. Gentleman knows his constituency far better than any of us. If he reports that that is a live concern among his constituents, I would urge the Minister to listen so that the good people of Dartford do not find themselves with that disincentive to use a new scheme because it is priced higher than the existing one.
I am content to withdraw amendments 50 and 53, both of which I suspect we will come back to on Report. I really do invite the Minister to think about how that consultation, in the interests of his colleague the hon. Member for Dartford as much as any future schemes, could be addressed before we get to that stage. On amendments 51 and 54, particularly the point on parliamentary approval—not for Parliament to set tolls—given the Minister declined the rules that we suggested around tolling regimes earlier, if there will not be guidance and upper limits as there are on the debt that any licensee may hold, that only leaves the option for us in Parliament to vote on those tolling arrangements as they come along on each and every occasion.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 51, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21—(Greg Smith.)
This amendment would remove the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the highway.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 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 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
This afternoon, the Committee will continue its line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. We resume with the debate on new clause 47. I call the Minister to resume her remarks.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the chair again, Dr Murrison. I was actually just concluding my remarks.
To round up, legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice, and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The United Kingdom also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot support this new clause. I respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this final furlong—this final sitting of the Bill Committee. New clause 48 would put a cap on the non-visitor visas, with one number set every year by regulations approved by both Houses, with the option of separate caps for individual routes.
Let me start with the past: net migration peaked at 944,000 in the year to March 2023, and we Conservatives do not pretend otherwise. It was far too high, and the British people are right to be angry about it. It fell to 171,000 last year, and it fell because the previous Conservative Government acted. We ended the right of most students and care workers to bring dependants, and we raised the salary threshold for skilled workers. Those decisions are what enabled Britain to turn the corner.
Every one of those changes sits in the immigration rules. They can be reversed by a Minister with a statement of changes, without a vote in this House. There is no cap. There is no target. The fall we have seen is not protected by law, and what was done with the stroke of a pen can be undone in the same way.
That is why this Government’s approach falls short. This Government promised to significantly reduce net migration, but have failed to put a number on it. Ministers will happily take credit for figures driven by Conservative reforms, while refusing to be held to any measure of their own. A promise with no measure is a promise that can never be broken.
Our approach is about control: who comes here, how many, and who must leave. New clause 48 would let Parliament decide the number every year in the open, where the public can see it and Members must vote on it. Route caps would allow us to protect the NHS and our universities, giving them certainty rather than leaving them exposed to sudden swings in policy. Australia and Canada plan their migration in exactly that way, setting levels in advance and debating them openly—nobody would call those countries closed or unwelcoming.
If the Government are confident that numbers will stay down, they have nothing to fear from a cap. If they are confident, the House deserves to know why. I ask the Minister a simple question, to which I would be grateful for a simple answer: do the Government have a numerical target for net migration—yes or no?
Anna Turley
The short answer is no—I will also give the longer answer.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for this new clause. We are committed to the reforms we set out last year in the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper, and we have already made substantial progress. We have delivered a dramatic 80% reduction in net migration, which reached a record high under the last Government. I am old enough to remember David Cameron promising caps in the tens of thousands on immigration. This year, immigration stands at 171,000, the lowest figure since 2012. We saw a peak under the previous Government of more than 900,000, so we have seen an 80% reduction on that figure, and it did not need an arbitrary number. We propose that an arbitrary cap is not a working proposition.
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would restrict access not only for workers but also for family members of UK nationals, students and international businesspeople, to whom the UK has treaty commitments to allow access, including in multiple trade agreements signed by the previous Government. A cap across all routes would create the absurdity of trading off places between a British citizen wanting to bring in their spouse, a specialist engineer needed on a national infrastructure project or a student wanting to study at one of our top universities.
The operation of a cap would be costly and complex to implement. Workforce planning for UK businesses would become highly complex, with workers allowed one day and barred the next, impacting their ability to operate and hampering growth. Groups representing different sectors and industries would have to argue that their workers are more essential than others. International sports players would be prevented from playing in UK teams, and world-class musicians would be prevented from working with UK-based creatives or doing extended tours. Families would have their cases determined simply by whether an arbitrary numerical ceiling has already been reached, rather than their individual circumstances.
The previous cap was in place only on the tier 2 immigration route between 2011 and 2020, and it was removed by the previous Government. They would have found that it slowed access to the route and generally affected lower paid but vital occupations such as nurses and teachers. The cap was amended on numerous occasions by Governments between 2011 and 2020, with many occupations being removed from it, making it less and less likely to be reached.
This Government are taking a better approach by linking migration more closely with UK skills and needs, creating a fairer and more effective system, placing an emphasis on contribution, and reducing net migration from the record high it reached under the last Government. To strengthen alignment between migration and workforce policy, the Government raised the skilled worker threshold in July 2025 to regulated qualifications framework level 6 and introduced the temporary shortage list, which linked access to international recruitment for medium-skilled roles related to the industrial strategy and critical infrastructure with credible workforce plans that address shortages in the UK labour market through domestic interventions, which I think we all agree is the priority.
The immigration White Paper, the industrial strategy and the “Get Britain Working” and post-16 skills White Papers are intended to lead to a more effective labour market. Taken in the round, they will meet the shared objectives of getting one million young people who are not in education, employment or training into that work or training. Demand for priority occupations is expected to rise in the next 10 years, and the importance of maintaining an immigration system that prioritises resident workers while allowing for the targeted recruitment of overseas skills to drive growth is paramount.
As the hon. Member will know, our approach is having the desired effect. As I have said, net migration is down by 82% since the grotesque peak of nearly 1 million people in 2023. Through effective and sensible reform, not absolute and inflexible limits, this Government are bringing down net migration and restoring order and control to our immigration system. I hope that reassures the hon. Member that we support the spirit of his amendment and recognise the importance of controlling migration. However, an additional statutory duty and an arbitrary cap are unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Blake Stephenson
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the Government’s arguments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain into law for those who are self-sufficient, earn at least £38,700 and have no criminal record. A year ago this month, the Government consulted on earned settlement and promised a 10-year baseline applying to people already here. They said it would begin in April. In March, that became the autumn. In September, it became later this year. The Thursday before last, the Minister told the Committee that settlement was
“currently undergoing a lot of discussion.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2026; c. 338.]
Yesterday the Home Secretary came to the House with the outcome of that discussion: not a tougher policy, but a softer one. Once again, the Government have buckled after backlash from left-wing Back Benchers and unions. Care workers who arrived before May last year will keep the five-year route on a salary of £25,000. Around 300,000 people will benefit from that change. The number of people expected to receive indefinite leave to remain by 2030 has risen to about 1.9 million—some 300,000 more than the Government’s own forecast just a year ago.
That is what happens when policy is left to rules rather than to law. Every month of delay brings another round of lobbying, and every round of lobbying brings another concession. That is a pattern that we have seen throughout the Bill. The language is tough—“Settlement is a privilege, not a right; it must be earned”—but the action is soft. When the moment came to apply that principle to the largest cohort in our history, the Government blinked. Settlement is permanent. It cannot be undone. It brings access to benefits and social housing and it is a gateway to citizenship. A decision of that weight should be earned and the standard should be set by Parliament, not drafted, delayed and diluted without a single vote. That is the approach my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out, and it is what new clause 49 delivers: a clear threshold in statute that cannot be quietly lowered the next time pressure builds.
I put a question to the rest of the Committee. I will happily give way to the one remaining Lib Dem Member present, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, if he can tell us whether his party supports a 10-year qualifying period at all or welcomes yesterday’s retreat. For those who see no problem to solve, I say this: a country that hands out permanent status on the passage of time alone is not being generous; it is simply not making a decision.
The Government now have a choice. If they believe their own rhetoric, here is the clause—let them vote for it. When will the earned settlement rules be laid? I do not think that was answered on the Floor of the House yesterday, though I may be mistaken. Of the people already here, how many will now face the 10-year period and how many will settle after five?
Anna Turley
I promised Committee members that they would not have long to wait; I hope that they have been able to spend time absorbing the changes announced by the Home Secretary yesterday. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the passing of the Act, to introduce a 10-year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain applications for holders of the visas set out in the new clause, and for the partners, parents or dependants of a person who holds UK citizenship. The new clause would also introduce eligibility requirements relating to access to social protection, income and criminality. I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling the new clause.
For the sake of hon. Members who could not attend the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday, or tune into the media round this morning, I will provide an overview of what was announced. Under the previous Government, who promised time and again to bring down net migration, the number of people migrating to the UK exploded, placing untold pressure on local communities and public services across the country. In 2023 alone, nearly 1 million people arrived in the UK—comparable to the entire population of Estonia, of nearly two Manchesters, or of Devon. In just four years, the same number of people arrived in the UK as had done in the previous four decades.
In the face of such abject loss of control, this Government had to act. I remind Opposition Members that the Conservatives were in power for a substantial amount of the time during which the increase in migration happened, so they had plentiful opportunity to introduce the changes to ILR and settlement that they want to see. This Government have had to act rapidly to try to protect people from the surge that happened in the last four years of their Government.
As the Home Secretary laid out, when formulating the reforms, the Government’s principle guiding factor was fairness: fairness for those who came here legally to play their part, and fairness for British citizens, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden. As I have reiterated throughout the Committee’s scrutiny, we have a proud history of welcoming those who are wholeheartedly and sincerely looking for a better life, and who have something to contribute, but we must acknowledge that that requires something back. Individuals who come here must play their part, contribute to the community and become part of our national life. That is not just necessary; it is right. If we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public service, they must know that everyone is contributing their fair share.
Under the current settlement system, it is predicated that an individual becomes eligible for settlement when they have been in the UK for five years. Among other things, settlement gives an individual access to free education, to our NHS and, should they fall upon it, the welfare state. Until now, having simply served time—those five years—was enough for people to qualify. As the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. Those considerable rights should come after responsibilities are met.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister has mentioned fairness a number of times, but the blanket retrospective changes to ILR seem unfair to those who have been working and contributing here. Will she not reconsider?
Anna Turley
I am afraid that I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. When people come here, it is on the terms of their visa; the terms of settlement are entirely separate. As has been legally tested in court, decisions are made at the point at which a person applies for settlement, not at the point at which they come into the country under different visa regulations. That point is clear. If we had the situation he asks for, we would never be able to change immigration policy, because somebody who is in the country when changes come into place will always be disadvantaged.
As I said, the Home Secretary laid out that the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met: after someone has contributed, integrated, and bought into what it means to be British and to have the privilege of living in our wide, diverse community. Settlement should be earned. As the Home Secretary laid out, settlement will now be based on wider contribution, rather than simply time served in the UK.
On new clause 49 specifically, the Opposition will note that under the Government’s earned settlement framework, the standard qualifying period will be 10 years and any form of criminality will be an absolute bar to an individual ever being able to settle. On the other hand, those who contribute most to our communities, through higher earnings, socially important roles and exceptional talent, will be recognised and rewarded through a reduced-rate settlement. These fair and necessary changes are what the public expect from this Government.
As the Government have now announced our reforms to settlement, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his new clause, but I will just respond to his question about when the changes will be made. The regulations will be laid in December this year and will come into force in 2027. He also asked how many people will now be eligible; at the end of the five-year period, 1.4 million people will be. That number is half a million down from the 1.9 million it would have been had we not intervened. Given that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I was delighted when the Minister nearly voted with us on new clause 49, but I appreciate that it has been a very long day and there have been quite a few sittings on this Bill, so I am sure all will be forgiven.
Consider two people, both of whom were granted indefinite leave to remain on the same day. One has worked, paid their taxes, raised a family and never troubled the police; the other has since been convicted of a serious violent offence. Under the law today, the Home Office cannot deport the second person, who will keep exactly the same permanent status as the first. That is not fairness; it is a failure to distinguish between those who honour the privilege of settlement and those who abuse it. New clause 50 would change that. It would allow indefinite leave to remain to be revoked for foreign criminals and for those granted it after commencement on terms short of the 10-year standard in new clause 49, with the Ukraine, Afghan and Hong Kong schemes protected.
Our borders plan is clear that all foreign criminals should be deported and never allowed to return to the UK, but where deportation stalls, settled status must not become a shield. The existing power to revoke under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is narrow and rarely used. At the end of last year, more than 19,000 national offenders were living in our communities—I think that has since risen to about 21,000, with some having completed their sentences—while still being subject to deportation or removal. Every one of them is a case in which the system has said that they should go but has not yet made that happen.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House once again that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We agree with that sentiment, but a privilege that can never be withdrawn, however gravely it is abused, is not a privilege at all; it is an entitlement by another name. The Government’s new rules reportedly make criminality grounds for refusing settlement. That is good, but it only works at the front door. It does nothing about the person who obtains settlement and offends afterwards. If the principle is right before the grant, why does it stop applying the day after?
New clause 50 would also ensure that the concessions announced yesterday do not become permanent by default. If Parliament decides that 10 years is the standard, those who are granted settlement on lesser terms should not be beyond review. For the law-abiding migrant who has worked here, has supported themselves and has contributed, nothing changes. For the serious offender, settlement can be lost. That is the line that our new clause draws, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the British public, including the many settled migrants who play by the rules, would agree with where it falls. I ask the Minister how many grants of indefinite leave were revoked in each of the last three years, and how many foreign national offenders hold indefinite leave today.
Anna Turley
The Opposition’s new clause 50 aims to enable revocation of a person’s indefinite leave where they are liable to deportation, have not been in the UK legally for at least 10 years and are not within defined cohorts set out in new clause 49.
The Government are absolutely clear that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK wherever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity. Settlement can already be revoked under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where a foreign national is liable to deportation but cannot be deported because of our obligations under the European convention on human rights or the refugee convention. The new clause would therefore have no practical effect on our ability to deport individuals and/or to revoke indefinite leave to remain.
As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire pointed out, we have announced our intention to change the rules of the policy, so that, where previously only those with a custodial sentence would have been prevented from settling in this country, now everyone who has had any kind of criminal record will be prevented from settling. That is a substantial and wide-ranging change to the policy. We are clear that we will ensure that no one is able to settle who has a criminal record.
Blake Stephenson
I have caught the Minister just in time, before she sits down. If the Government accept the principle of the new clause, why do they not accept that it would be helpful to have it in the Bill?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I say, the difference is that the new clause would not enable us to deport any more people. Going forward, we will not allow people to have that settlement. The proposed measure would not allow us to remove any more people than is currently permissible.
Indefinite leave brings certain unconditional entitlements and freedoms that limited leave does not bring, such as the automatic right to work, study or access benefits, no restrictions on where a person lives, and no requirement to report. A person who has acted in a way that warrants revocation of their indefinite leave should not expect to retain it simply because they have been settled in the UK. While it may not always be possible or right to remove that person for legal reasons, revocation, which we have talked about during the passage of the Bill, takes away those undeserved privileges and advantages.
We already deport people who are settled in the UK. All foreign nationals who receive a custodial sentence in the UK are referred to the Home Office by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service for consideration of deportation or administrative removal. We also receive referrals from the police, other law enforcement bodies and the security agencies. A deportation order invalidates a person’s leave and prevents an individual from lawfully entering the UK while it remains in force. I hope that has clarified the issues raised by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. I respectfully ask him to withdraw new clause 50.
Blake Stephenson
I wish to press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Requirement for leave to enter or remain as a spouse or civil partner—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make such amendments to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of implementing the requirements specified in this section.
(2) Where a person (‘the applicant’) seeks indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse or civil partner of a person with leave to enter or remain in the UK (‘the partner’)—
(a) the applicant must provide evidence that they were married to or in a civil partnership with the partner for a period of at least two years prior to the making of the application for indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) the applicant and the partner must prove that they remain, and intend to remain, in the marriage or civil partnership and that they intend to live together as spouses or civil partners;
(c) the partner must have a salary of at least £38,700 per year;
(d) the applicant and the partner must be at least 23 years old; and
(e) any application is to be refused if the applicant and the partner are first cousins.
(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 place requirements, including a salary threshold, on individuals seeking to enter or remain in the UK as a spouse or civil partner.
Blake Stephenson
New clauses 51 and 52 concern a particular route; 58,000 family visas were granted in the year to June, and it remains the one major route to this country with no limit at all. New clause 51 would introduce an annual cap on spouse and partner visas, set after consultation, with no more than 5% from any one country. New clause 52 would set four requirements: two years of marriage before settlement; a sponsor income of £38,700; both parties to be at least 23; and no first cousin marriages.
I anticipate that Committee members may raise a number of objections to the new clauses, so let me pre-empt some of those directly. The first is that the new clauses would potentially interfere with the right to marry. They would not. British citizens would remain free to marry who they choose. Nothing in the clauses touches that; the clauses consider the conditions on which a partner from overseas comes to settle here permanently. Every country sets such conditions; the only question is whether they are set by Parliament or left to shift with the political winds.
Perhaps the second objection will be that £38,700 is too high, but that is not a new figure. It was the level that the previous Government legislated to reach, matching the threshold for skilled workers, so that those who bring a partner here can support them without needing to rely on taxpayers’ money. This Government paused the increase pending review. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in June last year, yet 17 months later there is still no decision. That is a familiar pattern: Ministers commissioned the review, received it and then did nothing with it, leaving families, employers and the public in the dark. If the Government think that £29,000 is the right figure, they should say so and defend it; if not, they should act.
Anna Turley
The Government’s position is clear: net migration must come down. We support the right to family life and value the contribution that migrants make to our society. However, that must be balanced with a properly controlled and managed immigration system. British citizens and those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with whomever they choose. If they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is appropriate that they do so on the basis that they can support themselves financially, without recourse to public funds, and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.
However, a numerical cap is not the right way to control family migration. It would have a detrimental impact on British citizens seeking to bring their immediate family members to the UK, and it would raise concerns about compatibility with our international obligations. The proposed nationality cap and additional partner requirements raise significant equalities concerns. Requiring a couple to have been married or in a civil partnership for two years could disadvantage people in long-term relationships who cannot marry or form a civil partnership in their home country, including some same-sex couples. A minimum age of 23 would go beyond the legal age for marriage in the UK. It should also be noted that in 2011 the Supreme Court found that changes made to the immigration rules to increase the age requirement for partner visas to 21 were unlawful.
The provisions governing whether family members may come to or stay in the UK are set out in the immigration rules. The Bill is therefore not the appropriate vehicle for prescribing detailed requirements for the partner route. As we have made clear, the Government will reform the family visa system. The current system has become too complex, inconsistent and open to abuse, with British citizens facing the strictest requirements.
Our new family policy will cover all UK residents, including those who are British, those settled on work routes and refugees seeking to bring family members to the UK. It will include clear relationship requirements and an appropriate level of English language skills, and it will ensure that the family unit has sufficient means to support any dependants without relying on the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman asked when that would come into force. We have made it clear in the immigration White Paper that family migration will be reformed to tackle the overly complex family immigration arrangements. Changes to these requirements must sit alongside wider reform of settlement, integration and article 8. It is important that the changes work together as part of a coherent system.
To ensure financial independence, applicants on the family route must currently meet either the minimum income requirement or the adequate maintenance test. The Migration Advisory Committee has reviewed the minimum income requirement, which is currently set at £29,000. We are considering its recommendations in detail alongside the work carried out as a result of the immigration White Paper. Changes to family migration requirements must sit alongside wider reforms to settlement. Taken together, those reforms will enable us to control family migration through clear and robust eligibility requirements while ensuring a coherent immigration system.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about cousin marriage. Cousin marriage is permitted under UK law, and the immigration rules reflect that position.
Blake Stephenson
Could the Minister elaborate on the legal prohibition, or otherwise, and the position around cousin marriage and the rights to bring cousins into the UK to marry?
Anna Turley
I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman, because the only information I have is that, as it is permitted under law, the immigration rules reflect that position. I know that there has been a lot of discussion and debate on this issue on the Floor of the House, so I would not want to mislead the Committee with an incorrect position. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that.
It was also mentioned that the income level for a visa, which was previously set at £18,600, rose to £29,000 in April 2024. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would implement a further rise to £38,700. The minimum income requirements in the family immigration rules were raised, as I say, and this Government have been clear that we need to balance a respect for family life with ensuring that the economic wellbeing of the UK is maintained.
To ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future change, on 10 September 2024 the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules, and it has now done so. There is no date set for when we will publish a response to the MAC report. However, the MAC’s recommendations are being considered in detail alongside the work being carried out as a result of the immigration White Paper, which made it clear that family migration would be reformed to tackle the over-complex family immigration arrangements, including financial arrangements. This is a more effective and proportionate approach than imposing an arbitrary numerical cap and prescribing individual requirements through this Bill. I am afraid that the Government therefore cannot support the new clause.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for offering to follow up with a more detailed response in relation to the question on cousin marriage. That would be helpful, certainly for the Opposition and perhaps for the rest of the Committee.
The Committee will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the Government’s argument, so I wish to press new clause 51 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are becoming very familiar with losing three to 10 this afternoon—but there are a few more to go. New clause 53 would put into law the ban on care workers bringing dependants that the previous Government introduced in March 2024. It is worth reflecting on the past to understand why it is necessary.
In 2023, around 100,000 care workers came to this country, accompanied by around 120,000 dependants—more dependants than workers. A route designed to staff our care homes had become one of the largest drivers of migration into Britain, and it was being exploited on an industrial scale. One in five licensed care sponsors could not even be matched on the Care Quality Commission register. Some were not real care providers at all. Workers were brought here under false pretences, charged thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist, and left in debt and at risk of exploitation. Some 1,400 care sponsor licences have since been revoked. The route was badly abused, and often it was the people it was meant to help who paid the price.
The previous Government did act. We ended the right of care workers to bring dependants and required sponsors to be registered with a regulator. That rule was part of a package of reforms that helped bring net migration down by three quarters of a million—it worked. The Minister will no doubt tell the Committee that the Government have gone further by closing the care worker route to new overseas recruitment last year. If that is so, accepting new clause 53 would cost the Government nothing, but the closure sits in the immigration rules. Both can be reversed by a statement of changes, without a vote and without the House having any say.
We saw yesterday how quickly settled policy can shift under pressure. The Home Secretary told the House that settlement must be earned and in the same statement exempted care workers who are already here from the 10-year standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. It should be highlighted to the Committee that when lobbying intensifies, Ministers bend. If the sector or the Government’s own Back Benchers press next for dependants to be readmitted, what will stand in their way? At present, nothing but a Minister’s resolve.
New clause 53 would replace that with the law. That matters to the public, who were promised that the numbers would come down and stay down; it matters for local services, schools and housing, which absorbed much of the growth; and it matters for care workers themselves, because a route with clear and stable rules is far harder for unscrupulous sponsors to exploit than one that changes with every announcement. If the Government believe this rule is right, they should be willing to defend it in statute. If they are privately considering relaxing it, the Committee deserves to know now. Do the Government have any intention of relaxing the restriction—and if not, will they accept new clause 53?
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for moving his new clause. While I acknowledge that the previous Government restricted care workers who applied on or after 11 March 2024 from bringing dependants with them to the UK, that was not before over 1 million health and care workers and their dependants had come to the UK between 2021 and 2024. Even then, the Government at the time opted not to extend the restriction to people who came to the UK before 11 March 2024. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South, who tabled the new clause, was a Home Office Minister at the time, he would be better placed than most to explain the motivations behind that decision.
While the Opposition may take credit for the premise of that restriction, it is a disgrace that we were put in this position in the first place. Absent the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, around 1.9 million people would have been forecast to reach settlement between 2026 and 2030. That is almost three times the number granted settlement between 2021 and 2025, around 1.6 times the population of Birmingham and comparable to the entire population of Estonia.
Since the Government came to power in 2024, we have brought net migration under control and it has fallen dramatically. In July 2025, the Government restricted people working in medium-skilled occupations from applying with dependants. That and other measures in the White Paper have seen net migration continue to fall.
The new clause would go beyond just preventing dependant family members from joining their care worker partner or parent; it would also mean that dependants already in the UK would need to leave when they needed to make their next visa application. That would either break up families or force people delivering vital care services to leave the UK.
The new clause is also not required. Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 already allows the Secretary of State to lay rules setting out
“the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom.”
The former Government could have used that existing power to make this change, but they chose not to. The immigration rules are adjusted and amended regularly. They allow for quicker adjustments to be made, and the proposed changes to primary legislation are not required.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire talked, quite rightly, about the abuses in the care sector, which have been a real concern to us since we came to power. We have revoked 1,800 licences of fraudulent and non-compliant care businesses. We now have a rule that, in order to get a licence, a business has to be CQC-registered. He will have seen that we have tried not to blame the individuals, many of whom came here with good intentions to undertake the obligations of their visa. As we announced yesterday, they will be entitled to a second chance to apply for another care visa with a properly registered and licensed organisation, giving them a further five years to fulfil the obligations they thought they were coming here to meet.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I may have missed part of it, so I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not an immigration Minister in the previous Government. I was happily getting on with my life in the private sector before I came here. That said, I am not persuaded by the Minister’s response and I will press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 58 is a modest but important proposal. It would require the Home Office to publish, every quarter, each licensed sponsor’s headcount and the number of worker visas it sponsored. Sponsorship is a privilege granted by the state. A business that holds a sponsor licence is trusted to bring people into this country, to vouch for them and to meet obligations on pay, conditions and compliance. When the state extends that trust, the public are entitled to scrutinise how it is being used. At present, they cannot.
The Home Office publishes a register of licensed sponsors, but it tells us almost nothing about scale. We cannot see which employers depend on a handful of overseas workers and which on hundreds. We cannot see whether a business with 10 staff is sponsoring 50 visas, or which sectors are training British workers and which have simply stopped bothering. That matters because the system is under strain, as we have heard endlessly during the passage of the Bill.
By my calculations, in the 12 months to June, the Home Office revoked 4,403 sponsor licences, up 141%. Behind each of those revocations is a business that was trusted but should not have been and, in too many cases, workers who were exploited, underpaid or left without a job. Every one of those failures was visible in the data before it became a scandal: a care provider sponsoring far more workers than it could plausibly employ, or a business whose headcount bore no relation to its visa numbers. Employer-level data would help to spot those warning signs earlier, before the damage is done.
The new clause has a second purpose. The Government have said, rightly, that the economy must reduce its reliance on overseas recruitment and invest in the British workforce. Their White Paper promised to link immigration to skills and training at home. I agree with that ambition—as do all of us on this side of the House—but an ambition without measurement is just a slogan. If Ministers want to be judged on reducing reliance on migration, they should welcome a tool that lets Parliament and the public test whether that is happening, employer by employer and sector by sector.
Some may say that the new clause places a burden on business. It does not. This is information that the Home Office already holds through the sponsor management system; the new clause would simply require its publication. Others will raise commercial sensitivity, but a business that relies heavily on the public grant of sponsorship should expect a degree of public scrutiny in return. Honest employers have nothing to fear from transparency; it is the abusers who rely on the system staying opaque.
This is not about penalising business; it is about delivering accountability and early warning of abuse, and giving the House the evidence it needs to hold the Government to their word. In closing, I ask the Minister: how many sponsors have more than 100 sponsored workers, and how many licences were revoked last year, by sector?
Anna Turley
Sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. Upon obtaining a licence, all sponsors, irrespective of the route for which they are licensed, are bound to perform sponsor duties and meet certain standards. Those duties are commensurate with the privileges that being a licensed sponsor confers. We will not hesitate to take appropriate action where organisations fail to perform their duties correctly or to adhere to those standards, including where they seek to abuse the sponsorship or immigration system by sponsoring workers for roles that are not eligible for the relevant route.
We continue to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences. The hon. Gentleman asked for that figure: last year alone, we revoked 3,299 sponsor licences, compared with just 347 in 2023—an increase of 950%. I acknowledge the broad rationale behind the new clause, but the Government do not consider it necessary. As he will be aware, the Government already publish a list of organisations that hold a sponsor licence, which allows us adequately to oversee compliance in this space. We assess that any changes to require that extra information would be unnecessary and an additional burden on businesses. I am not sure whether the calculations have been done to assess the financial burden on businesses of complying with his new clause.
Furthermore, it would not be sensible to publish the numbers of workers sponsored by each licensed sponsor, particularly for companies sponsoring small numbers of overseas workers, as that could create data protection issues under our GDPR obligations. In the event that the Government deem it appropriate to request further data from licensed sponsors, we already have the powers and the mechanism to do so under the existing sponsor guidance framework. Creating an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation would be a disproportionate step. That being said, as I have mentioned, the Government continue to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences.
More broadly, Members across the Committee will be aware that in March 2025 the previous Home Secretary announced that we would increase the skill threshold of the skilled worker route from RQF level 3 to RQF level 6, or from A-level to degree level. In so doing, the Government are fundamentally refocusing the system on higher-skilled migration. Not only that, but we have cut from access to overseas recruitment more than 100 occupations to which the previous Government allowed access when it brought in the 2020 skilled worker route, in businesses such as vape shops, barber shops and takeaways. It is also worth mentioning that many businesses that appear on the register may have obtained licences before changes to the immigration system introduced last year. Their presence on the register does not mean they would qualify under the current rules.
Overall, this Government’s reform and continued tightening of the visa sponsorship system is already bearing fruit. We have brought net migration down by 82%, after the previous Government allowed it to balloon to nearly 1 million people in the year ending March 2023. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Sponsor licences: designated persons and sanctioned companies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must revoke any sponsor licence held by—
(a) a sanctioned person; or
(b) a sanctioned company.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 1(a), a person is a "sanctioned person" if the person is—
(a) a designated person;
(b) a body corporate, partnership or other undertaking that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person, within the meaning given in the relevant regulations;
(c) a body corporate that is a subsidiary of, or is under common control with, a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) a person acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, a person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(3) For the purposes of subsection 1(b), a company is a “sanctioned company” if the company is—
(a) a designated corporate, partnership or other undertaking, within the meaning given in the relevant regulations; or
(b) a designated body under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026.
(4) Revocation under subsection (1) must take effect no later than 7 days after the day on which the person or company becomes a sanctioned person or company, or, if later, the day on which the Secretary of State becomes aware of that fact.
(5) The Secretary of State must not grant, renew or reinstate a sponsor licence to a sanctioned person or company.
(6) Where a sponsor licence is revoked under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not curtail the leave of a person sponsored under that licence before the end of a period of 30 days beginning with the day of revocation, unless they are satisfied that curtailment within that period is necessary in the interests of national security.
(7) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to the extent that the activity concerned is authorised by a licence granted under regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
(8) Where a person or company ceases, for the purposes of subsection (1), to be sanctioned, the Secretary of State must, on application, consider afresh any application for a sponsor licence made by that person or company, and may not refuse it on the ground of the earlier sanctioned status or revocation.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
“body corporate” means a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or a body incorporated outside the United Kingdom;
“designated person” means a person designated by name under, or for the purposes of, regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; or
“relevant regulations” means the regulations under which the person concerned is designated;
“sponsor licence” means a licence granted by the Secretary of State to a person or company permitting that person or company to act as a sponsor in relation to an application for entry clearance, leave to enter, or leave to remain under the immigration rules.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa sponsor licence of any company or other person subject to UK sanctions designation, or owned or controlled by a designated person.
Blake Stephenson
The new clauses—new clause 69 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and in my own name—address the same weakness: a sponsorship system with loopholes that those who abuse it know how to exploit.
New clause 59 would make revocation of a sponsor licence mandatory where there has been visa fraud, with an indefinite ban on reapplying. Consider how the system works today: a sponsor is caught committing visa fraud, its licence is revoked, and it then faces a cooling-off period of around 12 months, after which it can apply again. If even that is too long to wait, the people behind the company can simply wind it up, form a new one and start afresh with a different name on the paperwork but the same individuals behind the desk. That is not enforcement; it is a mild inconvenience.
We should be clear about what visa fraud means in practice. It is not a technical breach of paperwork. In the care sector, people paid thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist. They arrived to find no work, no wages and debt they could not repay. Some were housed in overcrowded accommodation, controlled by those who brought them here. Visa fraud is very often a gateway to modern slavery. Those who commit it should not be given a second chance to do it again, and new clause 59 would ensure that they are not.
New clause 69 deals with a different loophole, but one that is harder to defend. It would require the revocation within seven days of any sponsor licence held by a person or company subject to UK sanctions, while giving their workers 30 days to find another sponsor. When this country sanctions an individual or a business, it is because we have judged them to be a threat to our security, complicit in aggression abroad or involved in serious corruption or human rights abuses. We freeze their assets and bar them from our financial system, yet there is no automatic requirement that they lose the privilege of sponsoring workers into the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary that this is not already the law.
The new clause would be fair to the workers involved. They are not the ones who have been sanctioned, and they should not be punished for the conduct of their employer. That is why the new clause would give them time to find another sponsor and continue working lawfully in the UK.
Neither new clause should be remotely controversial, and neither should divide the Committee. They close gaps that should never have existed, and they protect the integrity of our immigration system and the people most at risk of exploitation within it. I hope that the Government will accept them—if not today, then perhaps on Report—and that if they cannot, they can explain clearly why.
In closing, I ask the Minister whether any person or company subject to UK sanctions holds a sponsor licence today, and how many revoked sponsors have later obtained a new licence.
Anna Turley
While I recognise the intention behind the new clauses, the Government will not support them, as the effect they seek can already be achieved under the existing sponsor licensing regime—to use the hon. Gentleman’s words, this is already the law. The sponsorship system already provides powers to revoke a sponsor licence where an organisation, or the person controlling that organisation, becomes subject to UN or UK sanctions. It is therefore unnecessary to create an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation. Moreover, prescribing this matter on the face of the Bill would remove the flexibility deliberately provided through the existing sponsor licensing arrangements.
As I have already outlined, but will again reiterate, sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. The Government will not allow individuals and companies—particularly those subject to sanctions—to abuse the sponsorship system. Businesses, individuals and sponsor visa applications remain subject to rigorous checks, and licences will be refused, investigated and revoked where necessary.
The Government have already taken substantial action. As I said, in 2025 we revoked 3,299 sponsor licences—an increase of 950%. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 63 concerns English language testing, a topic on which I have tabled many questions to the Home Office, as the Minister will be aware. It would stop the immigration rules allowing fully remote English language tests unless Parliament authorised them in legislation.
This Government have made much of raising English language requirements. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary confirmed that settlement will require English to A-level standard. She said that it is unacceptable for migrants to come here without learning our language. I agree with every word of that, but at the very moment the Government seem to be raising the standards, they are lowering the guard on testing. The Home Office plans to move its English test online or make it “digital by default” without in-person invigilation from late 2027, under a contract worth up to £816 million. In answer to my written questions, Ministers acknowledged the “challenges” posed by AI-assisted cheating. They also confirmed that they intend to pursue remote testing for the “Life in the UK” test as well.
The warnings could not be clearer. In March, the IELTS partnership, the world’s largest provider, withdrew from the tender process, warning that a fully remote test
“would rely on unproven technologies and practices.”
Research by Cambridge University Press has shown that remote testing creates more opportunity for identify fraud, proxy test taking and organised criminal exploitation. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has moved away from remote exams because of cheating.
The body that runs America’s law school admissions test is ending remote testing over widespread AI-enabled cheating. In Mexico, the country’s leading university ordered 58,000 students to resit their entrance exams in person, after a remote round was riddled with cheating. Australia and Canada have both rejected remote language testing for visa purposes.
However, we need not look abroad. We remember the 2014 scandal, when organised cheating in supervised centres invalidated tens of thousands of results. If fraud on that scale was possible with an invigilator in the room, what does the Minister think will happen when there is no room at all?
Consider the absurdity of where this leads us. A teenager sitting a GCSE is supervised, and a learner driver sitting a theory test must attend a test centre and prove their identity, yet a test that can unlock a visa and, in time, permanent settlement here in the UK would be undertaken sitting at home, in front of a laptop, with nobody checking who is really answering the questions.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Listening to the shadow Minister throughout the day, it is revealing just how deficient the Bill is in tackling the fundamental problems with immigration and asylum policy. Even if the Government do not agree with our new clauses, I invite the Minister—perhaps I should have intervened on her at some point—to address a wider point the shadow Minister is making: how do we deal with all these issues that are simply not addressed in this legislation or anywhere else where the Government say they are acting?
Blake Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If the Minister cannot answer today, we need to widen the debate on Report and think about the cumulative impact of the holes in the legislation.
The stakes are rising. As English requirements for settlement go up, so does the value of a fraudulent pass. Criminal gangs follow value. A Government who promise to smash the gangs should not be opening a new market for them, which is what moving to English online testing will do. Ministers say that the change will deliver a net benefit to the public purse, but any short-term saving will be swallowed many times over by the cost of fraud, enforcement and, eventually, rebuilding a system that should never have been weakened in the first place.
Early proposals for this contract included physical test centres. Somewhere along the way, they disappeared. Parliament deserves to know why, and it deserves a say before a control this important is quietly dismantled by the Government. Integrity in testing is integrity in the immigration system. I ask the Minister, do the Government still intend to allow fully remote testing and will they publish their assessment of the fraud risk before they do so?
Anna Turley
New clause 63 seeks to prevent the immigration rules from permitting
“any fully remote English Language test to satisfy any requirement to demonstrate knowledge of English,”
unless that is expressly permitted by an Act of Parliament. I want to give the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire some reassurance: the short answer is no, we are not looking to go fully remote.
The contracts for the current secure English language testing service are coming to an end and the Home Office is looking at the next iteration of the service to ensure that policy intent and customer needs can be supported and met. I and other Ministers are discussing this issue because we share the hon. Member’s view that fully remote testing is not appropriate. I will be making sure that this matter is at the heart of those discussions. I will come on to why I do not think the new clause should be on the face of the Bill, but I hope he is reassured that we take this issue as seriously as he does.
The immigration rules exist to set out the detailed requirements of the immigration system, including the means by which an applicant may demonstrate knowledge of English. That allows the Government to adjust those requirements through a well-established procedure, subject to parliamentary oversight, through the existing scrutiny arrangements for the rules, without requiring a new Act of Parliament each time an operational or technical change is needed.
While I of course acknowledge, share and have sympathy with the point the hon. Member is trying to make—it is at the heart of our ongoing discussions—as a matter of general principle, the Government resist amendments of this kind, regardless of the specific subject matter, because they remove operational and technical matters from the rules and place them instead under the control of primary legislation. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised the fact that things are missing from the Bill; this is part of the reason why. The vast majority of immigration rules are made through secondary legislation. Where primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation, Parliament often requires the affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, as it will allow any legal changes to be debated and authorised by Parliament.
If this new clause is accepted, it will remove the flexibility the Government need to make technical and operational changes to English language testing requirements as circumstances evolve. Rather than being able to respond through the established procedure for amending the rules, any such change will instead require primary legislation, which inevitably takes longer to prepare and is dependent on the availability of parliamentary time.
Blake Stephenson
I totally understand why the Minister is making arguments for new clause 63 not to be on the face of the Bill, but can I ask her to unpack some of her earlier statements? I appreciate that there are commercial sensitivities, but are the Government considering not moving away from in-person testing, or are they still planning to move away from in-person testing, and just discussing the model used and contemplating the safeguards in more detail?
Anna Turley
It is the latter. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more information at the moment because those things are under discussion, but I and other Ministers are clear that we do not want to move to a fully online service. That would not be appropriate. The correct model is under evaluation and discussion at the moment.
Putting this matter in primary legislation would significantly slow down the Government’s ability to make necessary changes quickly, whether in response to developments in testing technology, evidence of fraud or security risks, or the need to improve accessibility for applicants. In turn, that delay could have an adverse impact on the immigration system and on the applicants who rely on it, who would be left using a testing approach that the Government may have already identified as needing to change simply because the mechanism to change it had become unreasonably slow and burdensome.
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that any delivery model must meet appropriate integrity requirements and principles, including data security, cyber-security, accessibility, and fraud risk and prevention, to ensure compliance with Home Office policy. As I have said, we are clear that in-person tests must form a key part of that; we cannot have fully online assessments. That will ensure that the service delivers on the fundamental principles underpinning our immigration policies and our visa journey.
We take this matter seriously. Compliance with those requirements will be assessed through the tender process to ensure the strictest compliance with Home Office security parameters. Any form of English language test—remote or otherwise—must also meet rigorous standards of identity verification, security and integrity. As I said, the Government are reviewing the suitability of any testing format, and any future changes to the rules in this area will be subject to the usual scrutiny arrangements. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and the additional assurances that she has provided from the Dispatch Box—if indeed it is even called the Dispatch Box in a Committee Room. I have asked a lot of questions on this subject, but the answers—together with the response we have received today—do not provide sufficient assurance, so the Minister will forgive me if I press the new clause to a vote to ensure that the measures are included in the Bill.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will speak to new clause 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford. In September, MI5 did something that it had never done before: it independently issued a public espionage alert, warning our universities that the China General Technology Research Institute was a front for Chinese intelligence. Its primary purpose, MI5 said, was to fund research that directly improves the espionage capabilities of China’s Ministry of State Security. More than 100 researchers linked to UK institutions had contributed to its projects in artificial intelligence, cyber-security and covert communications—the very capabilities that are used against our own country.
It is unprecedented for our intelligence services to make an intervention of that kind, and we should be clear about what it tells us. Many of those academics did not know who was fully funding their work. The front was designed to be hidden, but that is precisely the point. If our universities lack the systems, the duty and the incentive to spot these warning signs and report them, hostile states will keep exploiting that gap.
This will not be the only example. The absence of clear guidance or regulation from this Government has left our higher education sector vulnerable to Chinese front organisations. UK universities have 34 cyber-security and telecoms partnerships with Chinese institutions, which is roughly equivalent to all 27 member states of the European Union combined, and it is considerably more than even Russia. Of those 34, 13 are with bodies embedded in China’s defence research system, and four hold top secret military research clearance.
The threat is not only to research. Last November, it was reported that Sheffield Hallam university halted its research into Uyghur forced labour after alleged intimidation by Chinese authorities. When a hostile state can silence academic work on this country’s own campuses, the problem goes far beyond intellectual property.
New clause 68 would propose a new responsibility on higher education bodies. Universities that sponsor international students and researchers would be required to report to the Home Office, within five working days, any suspicion that funding or research linked to a sponsored person poses a national security risk. Reports made in good faith would be protected and those who choose to ignore the warning signs would face significant fines.
Why is a legal duty necessary? Our universities depend heavily on international fees and partnerships, which creates a conflict of interest when concerns arise. An institution under financial pressure may be reluctant to raise an alarm that could cost its students funding or a valuable collaboration. A clear legal duty removes that dilemma. It tells every university that reporting is not optional, and it protects those who do the right thing.
Existing schemes vet researchers and students at the point of entry. That matters, but risks do not stop at the border; funding changes hands, partners change and projects evolve. New clause 68 deals with the risks that emerge afterwards, which is exactly where the MI5 alert shows that the danger lies.
The current situation is, in our view, untenable. International collaboration is one of the great strengths of British academia, and nothing in the new clause threatens legitimate partnership at all. However, we cannot accept British universities, knowingly or otherwise, working to increase China’s intelligence, cyber and defence capabilities. The new clause gives the sector the clarity it needs and the Home Office the information it lacks. Finally, I ask the Minister how many higher education sponsor licences have been suspended or revoked on national security grounds.
Anna Turley
As all Members will know and agree, the defence of the realm and the national security of the UK is the first priority for any Government.
While I hope that the Opposition Members will understand that I am unable to provide precise insight into all that we have in place to uphold the UK’s national security on this issue, not only within the education sector, but across all the threats that we face today, I can assure them that the UK already operates a range of robust safeguards designed to manage national security risks associated with international study, research, collaboration and sensitive technologies. These include the academic technology approval scheme, under which certain international students and researchers seeking to study sensitive subjects must obtain approval before commencing their studies.
As Opposition Members can imagine, we also work closely with the higher education sector and relevant Departments to ensure that national security risks are appropriately identified and managed. A prime example of that came earlier this year, when senior leaders from over 70 universities attended a security briefing delivered by MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum and National Cyber Security Centre CEO Richard Horne to increase the understanding of how foreign interference can manifest, including attempts to shape and censor research or teaching, along with how to resist and report it.
That action took place against the backdrop of £3 million being invested in a package of measures to tackle the issue in our world-class universities. The new academic interference reporting route will enable senior leaders at universities to report concerns directly to the Government, including security services. That will enable individual concerns to be acted on more quickly, while also building a bigger picture of threats facing UK institutions.
Although I agree that universities are already playing an important role in maintaining research integrity and identifying potential concerns, I would say that national security assessments can require specialist expertise and information that may not be available to individual sponsors. This statutory amendment would place broad reporting obligations on higher education providers and require them to make potentially complex national security judgments about what constitutes a national security risk without necessarily having the relevant information or expertise to do so.
Blake Stephenson
If the Government believe that it is inappropriate to put the burden on the universities, what other solutions might they bring forward to deal with the concern that we have raised?
Anna Turley
As I mentioned, I am not at liberty to discuss all the individual actions that we are undertaking. However, as I have set out, we have put in substantial investment, including £3 million, to tackle this issue along with the new academic interference reporting route.
The new clause would introduce enforcement measures, including licence actions and civil penalties linked to reporting obligations that it might be difficult for sponsors to apply consistently in practice. The Government also consider it important that reporting arrangements can adapt as risk and operational requirements evolve. Placing detailed sponsor reporting duties in primary legislation would reduce that flexibility.
The new clause would also likely create significant assessment and reporting burdens and enforcement controls. Sponsors may need to establish new governance arrangements, monitoring processes and reporting mechanisms without the expertise to make those assessments. The Government are therefore not persuaded that a new statutory duty of the type proposed is necessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 71—Offence of employing an illegal worker: liability of officers for neglect—
“(1) Section 22 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence: bodies corporate, &c) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) If an offence under section 21(1) or (1A) is committed by a body corporate and is attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of the body, the officer, as well as the body, shall be treated as having committed the offence.
(2B) A person who, at the time of the offence, was shown in the register kept by the registrar of companies as a director or secretary of the body, or as a registrable person with significant control over the body, is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) as an officer of the body at that time unless the person proves that they had ceased to hold that position before that time.
(2C) The appointment or registration of a new officer, or a change in the persons with significant control over the body, after the time of the offence does not affect the liability of any person under subsection (2) or (2A).’
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Subsections (2A) to (2C) apply in relation to a partnership as they apply in relation to a body corporate, with references to an officer of the body being read as references to a partner.’”
This new clause would make directors or partners guilty of the offence of employing an individual disqualified from employment by reason of their immigration status if the offence was committed as a result of their neglect, not only with their consent or connivance (as is currently the case).
New clause 72—Unpaid illegal working penalties: disqualification of directors—
“(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 5A insert—
‘5A Disqualification for unpaid illegal working penalties
(1) The court may make a disqualification order against a person where, on an application under this section, it is satisfied that—
(a) a penalty notice has been given under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to a company of which that person was a director or shadow director at the time of the contravention,
(b) the whole or part of the penalty remains unpaid at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which it became payable, and no objection or appeal in respect of it is pending, and
(c) the person’s conduct in relation to the contravention, or to the non-payment of the penalty, makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
(2) An application under this section may be made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The maximum period of disqualification under this section is 15 years.’”
This new clause would enable directors to be disqualified where a penalty imposed for employing workers without leave to enter or remain in the UK has gone unpaid for six months. It complements NC70 by stopping the same individuals from simply setting up another company.
Blake Stephenson
The aim of the new clause is pretty simple. When a business is caught employing people who have no right to work here, the people who run it at the time should pay and not be able to walk away without consequences. Illegal working is a pull factor to the UK. The promise of cash-in-hand work in a car wash, corner shop or barber’s is what the smuggling gangs sell before people get into the boats in the first place. It undercuts honest employers and exposes vulnerable people to exploitation. That is why the previous Conservative Government tripled the fines up to £60,000 per worker and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has pledged more raids on car washes and vape shops where illegal working is concentrated.
In the first half of last year alone, nearly 1,300 penalties were issued, worth almost £70 million, which is a good thing. Ministers would like to talk about record numbers of raids and arrests, and I welcome every single one of them, but a raid is just the beginning. The deterrent is what happens afterwards, and a fine is only a deterrent if it is collected. Under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the penalty is a debt of the employer, usually a company, and of no one else, so after a raid, the director resigns and a nominee living abroad, with no assets here, appears at Companies House, or the company is dissolved and a new one opens the following week in the same shop under a slightly different name. The penalty dies with the old company.
That is not a hypothetical scenario. A BBC investigation last November exposed “ghost directors” behind a network of corner shops. People were paid £250 to £300 a month to put their names on businesses that they did not run. One was the registered director of more than 50 businesses. Many of the companies were dissolved after about a year and reopened with small changes to the paperwork. The Insolvency Service tells the same story. A highland takeaway was fined £45,000. One director resigned five days after the raid and the fine was never paid. A Suffolk car wash was fined £180,000. When its director was banned last year, every penny remained unpaid. A Lincolnshire car wash went into liquidation with its £20,000 fine outstanding.
Successive Governments have raised the fines, but none has closed the escape route. The new clause would, and I encourage the Government to accept it, if not today, perhaps on Report. New clause 70 would close the loophole, as it would make the people in charge at the time of the offence—the directors, partners, registered persons with significant control and shadow directors—jointly and severally liable for the penalty. Liability would be fixed at that moment, so appointing a new director, bringing in an overseas owner, renaming the company or dissolving it would make no difference at all. A phoenix business run by the same people or from the same premises would inherit the penalty. If one’s name were on a Companies House register at the time, one would be treated as holding that role. The new clause would deliver fairness, which I know the Government want to deliver through their immigration system. A director who took all reasonable steps or a genuine buyer who paid full value without knowing of the penalty would be protected.
New clause 71 deals with criminal liability. Today, a director is personally guilty of employing an illegal worker only where the company’s offence was committed with their “consent or connivance”. Almost every comparable regulatory offence adds “or neglect”. New clause 71 would add neglect so that a director who never asks whether right to work checks are done and is careful not to know can no longer escape. New clause 72 would allow the Secretary of State to seek the disqualification of directors whose company leaves a penalty unpaid for six months so that the same people cannot simply start again on the merry-go-round.
I ask the Minister: how much of the illegal working penalty income from each of the last five years has actually been collected, and how much was written off because the company was dissolved? I appreciate that she may not have that on the tip of her tongue, but those are important questions. If she accepts the principle but does not accept the new clauses, will she table her own amendment on Report? A fine that is never paid is no deterrent. A loophole this well known is an invitation to do the wrong thing. I commend new clause 70 to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I agree that illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts legitimate wages and fuels the industry of immigration crime. I am determined to clamp down on illegal activity in every sector. I will continue to pursue rogue employers, protect vulnerable workers and ensure that those who break our immigration laws face the consequences. We have expanded efforts across Government and law enforcement to target, investigate and enforce penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK.
I beg the Committee’s indulgence: I want to give a bit more detail on the work that we are undertaking at the moment. Immigration enforcement has had a very busy year. Between 1 January and 31 June, 7,220 illegal working visits were carried out, resulting in 4,756 arrests—a 31% increase on visits and a 20% increase on arrests, compared with 2025. It has been the most successful start to a year on record for illegal working enforcement activity. Over that period, more than 1,200 businesses found to be employing people illegally were issued with a civil penalty, which means that they face significant fines of more than £74 million.
All employers in the UK are required to carry out prescribed right to work checks prior to employing someone of any nationality. The right to work scheme is underpinned by civil and criminal sanctions for non-compliance. In February 2024, the civil penalty levels for illegal working increased. The starting point increased from £15,000 to £45,000, and for repeat offenders it went up from £20,000 to £60,000 per illegal worker. That helped to strengthen the deterrent effect of the civil penalty scheme, and increased the consequences for employers who fail to comply with their legal responsibilities.
Blake Stephenson
I appreciate the numbers that the Minister is stating in order to demonstrate the Home Office’s enforcement work, but do she and the Government accept that the loopholes I outlined are very real, and that they ought to be closed somehow in legislation?
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points, and I will come to them; I was just setting out the background and what is currently being done.
An employer’s legal duty to prevent illegal working is a key element of our enforcement framework. Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 provides for a civil penalty where an employer employs an individual who is disqualified from carrying out the work in question by reason of their immigration status. An employer may establish an excuse against civil penalty liability by complying with prescribed requirements. Those include compliant right-to-work checks or where extended liability applies the relevant prescribed requirements for those arrangements.
From October 2026, the right-to-work scheme was extended to specify additional working arrangements, including engagement under a worker’s contract, and individual subcontracting and online matching service—such as for Uber drivers or Just Eat and other delivery drivers. Extended civil liability also applies to certain non-direct contractual arrangements for the provision of work or services. Employers must ensure that individuals are permitted to carry out the work in question. Right-to-work checks establish whether an individual is permitted undertake that work, including any restrictions on the type of work or hours that they may work.
Depending on the circumstances and any applicable legal requirements, illegal working may result in the sanctions we have discussed or the following consequences: a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker, or, in criminal cases, a conviction for illegally employing a person, which carries a sentence of up to five years and/or an unlimited fine. Those exploiting migrants could face criminal convictions for facilitation or trafficking offences and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, closure of the business and a compliance order issued by the court, disqualification as a director, not being able to sponsor migrants that travel to the UK, the seizure of earnings made as a result of illegal working and the review and possible revocation of a licence in the alcohol and late-night refreshment sector or private hire vehicle and taxi sector.
I have given that lengthy background to set out the context. I think the point that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire is making in the new clauses is the right one. We have to ensure that we enforce this, but as I said, there is a clear and comprehensive illegal working system with a whole range of penalties that can be used. We are expanding our efforts to ensure that we target, investigate and enforce those penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK. We have introduced significant changes to strengthen the illegal working regime and extended the right-to-work scheme. As I said, our immediate priority is to ensure that these changes, which we have just implemented, are applied effectively. We will continue to assess how they work in practice and, in the light of that evaluation, consider whether further steps are needed to strengthen the regime.
The hon. Gentleman has made important points in Committee that I am sure we will continue to consider and review, but, alongside the changes in the Bill, we have already introduced a range of sanctions to tackle illegal working. We want to make effective use of the powers that we have, rather than introduce the additional provisions proposed in the new clauses.
I would also point to our track record, which I have outlined, to show how seriously we are taking the issue of illegal working. Immigration enforcement activity has increased significantly since we came to power. There has been a 122% increase in arrests relating to illegal working, on the two-year period immediately prior to the election, and a 111% increase in visits to businesses across the UK suspected of using illegal workers, with 25,000 visits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the urgency and determination with which we are undertaking that activity. I am afraid that we cannot accept the new clauses.
Blake Stephenson
The new clause is about the substance in law, not necessarily enforcement. We think that the substance in law needs to be tightened up, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 50, page 52, line 1, at end insert—
“(1A) Where any provision of this Act includes a power to make regulations and such provision or regulations would affect—
(a) the identification of victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland,
(b) the provision of support to victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland, or
(c) any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and human trafficking in Scotland,
the Secretary of State must consult with and receive consent from Scottish Ministers before making such regulations.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with and receive consent from Scottish Ministers before making regulations relating to slavery and human trafficking which affect Scotland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 134.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 127.
Clause 51 stand part.
Government amendments 128, 135, 129, 136 and 46.
Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you finishing up the Committee for us, Dr Murrison.
I have tabled amendment 69 in relation to clause 50 and part 1. That area of the Bill gives the Secretary of State quite broad power to make regulations that are consequential to the Bill. As it stands, the Bill has quite a range of implications for Scottish trafficking laws and how they are carried out. The amendment aims to ensure that the Government receive consent from Scottish Ministers before introducing regulations affecting slavery and human trafficking.
The amendment refers in particular to clause 11, which creates a new legal procedure for claim notices requiring people to notify the Home Office of any reasons or grounds for why they should be allowed to enter, remain or not be removed from the UK. In that respect, the Bill tries to shift the burden of responsibility on to survivors by creating the obligation to treat a failure to disclose relevant details at the earliest opportunity as damaging to one’s credibility.
The way things are looked at in Scottish law seem to be different from the English approach. This kind of restrictive approach to vulnerable groups seeking sanctuary in the UK seems to contradict the commitments in Scotland to the UN refugee convention and the UK’s obligations under the inter-agency co-ordination group against trafficking. Those obligations require victim identification procedures to take into account the possibility of trauma, coercion and subsequent delayed disclosure. The amendment would help by forcing the Government to look again at how clause 11 might interfere with the obligation placed on Scottish Ministers via the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to provide support to victims of trafficking.
Section 9 of that Act requires Scottish Ministers to secure necessary support and assistance for adult victims of human trafficking, and gives Scottish Ministers their own statutory duty. That duty is triggered by a reasonable grounds decision. The new credibility penalty in clause 11 seems therefore to conflict with the statutory framework established by the 2015 Act and with the approach enshrined within it—a fundamental human rights approach to believing survivors.
That statutory inconsistency between the two provisions poses a question of how reserved powers within the Bill and devolved functions will interact. Consideration must be given to the Bill’s implications for those devolved powers, particularly in relation to trafficking frameworks, and to whether the Bill’s provisions can be enacted without undermining existing statutory duties in Scotland.
I worked with the Scottish Refugee Council on the amendment. It recommends that Scotland should maintain its greater flexibility to provide secure immigration status for trafficking survivors, and its goals of supporting recovery and reducing the risk of re-trafficking. To do that, the Bill should explicitly protect the operation of the 2015 Act and preserve Scottish Ministers’ discretion to provide support. The amendment is therefore needed to ensure that UK immigration measures do not impede the fulfilment of devolved duties on trafficking.
Although I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, I hope that the Government will look again and discuss this matter further with Scottish Ministers before the Bill’s final stages.
Blake Stephenson
We have reached the final provisions of the Bill—“Hurrah!”, I hear everyone say. These provisions cover regulations, extent and commencement. Such clauses are often treated as housekeeping, but how and when the Bill comes into force decides whether anything in it actually happens. And here the Government’s amendments tell a revealing story.
Government amendment 134 would mean that regulations made under the core protection powers are subject to affirmative procedure where they amend primary legislation. That is right; where Ministers change Acts of Parliament, Parliament should be able to vote. I only wish that the Government had applied that principle consistently. My amendment 142 would have done the same for regulations exempting further categories of people from contributing to the cost of their asylum support. As drafted, Ministers can widen those exemptions by negative procedure without a single vote. If the principle is good enough for Government amendment 134, it is good enough for amendment 142.
Government amendments 127 to 129 and 136 deal with extent to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and with aligning commencement dates with the provisions that they amend. They are technical amendments, and you will be pleased to hear, Dr Murrison, that we do not intend to divide the Committee on them.
Government amendment 135 deserves the Committee’s attention, however. As the Bill was introduced, part 3—on core protection—would have come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent. Under Government amendment 135, it will come into force only when the Secretary of State chooses to make regulations. A fixed date of implementation has become an open-ended discretion. Government amendment 46 gives the Lord Chancellor a new power to rewrite tribunal rules around the start of the new appeals authority, again by negative procedure and with no vote required.
The Government can move quickly when they want to. Government amendment 47 brings the new deportation provisions into force on Royal Assent. The question, then, is not whether Ministers can set a firm date, but why, on the central reforms of the asylum system, they are now choosing not to. The Government’s message on asylum has been about urgency: “The system is broken and must be fixed.” Yet when it comes to the provisions that are meant to fix it, the start date slips from a certainty to a maybe. We saw the same pattern on settlement this week. It started with a policy announced a year ago; it was delayed from April to the autumn; and when it finally arrived, it was softened. There is tough language, but the Government are quietly kicking the can down the road.
Amendment 69 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion would require the Secretary of State not only to consult Scottish Ministers, but to obtain their consent before making any regulations under the Bill that affect the identification or support of victims of modern slavery in Scotland or the duties of Scottish public authorities.
I recognise that victim support in Scotland operates within a devolved framework. Ministers should talk to their Scottish counterparts, but consultation and consent are very different things indeed. Consent is a veto. Immigration is a reserved matter and the national referral mechanism is a UK-wide system—one that is too often used by those facing removal to delay it. Handing the Scottish Government a block on changes to that system would create precisely the kind of divergence that people smugglers and those rigging our laws are quick to exploit. There has been an obvious pattern throughout the Committee where the Green party has tabled amendments to leave out clause after clause of the Bill. Amendment 69 is another attempt to slow down a system that already moves far too slowly, and we will oppose it.
Earlier in the Committee, we sought to put deadlines in the Bill, requiring the first time period regulations to be made within six months of the new authority being established and limiting how long cases could be routed back to the first-tier tribunal. The Government did not accept them. Amendment 135 shows why they were needed. Without dates in law, there is nothing to hold Ministers to. I therefore ask the Minister two questions. First, will she set out a timetable for commencing each part of the Bill? In particular, when does she expect part 3 to come into force? Secondly, why have the Government moved part 3 from automatic commencement to commencement by regulations, and will she commit to publishing that date before Report? If the Government are serious about fixing the system, they should be willing to say when.
As this is likely to be the last time I speak in this Committee, I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Chairs of previous sittings; the Clerks, for their very patient work indeed on a substantial amendment paper; and the Minister and Members on all sides for this debate. We have disagreed—often sharply, but politely. The Committee has given these issues the scrutiny they deserve and we will no doubt return to many of them on Report.
Anna Turley
As we have heard, amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and obtain their consent before exercising any regulation-making powers in the Bill in a way that relates to the identification or support of victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland or affects any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and trafficking.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the amendment. I want to reassure her that we are cognisant of Scottish Ministers’ powers in this area. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government throughout the development of these provisions and are committed to working closely throughout the further stages of the Bill. My predecessor and I have both engaged our devolved counterparts on the measures in the Bill and we are seeking legislative consent for any of the provisions as appropriate. We will continue to engage the Scottish Government throughout the legislative process to resolve any issues relating to devolution.
While we continue to have those discussions, it would not be appropriate to support the amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers on all regulations in part 5, even those both the UK and Scottish Government agree are reserved. The provisions in the Bill are framed to reflect our understanding of the devolution settlement in Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland and Wales. It is important to clarify that it is not appropriate to give the Scottish Government any kind of veto on an issue like this, because we are talking about immigration. The decision-making process here has significant impacts on the operation of the immigration system, including protection from removal, which arises from the recovery period. Seeking to devolve the entire identification process would be in direct conflict with the Home Secretary’s immigration functions, which are reserved. The Bill does not change that position, so I am afraid we will oppose the amendment.
Clauses 50 to 53 contain general provisions that are typical housekeeping elements in this kind of legislation. Clause 50 allows for the Secretary of State to make consequential or minor provisions under the Act by regulations. Clause 51 confirms that the extent of the Act will apply to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 52 confirms the Secretary of State’s ability to specify through regulations when the Bill will come into force, confirms that the measures listed under clause 52(3) will come into force on the day of Royal Assent and those listed under 52(4) will come into force two months after Royal Assent. It also specifies when certain elements from part 1 can come into force, including their interdependencies with previous pieces of legislation.
To respond to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire’s point about timeframes, it is not normal to commence provisions earlier than two months after Royal Assent. The measures of the Bill to commence on Royal Assent are those where we consider there is justification for their early commencement, such as allowing preparatory work by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to establish the new repayment mechanism. The Bill is drafted so that some other measures will start commencing from two months after Royal Assent, namely the core protection measures. The remaining measures will need to be commenced by regulations, and this will be done at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Tom Gordon
I will relay the Minister’s remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I echo her sentiments and those of the Opposition spokesperson about the way in which this debate has been conducted throughout.
Anna Turley
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to pose another devastating challenge. I hope hon. Members feel the intentness with which we listened and absorbed the discussion and debate. Many things from this Committee will influence a lot of our thinking.
To conclude, I just want to say a few more things on the Bill. We are proud of the protection that we provide in this country to those fleeing war and terror. However, we also know we must bear down on abuse and restore order and control to our borders. This Bill provides protection to those in need while bearing down on abuse of the system. It ensures swift and fair decisions, giving sanctuary to those in need while removing those with no right to remain. It provides robust legal protections while tackling abuse of human rights laws. It ensures that the right to support comes with responsibilities and expectations on those who receive it.
Abuse of our system is eroding public support for the very idea of providing asylum at all. This Bill ensures that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and earns the consent of the British people, who are open, tolerant and generous, but rightly expect that we restore order and control to our borders.
Siân Berry
I echo some of the comments from other hon. Members on the Committee and thank the Minister for engaging with the many amendments I have tabled to the Bill, because I think they are necessary. I believe that the Bill does not reflect the long-held British value of welcoming refugees, which is still the view of the majority of people in our country. I do not think that obstructive and unfair processes, damaging attitudes and downgrading human rights will stop the criminal gangs or the boats, or tackle the lack of safe routes, which feeds the market for that kind of organised crime. However, I believe that we have had a constructive debate about many of these things, and Parliament will hopefully convince the Minister and the Home Secretary to think again. I also very much appreciate the excellent chairing that we have had.
Finally, I want to thank the many different charities, grassroots support networks, non-governmental organisations and independent experts who have helped and supported the scrutiny I have given to the Bill, not least the Refugee Council—an amazing organisation that rightly essentially won “The Traitors” last week, after Romesh Ranganathan gave his well-deserved prize money to support their work. May they long continue to be faithful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 134, in clause 50, page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) regulations under section (Core protection: amendments) which amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of that section);”.—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment is consequential on NC36. The effect of it would be that regulations made under the power in the new clause inserted by NC36 would be subject to the affirmative procedure if they amended primary legislation, and otherwise subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Extent
Amendment made: 127, in clause 51, page 52, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 (and section 1(3) so far as relating to that paragraph) also extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (see section 50(1) of that Act).
(4) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide—
(a) for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modification, to the Isle of Man, and
(b) for any of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4, and this Part so far as relating to Parts 3 and 4, to extend, with or without modification, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised—
(a) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;
(b) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Jersey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2 or 5 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;
(c) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Guernsey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2, 3 or 4 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.
(6) Those provisions are—
(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;
(c) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(d) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(e) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004;
(f) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;
(g) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007;
(h) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;
(i) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016;
(j) section 86(4) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022;
(k) section 64(4) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment provides for the consequential amendment of the British Nationality Act 1981 in paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to the Bill to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. The amendment also provides powers for other provisions of the Bill to be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Commencement
Amendments made: 128, in clause 52, page 52, line 23, leave out “(5)” and insert “(5B)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 129 and 136.
Government amendment 47, in clause 52, page 52, line 30, at end insert—
“(ba) section (Liability to deportation of certain residents despite section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971);”.
This amendment would mean that the new clause inserted by NC5 would come into force on Royal Assent.
Government amendment 135, in clause 52, page 52, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would change the way in which Part 3 (core protection) is commenced, so that instead of it commencing automatically two months after Royal Assent it would be commenced by regulations.
Government amendment 129, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Section (Enforcement of decisions of the Immigration Services Commissioner) comes into force at the time when paragraphs 9 and 14 of Schedule 1 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 come fully into force.”
This amendment makes provision about the commencement of the new clause inserted by amendment NC33.
Government amendment 136, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—
“(5B) In Schedule (Core protection: amendments)—
(a) paragraph 9(c) comes into force at the same time as paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016;
(b) paragraph 28 comes into force at the same time as section 59(3) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes fully into force;
(c) paragraph 51 comes into force at the same time section 135 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force.”
This amendment would delay the commencement of three amendments made by the new Schedule inserted by NS1, so that they come into force only when provisions being amended are brought into force.
Government amendment 46, in clause 52, page 53, line 25, at end insert—
“(11) The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument make amendments to Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with regulations under subsection (1) that bring Part 1 into force.
(12) Before making rules under subsection (11), the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals.
(13) A statutory instrument containing rules under subsection (11) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment would give the Lord Chancellor the power to amend Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with the commencement of the powers of the IIAA. This may be especially needed if commencement regulations make the kind of provision mentioned in clause 52(8). (See also amendment 43.)
Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I would like to reflect on everyone’s comments in conclusion to today’s proceedings, which were well made, and add my own. I thank officials and all colleagues for the thoughtful way in which they have approached these matters.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 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 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. No food or drink is permitted during the sittings, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
New Clause 36
Fiscal impact assessment
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the fiscal impact of this Act.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) any impact on local authority finances;
(b) an analysis of the extent to which social housing represents value for money for Government expenditure; and
(c) any changes to the financial ability of social housing tenants to access Right to Buy.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a fiscal impact assessment of the Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
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 54—Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership—
“(1) Within two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on the number of social housing tenants becoming homeowners in the previous year, relative to each of the preceding ten years.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,
(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and
(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,
in the calendar year prior to the review.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among social housing tenants.
New clause 59—Review of the impact of the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the impact on the Act on—
(a) the supply and retention of social housing;
(b) the extent to which social housing tenants’ rights are protected by the provisions of the Act;
(c) the exercise of the right to buy; and,
(d) the exercise of the right to acquire.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of the Act on the supply and retention of social housing, tenants' rights, and Right to Buy and Right to Acquire.
Gareth Bacon
Good morning, Mr Vickers. It is nice to resume our proceedings under your chairmanship.
The Bill will change how social housing is funded, how receipts are used and who can afford to buy their home. Understandably, that will create unhelpful uncertainty for local authorities and social housing providers and, by extension, for tenants. Local authorities are right to be anxious, because clause 10 hands the Secretary of State sweeping powers over capital receipts, and councils cannot plan if they do not know what they will lose or gain.
New clause 36 would simply require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a fiscal impact assessment. It must examine the effect on local authority finances, whether social housing offers value for money for the taxpayer and how the Bill changes tenants’ financial ability to use right to buy. If the Government are confident in their figures, they have nothing to fear from publishing them.
The Bill represents an assault on the aspiration of social housing tenants to own their own homes. It is an ideological attack on a policy that, for over 40 years, has given millions of people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder who might otherwise never have been able to do so. By extending the qualifying period and slashing discounts, the Government are effectively seeking to abolish people’s right to buy their own home, and to force residents into renting for longer and longer.
My new clause 54 would therefore require a review of the impact of the Bill on the rates of home ownership among social housing tenants. The impact assessment shows a dramatic projected decline in right-to-buy sales within the first two years of the Bill coming into force, with sales nearly halving. With little effort to support people on to the housing ladder, and with cuts to measures such as first-time buyer stamp duty relief, the Government are tearing up not only one of the most effective routes to home ownership for social housing tenants, but one of the only routes, full stop. That is why it is critical that we understand the Bill’s full impact and demonstrate the disaster that awaits social housing tenants who aspire not just to live in their own home, but to own it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to new clause 59, which, in a similar spirit to the official Opposition’s new clauses 36 and 54, asks that the Secretary of State carry out a review. My new clause asks that the review takes place 12 months after Royal Assent.
We come at this with a different aspiration: I feel the Opposition amendments have been tabled to catch the Government out, whereas we support the objectives of the Bill. However, although we support the changes to right to buy and the tightening of stock disposal, it is only right that the House be able to see, via a review by the Secretary of State within 12 months, whether those objectives have indeed been met or whether we need to legislate further to continue to protect social housing stock, on which we are in full agreement with the Government.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I will speak to new clauses 36, 54 and 59. Members of the Committee will have heard my opinion of the merits of Opposition amendments that seek further statutory reviews in general, so they can guess where I am heading with some of these.
Although we share the aim of ensuring that the impact of our reforms is properly understood, the Government do not believe that further statutory review requirements are necessary or proportionate. We have already published an economic impact assessment. We have arrangements in place to monitor the effects of the Act. The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million.
New clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants’ rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the Bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. More broadly, the Government already publish comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right-to-buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority-level data. We will continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing datasets and established statistical releases. We therefore do not think that new clause 59 is warranted.
On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with hon. Members about the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act’s effects. The Government’s priority is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. For those reasons, I am afraid we cannot accept new clauses 36, 54 and 59.
Gareth Bacon
I have listened carefully to the Minister. In the light of what he says, we will withdraw new clause 36. However, when the time comes, we will press new clause 54 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Provision of social housing: foreign public office holders and associated persons
“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance concerning the provision of social housing by foreign public office holders.
(2) A local housing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning applications for social housing made by foreign public office holders and associated persons including—
(a) persons holding senior public office in a foreign state; and
(b) spouses or civil partners of such persons;
(3) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision relating to—
(a) public office holders subject to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom;
(b) disclosure requirements; and
(c) verification of overseas assets.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any guidance issued under this section before Parliament.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require guidance relating to social housing eligibility for certain foreign public office holders and associated persons.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Every home that is illegally sublet is a home taken from a family who need it. With waiting lists as long as they are, that is nothing short of theft from the public. It is also unfair to the many tenants who play by the rules. We know that the problem exists, yet we have little idea of how well it is being tackled. How many prosecutions are brought? How many properties are actually recovered? What stops landlords and councils acting?
The new clause answers those questions. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. The Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to the new clause. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Tackling illegal subletting is an important element of that. We are clear that landlords should be taking action to clamp down on such unacceptable practices. I very much agree with the shadow Minister’s comments about how unacceptable they are; they are a misuse of social housing.
New clause 38 would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of enforcement activity relating to the illegal subletting of social housing. The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement.
As I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management that specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the stock management review will inform any future action; I can give the shadow Minister that assurance.
In addition, much of the information that the new clause seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value, while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers. The shadow Minister is a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, so I am again surprised that he is urging the Government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. In our view, they are not warranted; we think they would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery.
Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly, which may include taking legal action. The Government are already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes. Through the Cabinet Office’s national fraud initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered.
On 8 July, the Government also announced a new innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the PSFA within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for families who need them, not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the Government taking action on fraud. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Gareth Bacon
On balance, I will accede to the Minister’s request. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Standards relating to maintenance of social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance relating to standards for the maintenance of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).
(3) Guidance under this section must also include provision relating to—
(a) damp and mould,
(b) electrical safety,
(c) response times for repairs, and
(d) tenant complaints procedures.
(4) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Government to issue guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 47—Social responsibilities of registered providers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance concerning the social responsibilities of registered providers of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include consideration of—
(a) tenant wellbeing,
(b) estate management,
(c) anti-social behaviour,
(d) community engagement,
(e) neighbourhood quality, and
(f) support for vulnerable tenants.”
This new clause would require the Government to provide guidance on the wider social responsibilities of registered providers.
New clause 48—Review of registered providers of social housing: governance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the governance arrangements of registered providers of social housing.
(2) The review under this section must consider—
(a) board composition;
(b) accountability to local communities;
(c) the role of elected representatives;
(d) tenant representation;
(e) transparency and scrutiny arrangements; and
(f) the publication of performance information.
(3) A report of the review must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
This probing new clause would require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing.
New clause 49—Social housing governance standards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance on minimum governance standards for registered providers of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include provision on
(a) financial transparency,
(b) tenant representation, and
(c) publication of performance criteria.”
This new clause seeks to strengthen governance and transparency among registered providers.
New clause 50—Attendance before local authority scrutiny committees—
“(1) A senior officer of a registered provider of social housing must attend a meeting of a local authority overview and scrutiny committee if—
(a) complaints have been made about the performance of the registered provider in relation to the quality or provision of social housing, and
(b) the registered provider is requested to attend the meeting by that authority.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only where the registered provider owns or manages more than 10% of the social housing stock within the authority’s area.”
This new clause would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings.
New clause 51—Quarterly performance information—
“(1) Registered providers of social housing must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, publish quarterly performance information.
(2) The information published must include—
(a) repairs which are not completed within 6 months,
(b) complaints received and upheld,
(c) instances of antisocial behaviour,
(d) percentage of tenants satisfied with their housing service, and
(e) number of properties void for longer than three months.”
This new clause would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information.
New clause 61—Social housing quality standards—
“After section 92K (fundamental objectives), of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, insert—
‘923KA Quality standards
(1) In discharging the regulator’s objectives under subsection (3) of section 92K (fundamental objectives), the regulator must, within twelve months of the passing of the Social Housing Act 2027, publish—
(a) specific quality standards (the “Home and Place Standard”) for social housing; and
(b) a methodology for assessing providers against those standards.
(2) The Home and Place Standard published under this section must include provision on—
(a) the quality of—
(i) homes,
(ii) service to tenants, and
(iii) surrounding environment, including green space and access to transport links; and
(b) the long-term environmental sustainability of social housing developments.’”
This new clause would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish a new Home and Place Standard, along with plans to assess social housing providers against those standards.
Gareth Bacon
Every hon. Member will have heard from constituents living with damp, mould, faulty wiring or repairs that never arrive. The death of Awaab Ishak shamed this country, and we all promised that it would never happen again. Since then, the Government have introduced new housing regulations, but regulations alone do not help a landlord who is unsure what compliance looks like, or a tenant who does not know what to expect.
New clause 39 attempts to fill that gap. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State would be required to publish guidance including detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It would also cover damp, mould, electrical safety, response time for repairs and complaints procedures. Registered providers would have to have regard to it. Clear standards protect tenants and give good landlords certainty.
On new clause 47, social homes are safe havens for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Whether they face destitution, abuse or persecution, some of those with the greatest need in our society find their safety and peace in social housing, yet for too many residents, estates are poorly managed, antisocial behaviour is rife and tenants are unsupported. Residents must not bear the burden of poor management practices. My new clause 47 would therefore require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish guidance on the social responsibilities of providers.
Up and down the country, many providers already exercise good practice and due diligence and uphold their social responsibilities. However, there exists a small fraction within the system who do not fulfil their responsibilities as required. New clause 47 would strengthen the Government’s hand in ensuring and enforcing good practices and would give tenants greater protections against unscrupulous behaviours.
On new clause 48, social housing is not an issue that ends with the housing of vulnerable people; it begins with it. Once homes are found for those in need, it is vital that registered providers be properly managed, run and governed. At present, I believe that not enough is done to ensure that. My new clause 48, a probing clause, would therefore require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing. It should not be the case that, just because someone is vulnerable, they have little say in how their estate is run, who runs it or what agreements are being made. That is why new clause 48 has a specific focus on key points such as accountability to local communities. We want to see a fair and accountable social housing sector, and I call on the Minister to assure the Committee of that future here today.
On new clause 49, registered providers are responsible for nearly 3 million homes—about 63% of all the homes that make up the national social housing stock. In some parts of the country, housing association stock outweighs that of local authorities by huge margins. In the north-west, 86% of stock is owned by private registered providers. Tenants in such housing deserve nothing less than openness and clarity about how their estates are run. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, guidance on minimum governance standards, covering financial transparency, tenant representation and publication of performance criteria. New clause 49 is a probing amendment. It aims for clearer standards, not red tape. It makes a simple and straightforward ask, and I hope the Minister will give assurances on that point.
On new clause 50, social housing residents deserve accountability. Where life has dealt a weak hand, where the unexpected has created hardship or where vulnerabilities have led to inhibitions, social housing should be a fair, open and accountable backstop. That is why new clause 50 seeks to enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. For the most vulnerable in society, protections are essential, so it is necessary to scrutinise the performance of registered providers. As I say, the vast majority of providers are fair, efficient and honest, but it is unfair on tenants to assume that without checking. That is why I tabled new clause 50.
Finally, on new clause 51, across the public and private sectors it is good practice to evaluate and publicise the performance of any department, business or team. The same practice should apply to registered housing providers. That is why I tabled new clause 51, which would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including on vital indicators such as repairs left incomplete after six months, complaints, antisocial behaviour, levels of tenant satisfaction and void properties. Those are critical issues that cannot be left unsolved in an efficient and trustworthy social housing system.
Mr Dillon
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 61, which is a probing amendment. As the new clause outlines, a home and place standard would be a design and place-making framework for an organisation to enable the measurement of housing quality, to guide strategic investment and to shape resident wellbeing. The core pillars of such a standard should focus on customers, on homes and on the place. It should also make sure that social housing providers are part of a sustainable future.
Although it may not be appropriate to mandate in the Bill a standard on to private registered providers, I would be keen to hear from the Minister how his Department is shaping the future standards for the sector and encouraging those PRPs to go further: to think beyond just their bricks and mortar, and about where their homes are situated, about the role they play on an estate, about the role that they can play in a town, about encouraging sustainable transport into new developments and about having a holistic approach to what makes social housing so important and making it even more successful.
Matthew Pennycook
I will begin by speaking to new clause 39. I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments on standards and decency. It is reassuring to know that his deregulatory zeal does not extend to Awaab’s law, the decent homes standard or minimum energy efficiency standards.
As well as delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, we are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Maintenance is a critical part of that. We have set out the standards required for social housing through the decent homes standard. In the coming months, we will provide more detailed guidance on how landlords can meet that standard. We have also published electrical safety guidance that sets out rights and responsibilities for landlords, local authorities and tenants.
On complaints, social landlords are already subject to the Housing Ombudsman’s statutory complaint handling code. We are working closely with the ombudsman to ensure that it has the resources and capacity to meet increased demand and support better complaint handling by landlords. We have also introduced Awaab’s law, with its clear time-bound requirements on social landlords to investigate hazards and take action. Ahead of phase 2 of that law coming into force on 30 November, we have published updated guidance to support landlords to comply with its requirements.
Awaab’s law promotes a person-centred approach, putting the need to make individuals safe at the heart of legislation. Again, I commend the Opposition, because it was a Conservative Act of Parliament that provided the powers to introduce Awaab’s law into the social rented sector. However, in our view it would not be appropriate for the Government to tell landlords how to put individuals at the heart of the legislation, as the solutions will vary depending on individual circumstances. For that reason, we do not believe that the additional guidance called for in the new clause is necessary.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. What provision is he putting in place to replicate those arrangements where there is no mayoral authority?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.
New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.
All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.
I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Minister for his lengthy answer. I will accede to his wishes and will not press my new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 40
Fixed-term tenancies for social housing
“Nothing in this Act prevents a local housing authority or registered provider from granting a fixed-term tenancy for social housing in accordance with existing enactments.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The most recent data available to us shows that the waiting list for social housing stands at a shocking and shameful 1.34 million people. However, that data, which comes from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publication from March 2025, is now well out of date. To understand one of the fundamental problems that we are here to rectify, which is how to get people off the streets, out of temporary accommodation and into social housing, we must understand the full scale of the issue before us.
My new clause 52 would therefore require housing register applications to be reviewed at least every three years to ensure that the waiting list remains accurate and up to date. Without that, it is impossible for resources to be properly distributed, stock to be efficiently allocated and decisions to be made promptly. Efficiency means more than people getting a roof over their head and a place to call home. That is why I believe the proposals in my new clause would make essential and much-needed changes to the system.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to this new clause. I am enjoying the irony of a shadow Minister who bemoans this Government’s, in his words, zealous overcentralisation and penchant for regulation, but who proposes a new clause that would impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to review their housing register at least once every three years—a new duty that would create additional administrative burdens—without any evidence that it would improve allocation decisions.
Local authorities take different approaches to managing their housing register. It is right that they have the flexibility to do what works best for their own local area. In addition, councils already reassess housing need both before a household joins a waiting list and again before allocating a social home, and thereby ensure that social homes go to those most in need.
Gareth Bacon
On this occasion, I will respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation. I stand by my remarks. If we do not understand the scale of the problem, we cannot possibly tailor our solutions correctly. We seek to divide the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As members of the Committee know, I worked in social housing for 14 years before entering this place. One of the more challenging elements of my role was ensuring the safety of our residents, particularly with annual gas safety checks. We had to make three attempts to carry out the check before going to court and seeking an injunction to access the property, not only resulting in legal costs for the social provider, but extending the time that a tenant was residing in a property without the boiler having its approved checks done. The same problem can also extend to five-year electrical safety checks. Only yesterday, I hosted a roundtable with the British Pest Control Association, where we spoke about how delays to access in such instances are causing further damage through pest infestation. Bedbugs, for example, often move within a block of flats, so quick access to all dwellings in that instance is key to stopping the spread and its impact.
The new clause has come from experience of working in the sector. I have never known a judge not to grant an injunction when a social landlord has been able to prove that it has made those three attempts. Although article 8 and the right to a private life may come up, that is of course a qualified right. As long as the access is in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate, or pursuing a legitimate aim, article 8 considerations can be laid aside.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for tabling and speaking to the new clause. It raises an important issue that we recognise has been an area of growing concern, and on which there were some particularly considered and constructive debates in the other place; I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his engagement. Those debates reinforced the incredible complexity of the issue, which involves the interaction of the fundamental rights of tenants, the legal duties placed on landlords and the safety of both residents and their neighbours.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, since those debates in the other place, the Government have been undertaking an intensive process of engagement and policy development to examine the issue. In that respect, we are grateful for the input and expertise that we have received from a range of residents’ groups, landlords, representative bodies and charities. That engagement has put it beyond doubt that this is an issue that must be resolved. However, it also made it clear that we cannot act in haste and risk creating new systemic problems, and there are a range of challenges that arise from various options in this area.
For that reason, the Government cannot support new clause 60, but we will shortly bring forward a consultation that will examine the issue in the round to get at some of those challenges and find out what the potential solutions might be. It will also look at the design and the necessary safeguards for any new law in this space. To support the sector with practical advice, we will bring forward plans to develop best practice guidance on access procedures.
I absolutely understand and recognise the expertise of the hon. Member for Newbury in this area. He raises a valid point, but for the reasons I have given, I hope he will withdraw his new clause.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his Department’s understanding of the wider impact. I welcome the consultation being launched. I agree that the balance between a landlord’s rights and a tenant’s rights needs a lot of thought. When I was drafting new clause 60, I did not include pests as a hazard; I appreciate that that should have been included as well. I look forward to seeing the Government’s progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 62
Ability of tenants to request an electric vehicle charging point
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to enable tenants to request and install a domestic Electric Vehicle Charger.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) made under this subsection must include—
(a) the grounds on which a request can be declined including—
(i) electrical standards,
(ii) planning requirements, and
(iii) cost; and
(b) a requirement for social housing providers to respond to the request within one month.
(3) 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.”—(Mr Dillon.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 63—Provision of electric vehicle charging points in new social housing developments—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points.
(2) 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.”
Mr Dillon
These are simple new clauses and we hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will support them. In effect, new clause 62 would allow social tenants the opportunity to have an electric charging point on existing stock, and new clause 63 seeks the same for new builds.
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to improving access to convenient home charging for tenants, including in social housing. However, we do not believe that new clause 62 is the right way to achieve that objective.
Tenants can face hurdles in getting landlord or freeholder approval, sometimes without a clear reason; that is not in dispute. The Department for Transport is already consulting on an ability to charge for tenants and leaseholders. That consultation, published on 21 October, considers both legislation and non-statutory guidance to give residents clearer routes to request permission for a charge point. It also seeks views on setting clearer expectations for landlords and freeholders when responding to those requests, including in social housing.
New clause 62 would pre-empt that consultation by introducing requirements before the Government have considered any evidence or fully assessed the impacts. In our view, that risks introducing grounds for refusal, which could be inappropriate and have the unintended consequence of deeming certain scenarios unreasonable when they are not, limiting access to home charging for tenants rather than making it more accessible. We want to ensure that any intervention is workable for tenants, while also taking proper account of the legitimate responsibilities and constraints on landlords and freeholders.
New clause 62 would risk creating an inconsistent approach between different property types, which could cause confusion for housing providers and leave other tenants without the same protections. Support with installation costs is already available, with existing Government grants providing up to £500 towards the cost of installing an eligible charge point.
New clause 63 seeks to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newbury about the importance of ensuring that new homes are equipped for the transition to electric vehicles. In schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, part S, which was introduced in 2021, already requires charging infrastructure in new residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations in England, including in social housing developments. In our view, the new clause is therefore not required. The Government are also currently considering whether those requirements should be strengthened via the DFT consultation.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
On new clause 63, does the Minister agree that, before we worry about electric vehicle charging points, the new developments must have enough parking spaces? As it is, I suspect that hon. Members’ postbags are full due to new developments coming forward without enough parking spaces, even before electric vehicle charging points are put in as well.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to opine on a completely different issue. The hon. Member for Newbury may correct me, but car parking spaces are not in the scope of his new clauses. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is more than welcome to write to me with specific concerns about local authority action in that area.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw new clause 62 and will not press new clause 63.
Mr Dillon
I happily accept the Minister’s considered view about the consultation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Review of the use of empty homes as social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review on the use of empty homes as social homes.
(2) A review under this section must include information on—
(a) the number of empty homes in England and Wales that could be used for social housing,
(b) the potential merits of a scheme to bring empty homes into use as social housing, and
(c) any challenges involved in establishing such a scheme.”—(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 new clause 67—Long-term empty homes use: strategy and funding—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a national strategy for increasing the acquisition and renovation of long-term empty homes for use as low-cost rental accommodation.
(2) A strategy published under this section must include options for establishing ring-fenced funding for bringing empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation, to be made available to strategic authorities or local authorities.
(3) In this section, ‘low-cost rental accommodation’ has the meaning given in section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (low cost rental).
(4) Within 12 months of the publication of the strategy under subsection (1)(a), and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish data on—
(a) the number of empty homes renovated as a result of the strategy and any subsequent actions, and
(b) the number of acquired empty homes allocated to people previously in temporary accommodation or rough sleeping.”
This new clause would create a national strategy to bring long-term empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to speak again—no day would be complete without a sitting of this Committee. New clause 66 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). In proposing the new clause, she said:
“There are hundreds of thousands of empty homes across England and Wales, while many families wait years for a social home or remain in temporary accommodation.
My amendment would require the Government to carry out a review of how empty homes could be used as social housing. It would assess how many properties could be brought into use, the potential benefits of a dedicated scheme and the barriers that would need to be addressed.
Bringing empty homes back into use can be a faster and more cost-effective way of increasing social housing supply, while also helping to regenerate local communities. This review would give the Government the evidence it needs to act and I hope it will receive support from across the House.”
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I particularly draw attention to the regeneration benefits of bringing empty homes back into use, which are significant. As hon. Members know, many of our town centres have too many empty buildings, and there is a real bottleneck in the procedure for getting them back into use.
The late Liberal Democrat Housing Minister Andrew Stunell started the last significant empty homes programme that any Government have introduced. Begun in 2010, it brought 120,000 empty homes back into use; that is 10 times the number of social homes created last year and a significant contribution to meeting the need for housing.
When the Conservatives took over in 2015, that programme was abandoned—its funding was ended. The number of empty homes is now on the increase again. As a result of the programme, it fell to a record low, from 315,000 to 203,000. However, it has gone up again under subsequent Governments. By October 2026, it had risen to 303,000, almost back to its 2010 level, up 14% on 2024 and 50% higher than in 2015 when the programme ended.
The programme brought units into use for affordable rent, low-cost home ownership and social rent. It therefore made a significant contribution to not just housing but social housing. Its grant was around £22,000 per dwelling—significantly less than the average subsidy for creating new social housing. It was therefore a very important factor.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in the country. We need a programme to bring them back into use. That is the missing link in the Government’s housing policy. A Liberal Democrat Government would bring in an empty homes programme forthwith. We commend the new clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for speaking to new clause 66, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He rightly pointed out that there are currently more than 300,000 homes that have been empty for six months or more. The Government absolutely want to see more empty homes brought back into use across the country, but we do not believe that a national review or a national empty homes strategy supported by a new ringfenced fund is the right approach.
The scale and causes of empty homes vary considerably between places, as do local housing pressures and the interventions that will be most effective. Therefore, we believe that local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities are best placed to understand those circumstances and determine the right approach for their areas. Local authorities can already access funding to bring homes back into use, including through the social and affordable homes programme, the local authority housing fund and the long-term rough sleeping innovation programme. Loan funding is also available through the Public Works Loan Board to support the acquisition of empty homes.
We are also strengthening local authorities’ powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders, removing evidential requirements and reducing the period that a property must be empty before it is eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months.
Mr Dillon
The Minister has outlined a number of funding packages and processes that are already set up to tackle empty homes. Can he say how well they are working, and whether the Government need to go further? A national strategy, with a regional breakdown or local levers within it, could help tackle the problem.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question. I commit to give him, in writing, a sense of the local and regional breakdown of the use of EDMOs and these powers. Funding is available, but the point I am making is that although funding can be a barrier, it is only one part of the solution. Local authorities have a range of powers and incentives available to tackle empty homes. We want to continue empowering them to use those, but we think it is right that they retain the flexibility to respond to particular local priorities.
Although the Government agree with the sentiment behind the new clauses, we do not believe that this Bill is the best route forward. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing new clause 66.
Gideon Amos
Perhaps I can give an example from my own experience. I have set on record my interest as a social landlord. In another life, under the programme I described, I brought into use four empty dwellings as social housing. The challenge with an empty home is that, although the grant level is generally less, and the cost can be less than building a new home, the schemes are much more complicated due to ownership, these being existing buildings, consents and the fact that many are listed. So it is with some trepidation that owners and developers go into this field.
The benefit of the previous scheme was that it was a ringfenced scheme dedicated for empty homes, rather than relying on the existing processes and programmes. Affordable social housing programmes will not generally be geared towards what can be long-winded and complex schemes in the empty homes field. Having a ringfenced fund that is named and available gives owners and developers the confidence to know that an empty homes scheme will compete well among the applications submitted in the social and affordable homes programme.
Finally, I reiterate that the previous scheme was the most successful that I can find recorded for empty homes. It brought the number of empty homes down to its lowest level ever, from 320,000 down to 200,000. This is proven technology, so we should proceed with it. Unless and until the Government have their own empty homes programme—I have not heard about one—we should continue to push them on this.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 20, page 16, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the power to amend or repeal, by regulations, provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before or in the same session as this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 20, page 16, line 15, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under Clause 20.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 78.
Clauses 21 to 23 stand part.
Gareth Bacon
Amendments 80 and 81 are about transparency and accountability. We believe that the Bill is unsuitable for its own stated purpose of making provision for social housing. Already on Second Reading, and here in Committee, we have seen an unwillingness from the Government to reshape the Bill into something that not only is fit for purpose but actually delivers provisions to benefit social housing tenants. If they cannot be trusted to deliver for tenants over the full process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would be unwise to let the Secretary of State alone make further changes to the system without the same level of oversight.
Let us be clear: clause 20, page 16, line 10 —subsection (2)—is a Henry VIII clause. It allows the Bill, after all the debate, analysis and scrutiny here and in the other place, to be selectively amended at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. It has been clear to date that the Government are misguided in their approach to reforming the social housing sector, so it would be unwise to let further reforms go unchecked in the future. That is why I have tabled amendment 80, which would ensure that Ministers cannot just use regulations to amend or repeal existing Acts.
On amendment 81, the Government have done their best to centralise power and avoid scrutiny throughout the last two years. The demolition of local democracy by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the cancellation of elections and now the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are just a few examples from this Department alone. It is critical that such power grabs do not go unchecked, and that is why I have tabled amendment 81, which would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 20.
I recognise that it is sometimes necessary to tackle less consequential points or issues in need of immediate response through secondary legislation, but that does not mean that Ministers have an excuse to avoid the watchful eye of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that all hon. Members will support amendments 80 and 81.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister made clear, amendments 80 and 81 concern the power in clause 20 to make consequential provision and the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should apply. I recognise that they seek to ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny, but as we have already discussed during our proceedings, the Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
Amendment 80 would prevent consequential regulations from amending or repealing primary legislation. That could mean that any consequential changes identified following Royal Assent would require additional primary legislation. That would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time and could delay implementation. The power is expressly limited to provisions that are consequential to the Act. It cannot be used to pursue new policy objectives, whether related or not, to the legislation approved by Parliament in the Bill. Any regulations made beyond what is consequential on the Bill’s provisions would be open to legal challenges, as well as parliamentary scrutiny. Importantly, clause 20 already provides additional scrutiny where this power is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, with such regulations requiring the approval of both Houses.
Amendment 81 would go further by requiring all consequential regulations to be approved by both Houses. We do not consider that to be proportionate. Where regulations do not amend or repeal primary legislation, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny for more technical, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. The power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act and is intended to ensure its effective implementation and the maintenance of a coherent legislative framework. I therefore consider that clause 20 provides the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while avoiding unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. On that basic, I hope I have sufficiently reassured the shadow Minister, and I ask that he does not press amendments 80 and 81.
Gareth Bacon
I wish to press Opposition amendments 80 and 81 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
May I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Vickers, and the other Chairs of the Committee? I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings, and my officials and private office for all their support in bringing forward this piece of legislation. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for their valuable insights.
I have had a spirited and constructive dialogue with the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I accept fully that there are principled points of disagreement, but I have valued their challenges and contributions. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.
Gareth Bacon
I echo the Minister’s sentiments. Obviously, on a subject like this, there will be disagreements across the House, but they have been largely respectful and, at times, quite good-humoured. I thank the Minister, his officials, my hon. Friends from the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and all hon. Members on the Committee. I look forward to seeing you all on Report.
Gideon Amos
I repeat the thanks from the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to officials. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me, and the Minister for taking on board so many amendments—at least in spirit, if not in reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report
(1 day, 17 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
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the findings of the Milburn Review into young people and work: interim report, published on 28 May 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to bring this debate forward.
Each generation is judged on the question of whether we leave the next one better off. Will they have greater opportunity, more security and the same hope that we had? Around 1 million young people across the United Kingdom are NEETs: not in education, employment or training. That is one in eight. Of those, six in 10 have never had a job—and the interim Milburn review warns that, without action, that number will be one in six within five years. If we do not act with the magnitude, imagination and substance that this moment demands, we risk failing on that generational question.
How did we get here—or, to put it better, how did we allow our young people to end up in this position? The systems set up in the shadow of the second world war to support and enable a good life for everyone in this country regardless of postcode or wealth are at the very core of meeting the challenge, but we must ask whether they are working as they should. Why does our welfare system spend £25 on benefits for young people for every £1 it spends on helping them into work? Why are young people who could work with the right support being signed off and left there with no route back? Why do 67% of NEET young people tell us that the curriculum does not prepare them for work or life?
The stark reality is that the institutional infrastructure that accompanies the system has been hollowed out, without anything to take its place. That is the youth clubs and community spaces where young people learn to work together, build relationships and find their place in the world; or the Saturday jobs, where they develop vital soft skills, learn the value of responsibility and discover what it means to be part of a team.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Supported internships are an incredibly useful way of supporting young people who have an education, health and care plan along the pathway to work. They cost more and require significant investment, but are very cheap in comparison to seeing that young person living a life on benefits. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be doing all we can to provide more supported internships, because that investment will make a long-term difference to getting people out of unemployment and into work?
Andrew Ranger
Yes, I totally agree; I will come on to that point later in my speech.
Too often, politics runs on short-term decisions, whatever the party or the Government. On this issue, short-termism will not do. The young people affected will not accept it, and nor should we. Picture a young person in my constituency of Wrexham—let us call him James. He is talented, but school never worked for him. He moves on to further education, but it is the wrong fit and does not work out. Before long, he is signed off and written off.
This all comes back to a moral mission that touches every postcode. The problem cannot be solved by the state alone; it needs businesses, third sector organisations and community groups—every one of us. It takes a village to raise a child. This is going to take a nation.
Six years ago, we asked young people to carry an extraordinary burden to protect older and vulnerable people from a pandemic. They did it without question. They sacrificed experiences, milestones and opportunities that the rest of us took for granted. That sacrifice is not without its aftershocks, many of which we have seen come to prominence in the last few years, particularly in health and educational outcomes.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. I visited my local employability service, Working Denbighshire, last week. It runs an amazing programme called Barod, which means “ready” in Welsh. It does pre-employability work—working on confidence, social and communication skills and the things that really start young people on that pathway. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be providing that sort of service to all our young people across the UK?
Andrew Ranger
I totally agree; that is another thing that I will come on to in my speech.
It is now our turn to repay the debt that we owe young people. Many players will help us to solve this crisis, and one of them is business, both local and national. I want to recognise the businesses already meeting the challenge. Examples from my own constituency include Moneypenny. At national level, Sainsbury’s and Greene King, among others, are giving 100,000 much-needed opportunities to young people. Those are vital, but I ask all businesses to give young people opportunities. They may not necessarily have the skills on paper—on their CVs—but they are undoubtedly talented and will repay the chance that they are given. Spend the extra time doing an in-person interview with an applicant, who will gain much more than they would have in talking to an AI chatbot. Look past the gaps in their CV and see the potential behind it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He will be aware that Milburn’s interim review found that 23% of young carers are not in employment, education or training and that 40% of those have spent more than 18 months out of employment, education or training, yet they have amazing resilience and experience to bring to a job. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the review’s final report, we must outline a package of support for young carers and encourage businesses to take a chance on young carers and give them an opportunity?
Andrew Ranger
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is a really good ask of the final review. We must look past the gaps in CVs and see the potential behind them; that faith will be repaid many times over.
Let me turn to the education sector. Milburn reported that two in three NEETs say that the curriculum did not prepare them for work. Careers education often arrives too late, at a time when decisions about the future are already being made. Research by Education and Employers shows that children’s ideas about what they can achieve are being formed by the age of seven and are already being narrowed by gender, background and whom they see around them. Careers education must start earlier than it does currently. By seven, every child should be meeting people from the world of work and seeing where their learning could take them—not to choose a career at that stage, but to open those doors before they are closed.
In the Netherlands, fewer than one in 20 young people is NEET. Work-based learning is built into vocational education. Employers and colleges plan placements together, through a national body that brings them to the same table. Work experience is not an add-on; it is part of the course.
To the third sector organisations doing remarkable work across the country, representatives of some of which join us in the Public Gallery today, I say thank you for all the work that you are doing. Keep going and be loud about it. You are our partners in this mission, and we have a great deal to learn from what you are achieving. In Wrexham, WeMindTheGap’s six-month programme is doing exactly this—getting young people back into work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) said, helping them to build soft skills: confidence and resilience.
I say to the Government that we must share the risk with employers. Support must not stop the day a young person starts work, because a job landed is not a job done. The mentoring and coaching that got them through the door must carry on through the first months, when too many placements fall apart. Let us work with those third sector organisations; let us support them, too, to deliver this. We need to strip away the paperwork. Too many employers who want to help are put off before they even begin. Every form that stands between a willing business and a young person is an opportunity lost.
Also, we need to open up the data. Information exists, but it is not joined up and no one is accountable for the whole of it. That is resulting in a hidden cohort of about 314,000 young people who are NEET, claiming no benefits and invisible to the very systems meant to help them. If we cannot see them, we cannot help them.
However, the answer cannot be designed entirely in Whitehall. Every place knows its own picture best. It knows which employers are hiring, which schools are struggling and which young people have dropped off the radar and why. In my constituency and many others, it will be the local authorities, the schools, the further education providers, the employers and organisations like WeMindTheGap that know the young people behind the numbers.
We need a whole-society approach to tackling this crisis. It takes more than all the individual elements acting alone. It requires families, communities, businesses, educators and public services working together, united by a shared responsibility to give every young person the opportunity to thrive—a system to mind the gaps. If we achieve the above, back in Wrexham James will be getting the support he deserves, on a work placement with a local business, backed by a mentor and a coach every step of the way, slowly but surely getting back on his feet.
Where do we want this generation to be in the next 10 or 20 years? Do we want NEET rates still to be rising because the big decisions, some not easy, were pushed down the track and never delivered, or do we want the phrase NEET to be a historical term—something that was, not something that is? Alan Milburn’s final report will be the moment of truth—not just for us in Parliament, but for businesses, third sector organisations, schools and colleges. It will ask whether we are willing to be partners in the great challenge of our time—one national moral mission; one team.
I thank all the wonderful organisations and individuals who have made this debate possible, and for everything they do to support young people across the country. I also thank Alan Milburn and his team, including Peter Hyman and Shuab Gamote, for their visit to Wrexham to meet our incredible young people as part of the wider work on this report. They have had a massive impact already, and the impact on the future of our country will be substantial. In Wrexham, 10 years from now, where is James? He is in secure, long-term work and is happy, having built a life that he is proud of and fulfilled by. That is all we should want for every young person.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. Due to the number of people who have indicated their wish to speak, there will be a strict time limit of two minutes for speeches, so that we can get through everybody. I call Ann Davies.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Let me start by saying that I do not like the phrase “not in education, employment or training”, or NEET; I much prefer LEET, because most young people are looking for employment, education or training. The NEET phrase makes people feel as if they are not trying hard enough, which could not be further from the truth. Young people are hard-working and passionate, and they want to contribute their skills to the workforce, but our system does not set them up for success. Many have not yet found the opportunities or pathways that allow them the space to figure out and find their niche.
Everyone is good at something, but too many young people are not afforded the opportunity to figure out what that may be. The most recent data shows that 14.6% of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales are not in education, employment or training to the year ending June 2026. That is an unacceptable figure. Nearly one sixth of our talented young people in Wales have not been given the opportunity to thrive and find their place.
One thing that stood out to me from Milburn’s interim report was the impact on place of the levels of young people not in education, employment or training. In rural Wales, barriers to obtaining a driving licence or having access to a car makes that a very visible problem. Young people facing financial constraints are more likely to struggle as a result of those barriers. If we are serious about widening opportunity, tackling child poverty must be a priority. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether the Welsh Cynnal payment will be disregarded for benefit purposes?
I have met so many fabulous young people since becoming the Member of Parliament for Caerfyrddin, and I am really proud to be their MP. Minister, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that every young person, no matter their postcode or financial background, has the same chance to succeed?
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate.
Alan Milburn’s interim report is stark. Nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are not in employment, education or training. In Gloucester, around 2,500 young people are in that position. When I speak with them, I hear the same thing time and again: they have worked hard, but the opportunities that were meant to be there for them have turned out to be closed doors. They are not lazy: 84% of young people who are out of work or training say that they want a job or to be in education.
The interim report is clear that we need a whole-of-society effort. I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on the issue, but it must be matched by local leadership across the country. That is why I have made it my mission to ensure that no young person in Gloucester is left behind. At the end of this month, I am hosting the Gloucestershire Futures summit at Kingsholm stadium with Gloucestershire county council, bringing schools and colleges, employers, health services, local Government and the voluntary sector into one room. Gloucester’s young people have talent in abundance, supported by fantastic schools, local colleges and training providers. What they need are open doors and clear pathways. I am hopeful that our upcoming summit will help build the consensus needed to deliver them. I am delighted that the Skills Minister will join us for the summit.
One of the big things that I hear from young people is how demoralising it is to apply for hundreds of jobs, only to be ghosted and not receive a reply from employers. However, small businesses in Gloucester tell me that they receive hundreds of applications for a single role. They want to do their bit, give feedback and support young people, but they need help to do it. I am pleased that this Government are acting. The £3,000 youth jobs grant supports any employer that takes on a young person who has been out of work for six months, and the new partnership with hospitality businesses aims to create 100,000 jobs for young people. What more can the Government do to help smaller businesses with practical recruitment support as well as grants to play their part in tackling this crisis?
Gloucestershire’s young people have talent in abundance. I believe that it is our moral mission in Gloucestershire to support them. What they need are open doors. I look forward to Alan Milburn’s final report helping us to open them.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
When the Government commission a review, people often just roll their eyes, because we all know there is no better way to kick an issue down the road than with an independent review. Few issues have been kicked down the road as much as doing something about the one in eight young people not in employment, education or training. Given what has been published so far and the conversations that I have had, I am genuinely hopeful that the Milburn review will give us a real shot at change.
I would talk all day about this, but given the time, obviously I cannot. However, I would like to focus on two special areas of the report: rurality and special educational needs and disabilities.
The review has highlighted what is obvious to everyone from south Somerset: transport is a huge barrier to work and further education. Nothing else that a young person or the system does matters. The review highlights that bus journeys in rural England have declined sharply. We have seen this with the No. 11 and No. 54 bus routes in Yeovil. Even if there is a bus, some young people still face three to four-hour delays. We urgently need action to improve rural transport networks and access to affordable driving lessons and tests. The £2 bus fare cap is a good start, but we need a new bus fleet in Somerset and to start looking at more innovative ideas, such as smarter booking for our most isolated communities.
Equally, the Milburn report paints a clear picture of the challenges faced by young people with SEND, who are 80% more likely to be NEET. I have been saying for ages that the lack of early intervention is largely the driver of this problem. That is backed by the report, which highlights that children who fall behind at five years old are, on average, still behind at age 16. I was incredibly happy to hear from academics that the Universal Classroom Project got the increased Government funding that we had been calling for to develop a free profile-building screener for key learning strengths and weaknesses.
I understand that in the final recommendations, Alan Milburn will look to present solutions radical enough to address the scale of the crisis. I can only hope that the Government do something about this.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this important debate.
It is clear that we face an urgent national crisis that has devastating consequences. This is a challenge facing every part of our country. I am pleased to say that the number of NEETs in the east of England has fallen since 2024, from 14.2% to 11.7%. However, that figure is still far too high, and behind it our young people are unable to move forward into the next stage of their lives. People should be building skills, gaining confidence and learning how to stand on their own two feet; instead, they are struggling to take those important first steps into adult life. Alan Milburn is right to warn against the emergence of a lost generation.
This is about more than youth unemployment. It is about being disconnected from the education system and the labour market, but also from the opportunity, confidence and independence that good work can provide. There is a cost to young people’s confidence, health and future earnings. The moral crisis is all too clear. We are at risk of abandoning a generation of talented, ambitious people to worklessness, poor health and poverty.
I want to highlight a few things that we are doing in Ipswich and Suffolk to turn the tide. There is the new youth hub funded by the Government in Ipswich, which brings together employers, training providers, careers advice, mental health support and housing support under one roof. That is incredibly welcome. Sizewell C is a transformational project for our energy security, but there is also what it represents to our young people. I was delighted to secure 500 guaranteed jobs for Ipswich from that project. Construction technical excellence colleges also deliver employability support.
We as a Government must ensure no gap in support between the restart scheme, which has been incredibly successful, and the future employment support programme. When there is an apprenticeship to apply for, skills training to access and a career to build for, ambition has somewhere to go. Young people need the ambition, the potential and the opportunity all at the same time. Behind every headline figure is a young person who wants to contribute. Our responsibility is to make sure that chance is there.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Last week, I went back to Hideout, a youth club in Gorton that opens its doors to hundreds of young people every week. I asked some of the kids I met about their future hopes and dreams and they all scrambled to tell me about who they thought they could be; I could genuinely feel the hope in the air. But ask anyone slightly older—a teenager or young adult—and you hear a clear, bleak understanding of the ways that the world is already letting them down. Their hope has faded away.
Almost a million young people are growing up finding themselves not in education, employment or training. Every week I meet young people across the constituency who want to work hard and build a good life for themselves but find that the system is stopping them. A 25-year-old care leaver with no family, no network and no safety net told me that he tries so hard every day to stop himself becoming homeless, Despite being a university graduate, he cannot find secure, well-paid work.
The risk of being not in education, employment or training is not equal: it doubles if someone comes from a disadvantaged background and has low qualification levels, and is far worse in Greater Manchester and the north than in London and the south-east. Opportunity should not be a postcode lottery. Those who need a hand most are being left behind by the Government’s sustained real-terms funding cuts to schools and colleges, despite ever-increasing demand, and because small and medium-sized businesses are unfairly being asked to train up the next generation of workers without the money and support needed to make that a success.
Young people do not need cuts to the universal credit health element, which will just harm those who cannot work. Cutting cash benefits does nothing to improve employment outcomes. What they need is an approach from this Government that acknowledges that investment now will save money in the long run. What they need is change to the very structure of our economy and education system, more flexible and inclusive post-16 pathways and green skills at the forefront.
The Milburn review is clear that urgent action is needed. The question is not whether young people in Gorton and Denton and across the country have ambition, but whether this Government are willing to match it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Milburn review interim report was clear that in order for the support provided to be fit for young people to enter the workplace today, not only the welfare system but our health and our education systems need to be fundamentally rewired. Education has a critical role to play in preparing young people for the workforce and for life.
What we hear again and again from employers is that young people, even in entry-level roles, have not been able to develop the skills that are essential in any workplace, and indeed for life—skills like communication, problem solving and critical thinking. This is not just about the NEET crisis we are facing today—painful though it is already for so many—or bringing down the welfare bill, although that is vital too; it is about taking the opportunity now to grasp the even greater NEET crisis that may be coming down the track as we face the reality of an economy being fundamentally reshaped by AI.
It is clear that AI is the defining technology of our time. In just a few years we have seen it power breakthroughs in fields as wide-ranging and important as medical diagnostics and research, agriculture and mathematics. That is why it is so fundamental that young people develop the skills they need not only to use AI critically and thoughtfully, but also to exist in a world where things for which we have always relied on humans are increasingly being automated.
I have long argued that an education system rich in the humanities must be at the heart of preparing young people for the age of AI, not just because of the content they would learn, but because of the skills the humanities would encourage them to develop. As part of its research into the future of the labour market, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it was skills such as collaboration, communication, problem-solving and information literacy that will be most needed by employees in 2035. That is why it is so important that we develop an education system that provides young people with those skills.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for setting the scene. Alan Milburn’s report held up a mirror to the stark and uncomfortable reality in the United Kingdom that 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently classified as not in employment, education or training, but a staggering 84% of them actively want to work, learn or train—the work ethic is clearly there.
The report refers to a system failure across health, education and welfare. There has been a devastating 70% increase in the number of young people struggling with work-limiting health and mental health conditions, and the number with a disability has risen from 21% to 44%. My question to the Minister is: what is being done to help those with mental health issues and depression? That failure costs our economy a massive £125 billion annually.
In Northern Ireland, we see exactly the same structural failure. Cutting funding to local youth work and training programmes has stripped away the last line of defence for vulnerable young people—especially care leavers and those from rural communities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many young people do not want to go into formalised education? We need to reach out to those communities to try to assist them and deal with this problem once and for all.
Jim Shannon
We certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
The problem is not specific to the UK mainland; it affects us back home in Northern Ireland to a great degree. We need a complete shift from a passive welfare state to an active working state. Powers and funding must be handed down to local authorities and the devolved Executives, which understand the job markets in their areas. The mental health system must work hand in hand with employment hubs so that getting better and getting into work are part of the same journey—it is important that we marry those two together. Perhaps more importantly, we need to deliver the promised youth guarantee by providing clear pathways into work, education or apprenticeships, and we need a massive expansion of meaningful work experience placements.
I recognise that the Labour Government have a plan for young people, but if we continue to allow 1 million young lives to remain on hold, we are writing off the future of our workforce and fracturing the social fabric of our communities. It is time to treat youth detachment as the national emergency that it is, break down the silos around Departments and give the next generation the genuine opportunities that they deserve.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this incredibly important debate.
Unsurprisingly, Alan Milburn laid out in his interim report that the current system is failing a generation. I had an opportunity to host a meeting with Alan and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to launch Opening Shift, alongside the British Retail Consortium, which has worked with the Department for Work and Pensions and retailers. Opening Shift offers more than 11,000 work placements for young people, with a view to reaching 100,000 jobs by the end of the Parliament, getting young people on to the very first rung of the ladder.
In 2012, the coalition Government scrapped compulsory work experience, despite major objections from employers. A 2015 poll by the British Chambers of Commerce found that 82% of bosses said that pupils under 16 should be offered work placements. For employers to feel confident to take a risk on employing anybody, let alone a young person with limited experience, they need to have the experience of seeing young people grow and develop in the workplace. The role of work placements should never have been downplayed. Critically, they are a first step into the world of work.
In my earlier career, I was lucky enough to work alongside the inspirational Leicestershire Education Business Company, an independent local charity set up to support employers. It still organises and supports young people and employers with work experience locally today.
Data from comparable countries shows that when more 14 to 16-year-olds have employment experience, fewer young people are NEET. In almost every conversation with a NEET young person, the authors of the review found an interest, a passion and a talent, despite the barriers holding them back. I had the same experience on the Work and Pensions Committee. Young people want to work; we just need to give them the inspiration.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The first instalment of the Milburn review has been well received on both sides of the House. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I had the chance to ask Alan Milburn about it a few months ago. One of the things he said, which got a lot of press but has been misunderstood, is that we spend £25 on benefits for every £1 we spend on helping young people into work. Contrary to what some on the right have assumed, that emphatically does not mean that slashing benefits is the way to cure youth unemployment. For years under the Conservatives, jobcentres operated under a sanctions-based culture. That failed. Job hunting is difficult, and totally demoralising job hunters by distrusting their every move is not the way to coach them through their first interviews.
In evidence to the Committee, young people described being made to feel like a “leech”. How does that help anyone? The demand for people to demonstrate that they have submitted large numbers of job applications like notches on a belt has been completely destructive. Local employers have disengaged in my constituency because they have been spammed with poorly targeted applications. We should not be so hasty to write off the current generation as a bunch of snowflakes. Rather, we should remember that the current level of nearly 1 million NEETs is less than the peak back in 2011, when we had 1.25 million. The remarkable fact is that 44% of NEETs are not claiming any kind of benefit at all. Surely, even the most zealous right-winger can see that that challenges the cliché of an out-of-control benefits culture.
Success stems from intervention at an early age. When kids stop attending school, that is a powerful indicator of their likelihood of becoming NEETs later. In that context, the Government’s youth guarantee scheme will not do the trick. It only kicks in after 18 months of unemployment, when the damage is done. It is also not available to kids on benefits. This will not be a quick fix, but actions today will bring huge long-term rewards for the people who matter most: our children.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Good morning, Ms McVey; it is a pleasure to have you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing the debate.
The Milburn review gets a lot right. It is right to say that the NEET rate is so high because of decades of structural dysfunction in education, health, welfare and employment support. It is right to say that poverty shapes early childhood and is a contributing factor to how children grow up. It is also right to say that care-experienced young people are particularly at risk of disengagement. Clearly, a reason for that is that support and stability fall away when they are most needed.
The fact that 84% of NEET young people surveyed want to find a job, education or training shows that young people do have a desire for work, contrary to the stereotyping by some politicians and some in the media. Crucially, the report highlights that there are fewer entry-level roles and apprenticeships available—their number is down over 40% in the last decade. The Government must take an early-interventionist approach, provide intensive employment support and work with organisations and charities with comprehensive experience in this area.
However, the Milburn report is weak on the role of incentives in the social security system. It suggests that the system’s design encourages young people to claim and remain on health-related benefits, rather than participate in work and training. That narrow framing is wrong and does not take into account individuals with complex needs having to negotiate a difficult system. Claiming the UC health element of personal independent payment is no easy process. The Government must end the degrading manner of the system and correct the fact that people are often wrongly denied support as a result. For so many, the act of claiming is an undignified and demeaning endurance test. That is a stain on the state. Reform of the system is needed, but it must be achieved with care, compassion and investment.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this very popular and important debate.
The Milburn report shows that we have to change how we talk about young people out of work and education. As has just been cited, 84% of those who we call NEETs do not want to be out of work. They do not lack potential or desire; they lack opportunity. That is the problem we have to fix. The report also shows that disconnection begins long before the age of 16, in school. Sadly, I see that in Southampton, where persistent absence has been creeping up year on year.
I very much welcome the push in the curriculum and assessment review to make school more engaging—to broaden the curriculum so that there are more hooks, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, in the humanities. If we allow children to switch off at around 14, they are far more likely to be out of education and training at 18.
Southampton has also shown some great opportunities that work. Safe New Futures is a local charity that works with long-term unemployed young people, combining mental health support and group cognitive behavioural therapy with job-ready skills and vocational training. When I visited, one young person told me that, after an incredibly difficult period, the course had given them the confidence to enter the world of work and pursue their career. Half of the NEET participants in that scheme go on to find work. Saints Works, which is run by Saints Foundation—the charitable wing of our excellent football club—combines skills growth and mentoring, and then in-work follow-up support once someone has got into a job. We also have a young adults employment hub, which brings the council, jobcentre work coaches and youth workers under one roof.
None of those are national schemes; they are all local partnerships that know their young people by name, and that is the lesson I hope the final report draws. My question to the Minister is this: when we respond to the final report, will there be sustained funding for local programmes like these that are getting the work done?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing today’s debate.
As a result of “Young people and work”, which is evidence-based and astute in its diagnosis, we understand the long-term sustained challenges. The challenges that young people face today have been sustained through generations. Of course, this is the generation who had Sure Start stripped away and youth services removed, and have been in the straitjacket of the education system—not to mention covid. Young people in society today face multiple challenges—the challenges are high—but we have a great opportunity to change the system.
I have met young people who have been on the Spear programme in York, which gets 78% of young people from long-term unemployment into work. It does not penalise young people but encourages them, giving them confidence and aptitude to engage in work—the skills that are needed to get work, but also to work with employers in the city. That is really important, because employers need to be equally engaged as partners in the programme.
In his diagnosis in chapter 7 of his report, Alan Milburn says that we do not just need programmes; we need a system change, and one focused on outcomes. The one point that I want to draw out for the Minister is that it starts too late. These programmes kick in when young people are 16 and are already on the pathway. We should introduce them into schools, with not only careers support and work placement opportunities, but employability programmes. The Spear scheme is a four-week programme—two half-days a week and then a one session one-to-one where young people get the skills and are driven forward—but then a year of support into work. That is the kind of programme we need.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In the north-east, almost one in five young people—over 53,000 young people—are not in education, employment or training. Every week, whether I am in Haltwhistle, Haydon Bridge, Allendale, Bellingham, Prudhoe, Hexham itself, Throckley or any of the other 200 communities that make up my constituency, I meet young people who are being failed in different ways by a system that has for a long time failed to perform for them.
For a long time, constituencies like mine simply have not been part of the national conversation on this issue. Rural youth unemployment has been off the political agenda for quite some time. I think it was in 2012 when the Commission for Rural Communities warned that rural NEET numbers were rising fast and no one in government was taking overall responsibility for it. In my communities, this is a crisis that is rooted in decades of complacency and failure to take on the underlying factors. It is hard enough for young people to find a job at the moment without having to worry about a bus that may never arrive or a train that may not be on time.
I want to touch briefly in the short time I have—I would make a longer speech if I had time—on the requirement for post-16 travel support. We must make sure that any holistic system that comes forward works for the entirety of the communities it serves. In Northumberland, the post-16 support that does exist is targeted largely at the central Alnwick to Morpeth corridor rather than at west Northumberland. The Morpeth Conservatives who run the country council are largely occupied with making sure the system works for that corridor rather than being a holistic solution for the entire county. That is not something that happens by accident; it is due to the ongoing neglect of the west of the county by the county council.
Let me ask the Minister three further things. Will the system be rural-proofed from the start, will the Government look further at councils to bolster the post-16 travel duty, and will they back vocational and SEND provision closer to where young people live, even in rural communities where the headcount is naturally smaller?
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I want to acknowledge the important role of the Milburn review and its interim report within the broader context of welfare reform. Social security is important in achieving social justice, but it is also a key part of a thriving and resilient economy, providing the necessary safeguards to help people in times of need and a route back to work for those that can.
The Department for Work and Pensions spends roughly £25 on benefits for every £1 spent on employment support. In practice, that means that only around one in five NEETs receive meaningful employment support. That is simply not sustainable. I welcome the emphasis in Milburn’s interim report on strengthening employment support for young people, and I expect the final recommendations of the review to build on that with a clear national strategy.
Such a national strategy is crucial, but what we do locally is equally important, hence the importance of partnering with local providers and career services. In my constituency I have been leading the Aspire project, in which I work with Kirklees college, C+K Careers and local businesses to identify young people who are NEET and pair them with mentors who can offer guidance, support and work experience. The aim is to help them gain confidence in themselves and provide pragmatic advice when it comes to accessing education and employment opportunities. That is a first step, but it is a big step for many of the young people in engaging with colleges and employers. Local and national need to be in lockstep when it comes to the issue of NEETs, so will the Minister please comment on how the Government can help achieve that?
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey.
The number of young people not in education, employment or training is one of the biggest challenges facing the country. Contrary to stereotype, though, in my experience most young people desperately want the opportunities that previous generations took for granted. The problem is that those opportunities simply are not there for too many of them. That is partly because we have spent so long over the past few years talking about the cost of welfare, but nowhere near enough time talking about the cost of failing to invest in our young people. I am pleased that the Milburn report will reportedly call for much more investment, because we cannot seriously expect to tackle the problem on the cheap.
It is not just about how much we spend; it is about how we spend it. Earlier this year I led a debate in this Chamber on place-based employment support. I made an argument then that I wish to repeat today. The barriers facing a young person in my Southport constituency are not necessarily the same as those facing someone in London or Manchester, so localism matters. We need to give local areas the freedom and resources they need to bring together colleges, employers, jobcentres, health services and community organisations and design support around the people who need it. We need a system that aligns training and education with the types of jobs that might be on offer in the local area. There is no point in training young people for jobs that do not exist locally now, never mind in 10 or 15 years’ time.
What we are debating today has to be part of a wider economic strategy that creates decent jobs in our towns and communities, not just in our big cities. My request of the Minister is simple: let us invest properly, trust local communities to deliver, and judge success not just by how much we cut the benefits bill, but by how many young people we help build decent, fulfilling working lives. Making the country a better place for the next generation should be what we are here in this place to do.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Every young person deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Where someone grows up, the circumstances into which they are born and the financial position of their family should never determine the opportunities available to them. We have 1 million NEETs, but we should be clear that this is not simply a question of young people needing to try harder. It is about whether we, as a society, are providing the right opportunities, support and pathways into employment. I particularly want to highlight the challenges facing young people in Derbyshire Dales and our rural communities.
Public transport is often limited, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. A young person living in a village outside Matlock, Ashbourne, Bakewell or Wirksworth might find that a job, apprenticeship or college course is technically available but practically inaccessible. Transport costs can make low-paid, entry-level employment financially unviable. Limited local provision could also mean that young people have to travel considerable distances to access further education, vocational training or specialist support.
Any effective measures must recognise and address those challenges. There are real opportunities in Derbyshire Dales: our tourism and hospitality businesses, agriculture sector, construction industry, care services and growing green economy all need skilled and enthusiastic young people. We should be connecting local people with those opportunities, rather than allowing vacancies and skills shortages to exist alongside young people struggling to find their first job. I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken. The additional £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy, the ambition to create 500,000 opportunities, expanded youth hubs, apprenticeship support and the local jobs guarantee are important interventions, as is their commitment to removing barriers for disabled young people and those experiencing mental health difficulties. We must recognise that people need different kinds of support and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work, but there is so much more to do.
In particular, I want to see the expansion of successful local initiatives such as Youth Employment Support Derbyshire, which provides young people with careers advice, training and one-to-one support, and the Unstoppable Derbyshire programme, which helps 18 to 21-year-olds overcome barriers including mental health, financial difficulties and housing problems. Those initiatives demonstrate what can be achieved when support is tailored to individual circumstances. We should build on them and ensure that young people in Derbyshire Dales can access comparable support regardless of where they live.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Nearly a million young people are outside education, employment or training. We call them NEETs, but we should consign that term to history as it defines them entirely by what they are not, and it tells us nothing about what they can do or how they can get there. I have been spending a lot of time in Selly Oak. Earlier this year, I brought local employers together to talk about what they were seeing. They told me that too many young people were reaching them without the confidence or basic communication skills needed to get into work.
Some of those problems start exceptionally early: at 10 to 16, not 16 to 24. I have spoken before about boys and young men. Just 62% of boys are school-ready, compared with 75% of girls, and they fall further behind through school. The NEET rate nearly trebles at 18, when the statutory participation age ends. If school has not worked for them and there is no obvious next step, it is disappointingly easy to drift out of sight. I am convinced that we need employers’ involvement much earlier with work exposure to inspire, embolden and enlighten, and to close the gap between expectation and reality across the job market.
The Government should be obsessed with closing that gap. As we invest in rebuilding British industrial capacity, we need to think about where the workforce will come from. If a company is expanding a factory with public support, who are we training to work there? If the company knows it will need technicians in five years, it should be working with schools and colleges much earlier. An apprenticeship will not be the immediate answer for everyone, as some young people will need help before they are ready or before an employer is willing to give them their first experience of work. The youth guarantee needs to reach those people.
Alan Milburn estimates the annual cost of youth inactivity at £125 billion, which is an extraordinary amount of money. Minister, are we working across the Department for Education, the Department of Health and DWP? Are we working earlier with 10 to 16-year-olds? Are we closing the gap between expectations and the reality of the job market? We should be much better at bringing employers and education together, and in doing so we should consign the term “NEETs” to history.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate. A lot has been said by hon. Members from across the House that I will seek not to repeat, but I would like to push the Minister on a couple of points coming out of the Milburn review. Its diagnosis shines a light on what was known to most of us. Indeed, Stoke-on-Trent has quite often been seen as an exemplar both of where things were terrible and of where things are getting better. Our NEET rate has dropped from 16% to below 10% because of work done by partnerships, but we still have more to do.
Part of that is because our local environment has flexed to do what it needs to, sometimes against Ofsted and Government guidelines. I commend to the Minister the work done by the CEO Futures Forum, which brings together multi-academy trusts from across the city to look at the pathways that young people need now for the jobs that will exist in the future, much as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said. We are constrained by the fact that good apprenticeship providers are unable to take on the numbers of young people who want to do apprenticeships, because they are held back by the de minimis rules under the apprenticeship provider and assessment register regulations. I urge the Minister and her Department to look at how, if this is a moral crusade, we can use our entire arsenal to ensure that every young person has the right pathway. If need be, that should include liberalising some of the rules around the registration of apprenticeship providers so that groups such as Dan Canavan’s Spark Group can take on the young people they want.
I urge the Minister not to fall back on some of the rudimentary politics that suggests that artificially capping the wages we pay young people, in contrast to the wages we pay a full-time adult, is a way to address the NEET problem. People should be paid fairly for the work they do, regardless of their age or the way they do it. That was a Government manifesto commitment, but the siren voices are calling for it to be slowed down. I urge the Government to resist that as much as they can.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this vital debate.
The interim report of the Milburn review is as stark as it is comprehensive. It is a damning indictment of a broken system that has left more than a million young people across the country not yet in employment, education or training. That is more than a million young people whose talents, aspirations and potential are at risk of being wasted, leaving long-lasting scars on themselves, their families, their communities and the taxpayer. Such a figure reflects not individual failure but a systemic failure at the heart of Government policy over many years.
For too long, young people have been failed by Governments that lacked the very ambition that they themselves hold. Conservative Governments in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood have presided over a steady erosion of opportunity. Those parties’ level of interest in today’s debate is instructive. They failed to equip young people with the skills they need, they failed to provide the support that young people deserve, and they failed to recognise that lack of opportunity is a driving force behind rising youth joblessness.
We see the career ladder being weakened everywhere. Entry-level jobs have declined dramatically, with 1.6 million fewer opportunities available across the country. The traditional Saturday jobs that many of us had when we were growing up—I worked in our local veterinary surgery—have been disappearing for years, while apprenticeship starts have fallen by 35% over the last decade. The hiring process itself is broken.
Young people desperately want to work, and they need to be given the opportunity to do so. These complex, multifaceted challenges deserve a comprehensive plan that is equal to the generational scale of the crisis, so I urge the Minister and the Government to set a clear direction that fixes youth mental health services, reforms technical education, bridges the transition gap between compulsory education and employment, and transforms the culture in our jobcentres.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this debate. Across my constituency of Aylesbury and the villages, there is no shortage of talent or ambition among our young people. What they lack is opportunity, confidence and sustained trust and support. I will share three ideas that I think will help, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
First, we have to recognise the multiple pathways to success in work. Both national and local policy should better recognise and support self-employment and entrepreneurialism as legitimate employment pathways. We have a fantastic example in Aylesbury, where the “Making It” programme run by Youth Concern combines leadership development with guidance on self-employment and the chance to gain direct experience working in the creative industries. The programme has had strong interest from young people, particularly those for whom traditional employment feels too inaccessible or unattractive.
Secondly, we have to measure success not just by how many people enter jobs but by whether they stay in them. The Buckinghamshire College Group offers the “Positive Steps” programme in collaboration with Jobcentre Plus and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust. The jobcentre identifies people who are unemployed, the college provides training through its immersive healthcare suite and its work preparation support, and the NHS trust provides a placement and a guaranteed interview. The important point is that it does not stop there. The college’s programme data shows that 85% of participants are not just getting jobs but progressing into permanent, sustainable NHS employment.
Thirdly, we have to recognise that employment is just one part of young people’s lives. Too many young people experience poor mental health, family difficulties, exclusion from education and other challenges. As a result, they lack the confidence to progress into education, training or employment. Beyond the job interviews and the work prep, they need access to mental health support, as well as wider support to help them recognise and articulate their strengths and skills. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and to making Alan Milburn’s recommendations a reality for young people in Aylesbury and the villages.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this debate.
Alan Milburn’s interim report is a thorough and, in places, uncomfortable piece of work, but it is an important foundation for anyone serious about tackling the waste of a million young people’s talent, not least because it takes apart some myths. Some 54% of young people who are NEET told the review that they want to work, and another 30% want to get into education or training. These are not lazy young people: as the report puts it, they are “exhausted”. The mechanisms that used to bring young people into work are working less well. The first rung has thinned. The share of 16 and 17-year-old students doing any paid work has fallen from 35% in 2006 to just 19%.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
UKHospitality highlights that over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector, particularly in areas such as Torbay where hospitality can be the first rung of employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are seeing a crisis of opportunity for young people, rather than a NEET crisis?
Ian Sollom
I agree. Opportunities have been thinning for a long time, and that is a big part of the issue.
Employers ask for experience, but the pathways through which experience was once gained have narrowed or gone. The report is blunt about why the system is failing. Britain has not ignored youth employment. It has had the new deal for young people, the future jobs fund, the youth contract and kickstart, but each was abolished once the immediate crisis passed.
Milburn describes what we have as “parallel play”: education is accountable for attainment, welfare for benefit flows and health for treatment, but nobody is accountable for the pathway from childhood to working life. The clearest sign of that is what the report calls the “hidden cohort”: about 314,000 NEETs aged 18 to 24 in England, nearly half of whom claim no benefits at all. They are in no caseload, and no institution is responsible for them.
The system needs a long-term commitment through a permanent architecture. That is why the Liberal Democrats advocate a wholesale overhaul of jobs coaching so that every young person has a real person who sits down with them several times a year and helps them to plan where they want to get to, building on models from the Netherlands and Germany.
Such support has to be delivered locally, because labour markets, transport and employers operate locally. The risk, Milburn warns us, is that without a national framework, devolution can become a delegation of failure. Skills England ought to be part of that national framework, but in its short life it has already been moved from one Department to another, and it remains simply an Executive agency. It needs supercharging; it should become a genuinely independent body with the standing to work across Government, including local government.
The Milburn review estimates that for every £1 the Department for Work and Pensions spent on employment support for young people in 2024-25, about £25 was spent on benefits. In its words,
“The UK’s approach for decades has been to pay the bill for…youth inactivity, rather than invest in preventing it”.
Milburn argues that the Treasury’s usual value-for-money tests do not look far enough ahead to capture the lasting damage of time out of work or training at a young age. Once that is counted, early intervention pays for itself many times over.
In the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced that from the next spending review there will be a ringfenced budget for prevention. The question is whether the support for young people at risk of becoming NEET will go in that ringfenced budget. The report shows that we can already identify many of those most at risk while they are still at school, but the pupil premium stops when a young person turns 16, at exactly the point that the risk peaks. Extending it to post-16 learners, including those in further education, is a long-standing call from the Lib Dems. I hope we see it in Milburn’s prescription. We would also like to see a guarantee to every young person of 100 hours of work experience before they turn 18, so that it no longer depends on who their parents happen to know.
That brings me to who else needs to be part of the solution. Milburn has said that there is a contract at the heart of all this, referring to the relationship between young people and the state. I suggest that the contract is missing a signatory. For most young people, the first job is offered not by the state but by an employer. If the final report’s recommendations are to work, employers must be part of the bargain. Milburn’s own evidence makes the case. He argues that as the cost of employment rises, the case for taking on someone inexperienced becomes harder, unless employers are given the support to offset the risk.
On cost, the national insurance changes of the Government’s first Budget undoubtedly added to the pressure on part-time, entry-level roles, especially in retail and hospitality. That is why we Liberal Democrats have called, at the very least, for a lower rate between £5,000 and £9,100, but cost is only half of it. A large employer can absorb the risk of a young recruit who needs supervision and support; a small firm often cannot, however cheap the hire. That is why we have proposed skills co-operatives as part of the solution, with SMEs pooling training and pastoral support so that no single business carries the whole risk of giving a young person their first start.
I realise that the Minister will not pre-empt the final report, so I have three questions of principle. First, the report highlights that no institution is responsible for this. Does the Minister accept it as principle that someone must be, and should that responsibility be with a named local body working within a national framework that guarantees a minimum standard? Secondly, will employment support and post-16 provision for disadvantaged young people count as preventive spending when the new ringfenced budget is set? Thirdly, before any new obligations are placed on young people, will the Government ensure that the support offer is in place? The report says that inaction or tinkering at the edges is itself a decision—a costly one. I hope the Minister will tell us that the final report will be met with something much more than that.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing the debate. I thank all Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who referred to the thoughts of even the most zealous right-wingers. I am not sure where I sit on his zealot-o-meter, but perhaps we will see by the end of my speech—I am sure I will wear it with pride. It is great to be shadowing the Minister; it is always wonderful to debate a fellow Boltonian.
The issues raised by the interim report are made all the more topical by the delay in publishing the final report and by last week’s Budget, which was notable for the absence of any action on the number of young people not in education, employment or training. Alongside the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a figure that should give every Member pause. Over this Parliament, the Government will spend £911 billion on working-age welfare. That is more than £48,000 for every one of Britain’s more than 18 million working households.
There are few subjects this House debates that matter more to the future of our country. Behind every figure in Alan Milburn’s interim report is a young person whose working life is either not starting well or not starting at all.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution I highlighted the issue for young people with mental health issues. That the percentage of those affected went up from 21% to 35% is an indication of a special issue for young people today. The hon. Gentleman will know that through his own constituency, as I do through mine. Does he agree that young people’s mental health must be a priority and that we must focus on them to ensure that they get the employment and the purpose in life that they need?
Mr Snowden
Speaking of badges of honour, it is always a badge of honour to be intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I totally agree with his point.
The figures that I just referred to are stark. Youth unemployment reached 15.6% in the first quarter of this year—that is 715,000 young people and 139,000 more than when this Labour Government came to office. Almost a million young people—981,000—are not in education, employment or training. Our youth unemployment rate is now higher than that of Hungary, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Perhaps the most telling finding of all is that six in 10 young people without a job have never worked. For them, this is not about getting back into work; it is about getting a start in the first place.
The Opposition welcome the review and recognise much of its diagnosis. Work is not just a wage; it brings structure, confidence and purpose. Prolonged unemployment early in life leaves a scar on earnings, health and life chances that can last for decades. In Government, the Conservatives understood that. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the kickstart scheme during the pandemic, helping more than 150,000 young people into paid work. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the apprenticeship levy and supported millions of apprenticeship starts. We acted because we knew that the first job matters most. It teaches the value of punctuality and the necessity of taking instructions and it builds social skills in a personal setting.
Since the election, this Government have had more than two years to get to grips with post-covid youth unemployment and the rising cost of welfare. Instead, we have seen a culture of dither, delay and U-turn.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that making it easier for young people to get functional skills qualifications, rather than being stuck in an endless cycle of resits, would allow them to get those qualifications and then on to an apprenticeship and into work, exactly as those at the Aspire youth hub in Witney do so well?
Mr Snowden
Tailored support is something that I will come on to shortly.
Worse still, the Government’s own choices have made the problem harder. The rise in employer national insurance and the new burdens of the Employment Rights Act 2025 have made it more expensive and risky to take a chance on a young person. The Government cannot tax the first rung of the ladder and then express surprise that fewer young people are climbing it.
At the same time, spending on personal independence payments for 16 to 24-year-olds has risen from £1.3 billion to £3.2 billion in five years. Some 45% of young people who are NEET now report a disability, and of those who fall out of work or study through ill health, eight in 10 are still NEET two years later. New analysis from the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows just how deep that runs. In April this year, more than two thirds of universal credit claimants in their twenties—some 870,000 young people—were not in work. In just two years PIP claims rose by almost a quarter among 20 to 29-year-olds and by nearly as much among 16 to 19-year-olds. These are not numbers to be managed; they are young lives being put on hold.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability at the DWP has told us that PIP is “not fit for purpose” yet he also said that the current level of spending is not “of great concern.” The House is entitled to know which of those statements accurately reflects the Government’s position. Nor is it reassuring that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is reported to have written to Peter Mandelson:
“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’”.
All of this raises some simple but urgent questions for this Government that I would like to put to the Minister. First, will she confirm exactly when Milburn’s final report will be published and when the Government will respond to it in full? Will the Minister also explain why neither the Milburn review nor the Timms review was allowed to report before the Budget? Secondly, will she set out precisely how those two reviews will be brought together? Will there be a single package of welfare reform and when will it come before the House? Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the rise in employer national insurance has reduced entry-level hiring?
Alex McIntyre
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman might remind the House how much employer national insurance contributions are for an under 21-year-old earning less than £50,000 a year.
Mr Snowden
That is precisely why the Conservative party has pledged to reduce them by 50% to take them down even further.
Mr Snowden
We are talking about 21 to 24-year-olds.
Fourthly, on the youth guarantee and youth jobs grant, how many young people have actually started a job so far? What is the cost per place and how many remain in unsubsidised work once the subsidy ends? Fifthly, how many apprenticeship starts have there been for those aged 25 since the growth skills levy replaced the apprenticeship levy and how does that compare with the year before?
Finally, will the Government at last accept the offer made by the Leader of the Opposition, repeated at Prime Minister’s questions in June, to work with us on serious welfare reform? That offer stands because we have a plan. Our get to work scheme rests on a simple principle: no young person who can work should leave education and drift straight on to benefits. Every young person would have a dedicated get to work manager and work requirements from day one. It would cost a net £303 million, paid for by streamlining existing employment schemes and as part of the broader £36 billion of welfare savings set out by the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately).
We all share the objective of giving every young person the dignity and opportunity of work, but good intentions are not good enough and another review is not a plan. A working age welfare bill of £911 billion in a single Parliament is not the mark of a system that works; it is the mark of one that is failing both the young people trapped in it and the working families who pay for it. I press the Government for straight answers today: when will they act, how will they pay for it and how will they measure success?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Lilian Greenwood)
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this important debate. I know that he has paid significant attention to the NEET crisis, and as he has rightly said before, this cannot be treated as just another political issue. It is one of the most serious social and economic challenges facing the country, as is clear from the fact that 20 Back-Bench Members have spoken in this debate—it is just disappointing that the official Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), is the only representative of his party here.
This challenge requires Government, business and others, including the third sector, to come together to tackle it and to treat doing so as a national cause—a moral mission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said. It is for those reasons that the Government commissioned Alan Milburn’s independent report. We asked him to get under the bonnet of this issue and look across the piece at the deep-rooted causes of long-term trends that have led to almost 1 million young people being stuck on the sidelines, not in education, employment or training—I gently remind the Opposition spokesperson that that number rose by 250,000 between 2021 and 2024, and that youth apprenticeship starts fell by 40% over a decade. Those are young people with talent, ambition and potential who, for too long, have not had the opportunities or support they need to succeed.
As the interim report makes clear, the challenge goes deeper than that headline figure. Around 60% of young people who are NEET are economically inactive, and six in 10 have never had a job. This Government will not accept a generation being left behind. We recognise that there is no single cause of rising economic inactivity among young people. Poor physical and mental health, disengagement from education, a lack of qualifications, limited work experience and difficulty navigating a changing labour market can all play a part. That is why our response must be comprehensive and co-ordinated across education, health, welfare, skills, employers and employment services. Alan Milburn’s final report and recommendations are coming soon, but this Government are already taking action.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The Minister listed some of the drivers of the problem, one of which, as many Members mentioned, is transport links, particularly for people in rural communities. As she will remember, the Transport Committee recommended that to help solve the problem, the Government should look seriously at Scotland and institute free bus travel for young people in England. Will the Government look at that again?
Lilian Greenwood
I agree with my hon. Friend that provision of affordable and convenient transport is vital. I shall leave that to my colleagues in the Department for Transport.
At the heart of the Government’s current approach is the youth guarantee, which will be backed by an additional £2.5 billion by 2029, alongside investment in the growth and skills levy. Together, that funding will support almost 1 million young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn or learn. We are strengthening support at every stage of a young person’s journey, and through an expanded network of youth hubs and the youth guarantee gateway, young people will receive earlier and more intensive support.
We owe young people that support. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, this generation has faced, and is facing, a unique combination of challenges. They are not to blame for their predicament; it is the system that has failed them. As many hon. Members have said, the interim Milburn report found that 84% of NEET young people want to find a job, education or training—and I agree that we need to find a better acronym. The will is there, but it needs to be matched by support and opportunities. We are giving employers practical incentives to create those, including the £3,000 youth jobs grant and a £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment. Also, I remind all hon. Members that employers pay zero national insurance on employees who are under the age of 21 and earn less than £50,000.
Our wider reform of employment support also matters. The new jobs and careers service will bring together employment, skills and career support, with stronger links between employers, local areas and people looking for work. The objective is simple: to have a service focused not on processing people, but on helping them to find work, build skills and progress. Personalised support will be at the heart of our approach, to help people to access the support that best meets their needs. We have launched new digital tools, expanded community-based delivery and strengthened our employer offer.
We are also increasing access to work experience and training, which will play a critical role in breaking that age-old cycle—no experience, no job; and no job, no experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) got her first chance at a vet’s, and my Saturday job was at the newly opened Superdrug in Bolton. Such opportunities help us to learn what work is like, but far too many young people have not been getting them. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted, work experience is as important as, if not more important than, ever.
However, where unemployment becomes entrenched, we must go further. That is why the jobs guarantee will offer eligible 18 to 24-year-olds who have been claiming universal credit and looking for work for 18 months a fully subsidised, six-month paid job. That offer is already changing lives for the better. In August, the Secretary of State came to Boots in Nottingham to meet young people who are benefiting from the jobs guarantee. He spoke about how remarkable it was to see the transformation in their self-belief, confidence and hope for the future. We are going to see more of that. Following the first phase of the programme, national roll-out will begin this month across 25 areas. The programme is expected to support more than 90,000 young people over the next three years.
Crucially, we are also extending that opportunity to eligible young disabled people and young people with long-term health conditions. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) will be pleased to hear that from April 2027, eligible young people receiving health-related benefits can voluntarily take up that offer shortly after their work capability assessments. They are going to the front of the queue, because nobody should be written off because of their health. Through programmes including Connect to Work, WorkWell, Access to Work and disability employment advisers, we are bringing employment and health support closer together. Our approach recognises that different people face different combinations of barriers and that we must see people in the round and take a joined-up approach to how we offer support.
We also know that we cannot solve this challenge only when a young person walks through the jobcentre door. Prevention must begin much earlier. There is a strong relationship, as hon. Members have said, between disengagement from school and becoming NEET later in life. That is why improving attendance is fundamental to our approach. We have set a national ambition to increase school attendance to over 94% by 2028-29, and we are supporting schools through clearer expectations, better data and new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—attendance and behaviour hubs. Alongside those actions, we are fixing the broken SEND system and reforming careers provision so that young people have greater exposure to the workplace before they leave education.
I mentioned earlier how crucial work experience is. That is why our ambition is for every young person to receive two weeks of meaningful workplace experience during secondary school, building progressively through key stages 3 and 4. There are 44 careers hubs supporting that work, while additional provision is targeted towards young people who face the greatest barriers.
Gareth Snell
The aspiration of work experience is laudable, but the guidance that came out in the recent keeping children safe in education update now requires, if a young person will be spending more than three days in a workplace, that workplace to undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check, as part of its being an unregulated activity. That is a significant barrier for many small businesses, particularly those that have previously hosted young people, but now have to go through the burden of getting a check. Could the Minister take that back to the Department and work with the Department for Education to find a way of ironing out that kink, so that we keep children safe but do not preclude the opportunities they previously had?
Lilian Greenwood
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of that issue and we are setting about addressing it.
Alongside all those measures, we are reforming post-16 education so that young people can have clearer academic, technical and vocational routes. We are transforming the apprenticeship levy, backed by an additional £1 billion, supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New foundation apprenticeships, fully funded apprenticeships for eligible under-25s and additional support for employers will all create more routes into skilled employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) rightly said, the skills needs are changing in the world of AI.
These reforms represent significant action, but we recognise that the Government must continue to listen and learn. Alan Milburn’s interim report set out starkly the scale and complexity of the participation challenge facing this generation. Our ambition is straightforward: wherever a young person starts from, whatever barriers they face, they should have a genuine route into education, training or good work. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central.
Achieving that ambition means intervening earlier and joining up services across departmental boundaries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said. It means working with employers, colleges and local organisations such as those highlighted by many hon. Members, including Saints Works in Southampton, the Spear Programme in York and Making It in Aylesbury, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said, place-based solutions show great results. It also means refusing to accept that any young person is destined to remain outside opportunity. I should have said that it also means better public transport, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) emphasised.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is worth noting that 13% of NEETs are university graduates. I meet many people who have just graduated with good degrees from good universities, who are applying for more than 300 jobs and not even getting a response. There is very little talk about support for graduates, and we are disappointed that in the Budget there was no mention of reforming the student loan system that is adding pressure on them. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are looking at the student loan system?
Lilian Greenwood
I can assure the hon. Member that we are considering the issues for graduates, as well as for younger people leaving school with lower-level qualifications.
Tackling the NEET challenge is not only an economic imperative, important as that is; it is about fairness, aspiration and ensuring that every young person has the chance to build a better future. We look forward to the publication of the final “Young People and work” report in the coming weeks. Its findings will provide an important opportunity to consider what more must be done to address the challenges facing young people today, and to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to participate, to progress and to thrive.
Andrew Ranger
I thank all hon. Members for coming today, for their valuable contributions and for sharing their experiences and the work going on in their areas. Doing that is vital, because we can all learn from one another and take this mission forward. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the spokespeople from the other parties, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), for their responses.
The number of people contributing today shows how important this issue is across the UK. We are at an important moment, because the publication of the final Milburn report is coming up. How we respond here is vital; it will define our country and our legacy here for many years into the future. It will need all of us to fix this issue, and I hope that we can work across the House and beyond to do that. It is clear, from everyone’s contributions here today, that we need a whole-system approach, covering transport, the economic approach, early intervention, local design and delivery, and so many other things that hon. Members have mentioned. Once again, I thank them all for contributing to today’s debate, and thank you, Ms McVey.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the findings of the Milburn Review into Young people and work: interim report, published on 28 May 2026.
Strangulation: Prevention and Awareness
(1 day, 17 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
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the prevention and public awareness of strangulation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Twenty-seven per cent of women killed by men in the UK were strangled to death. That is a shocking statistic that should concern us all, but behind the statistics are the stories of victims and survivors, many of whom have bravely shared their experiences. I want to recognise their courage today, and thank everyone who has helped to bring this issue to Parliament, particularly the Institute for Addressing Strangulation.
One of the reasons why I am grateful to have secured this debate is that far too few people understand how prevalent non-fatal strangulation is or the devastating harm that it can cause. But let me start where I believe we must begin: by listening to survivors. Last month, I attended the IFAS conference, where I met an inspirational woman whom I will call Rose to protect her identity. I want to share her story because it brings home, far more powerfully than any statistic could, the devastating impact that strangulation can have on someone’s life—not just in the moment, but for many years afterwards.
In 2021, Rose was raped in an ordeal that lasted several hours. During this already horrific attack, she was also subjected to strangulation. It was the moment she thought that she was going to die. As Rose explained:
“The strangulation was not a minor detail within the attack; it was central to the violence I experienced.”
In the aftermath, Rose sought medical help at several hospitals, but struggled to obtain an appropriate assessment, have her injuries documented or receive the compassionate, trauma-informed care that she so desperately needed. At one hospital, she waited alone for hours before eventually leaving. At another, her request for photographs of her injuries was not acted on and she was questioned about why she had not reported the rape.
Rose had already endured an horrific attack, yet when she turned to the very services that should have helped her, she was left feeling dismissed and unsupported. The consequences of that failure were significant. Rose waited almost a month before reporting the attack to the police. Even today, she continues to live with the physical and psychological consequences of what happened to her.
Rose’s attacker was eventually sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with a further five-year extension period. Despite that outcome, Rose describes having to fight for the strangulation to be properly recognised as central to the violence that she experienced.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this incredibly sensitive and difficult subject to the House. Back in 2022, we in Northern Ireland introduced legislation for a stand-alone criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 14 years. Strangulation is a terrifyingly accurate indicator of escalating abuse and potential lethality. Does the hon. Lady, who is a friend, agree that if we are truly to protect victims, the Government must work hand in hand with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and local support charities to launch a robust and targeted public awareness campaign, to ensure that healthcare workers, police officers and victims themselves can recognise the signs of non-fatal strangulation before it turns fatal?
Aphra Brandreth
The hon. Member makes an important point. Later in my speech I will address the work that has already happened in Northern Ireland to raise awareness, but certainly much more needs to be done.
To return to Rose’s story, the message that she gives us today is really clear:
“Do not wait for a perfect disclosure, a police report or visible injury to take strangulation seriously.”
I want to recognise the positive steps that have been taken to recognise the seriousness of this offence. The introduction of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important step taken by the previous Conservative Government, recognising that strangulation should be treated as a serious crime in its own right. But legislation is only part of the answer. My question to the Minister is about whether it is working effectively in practice. Are we doing enough to close the gaps between healthcare, safeguarding and criminal justice that have failed victims such as Rose?
Rose’s experience is sadly far from an isolated case. Strangulation is reported in around one in five rapes and sexual assaults, but it is also a particularly serious and dangerous form of domestic abuse, with a quarter of women who access domestic abuse community and refuge services reporting having experienced strangulation or suffocation. It is particularly frightening that strangulation is also a major warning sign of potentially fatal violence. Research has found that women who have experienced strangulation by an intimate partner face around seven times the odds of being killed by that partner. That is why strangulation must be treated as a red line. It is not simply another act of violence; it is a warning sign that must be recognised and acted on before it is too late.
I pay tribute to the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, led by Bernie Ryan, which has worked tirelessly to give victims a voice and improve our understanding of the crime. IFAS has made an invaluable contribution to improving recognition of strangulation and the response to those who experience it. The evidence it has uncovered is staggering: between June 2024 and June 2025, police recorded 44,426 strangulation and suffocation offences in England and Wales, up 13% on the previous year and 87% since the stand-alone offence was introduced in 2022. Some of that increase may reflect better recognition and reporting, which is welcome, but we must not lose sight of what the figures represent. Behind every recorded offence is a victim of an extremely dangerous act of violence. For too many women, strangulation forms part of a wider pattern of domestic abuse and coercive control, with potentially devastating consequences.
The Government have set themselves the ambition of halving violence against women and girls, and I am sure Members across the House will want to see that achieved, but if we are serious about preventing violence against women and girls, we must be serious about recognising strangulation as one of the clearest warning signs of potentially fatal abuse. That means recognising it early, supporting victims and ensuring that police, healthcare and safeguarding professionals understand the risks and act. This is not just about securing justice after a crime has been committed; it is about preventing further violence and potentially saving lives.
IFAS has done remarkable work since the stand-alone offence came into force in June 2022. I hope the Minister has read its recent impact report, which sets out clearly what still needs to change. Let me start with the medical response. To understand why this is so important, we need to understand what strangulation does to the body. Strangulation can restrict the flow of blood to and from the brain. It can cause hypoxia, brain injury and stroke, with symptoms that may not become apparent until after the attack. For pregnant women, it can have serious consequences for their pregnancy and their unborn baby. It can leave lasting psychological scars that survivors carry for years. Yet in many cases, there are no visible signs of injury at all. That means that a woman who walks into A&E looking on the surface as though she is fine may be anything but. If our response depends on what can be seen, we will continue to fail women who need help.
I recently met my constituent, Dr Helen Bichard, a clinical neuropsychologist whose research includes the effects of non-fatal strangulation. She made it clear that healthcare professionals need the right guidance and training to recognise the danger and respond with the compassion that someone such as Rose was denied. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that happens consistently across healthcare services.
There is an inequality at the heart of the current system that must be addressed. If a woman is strangled during a rape or sexual assault, she may be able to access a sexual assault referral centre with specialist medical, psychological and forensic support. But if a woman is strangled by her partner, in her own kitchen, without sexual assault, she does not necessarily have access to the same care or forensic medical examination. The medical risk does not disappear because of the circumstances in which the attack took place, and nor should a woman’s access to proper assessment, documentation of her injuries and ongoing support. That is why I support IFAS’s call for a national pathway, so that wherever a victim first seeks help, they can access the care and support they need. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that proposal.
The same applies to the criminal justice system. Now that non-fatal strangulation is a stand-alone offence, we must ensure that the police have the training and resources to investigate it effectively. Will the Minister update us on how the Government are assessing the implementation of the offence? What more is being done to improve consistency in police investigations and evidence collection?
Improving our response to offences that have already happened is vital, but we must also stop them happening in the first place. That means confronting an uncomfortable truth: strangulation is increasingly being normalised. Young people encounter depictions of strangulation through pornography and social media, often without the information they need to understand the very real dangers involved. We need to get the message across: there is no safe way to strangle.
Sadly, it is not only in pornography that strangulation is being portrayed in ways that risk normalising it. This year, the BBC broadcast Romania’s Eurovision entry, a song called “Choke Me” in which that phrase is repeated around 30 times. I find it deeply troubling that a song that appears to glamorise such a dangerous act was broadcast into family living rooms across the country. I am particularly disappointed that the BBC, funded by licence fee payers, did not heed the concerns raised about the dangerous message the song could send. This is not about censorship; it is about the messages that we are sending to young people, and whether we are doing enough to educate them about the very real dangers of strangulation.
IFAS research found that, among sexually experienced 16 to 34-year-olds, almost two thirds reported having been strangled during sex. That is a deeply concerning finding. We need to talk to young people about healthy relationships and make sure that they understand the very real risks of strangulation. Our public institutions have a responsibility to take these issues seriously. Will the Government raise with broadcasters concerns about the portrayal and normalisation of strangulation?
This debate is particularly timely, because this Friday new criminal offences will come into force in England and Wales that make it illegal to possess or publish pornographic material that depicts strangulation or suffocation. I very much welcome this change, which follows the important work of Baroness Bertin and her review of pornography regulation, but legislation must be effective in practice, so will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that the new offences are enforced?
Alongside legislation and education, we need to raise public awareness more widely. When Northern Ireland changed its law, it ran a broadcast and poster campaign so that the public understood what had changed and why, yet there has been no equivalent national campaign in England and Wales. A well-targeted public awareness campaign could help to challenge dangerous misconceptions, encourage victims to seek help and make sure that people understand the risks. Will the Minister commit to that today?
Regarding the future of IFAS, I acknowledge the Minister’s letter, which arrived—almost as if by magic—yesterday. I welcome the commitment to meet IFAS to discuss its future sustainability and funding opportunities. Unfortunately, there is no commitment to continued funding, let alone the long-term certainty that IFAS needs. Since October 2022, IFAS has brought together clinical, forensic research and policy expertise that simply did not exist in that form before. The Government have invested more than £2.1 million in that work, and I believe that was money very well spent, but IFAS has been kept going on short-term funding arrangements, sometimes for as little as six months at a time and with very little notice. No small specialist organisation can retain staff, plan its work or protect its hard-won expertise in that kind of uncertainty.
We have invested in building up expertise; surely, we cannot now allow it to be lost. That would be a loss not just for IFAS itself, but for victims, who depend on better awareness, better training and better support, and for the police officers, healthcare professionals and others who rely on the expertise of IFAS to help them to do their jobs effectively. Although the Minister’s letter did not give me the reassurance that I had hoped for, I am giving her an opportunity today to reassure me. Having heard the evidence, will she commit to working with IFAS to secure the long-term funding it needs to continue its vital work?
I will finish by returning to where I began. Rose survived. She found the strength to tell her story and the courage to share it, so that others might be spared what she went through. She should never have had to fight to be believed. The next woman should not have to, either. I also say to anyone listening to this debate who has experienced strangulation: please, seek help. There are organisations that can support you. You do not have to wait until you have visible injuries or have reported a crime to seek medical advice and support.
The previous Conservative Government took an important step by making non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone offence. We must not lose the momentum that that legislation created. We have recognised the seriousness of strangulation in law; now we must make sure that that recognition makes a difference in people’s lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVeigh.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), both for securing this important debate and for her tireless efforts in advocating for improved prevention of strangulation and for greater public awareness of the risks that it poses. I was also going to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution to the debate, but sadly he has left the Chamber.
Before addressing the many points that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made, I will first say that I agree with her on why tackling this issue matters. As she said, this Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and improving our response to strangulation forms an important part of that mission. As she also said, that means recognising the signs early, supporting victims and training professionals to identify those signs.
We know that strangulation is a life-threatening form of violence and abuse, and non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest indicators of future serious violence and domestic homicide. The scale of the challenge is vast. The hon. Member mentioned some of the statistics; around 44,000 strangulation offences were recorded last year alone, up by 13% from the previous year, with research suggesting that over half of young people aged between 16 and 25 have experienced strangulation or suffocation. I thought that nothing could shock me in this job any more, but that last statistic certainly did. There is also worrying evidence that strangulation is becoming normalised among young people.
Let me be clear: there is no safe way to strangle someone. As the hon. Member rightly said, we know that behind every one of those statistics is a victim—a victim living in fear, a victim dealing with trauma, a victim whose life has been put at risk. I thank the hon. Member for sharing Rose’s story, and I thank Rose herself for having the bravery to come forward and tell it. What Rose experienced is shocking and unacceptable, and clearly the failures in her case must be addressed and acted on.
We also know that victims of strangulation can experience serious physical and psychological consequences without displaying obvious signs of injury. Opportunities to identify risks can therefore be missed and victims can be left without the support they need, as the hon. Member rightly said. That is why prevention and public awareness are so important. I assure her that this Government are taking action focused on prevention, but she is right that legislation alone is not enough. There must also be changes in the education, health care and criminal justice systems to prevent and tackle strangulation.
On prevention, we are challenging the harmful attitudes and behaviours that can underpin violence against women and girls through our Enough campaign, which is raising awareness of this abuse. I am happy to send the hon. Member more information about that campaign. We are also supporting young people in and out of schools to understand healthy and respectful relationships by strengthening statutory relationship, sex and health education guidance to include specific teaching on strangulation and suffocation. That is now part of the school curriculum and will be financially supported. As the hon. Member rightly said, it is vital that we get to children early. As she knows, new offences criminalising the possession and publication of pornography depicting acts of strangulation will come into force this Friday. We are taking decisive action to challenge content that can contribute to the normalisation of dangerous and abusive behaviours.
The hon. Member mentioned health, and we are improving the identification of domestic abuse and sexual violence in healthcare settings through the NHS Steps to Safety programme, helping to ensure that victims are connected to specialist support at the earliest opportunity. She gave some really powerful examples of how cases have been missed; hopefully, the roll-out of Steps to Safety will act as a preventive measure, enabling us to get to victims as early as possible. We are also improving research, professional training, clinical guidance and public awareness through our support since its inception of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. It has become an important centre of expertise. I will come on to its funding in a minute.
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury mentioned the importance of justice. We are bringing perpetrators to justice, even where there is no visible injury, through the stand-alone offence of strangulation and suffocation. The police can already use domestic violence protection notices and orders to provide immediate protection following violence or the threat of violence, and that includes strangulation. I am pleased to say that by the end of this year we will strengthen those protections through the roll-out of the new domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which will provide longer term and more flexible protections against all forms of domestic abuse, including strangulation.
An important part of that is multi-agency working. The hon. Member rightly identified that this is not just a matter of the police doing their part, but one of everybody really focusing on the victim and how best to support their needs. We know that there is more to do. Preventing abuse requires awareness, early intervention and a co-ordinated response across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services. Hopefully, the multi-agency work that we are bedding in will make a difference.
The hon. Member asked about policing. She will be aware that we are introducing specialist teams in every single police force across the country. Hopefully, the domestic abuse protection orders that will sit alongside that will go further in encouraging victims and survivors to come forward and know they will be taken seriously. I have heard, as I am sure she has, that too often victims do not come forward because they do not think that they will be believed. Hopefully, we can turn a corner with that.
The hon. Member mentioned the important work of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, and we agree on how invaluable its work is. The Government are proud to have supported IFAS since its inception, investing more than £2 million in strengthening the research, improving professional practice and raising awareness of this issue. Through that support, the Institute has become a recognised centre of national expertise on strangulation, helping to improve understanding of these crimes across healthcare, policing and the criminal justice system while providing training to more than 22,000 frontline professionals. On funding in particular, she will know and, hopefully, understand that I cannot comment on funding arrangements currently being considered. I can say that I support her analysis of the exceptionally good work that the institute does, and I will push for those decisions to be made as soon as possible, so that we can offer the certainty that it so desperately needs.
I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury again for securing this important debate. I offered her a meeting beforehand, and I am more than happy to follow up on that to talk about this further. This debate has, rightly, highlighted the progress that has been made but also the challenges that remain. We know that strangulation is a serious and potentially life-threatening form of abuse; we know that its impacts are often hidden, and we know that improving awareness, identifying risks early and strengthening support for victims can save lives. While progress has been made through the introduction of a stand-alone offence, improving professional awareness and the work of organisations such as IFAS, there is more to do.
We must continue to improve understanding of the risks associated with strangulation and challenge the attitudes that can normalise this abuse. We must continue to work across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services to ensure that victims receive the support they need and deserve. Although it is action rather than words that will ultimately make the difference, debates such as this one provide an important opportunity for us to review our commitment to working together across political parties, sectors and services. Victims deserve nothing less. By doing this work, we can improve awareness, prevent harm, support victims and ensure that this dangerous form of abuse is recognised, challenged and addressed wherever it occurs.
Question put and agreed to.
Train Services: Extreme Weather
(1 day, 17 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
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services.
It is a pleasure to open the debate with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As we all know, we love to talk about the Great British weather but that weather is not particularly predictable and it is becoming more extreme as a result of climate change. Although I was motivated to apply for the debate by the impact of this summer’s heatwave on train services in my constituency, I suspect that hon. Members have come to it with a huge range of weather in mind; I am sure we will hear about something akin to the 10 plagues of Egypt, reflecting the diversity of our great nation.
For many passengers on the Chase line, the turning of the seasons into the warmer months now brings a familiar question: will the train make it to Rugeley? That is not quite the seasonal tradition that people usually have in mind. We might have hoped for a little sunshine, a trip away or an afternoon in the garden but now we will probably have to check whether we can get a train home. Passengers along the Chase line know the problem well: as temperatures rise, delays and cancellations become more frequent. Services are cancelled at short notice and journeys are cut short. The trains that do run are often overcrowded and often halted at Hednesford, with the dreaded rail replacement bus completing the journey to Rugeley Town and Rugeley Trent Valley stations.
My constituent Alan, who heads the Chase Line Rail Promotion group, rightly asked me to tell the House that, for many months this year, trains did not reach Rugeley for much of the day. At best, services were cut from half-hourly to hourly and passengers often did not know even where to catch the bus. As hon. Members will have heard from their constituents, missing a train is not just—as the Tannoy often says—an inconvenience; it can mean missing an appointment, arriving late for work, or even having to lean on friends and family to get home after a long day.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for starting this debate so powerfully. During the July heatwave the East Midlands Railway service between Leicester and Nottingham ran directly and did not stop in between because, the Tannoy said, it was simply too hot. Does the hon. Member agree that students and businesses cannot revolve around a service that works in that way?
Josh Newbury
Having grown up in Leicestershire, I am familiar with the line that the hon. Gentleman talks about. There we have another example of how hot weather can affect train journeys. I will describe in detail how it affects my constituency, but he is right to raise how it affects his constituents. It massively impacts those who need to stop off on that line, at somewhere such as Loughborough, and can really affect their lives.
I wanted to make sure that my constituents’ experiences were heard directly in this debate, so my office ran a survey of people who use the Chase line regularly. The responses covered all sorts of journeys: people going to work, students getting to college, and families trying to get their children where they need to be. I want to share details of a few of those experiences.
Rosie told us about her regular 8 am journey from Hednesford to Walsall for college. She said that delays and cancellations have meant arriving late and missing lessons. Replacement buses make the journey much longer and on some occasions she has had to spend around £22 on an Uber just to arrive on time. She told us that she sometimes found out about cancellations only after buying her ticket and then struggled to get a refund.
Another respondent told us about their son’s travelling to college in Stafford. There is no direct bus from where they live, so the train is only practical way for him to get there. Both parents work so they cannot drop everything to drive their son when the train is cancelled. Emma also highlighted the importance of the Hednesford to Rugeley Trent Valley connection for children who travel on to Stafford. There is no direct bus alternative for that journey, either. Without the train, how are those students supposed to get to college? What do those aborted journeys mean for their futures?
The impact on people travelling to work is just as clear. Jack commutes from Cannock or Hednesford to Birmingham New Street. He described repeated delays and serious overcrowding, particularly at peak times. He told me that during hot weather two train-loads of passengers were often squeezed on to one service. He wants more frequent services during the morning and evening peaks—a fair request.
Angela told us about travelling from Rugeley to work at Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital. She uses the train to avoid the difficulty of parking, but the lack of reliability has made train journeys increasingly difficult. On one occasion her outward journey was cancelled so she had to drive to another station. On her return she found that she could not get back to Rugeley, where her car was parked. Lewis, who also commutes from Rugeley to Birmingham, has recently secured a major career opportunity after years of study and hard work, but constant delays and cancellations make it difficult to know whether he will get to work—and, just as importantly, get home. His commute costs him around £100 a month. We know how difficult it is at the moment for young people to get a foothold in their chosen career. Lewis should be able to concentrate on making the most of his opportunities, rather than worrying about whether the train will get him there. His role is hybrid, which helps, but not everybody has that flexibility.
Kris told us that after repeatedly being stranded at work, they stopped going to the station altogether. On some occasions, they had to travel via Wolverhampton and arrange a lift or find another bus because no replacement transport was even provided. Susan described a similar problem on her journey from Rugeley towards Birmingham. Her return service terminated at Hednesford; with no replacement bus, she had to pay for a separate bus outside Tesco just to get her home. Lee described repeated summer cancellations and the explanations that he has been given about infrastructure and signalling. He said that the stretch between Hednesford and Rugeley must have a world-unique microclimate because it is so consistently affected. I am not sure we can scientifically back that one up, but as a Chase line passenger myself, I am very much with him in that frustration.
The survey that we ran also showed how much the uncertainty can affect people’s working lives. I have heard from constituents who have suffered migraines from the stress of their commute, and others who have had to take annual leave because of cancellations. I do not think anybody expects a railway to run completely without disruption. There will always be incidents and occasions when services have got to change—safety must come first, after all—but passengers are entitled to ask why hot weather keeps causing such serious problems and what is being done to address them.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for introducing this debate. Like him, I have surveyed my commuting constituents; as a result, I regularly complain about the unreliability of South Western Railway. It is particularly unreliable whenever there is hot or cold weather. Does he agree that the Government should deliver an investment plan to improve our railway network so that it can adapt to climate change, including by introducing air conditioning on all train services?
Josh Newbury
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. Extremes in temperature are increasingly affecting our railways. In many cases our lines were not designed to run at temperatures into the high 30s or even below minus 10°, although they are increasingly having to endure those conditions. Those conditions are not going to get any easier—milder winters are not suddenly going to come back—so we absolutely need to make sure that the services in and out of the train are resilient to that reality.
The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly on to my next point. We know that high temperatures affect the railways. Rails expand in the heat, signalling equipment can overheat and overhead lines can also be affected. Network Rail already takes steps to manage those risks, including through track inspections, painting rails white to reduce heat absorption, and monitoring infrastructure during hot weather. I recognise the hard work that railway staff do to keep services safe in difficult conditions, and I sincerely thank them.
I want to know what more can be done to make the Chase line more resilient. We should not be having to have the same conversations every summer. We all know that hotter and hotter weather will be coming. Passengers need to know that lessons are being learned and that the work is happening before the next heatwave.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In the south-west, we share a lot of those problems. The Salisbury-to-Exeter line runs a reduced service over the summer as a result of “soil moisture deficit”—a catchy term that means the ground is too dry and too hard, and the trains cannot run over it. That is not a new problem: we had a reduced service last year and the year before. Proper planning for what is now our everyday experience of climate change is vital. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Railways Bill, currently in the other place, is an opportunity to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient for the future and is also taking account of our climate targets.
Josh Newbury
We are hearing about a different impact from a different part of the country; it is great to get that perspective from the west country. I completely agree that we need to look at how the changing climate will affect different parts of the country in different ways. The different realities, different weather patterns and different topographies all need to be factored in. I also agree that the Railways Bill, which I will come to a little later, provides us with an opportunity to think about resilience when it comes to the future of the railways for decades to come. That is absolutely where our thinking needs to be: in the long as well as the short term.
Shockat Adam
As the hon. Member mentioned, Network Rail has itself admitted that the summer was extremely challenging and that it has work to do. Does he agree that apology is not a strategy and that every route, including the midland mainline, needs a published heat resilience plan before next summer?
Josh Newbury
The hon. Member makes an interesting point about what we need from Network Rail to ensure that the particularities of each area are taken into account. He is right that such work on resilience to climate change is needed; I hope that Network Rail will take that on board. Recently, I had a meeting with Network Rail and some of the affected passengers in my constituency, and the issue of long-term planning in the face of what we know is going to get worse and worse was part of it. I hope that the hon. Member will have a similar opportunity in his constituency.
Another question is about communication, because people can make other arrangements if they know in good time that a cancellation is happening. It is much harder when they have bought a ticket and travelled to the station to discover only then that the train is not running. Furthermore, when a service is cancelled or terminated early, replacement transport must get people to where they actually need to go.
Thankfully, we already have the diagnosis and the prescription for the Chase line; we just need the fee to dispense the cure. Back when the line was electrified, about a decade ago now, the project ran over budget and the previous Government refused to allocate additional resource; therefore, corners were cut. The track circuits, which tell the signallers where trains are on the line, were bought on the cheap. A model designed for underground railways was used and, unsurprisingly, they do not fare too well outdoors, in particular in the warmer weather. In fact, typically, they trip at any point above 24°. It goes without saying that this summer we had many days when night-time temperatures were higher than that, let alone during the day. That has led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the Chase line for successive summers. Network Rail itself tells us that a full replacement is needed.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In my constituency, passengers on the Bangor-to-Belfast line know about disruption to do with severe weather, in particular where trees grow close to railways. Does he agree that the UK Government should work to support all relevant transport agencies—and, where relevant, the devolved institutions—to audit routes at risk from falling trees and to support prevention measures and actions before the next storms?
Josh Newbury
I am glad that fallen trees and leaves have been raised as an issue. We have all heard about the dreaded “leaves on the line” being the reason for service disruption. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise it. That is an issue in all four corners of the UK, particularly as budgets have been cut and maintenance work has not always been done to the previous standard. He is absolutely right that we need to look line by line to identify where the risks are and to address the most severe ones, in particular, as he said, where trees are at risk of falling before the next season. We know that we have a stormy autumn and winter ahead, so that is a particularly poignant point. He is right that we need to look at that in the longer term as well.
My constituents faced that misery on the Chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tells us that full equipment replacement is what we need. However, I am told that that will cost in the region of £3 million. With budgets being tight, we need the Department to support us with that essential infrastructure correction. At the moment, the alternative being looked at is a coating for the circuits, which might raise their operational temperature to about 30°. That will buy us a bit more time, but will still leave us vulnerable to major disruption next summer.
I hope that the Minister will pass this on to the noble Lord Hendy: my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and I would heartily welcome Minister Hendy to Rugeley to discuss the challenges on the Chase line. While he is there, we should also discuss the urgent need for an accessible footbridge at Rugeley Trent Valley station. The lack of a lift is a total barrier for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. It can also make journeys difficult for older passengers, people carrying luggage and parents with young children. I heard from an older constituent who found the stairs at Rugeley Trent Valley a barrier to visiting his family. I also heard from a passenger with severely impaired knees, who had to crawl up and down the steep footbridge just to change platforms. No one should have to face that just to catch a train.
I recognise the wider challenges taking place on our railways. London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway have returned to public ownership—an important step in the Government plans for Great British Railways. I welcome the move. Bringing railways closer together, with track and train working closely, should make it easier to plan services, deal with problems and give passengers clearer accountability.
The Government have also invested in new trains and stations right across the west midlands and in the midlands rail hub. That is all really welcome progress, and I want people in Cannock Chase to benefit, too. The wider issue, however, is about the condition of our railway infrastructure and its ability to cope with more extreme weather. Network Rail’s current five-year funding period, known as control period 7, runs from 2024 to 2029. Its total funding envelope is £45.4 billion in cash terms, but inflation has put that settlement under considerable pressure.
The Office of Rail and Road reports that Network Rail now expects to deliver just 83% of its original renewals programme in England and Wales by the end of that period. It has also warned that an increasingly ageing asset base has implications for reliability, performance and safety, and that that could lead to more asset failures over time. We have heard about that from hon. Members. I recognise that the railway faces financial pressures and that difficult choices have to be made, but hotter summers and wetter winters place greater demands on our network, so it is important that we keep the renewals programme under review and ensure that essential work to protect the railway’s resilience is not lost.
The Rail Freight Group has been in touch with me to raise a concern about the Railways Bill, which is currently before Parliament. At present, Network Rail pays compensation to passenger and freight operators when services are disrupted by bad weather and other incidents, which gives it a financial reason to keep services running where possible and to get them back up quickly when things go wrong. Clause 65 would remove the requirement to pay compensation for events outside Network Rail’s control. It is not yet clear whether that includes seasonal weather, but we understand that Network Rail is considering weather-related exclusions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify—if not this afternoon, in writing—what counts as being outside Network Rail’s control and when we can expect that to be defined. If weather-related disruption is included, there is a risk that Network Rail will have less financial incentive to keep services running or restore them, which could impact the Government’s ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.
I welcome the Government’s wider ambition to build a railway that people can rely on. The Railways Bill will create a strengthened passenger watchdog that will set minimum standards on many things, such as delay compensation and accessible travel. That is a welcome step towards ensuring that operators are held to account more when things go wrong and that passengers are at the heart of every journey. That is exactly what people on the Chase line are looking for. That line is an important connection for Cannock Chase and southern Staffordshire. It links people to jobs, education and services in Birmingham and beyond, so making it reliable is absolutely part of delivering the Government’s ambition.
I have a few practical suggestions. First, we need a review of the parts of the Chase line that are most vulnerable to hot weather—particularly between Hednesford and Rugeley, as hon. Members have heard me say many times—with a clear plan and a timetable for the work needed. Secondly, we need a proper hot weather plan for passengers, with good information, replacement transport to get people to their destinations and clear arrangements when services are cancelled or cut short.
Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at the frequency and capacity of services, especially at peak times. An hourly service is difficult enough when everything is running normally, let alone when services are disrupted. Fourthly, we need an update on step-fee access at Rugeley Trent Valley, including on the work that is needed and how it can be funded.
The people who responded to my survey are asking for very simple things: Rosie wants to get to college, Jack wants to get to work without being packed on to an overcrowded train, Angela wants to get to and from the hospital she works at and Susan wants to be able to complete her journey home. We can reasonably expect a bit of sunshine in the summer—we might even look forward to it—but the people using the Chase line should not have to spend the warmer months wondering whether the train will run, whether it will get them to their destination and how they will get home if it does not. I hope the Minister takes those experiences seriously and sets out what can be done to make lines such as the Chase line more resilient before next summer. I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.
Many decades ago, I did an excavation in Rugeley of a Mesolithic cave site. Moving forward a little to the bronze age, we know from the excavations at Flag Fen that our forebears knew how difficult it was to travel across the fenland and how to build, maintain and keep an investment in good routes. Moving forward to the 21st century, it is extremely disappointing that we do not seem willing to put the same level of investment into our transport systems as they did back in the bronze age.
In June and August this year, one third of the trains on the line between King’s Lynn and King’s Cross did not run at all. Of the two thirds that did, 80% were delayed. That is extremely unreliable for commuters, students and people just trying to go about their daily lives—to go to the theatre and sports events. They cannot rely on a train that may or may not come, and may or may not arrive on time.
The other insult is that the train quite often terminates partway through the journey, so someone trying to get back from London will get as far as Cambridge, be told that that is as far as the train will take them and have to work out how to finish their journey from there. I myself have been impacted by that, obviously quite often, with all the going back and forth, but there was a particular instance when I had a surgery in Littleport. I left in plenty of time, but the train that I was trying to catch was cancelled and the next train terminated at Cambridge, so I arrived an hour later than I had intended and therefore was late for my surgery, which is extremely rude, and I really hate being rude to my constituents.
Worse than that is what constituents have written to tell me. One in particular has written to say that because their train has been so unreliable for getting to their job in London, their employer is now putting them under pressure. They are becoming an unreliable member of staff; their employer does not know when they will turn up to work. They are also having to make up the time at the end of the day, which means that they are getting home very late—often later than they expected, because not only have they left late but the train has then been delayed. That makes it a complete nightmare for them, because they have to be up early the next morning to go in.
The reasons are many and various, but one of the main ones is the overhead power lines. They do not like very hot weather. I think they do not like very cold weather either, but in the summer the issue was the very hot weather. However, the really big problem is that the tracks are buckling, because the soil underneath is moving. We have the same problem with our roads. This is a major problem and, with climate change, it will happen year in, year out, so we need to put investment into sorting that out.
I have talked to Great Northern and, in fairness, it is doing a lot to try to make the service less unreliable, but it will need proper funding from Government to help it to address the problem. My constituents rely on the service. As I have said, they need it for getting to work. Many students rely on it because the sixth-form colleges are in Cambridge and they need to get to college. Our main hospital is in Cambridge, so people need to get to the hospital. These train services are vital to people, so I call on the Government to look hard at what the particular issues are with extreme weather and the impact that it has on fen soils and at how we can make our rail lines more resilient so that my constituents can rely on a good train service.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and thank him for securing this debate on extreme weather and rail services. He will have known that I would probably turn up to talk about it, because the issue is felt so acutely in my coastal and rural constituency of Truro and Falmouth.
Coastal and rural areas such as mine need a railway that is reliable, resilient and speedy, so that our communities and economy can thrive. In fact, Cornwall has the fastest growing branch lines in the country; demand for rail has soared since covid. Yet in the duchy there is just one rail line going in and one going out. For the 1 million residents of Cornwall and Plymouth, that is all.
Anyone living or working across Cornwall and Devon knows the fragility of that vital link. The line through Devon and into Cornwall sits right on the sea wall at Dawlish and Teignmouth; it is exposed and exceptionally vulnerable to heavy seas. When bad weather hits, this section frequently breaks down, leaving us 1 million people effectively cut off from the rest of the country. In February 2014, the railway line was basically swept away and cut off for eight weeks—the track was hanging into the waves.
Great Western Railway shared with me in August that last winter’s cancellations exceeded 10% of services and punctuality dropped to 75%. As others have said, it is not just about storms and wintry weather. The heat we experienced this summer meant there were four separate lineside fires on the Falmouth branch in July resulting in full cancellations. Alternate branch line services were cancelled because the rails were too hot.
On Saturday the lines in Cornwall were “too slippery”. This is not just a story of severe named storms. Our line is now so precarious that train services get knocked out by standard non-extreme weather. High tides, leaves on the track or routine heavy rain are sometimes enough to trigger speed restrictions, single-line working or total cancellations.
When major storms do hit, the crisis deepens. Storm Goretti closed the route entirely. It was over a day in the end because we could not get home. And just a week later, during Storm Ingrid, I was on the 6 am train home from Westminster when we were halted at Dawlish as massive waves crashed over the track. With one line swallowed by the sea we joined a queue of trains crawling forward on the single operational track. Soon after that, Storm Chandra cut the line off yet again. The human cost of this persistent disruption is immediate. I have constituents contacting me regularly, sharing their frustrations and the impact of the disruption on their lives.
One constituent contacted me about an overfilled train from Reading to Truro that was impacted by Storm Austen, leaving her husband, who was coming back from abroad, heavily delayed. It is unacceptable that passengers travelling thousands of miles across the globe face the greatest hardship on the final leg home through our region. Network Rail teams work heroically round the clock, clearing fallen trees, repairing track faults and executing a £2.6 billion national investment in climate resilience, but our local infrastructure is simply failing to cope. Long-range forecasts warn of increasingly challenging weather this coming winter. It has already started with Storm Austen. With climate change the disruptions will become more frequent and severe unless we take decisive action.
In 2014, after the storms, the Department for Transport started the south west rail resilience programme. Phases 1 to 4 have been completed, but phase 5 at the Teignmouth cliffs has been delayed and is currently unfunded. Phase 5 involves de-watering and stabilising the cliff face. Testing is occurring, but funds are simply not there. There is a very real risk that a cliff could fall on a train. Much of the capital funding has gone to Northern Powerhouse Rail. We have one vulnerable line in and out for our 1 million people. There is no way of flying from Newquay to London most days because we have lost the public service obligation for our airport. It appears that Network Rail accepts that we will get cut off for a day or two when there is inclement weather, which I do not think would be accepted in many other parts of the country.
There are options. Brunel obviously did not think ahead when he designed where the line was going to go. We cannot really blame him, I suppose, but now we look back, we can see that maybe this was not the best place to put it. The Okehampton line has been reopened and—we have always talked about this as a distant dream—a second line could go along by the A30. The Railways Bill will mean that regional transport plans can be considered by Great British Railways. We hope that will apply to our Cornish transport plan as well. GWR will be nationalised in December this year.
Cornwall has extraordinary economic potential. We have immense value to offer the country, partly through the critical minerals that we have under our feet, but we need to remain connected. I am trying very hard to reopen the freight line that runs between Falmouth docks and the Falmouth branch line, which could bring some of those critical minerals in and out of Cornwall. But we need a more resilient line to connect to. The Royal Albert bridge is hard for freight to get across, and the cliffs are difficult to get past. Better rail links are not a luxury. They are a real necessity, particularly when we are out on a limb as we are. We will keep pushing until the far south-west gets the resilient rail network that our constituents need.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on landing this really important debate.
Climate change is the real enemy we are facing, whether in the form of extreme heat or storms. Twelve years ago, the storm at Dawlish ripped away the sea wall, leaving it looking almost like a railway line somewhere in South America after a big storm. It resulted in eight weeks of closure down to the south-west of England—eight weeks that massively impacted us. One estimate suggested that the economic impact was around £1.2 billion. I remember getting on trains at Paddington that were usually busy but felt more like the Mary Celeste. It was incredible.
There were five parts to the puzzle of sorting the rail line out, as part of the south-west resilience programme. The fifth and final part remains outstanding, which is extremely worrying. Most of us enjoyed the really good summer we just had—some of us endured it—but the other side of the coin is much wetter winters, which could massively impact the cliffs at Dawlish. The cliffs are the enemy now, rather than the sea, as they could collapse. Work on that is unfunded, and we desperately need the funding. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in his comments.
Further up the line from Dawlish is Powderham, often a place for events. The challenge there concerns the Environment Agency’s choice of a managed retreat from Dawlish Warren, such that the warren, which currently acts as a protector to the estuary, could break and open up the railway line at Powderham to attack by storms and the sea. We need investment to protect that rail line, after we have achieved the success at Dawlish that we are hoping for from the Minister.
I want to reflect on where we are with the heat. In Devon and Cornwall, we have really poor-quality local rolling stock, which is almost life-expired. The perverse thing is that although they are new to us, the trains are third or fourth hand-me-downs from elsewhere in the country. The class 175s were handed down from south Wales, and they have not quite been got running, so even the hand-me-downs do not work. In the north of England, there has been investment in quality rail solutions for the trans-Pennine railways—partly electrification and partly battery. We should have a similarly futuristic rail service for Devon and Cornwall, which would not only be a lot more sustainable in our changing world, but would ensure that we tackle climate change by taking the carbon out of travel on our railway.
A specific challenge facing trains in the south-west is the lack of moisture in the soil, which means that they have to travel particularly slowly. We need to be alive to that issue, as well as to buckling rails. I speak to hoteliers such as the owner of the Berburry hotel, which is quite close to Torquay rail station. She gets international visitors, whose experience on the continent, sadly, is often of a much better-quality rail service. After decades of under-investment, we really need that investment.
I look forward to the Minister’s reflections on the fifth and final piece of the Dawlish puzzle, on how we protect Powderham in the light of the threat I highlighted, and on investment in quality rolling stock for Devon and Cornwall, so that we can face the future with confidence.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing such an important—and, given the weather on Sunday, timely—debate. When the weather turns, the Tyne valley finds out very quickly how well looked after its railway has been over the years. Last Tuesday, for example, 20 services were cancelled across the Northern network because of Storm Boelo and the whole Carlisle to Newcastle line was disrupted.
I grew up in my constituency and know what the morning after a particularly rough bit of weather looks like: people get a message on their app saying “Cancelled” or see that message at the train station, they make an apologetic phone call to their boss or client, and they wait for news at home, in the station coffee shop or just hanging around under the shelter. But this is about far more than just one storm. Extreme weather is no longer the exception. Heavy rain, flooding, landslips, high winds and extreme heat are all hitting the safe and reliable running of services, and climate change is the driving cause, as has been said.
The problem is that our railway was not built for this. Most of our infrastructure is of Victorian origin. Around 90% of Network Rail’s assets in my constituency were installed before the year 2000. Our rails are stressed. We exceeded the standard operating limit of around 30° in 2022. Track has been recorded at 51°. The July 2022 heatwave alone cut performance by 40% to 50% and cost £30 million in lost revenue in a single week. We have seen that replicated every year since. The result is buckled track, sagging wires and failing embankments.
Those are the headlines, but behind each disruption is a personal story. In Haltwhistle, closure of the line turns hospital appointments into an ordeal. In Haydon Bridge or Bardon Mill, it means people potentially losing out on a day’s work. In Corbridge, Riding Mill or Stocksfield, it means commuters being forced on to roads that could be flooded or blocked. In Prudhoe or Wylam, it means people being forced on to a bus that carries a fraction of what a train can. Rural lines like those in my constituency feel it first, and feel it worst. Cities have other routes. In the Tyne valley, when the railway goes, all that is left is the A69, which immediately becomes congested.
I want to add to the weather problem the trains problem. I recently wrote to Northern about the lack of capacity between Hexham and Newcastle and across the west of my constituency, including the absence of extra trains when Newcastle United are playing at home. It is hard to square the aspiration of a modern, passenger-focused railway with the fact that predictable surges in demand are managed by existing timetables. Northern has been candid with me that too much of the fleet is approaching the end of its operational life and needs ever more repair. Those units become unavailable unexpectedly because Northern runs many different types of train and not all are compatible with all routes, which limits its ability to move units around to strengthen services.
I am grateful for that honesty, but thinking it through again, when a storm hits and units fail, there is no spare train and no flexibility. An old fleet and an old network are asked to cope with a climate that neither was designed for. That is what 14 years of putting off tough decisions looks like to rural communities in my constituency, some of which face extensive difficulties even getting to the central train line. In Bellingham, Slaggyford, Knarsdale, Allendale or up in Stamfordham, an unreliable local bus that has been cut by the Morpeth Conservatives often does not arrive on time or at all.
I welcome the Government bringing the railway back into public hands and the new trains programme—the Minister is aware of my enthusiasm for that—but the structures are not resilient. Let me put a few challenges to the Minister. First, we need sustained investment in resilience rather than simply repair. We cannot answer extreme weather with more cancellations and permanent reliance on precautionary speed restrictions. Will he look at longer-term funding for renewals and maintenance so that the embankments, drainage and track are built for the climate that we have now and the one that is coming over the hill?
Secondly, we need safety and reliability together. The choice is not between accepting disruption and taking risks. Train drivers see and tell me of ageing infrastructure and extreme weather at first hand. Their experience must be part of how we plan for the decades ahead. Will the Minister make sure that it is?
Thirdly, we need spare capacity. Will the Minister press Northern on how the new trains programme will give the Tyne valley the flexibility to respond when something goes wrong—and when something goes right, like when there is a full stadium on a Mags or Newcastle Red Bulls match day?
Fourthly, we need a plan for the day if it goes wrong. We need proper replacement services, early and honest information, and a recovery plan in place for rural lines before the storm, rather than my constituency feeling like it is consistently improvised after the fact.
There is a bigger argument too: if we wish to hit our climate goals we need to get more people and more freight on to rail. Domestic transport accounts for 30% of our territorial greenhouse gas emissions and road vehicles represent around 90% of that figure. Rail is a fraction of that. A single freight train could replace up to 129 lorry movements. We cannot ask people to switch to rail and give them a railway that falls over at the first sign of trouble. The people of the Tyne valley and my constituency more broadly are not asking for luxury; they are simply asking for a railway that works when the weather does not.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing the debate, which is another example of how he continues to deliver assiduously for his constituents—well done to him.
The events of the past year have given us a brutal wake-up call. We have seen record-breaking heatwaves causing rails to buckle, severe storms bringing down overhead lines and torrential downpours flooding key transport arteries right across the United Kingdom. This is no longer a temporary seasonal inconvenience; it is a permanent disruption to the daily lives of our constituents, and it requires an urgent and systematic response.
I want to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, which the Minister will be glad to hear he has no responsibility for. However, I wish him well; he always gives us helpful responses to the questions that we ask. Northern Ireland MPs fly over here, get the Heathrow Express—or, depending where the flight lands, the Gatwick Express or the docklands light railway—and then take the tube the rest of the way. There are occasions when there are delays on the railway due to obstructions. Sometimes there are people on the Heathrow Express line, and last summer a bus hit a bridge and the Gatwick Express was unable to progress any further until the obstacle had been cleared. There are always problems. That is one of the reasons why travelling is one of those things that I endure—because there is always hassle and there are always delays.
While much of the national debate naturally focuses on major inter-city networks, I want to draw attention to the harsh realities facing my people in Northern Ireland, particularly in my own constituency of Strangford. I want to talk about the delays that happen and how they affect people’s daily lives, social engagements and their ability to have normality. We must look at how infrastructure failures are directly impacting two crucial groups: our children trying to access education, and our hard-working citizens trying to travel to work.
Let us look first at our young people and children who are simply trying to better themselves through education. We have students from across the Ards peninsula and the wider Strangford area who travel every single day to universities and colleges in Belfast and right across the Province to Londonderry. Their only way of getting there, if they do not have a car because that would be too expensive, is the railway. On many occasions now, when the rain comes, it is a biblical downpour, and the impact right away on roads and gullies is incredible.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue now is not just confined to the south and south-east of the United Kingdom, as it may have been 20 or 30 years ago, and that given the increasing warming of our climate, it is imperative that all our devolved institutions, both north and south, need to ensure that they take steps to try to mitigate the problem that we see everyone encountering?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for those wise words. He underlines the very issue. When extreme weather hits Northern Ireland, as we have seen with increasingly violent storms and localised flooding, our transport network instantly buckles.
For a student heading from our area to the Magee campus in Coleraine or Londonderry, a single weather-related rail restriction, a flooded track or a missed connection means missing vital lectures, labs and exams. They are fighting against a system where a simple weather warning can completely derail their academic work. We cannot expect our young people to fulfil their educational potential when the physical infrastructure to get them to the lecture hall is entirely unreliable or continually breaks down.
The situation is even more acute for further education college students in my constituency who are travelling south to campuses in Downpatrick. Many of these young people depend entirely on the Strangford lough ferry service to bridge the gap between Portaferry and Strangford village. That ferry is supposed to be a lifeline—a one-mile crossing that replaces what would otherwise be a gruelling 46-mile journey by road. Yet we have repeatedly seen sudden suspensions of the ferry service due to severe storm conditions, high tides and subsequent mechanical strains caused by vessels operating in extreme weather. When the ferry stops, the education of these teenagers stops. Bus substitutions are hastily put in place, but they cannot make up for the hours that are lost. These students arrive at college exhausted and late, or—even worse—they are unable to get there at all. They face attendance penalties through absolutely no fault of their own.
The Minister will probably look at a map and say to me, “Well, Strangford does not have a railway line.” No, it does not, but our workers and our commuters are resourceful. Thousands of my constituents utilise the Belfast to Bangor rail line, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to. It is located just 10 minutes away from the edge of my constituency, so it is a good way to get a mainline train into Belfast; it is not too far away and its location means that people do not have to park their car in Belfast. Our workers, jobseekers and commuters drive, get lifts or catch connecting buses to Bangor station every morning to access a wider employment market in Greater Belfast, where the jobs are.
What happens when extreme weather strikes? On the Bangor line, as the hon. Member for North Down said, trees fall and there are leaves on the line; there are always problems. The Bangor line suffers immediate cancellations, or trains terminate early or skip vital stops, such as the City hospital stop or the Grand Central stop.
When the Bangor line fails due to weather-stressed infrastructure, the knock-on effect on Strangford’s workforce is immediate and devastating. It is the low-wage shift workers, the apprentices and the people who do not have the luxury of working from home who suffer the most. They are left stranded on cold platforms, they lose vital wages and on occasion they face disciplinary action from their employers for being late. Someone cannot say every time, “The train is late again today”, and expect it to be a normal excuse. It is the real reason, but repeatedly using it as excuse does not always work out.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is interesting listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech and realising the commonalities that we have, even though our constituencies are so far apart, with mine being located on the south coast of England.
A lot of my constituents travel outside the city of Chichester for work; similarly, a lot of people living in Bognor Regis and Portsmouth come into Chichester for work. All these people are encouraged to use public transport, but since extreme weather is rapidly becoming just weather, does he agree that it is incredibly frustrating for people who are constantly being told, “We are sorry for the disruptions, but we are experiencing extreme weather”? On 40 days this year temperatures have reached over 30 degrees. Similarly, leaves on the line can stop trains from running; indeed, the other day swans on the line stopped the trains from running on our arterial railway route. We need to get a grip and ensure that trains can run, so that people can continue to work.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady has given an incredibly accurate explanation of what happens in her constituency. When we look across the world, we see that Canada has extreme weather—snow in the winter and real warmth in the summer—but they seem to be able to cope with it all right. We must ask ourselves why we cannot adjust or perhaps learn from what Canada does.
I suggest that the social contract is being broken. We are asking people to slog their guts out and go to work every day, yet the state—as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) suggested—is failing to provide basic, resilient infrastructure to allow them to do so safely and reliably.
I say this respectfully: the national funding allocated for weather resilience must not be hoarded by the Treasury or spent exclusively on major English inter-city routes. We need that investment deployed with absolute urgency into regional infrastructure. We need it to be spent on securing the resilience of the Translink services, on stabilising the vessels on the Strangford ferry service, and on ensuring that vital regional feeder lines, such as the Bangor rail track, are fully weatherproofed against extreme temperatures and flooding.
The Minister probably does this already, but just to have it on the record, I will ask him to engage with the relevant Minister in the Northern Irish Assembly. Will he hold discussions and exchange thoughts and ideas about how we can better learn to deal with the extreme weather—whether the warm summers of 35° to 40° or the bad weather in the wintertime—that means that we are not able to travel in the same way? While exchanging those ideas with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, will he commit to resilience funding being released? Let us fix these lines, protect our commuters and ensure that extreme weather stops putting the lives, education and careers of our people on hold.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this debate. It is one that I have tried to secure on a number of occasions, because the west of England line runs through my constituency, passing through the towns of Axminster, Honiton and Feniton. I was struck a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) describing how extreme weather has become, simply, weather. That was very well put. In this debate, we could talk about not extreme weather but the impact of climate change on our transport infrastructure.
It is good to see the Minister for Local Transport in his place, because he has been fantastic at securing new railway stations for mid-Devon and Somerset at Cullompton and Wellington, respectively. He does an excellent job in his role, and that is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Liberal Democrat policy as well as the west of England line. The line connects Exeter with London Waterloo and goes via Salisbury. Much of that line, certainly west of Salisbury, is single track. When there is a disruption or delay, that means that the whole timetable gets thrown. Understandably, a lot of residents in east Devon have contacted me about that in the dry hot summers that we have had in the last two years. South Western Railway describes the main consequences of that dry weather as “soil moisture deficit”, which is a euphemism for embankments that are dry. That is largely due to the route sitting on clay. When prolonged heat and drought remove moisture from the soil, the clay shrinks, the embankments move and the track moves, too.
In those conditions, it would be dangerous to carry on as normal. Speed restrictions have to be imposed. We saw the consequences of extreme weather on a railway line that does not have any disruption to the schedule in Lewes earlier this year, when a Southern train derailed. The problem in that case was “track geometry irregularity”, which I think is a euphemism for rails that have bent. In seriousness, I accept that safety has to come first. But we have to acknowledge that while safety is a priority, it is having severe consequences on the people we represent.
I want to consider young people who are trying to build their futures. One person from Awliscombe wrote to me to say that his 17-year-old daughter could no longer get to her apprenticeship for 8 o’clock in the morning, because the only train reaching Exeter at that time had been cancelled. Without any replacement bus service, he and his wife are having to make a 40-mile round trip by car to get their daughter to work. That is not an isolated incident: roughly 550 college students travel on the west of England line to Exeter college. A father from Offwell told me that his daughter, who has just started, is subjected to train cancellations and delays, and often spends two to three hours every day waiting for a train home from Exeter. A mother from Honiton explained how, since both the 7.30 am train and 7.45 am bus have been cancelled, there is no way for students to arrive on time for their 9.45 lectures.
Students are relying on the service to access their further education, but it is also affecting working people. Shelby Gittens is a dental hygienist from All Saints near Axminster. She has been prevented from reaching Exeter reliably before the start of her working day. Due to the delays, her office has had to reschedule her 9 o’clock patients indefinitely until the matter is resolved. Given that Devon is one of the UK’s foremost dental deserts, that is quite a serious consequence for people trying to get dental work in Devon.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Forgive me for being late, but the railway did not want me to be here for the start of this debate. My hon. Friend talks about the impact of delays on the line on working people; we in the west of England are going to be impacted for two years or possibly more by the works at Old Oak Common. For the tiny sum of £12 million, which is just over half of what is being spent every day on HS2, highspeed wi-fi could be put on every one of the 94 trains on the Great Western Railway network. If it was, all those working people like me who get stuck on delayed and slow trains going down to the west of England would not mind an extra 10 or 15 minutes on the journey time, because it would be productive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to fund that project?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Time is not wasted on a delayed train if there is a good wi-fi connection for the workers onboard, so I recommend that investment in the main line. On the west of England line, which is the poor relation to Great Western, I have heard from constituents who have been trying to get to colleges, schools and businesses, and from patients and families, about the effect it is having on the local economy. Those disruptions often hit the most vulnerable in our society the hardest.
Kathryn Wilkerson from Sidmouth told me that over the course of six journeys to London for work that she made in the summer heat, only one featured working air conditioning. She explained that on multiple occasions when she was on packed trains, she had to pause her journey and get off the train due to dizziness and to avoid fainting from heat exhaustion. Kathryn pointed out that this means that train travel in the heat can be dangerous, and that the rolling stock needs to be updated to adapt to the climate change that we all see.
Students, workers and the vulnerable all tell the same story. People I represent are right to ask why a line of such importance for the network as a whole remains so vulnerable. People can accept that temporary measures may be required because of soil moisture deficit, but this is no longer a temporary measure—it is the second year in a row that a schedule has been introduced for months at a time meaning that trains are only running once every two hours.
Weather-related delays across the country have cost around £370 million over three years from 2023-24, but that is just the narrow economic consequence on the railways, not the wider consequences for all those people whose anecdotes I have described. The Liberal Democrats believe that passengers deserve railways that withstand the climate conditions that we are set to face. Too much of our infrastructure, particularly in the west country, still relies on Victorian earthworks and drainage systems and assets that were not designed for today’s climate—and of course they have been subject to the Beeching cuts. Instead of bringing those facilities into the 21st century, the last Conservative Government left behind a legacy of underinvestment and crumbling infrastructure.
I have corresponded with Ministers in the Department for Transport, not least with Lord Hendy in the other place, about the west of England line. The specific thing that I have sought from Ministers is investment into passing loops on the line. To make an analogy with the road, passing loops are like pulling over to allow an oncoming vehicle to come the other way. I understand from Lord Hendy that if we were to make the case for investment in passing loops in control period 8—the period of 2029 to 2034—we could potentially see them developed at Tisbury, Feniton, Whimple and other places on the west of England line, to enable trains to pull over and to run on a more frequent basis, even when experiencing soil moisture deficit.
What further can the Minister recommend that we do to secure those passing loops in control period 8? More generally, how will the Government accelerate investment in climate resilience so that we can get ahead of the changes we know are coming down the track and make sure that our students, workers and most vulnerable members of society get the transport links they deserve?
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship yet again, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.
The challenges posed by extreme weather on our railways are not new. After all, in the early days of British railway innovation, plans could be repeatedly derailed by bad weather. For instance, one of the many challenges with Brunel’s infamous attempts to introduce an atmospheric railway in south Devon was that they repeatedly fell foul of the weather. That part of the country is still acutely impacted by such extremes today, as we have heard from many Members across the House.
Unfortunately, the problems posed by those extremes are not a thing of the past. After a spring and summer in which the performance of our railways has worsened, I commend the hon. Member for proposing this debate. As the Conservatives have repeatedly said—I hope this goes for all sides of the House—the approach to the railways must be evidence-based. Our railways should not be run according to a dogmatic ideology, but according to what serves the travelling public best.
Although Britain has one of the safest railways in the world, we cannot remain complacent. As we recently saw in Spain, rail accidents can have the most tragic consequences and we must do everything possible to avoid them. One approach we need to take involves improving the resilience of our railways—making them much more effective at coping with whatever weather conditions we experience. Given that the railways are performing worse now under almost every metric, that issue is all the more important.
Data for the first six ORR periods of the 2026-27 financial year showed a deterioration in performance across the vast majority of operators. That included delays on services such as South Western, London North Eastern Railway, Southeastern, c2c and Greater Anglia, many of which were performing much better under previous operators. That is reflected in the cost to the taxpayer. According to the DFT’s own numbers, South Western Railway spent £8.25 million on payouts to rail users under its delay repay scheme, despite the fact that fewer than half of eligible passengers actually claim compensation, meaning that that figure should be at least twice as high.
Possibly most worryingly, given the terms of this debate and the importance of addressing extreme weather, Network Rail-attributable delay minutes increased across every region of the UK except Scotland. That means that more delays for passengers were directly attributable to the organisation that manages infrastructure and which is likely to play a leading role within Great British Railways once it is fully established.
As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, the impact that this issue can have on the freight sector is incredibly important. We need to fully understand some of the clauses in the Railways Bill and the impact they could have on what we want to see, which is greater numbers of freight trains taking lorries off the road where appropriate. However, freight companies need to have certainty that that will happen and that they will get properly compensated if there are issues with the network.
The changes we have seen are not small; they are significant. In the southern region in the last few time periods, Network Rail was responsible for over 50% more delays in minutes per 1,000 train miles than during the first few months of 2024. It is worth noting that, considering Network Rail’s comments about the challenges it faced this summer. If the governing manager of our rail infrastructure is facing severe problems with the weather, how can we have confidence that it will be a core part of GBR and manage the process of full nationalisation effectively?
I recognise that a number of these concerns have been raised previously and reiterated today. For example, I understand that some of the Lib Dem Members who spoke today have raised the need to reconsider the current rail stress temperatures, given the much wider range of temperatures we are now experiencing across increasingly hot summers. Furthermore, more modern railway electrification infrastructure is much needed. It needs to be more resilient than the older and, as hon. Members have pointed out, sometimes inappropriate equipment installed over the decades. Given the Government’s cancellation of projects such as the midland main line electrification, it is unclear how they will effectively upgrade the older, less resilient infrastructure. We all acknowledge the costs involved in making significant changes to increase stress temperatures, but the Government must explain how we can maintain our railway in a cost-effective and targeted way. The previous reviews of extreme weather highlighted a clear need to better establish where the problems are and to target the root causes. However, to achieve that, Network Rail must embed cost control into its approach so that its resources are used as effectively as possible across what is a large network.
I share other Members’ love for our environment and acknowledge the need to protect it, but we must ensure that money is allocated to our railways properly and used as effectively as possible. The question is whether Network Rail’s current projects make the best use of such funds. Ministers have unfortunately given less than clear answers to some of my written parliamentary questions about biodiversity projects, so it is sometimes hard to understand how the money allocated to biodiversity is being directed, and whether it is being used in the best way to protect the infrastructure that our constituents across the country rely on.
We have heard from Network Rail about its innovative use of technology to achieve its aims of managing such projects, but does the Minister think that that technology and investment would be better directed towards ensuring that our infrastructure continues to operate successfully during periods of extreme weather? For example, Network Rail uses technology such as thermal imaging to examine issues around earthworks. East Midlands Railway reported savings of about £100,000 from doing that. However, the priority must surely be to ensure that those tools are always directed to improving resilience when facing weather conditions such as those we saw this summer.
Furthermore, in adapting to the changing causes of weather-related delays, we must consider how to build and maintain our infrastructure more cost effectively. Wherever possible, that means removing unnecessary regulations that make it more difficult to carry out the enhancements needed to make our railways more resilient. We cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic regulations to stand in the way of measures designed to improve the railway’s resilience to the extreme weather conditions we are increasingly facing.
That can be achieved only with funding. The Government’s responses to written parliamentary questions on this matter as recently as September referred to £2.6 billion. However, the official control period 7 delivery plan, published in spring 2024, set out a
“step change in our approach to mitigating the impact of extreme weather…targeting £2.8bn of investment to protect our most susceptible assets, in particular earthworks and drainage to support reliability.”
Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between those numbers? If he cannot do so today, will he write to me?
The summary of regional plans for 2024 to 2029 set out clear spending commitments across all regions amounting to £2.79 billion. Is the discrepancy due to different classifications of maintenance spending, or have cuts to the resilience budgets led to a reduction in the allocated spending? Given that £2.6 billion is obviously less than £2.8 billion, that we have seen significant inflation in the rail sector and that the majority of the spending was earmarked for earthworks and drainage, is the Minister confident that all the necessary money for those projects is being delivered? That is what Members have been asking about today on behalf of their constituents.
The Government’s decision to indefinitely pause phase 5 of the south west rail resilience programme is directly linked to funding and the priorities that they have chosen to pursue. Although we obviously recognise that there are tough decisions to be made on spending, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify precisely how much the Government are spending and whether they expect other significant projects in this space to be halted.
To reiterate the points that were made at the start of the debate, when dealing with extreme weather the Government must focus all their efforts on works that are most cost-effective and deliver for our constituents. Having wasted money on GBR signage, obscure bureaucratic projects and other ideologically driven activities, the Government need to demonstrate that they are prioritising things that matter to our constituents. We understand that our railways are experiencing a different set of challenges resulting from extreme weather conditions, but the Government must adapt accordingly. Otherwise, they will fail to deliver on the targets that are there to support our constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic train crash in Toledo, Spain, on 28 October and to all those affected. I know that the UK rail accident investigation branch was quick to offer its expertise and support to its counterparts in Spain in the aftermath of the tragedy. I also want to acknowledge the recent derailments at Lewes and Wickford and the collision at Bedford over the summer. My thoughts are with everyone affected by those incidents. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services and all those involved in the responses.
Those incidents are a reminder of our responsibility to remain vigilant, learn from what has happened and maintain an unwavering focus on safety. As the relevant independent authorities continue their investigations, it is important that we avoid speculation and allow their work to conclude before drawing any conclusions about causes.
I am pleased to speak about the impact of extreme weather on train services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate, and I thank all other Members for their contributions. If I do not manage to address specific points, I assure Members that the Rail Minister will have heard them, and they can always follow up in writing.
The effects of extreme weather on the railways are felt not as abstract statistics, as my by-election twin, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), said. This is about not just statistics but missed connections, disrupted working days, uncertainty for passengers and freight, and the impacts on local economies and customers. Communities need a railway that is safe and reliable and able to recover quickly when conditions deteriorate.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
In Cumbria, we fully appreciate how disruptive bad weather can be, and we have quite a lot of experience of it, but we do not appreciate why bad weather in Scotland can mean that trains heading north on the west coast main line terminate in Preston, which is nearly an hour away from Penrith and even further away from Carlisle. Will the Minister commit to writing to Avanti and Network Rail to determine why that is and consider solutions that might get my constituents home a bit quicker?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend raises a really interesting question. I do not know the answer, but I will make sure I speak to the Rail Minister and see what answers we can get for my hon. Friend.
This summer brought the challenges we are discussing into sharp focus. The UK experienced five widespread heatwaves between May and August. In June, the Met Office issued a rare red extreme heat warning. During the most severe conditions, on 24 and 25 June, passengers were advised to make only essential journeys in affected areas, including the west midlands. Services continued to run, but safety required reduced speeds and amended timetables. That meant longer journeys and a greater risk of delays, cancellations and late changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is right to highlight the experience in his constituency. This summer, heat reduced Chase line services, while intense rainfall flooded the railway between Hednesford and Rugeley and forced trains to terminate at Hednesford. Further storms disrupted services in October. These events reinforce the need for better preparations, including drainage, targeted investment in resilience and strong local partnership working. Network Rail has produced a weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan for each of our regions, and those plans indicate where investment may be needed during hot weather and how issues can be addressed.
The first duty of the railway is, of course, to keep passengers and staff safe. Speed restrictions, targeted inspections and temporary closures can be really frustrating, but they are needed to ensure a safe railway. The task is to make those decisions earlier and more precisely, communicate them clearly and restore the service as quickly as conditions allow.
The industry has drawn practical lessons from summer 2026, including preparing earlier, focusing on the greatest risks, planning for prolonged heat, and making decisions sooner. Operationally, that means acting as one railway, using restrictions in a targeted way, building recovery into the response and adapting quickly as evidence changes. The Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways, which will integrate operations and infrastructure in regional routes to ensure that they act as one railway. In the meantime, the rail industry has established a climate change programme co-chaired by Network Rail and Department for Transport Operator Limited to provide strategic direction, align the industry and monitor delivery.
Preparation is not confined to summer, nor are climate risks confined to heat and the consequential moisture and soil deficit in many areas. The developing El Niño is expected to increase the chances of wetter, stormy conditions across the UK this autumn and in early winter, with stronger winds and increased risks of heavy rainfall and flooding. Colder spells are also possible. The railway is therefore preparing for a range of conditions using drones, specialist treatment trains and autumn forecasts, while managing vulnerable trees, planning contingency timetables, monitoring conditions in real time and deploying winter equipment to keep passengers moving safely.
As well as operational preparedness, we need to look to the future. Summers such as the one we experienced this year will become increasingly common. As was said, extreme weather has become the weather. The changing climate means that resilience cannot simply be something that we consider after extreme weather strikes. It needs to be built into the everyday decisions we make about how the transport system is maintained, operated and funded. That is why the Department for Transport launched its climate adaptation strategy for transport in December 2025, setting out our vision for a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient to a changing climate.
Importantly, the strategy is about turning that ambition into practical change, supporting the transport system to prepare for the impacts of climate change by setting the strategic direction, strengthening the evidence base and embedding adaptation into planning and decision making. That approach is already being put into practice on the railway. Network Rail is pioneering work on adaptation planning through its adaptation pathways so that investment can be prioritised and staged as risks change.
Publicly owned train operators have for the first time also developed weather resilience and climate adaptation plans looking at climate risks across the railway, not only in respect of infrastructure, but to staff and customer welfare too. For example, working air con is equally important. Just yesterday, the Department for Transport published the first transport resilience strategy to provide strategic direction to improve the resilience of the transport sector and ensure that resilience principles are embedded in decision making and planning. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will be pleased to know that as part of that work, we are setting up a four nations transport resilience group.
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029. That has been invested in activity but also technology to improve resilience to extreme weather and climate change.
Steve Darling
A few months ago, Network Rail met me and other south-west MPs who are here today and told us that it is occasionally acceptable to close the Dawlish rail line. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable?
Simon Lightwood
I will come on to talk specifically about the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. All endeavours are being made and a great deal of funding has gone in to make that track as resilient as possible. I do not think that anybody wants to suspend services through that area, but unfortunately there will be instances where that may have to be done. The investment that has put in has made it more resilient; we saw that during the latest storms, when the line was reopened the day after its closure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and the hon. Member for Torbay talked about south-west rail resilience. I think that more than £165 million has been invested through the south-west rail resilience programme, including a new seawall, a rockfall shelter at Parson’s tunnel to Teignmouth and major cliff stabilisation work. As I just said, the value of that investment was demonstrated during the storms at the start of this year. This year also saw Cornwall’s worst ever rainfall totals, but the new seawall performed as designed, helping to protect the infrastructure from major damage and allowing the line to reopen the very next day.
Phase 5 of the resilience programme was not funded as part of the 2025 spending review. We are continuing to fund investigative work on that section of the route. Network Rail is currently undertaking a drainage trial to remove water from the cliffs, as well as further ground investigation. That will give National Rail the more detailed data that it needs for longer term solutions. All the monitoring equipment that is installed in those areas of the cliff between Parson’s tunnel and Teignmouth will help to provide a quick response when triggered. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) also mentioned Northern; it is procuring, I think, 450 new trains due in 2031. I appreciate that feels like a long time away but it is also looking at shorter term options to improve capacity.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and hon. Members throughout the House that this Government recognise both the immediate disruption experienced by passengers and the longer term challenge facing our railway. In a single season, Cannock Chase has seen the effect of heat, intense rainfall and storms. We will continue to work with Network Rail, train operators and local partners to learn from those events, improve drainage and operational preparedness, target investment where risk is greatest, and give passengers clearer information. Extreme weather cannot be prevented but its consequences can be better anticipated, managed and reduced. That is how we will secure a safer, more reliable and more resilient railway for Cannock Chase and for communities across the country.
Josh Newbury
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s debate, either through interventions or speeches. I have found it very enjoyable, not because of the litany of examples of disruption we have heard from across the country but because of the richness of experiences with which hon. Members have come here today to speak up for their constituents. We heard many interventions in which Members highlighted particular constituency concerns, including from the hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Woking (Mr Forster), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).
I was interested to hear about the archaeological endeavours in Rugeley of the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). We will have to find her site and have her back to repeat that. She is right to raise her constituent’s problems in travelling in and out of London as well as within Cambridgeshire, and I support her calls for investment in her line, even if it is just after for my line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) rightly highlighted the human consequences of disruption, particularly in Cornwall, as well as the fact that big pots of money have gone to elsewhere in the country, but Cornwall, where there is just the one line, has missed out. She is right to raise that as well as the lack of alternatives such as flights, many of which are being cut too. She highlighted the issues at Dawlish, to which the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred. He is right that the real enemy we are facing in this battle is climate change.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to speak about the risks further up the line at Powderham. He mentioned ageing rolling stock, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) who drew personal experience, having grown up in his constituency, and the fact that so much of the infrastructure in his part of the world is getting very old now. He rightly highlighted the disruption around major events, which I think underlined the fact that these disruptions can affect our sporting, hospitality and leisure industries as well as us individually as passengers.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), present and making an excellent contribution to the debate, as always, despite the lack of a train line in his constituency boundaries, was right to highlight the experiences of his constituents who use the Bangor line and the importance of resilient services going into Belfast, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) also mentioned. I thank him for highlighting the issues for our young people, whose opportunities are often limited by travel disruption. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) reminded us that transport worries are spreading right across Northern Ireland, and of the need for cross-border collaboration, which I think is true right across the British Isles.
The hon. Member for South Devon made a really important point around train wi-fi. She is absolutely right: we face a lot of productivity issues in this country, and if people were able to work while they were stuck on trains, that would go some way towards addressing that problem. I commend her for the campaigning she is doing, although it is a road issue rather than rail, around the A379 at Slapton Sands. Her constituency is one that my family and I visit every year to go on holiday, and when we were down there this year I was struck by the explanations on hoardings of businesses affected by the washing away of the road and the immense storm they had at Torcross. I was also struck by her explanation of the work that she is doing as an assiduous constituency MP to get those issues resolved. I really wish her all the best with that campaign.
I finish the debate by once again thanking hon. Members. I am sure we will all continue to talk about this disruption, which we hope will be resolved soon. I thank everybody for bringing their stories to the debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of extreme weather on train services.
Solar Panels on Agricultural Land
(1 day, 17 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
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of agricultural land for solar panels.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Currently, planning permission is being sought for a large solar panel development in my constituency on 150 acres of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. It is among the best and most versatile agricultural land, it includes 70 acres of grade 1 farmland and it forms part of an historic rural landscape. The local residents of Tabley and Knutsford are distraught and mystified that, at a time when the importance of food security is being increasingly recognised as a national priority, we should be allowing our highest-quality agricultural land to come out of production.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Lady and I share this concern, among many others. In my Strangford constituency and across Northern Ireland, a great number of solar applications are coming through that would take away prime agricultural land. In Northern Ireland, agriculture is the most important part—the backbone—of the regional economy. Does the right hon. Lady agree that weighted consideration must always be given to brownfield sites and rooftops, to ensure that the valuable land that she talks about is retained for the production of food?
Esther McVey
The hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely correct point, and I will come to that, as will, I know, other Members. Once development of this kind is approved, the land is no longer available for its primary purpose of producing food.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
A clean-air solar farm is proposed near Beverley on some excellent BMV—best and most versatile—agricultural land. Given that such fantastic, high-quality land constitutes only about 40% of farmland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is insane to allow solar to go on the best land when 60% of land that is widely available could have solar on it? The Minister would be well advised to tighten up the rules, because his solar strategy would then be far more likely to retain public support.
Esther McVey
Insanity is the right word, and that point has also been expressed by many of my constituents. At the most recent public meeting arranged by Rayna Jackson and the newly formed community group, Knutsford Solar Action, hundreds of local residents gathered, hoping to get some answers from the developer and the local council as to why the site had been chosen. Sadly, neither Aukera—the developer—nor Cheshire East council bothered to attend, so not even the most basic questions, such as why an environmental impact assessment had not been done for the site, could be answered.
The whole process has shown absolutely no regard for the local rural community. The truth is that the Government’s colossal rush to achieve their net zero targets is coming at the expense of our nation’s food security and destroying the UK’s farming land. Then again, we know what this Government think of farmers and farming—not a lot.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it cannot be right that farmers in the South Cotswolds, who have had no say in this, now face the compulsory acquisition of rights over their land purely because the developer has chosen to locate a solar farm 13 miles away from the nearest grid connection?
Esther McVey
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope the Minister is listening to what all right hon. and hon. Members are saying about this issue.
According to the Commons Library, between August 2025 and July 2026 some 733 solar photovoltaic projects received planning permission across the United Kingdom. That shows the pace at which solar developments are reshaping our countryside, with around 188,000 acres approved for grid-scale solar projects across the UK.
Esther McVey
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and then to my constituency neighbour.
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend is being generous in allowing interventions. She talked about the scale and pace of solar developments on agricultural land. In my constituency, we already have a huge development of over 700 acres, and another one on 160 acres near Rodmersham has just been given permission. A huge quantity of important agricultural land is being destroyed by solar developments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take that into account in their guidance on planning decisions so that we do not jeopardise our food security?
Esther McVey
I do indeed. That is precisely why are having this debate: to impress on the Government what actions they need to take.
Aphra Brandreth
My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making an excellent and important speech. Energy security is of course important but, as she has pointed out, we cannot lose sight of the vital importance of food security. Does she agree that we need action, not words? A lot of people have said we should prioritise brownfield sites. It is not enough to say it; we need to make sure that solar panels go on brownfield sites and rooftops instead of building over prime agricultural land.
Esther McVey
I do not know how many tens of thousands of people the Government need to hear saying precisely that before action is taken. Ministers repeatedly state that lower-quality land should be used, but in reality that is not the case. There is a growing gap between policy and practice.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In my constituency, the Secretary of State has just approved the Green hill solar farm, 60% of which will use best and most versatile land. That means that arable land will be lost for 60 years in our area. Local groups are considering a judicial review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the policy says we should not use that land, it does not make sense that the Government approve these farms none the less?
Esther McVey
I think that, like with most things, the Government do not know what is going on. They talk the talk but do not put what they say into practice. In 2025, the Campaign to Protect Rural England found that 59% of England’s largest solar farms are located on productive farmland, with almost a third occupying the very best agricultural land. The proposed Tabley Hill solar farm in my constituency is another instance of a large-scale solar development being directed towards some of the country’s best agricultural land.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Does she agree that, apart from rolling over the wishes of local communities, the ideology driving these solar farms is economically disastrous because we are losing good agricultural land, and environmentally disastrous because much good prime land is being destroyed by machinery, pipelines, concrete bases and so on? It is being lost for a generation because solar farms are not a short-term thing; they will last at least 60 years.
Esther McVey
I agree with my right hon. Friend, as I will call him. The Government have been blinded by their net zero zealotry. They need to open up their eyes and listen to what the public, and we as the public’s representatives, are saying.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I applaud my right hon. Friend for her speech and for securing the debate. I want to say something vital. We finally managed, against Government pressure, to get an amendment into the Great British Energy Act 2025 to stop the Government buying solar arrays made in Xinjiang in China, where slave labour is practised, but we know that they simply do not check enough. We have clear evidence that cheaper solar arrays are still made using slave labour. It is all very well to talk about 300 years ago, but right now we are allowing slave labour to take place. The Minister needs to get to his feet and give us a pledge that he will put in proper checks to stop that filthy trade being part of the disaster that my right hon. Friend is eloquently describing.
Esther McVey
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. He spends a lot of time and energy investigating and pursuing it and I am glad he has brought his expertise to this debate.
The Government have made it clear that solar energy will be central to their clean power mission, with solar capacity expected to increase from 17 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by the end of the decade. However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country’s agricultural land.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Solar energy must continue to make a huge and growing contribution towards our clean energy future, and that must include far more solar on rooftops and car parks and a considered approach to the use of land for energy generation. There are competing demands in respect of food production, renewable energy generation, nature and rural livelihoods, and I am concerned about the lack of an integrated land use framework and strategic spatial energy plan to guide solar expansion, which is resulting in lots of speculative applications. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we must move towards a co-ordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three?
Esther McVey
I agree that the Government need to have oversight of what is going on. It seems that our farming land and our food security are currently being put at a lower level of priority than a net zero mission and vision. As we have all agreed, solar panels should be put on appropriate brownfield land, on top of roofs and on industrial land, not on agricultural land.
Does the Minister know how much prime agricultural land the Government are prepared to sacrifice to meet their green targets? Supposedly, Tabley Hill solar farm is a temporary development, yet a scheme expected to remain in place for 40 years is not temporary—and other Members have talked about 60 years. It will determine how the land is used for a generation.
I recognise the financial pressures that many farmers face, particularly under the Government’s savage policies, and why the certainty of a long-term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with a system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country’s highest-quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers, who are threatened with eviction, and there is further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.
Aukera, Tabley Hill’s developer, points to a community fund that it has established—which I think is derisory, at £10,000 a year—as evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. Local residents are entitled to ask whether £10,000 a year is proportionate compensation for a development covering 150 acres, occupying green-belt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say that it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.
The burden of development will not be confined to the site. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. Heavy goods vehicle movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. It is a rural community, and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise, disruption and the danger of such traffic on rural roads.
Tabley Hill is about more than just one planning application in my constituency; it raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding green-belt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities. There are also questions about whether land used for solar farms will—or ever could—be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that, and they do not have the answers.
I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar power has a role to play in our energy future. But I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest-quality agricultural land when brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available alternatives, as other Members have said. Productive farmland should be protected wherever possible, and the alternatives should be exhausted before land of such quality is taken out of use for a generation. In my mind, though, it should never be used.
The Minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says that planning authorities should encourage the development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough, as it is not working. What does the Minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his Government’s assault on farmers would be a good start. Will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land against solar-farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation’s ability to provide food for its people?
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate. Obviously, many colleagues from across the House have raised concerns about projects in their constituencies. I understand entirely why, but given that those projects are subject to planning processes, I will say at the outset that I cannot comment on the positives or negatives, or the decisions through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process, in relation to any of those particular applications. Those are rightly matters for the Secretary of State to make decisions on in due course.
I will touch on the general points that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made. First, we should recognise an area where I think we have common agreement: building infrastructure across our country is necessary but it should be done in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the nimby debate coming up in this a bit redundant, when we are actually trying to bring communities with us. But I have also said clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it is not possible to just build all of it “somewhere else”. Inevitably, in these debates, we often get back to the argument that people are in favour of the technology, but “just not anywhere near my constituency.” There has to be some common ground in the middle that recognises that we need to build infrastructure somewhere.
Solar is particularly important because it tackles our energy security issues, and is also by far the cheapest electricity generation to deploy in the country at the moment. With affordability at the forefront of all our constituents’ minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much solar as we possibly can.
Graham Stuart
Of course, I had the Minister’s role just two and a half years ago. I think I agree with pretty much everything he has said so far, but there is a backlash because we are seeing so much high-quality land lost. We are seeing a cumulative impact, which, again, notionally, the Government say should be looked at, but they never seem to stop a project. There is also the issue of slave-labour supply chains.
I therefore invite the Minister to tighten up the rules on best and most versatile land, given that 60% of the land is not the best and most versatile. I also invite him to tighten up the rules so that there is real protection around cumulative impact, and to tighten up the rules on slave-labour supply chains. I think that he can still fulfil his ambition to see the infrastructure built and make sure that we have a system that is sufficiently rigorous so that communities are quieted. It will not stop every nimby everywhere, but at least it will give reassurance and show that there are real rules providing real protection, because right now that absence is causing scepticism right across this House and across the country.
Michael Shanks
I will come to several of those points. The right hon. Gentleman has always been more pragmatic than his party on many of these issues—I hope that does not do him a disservice—and I have always appreciated that. He is right that we want to try to find a place where we can build the infrastructure that we need but bring communities with us and not turn them away from the energy transition. That is really important.
I want to share some statistics, because individual applications often paint a picture of a much greater use of land across the country than is actually the case. At the end of September 2024—the latest set of figures I have—the land devoted to solar farms covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of the UK’s total land. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the clean power action plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. I recognise that there are local impacts from all these projects—I speak as a Member of Parliament from an area very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms built under the previous Government—and that land use is a challenge across communities, but this is nevertheless a very small proportion of land across the country overall.
The right hon. Member’s second point was about supply chains, on which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly challenged us, and I will say two things. First, it was right that we accepted the amendment but also set up Great British Energy to not only be a leader in how we build supply chains, but to try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again and do due diligence on supply chains coming in from China. There is much more work to do and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some initiatives, such as the solar stewardship initiative, need to go further to ensure that we get into the detail of supply chains.
Secondly, when we left Government in 2010, three companies were building in solar supply chains in the UK and, when we came back, there were none. That comes back to a really important point about re-industrialisation: if we want supply chain security, a line of sight on things such as human rights, and to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in manufacturing capability. We need to nurture it and not let it go to the wall, which is where we get to particular risks.
Michael Shanks
I give way first to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
Sammy Wilson
Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why so many UK firms disappear is that they cannot compete against firms, especially from China, who have cheap labour or labour at no cost at all? That is why it is so important that the Government tighten down on where the supplies of this equipment come from.
Michael Shanks
I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The main point I want to make to the Minister is that China thwarts all the rules around commerce. It subsidises all its industries, including the solar industry. It uses slave labour, which we have mentioned. The thing about slave labour is that America does this in a much cleaner way: it assumes that the companies are using slave-made solar panels and leaves it to the company to prove, using serious checks including forensic science, that it is not. The Government should look at and adopt that process; it would kill the supply of slave-made solar panels tomorrow.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Gentleman; he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill. We continue to look at and review that across Government in relation to procurement and Government investment in these projects. We want to incentivise, as much as possible, supply chains to be here in the UK.
I do not accept the point from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We must use the mechanisms we have to encourage manufacturing in the UK. That is why such things as the clean industry bonus are about saying that, alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, companies can also get investment to make sure that manufacturing is here in the UK, too, and the jobs that go with it. We also need security at a time when supply chains are critical. No doubt this is a challenge and I accept that point, but there is more we can do.
I want to come back to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net zero zealotry in this debate. At the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is recognition that solar is part of an energy mix, not the entirety of it. We need a mix of technologies, but the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security in a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing, and in terms of bringing down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that, and although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and to support innovative projects such as floating solar, we also recognise that ground-mounted solar plays a critical role in this.
The right hon. Lady also made a number of points about food security, and of course, I absolutely agree with her. Food security is national security. We need to back British farmers and agriculture is really important in this country. I understand that it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and character of rural areas, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do. It weighs up different impacts with opportunities, looks through specific projects and takes account of local views, all of which are considered in these processes.
The planning system is also really clear that a number of projects in a particular area will have cumulative impacts on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and that is taken into account in these processes. Whether it is visual amenity, protected landscapes or the natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. As the right hon. Lady said, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land can take place only where it is absolutely necessary, and even then, lower-grade land should be used first.
Michael Shanks
I will give way briefly to the right hon. Lady, but I will then have to conclude.
Esther McVey
As the Minister has heard today, that is not the case. I was asking what specific steps he is taking to tighten up the planning process, or to have oversight so that what he thinks is happening is actually happening.
Michael Shanks
It is not for me to litigate individual planning applications; that is what the planning system exists for. We have given very clear guidance on this, and we keep these things under review. At the moment, we already have a planning system that takes these things into consideration, and I will not open up the debate on individual projects. Indeed, the National Farmers’ Union has said that solar poses no threat to food security.
I must also highlight the most glaring point in all this: clean energy is about us trying to get off fossil fuels, and although part of the reason for doing so is to reduce all our constituents’ exposure to the impacts on bills, the summer we have just lived through was a perfect example of climate change in action. It made the impact of not tackling the climate crisis on food security very clear and present for us. To exclude that from the debate misses the crucial point that climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.
I have already told the right hon. Lady that I agree that we should be building much more rooftop solar, and that is why the future homes standards encourage new houses to be built with solar installed. That is also why I am working to see whether we can get even more solar on warehouses, supermarkets, car parks and everywhere else we possibly can, which I am entirely open to, but ground-mounted solar will nevertheless remain important.
I also want us to look much more at innovation in how we farm alongside solar farms. I have visited a number of solar farms where the two go alongside one another, such as where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. There is also a lot of emerging science in agrivoltaics on developing new ways to make sure that we have arable farming alongside solar.
Sarah Bool
In the Green Hill solar farm application, one of the arguments made was that we could also have sheep farming, but the Secretary of State’s decision actually said that this was irrelevant and would not be considered, because they could not guarantee it. Actually, the promise of them sitting side by side is not a guarantee.
Michael Shanks
I am not making any guarantees here, and I have not pretended to do so. I am saying that there is much more opportunity to do these things side by side, and I have visited and seen some places where it is working, including places where there is a net gain in biodiversity from the deployment of solar panels.
In this focus group on solar, we will clearly not have support from everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I entirely understand that. As I have said in a number of debates—I hope fairly—we want to ensure that we bring communities with us on this as much as possible, and the planning system is important. The right hon. Member for Tatton also talked about community benefits, and it is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more soon about our expectations on developers for community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, rather than be tokenistic. It is important to say that they are not compensation regimes; they are about saying, “You’re hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we thank you for that. Here is a community benefit.”
Contrary to how it seems from my speech, I think there is much that we agree on. We want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity that we can generate from clean sources. We have to ensure that we have renewables alongside nuclear and other technologies, and the planning system exists to balance that with continued food production and protecting communities. I am very open to looking at any further reforms that are necessary, but I think that the balance is understood at the moment. I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have had the debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions
(1 day, 17 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
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Jardine.
Gynaecological health should never cost a woman her livelihood, but almost a third of women with endometriosis are forced to leave work because of their symptoms. Behind the statistics are heartbreaking stories of women who struggle every day to get the support they need in the workplace.
A defining mission of my time in Parliament, which is coming up to 12 years now, has been making the workplace fairer and safer for women up and down the country. One of my proudest achievements in Parliament has been leading the campaign for mandatory flexible working rights, which has enabled parents, particularly women, to thrive at work while balancing their commitments, especially their family commitments.
Some people in the House might remember that in 2019 I delayed the birth of my son to vote against Brexit, because there was no other option. I had to come into Parliament because there was no other way to register the views of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. I am very pleased to say that afterwards proxy voting was introduced, which means that MPs can now ask someone to vote for them on the basis of parental absence. However, it should not have taken something like that for proxy voting to be introduced, and my experience showed the world how inaccessible even Parliament is for women.
I am pleased to say that the rules have changed, but we still have a long way to go before we make workplaces fully accessible for women. When one of my very brave constituents told me how they were unfairly dismissed from work after many years of loyal service while they were suffering from crippling endometriosis, and then had to fight for years simply to establish that the law protected them, I was absolutely astounded by her story. That is because not a single gynaecological condition is included in the disability guidance of the Equality Act 2010.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I also have a constituent who suffers with endometriosis and who has been unable to work as a result; she, too, has not received the support that she requires. Although the Equality Act protects pregnancy, does the hon. Member agree that it should also protect gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis? There are other conditions to consider, too. We know that currently one in six women leave the workplace due to endometriosis, because they just experience apathy, lack of understanding and so on, so it is really important that we empower women with conditions such as endometriosis to be able to remain in work.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She makes a very important point about people not quite understanding what endometriosis is about. I have to say that when my constituent came to me and started talking to me about her situation and her case at work, I had to look up endometriosis; if someone has not personally suffered from it, it can be easy just to dismiss it as something that does not cripple a person’s life. However, it does cripple people’s lives. I will expand on a few of the hon. Member’s points later in my speech.
I am here in Westminster Hall today because of my constituent, who is in the Public Gallery today and who launched a petition, which has received over 110,000 signatures, calling for this situation to be changed. She is a formidable campaigner who I am proud to say lives in our constituency.
The statutory guidance on the definition of disability names Meniere’s disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and certain types of depression as examples of conditions whose effects are fluctuating or recurring. However, it is silent on endometriosis, fibroids, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. These are conditions that affect millions of women, and their effects are, by their very nature, cyclical and recurring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. The merits of adding debilitating gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis to the Equality Act list are clear, because doing so would legally guarantee women with those conditions the reasonable workplace adjustments they need to remain in employment. However, does she agree that that will mean very little if the underlying health care system is failing?
I know that it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but for us back home we find ourselves in a situation where the care available is severely limited. Women in my constituency of Strangford are trapped on agonising waiting lists and are forced to pay thousands to travel across the water for surgery here simply because the care does not exist at home. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting women at work is only half the battle? There is still a lot to do in the healthcare system.
Tulip Siddiq
I am pleased to see the hon. Member attend every debate in the Chamber; he has not stopped doing that and he is always fighting for the rights of women in any of the debates that we have. He is right to say that we do need to settle what is happening in the workplace, but we also have to look at the healthcare system as well and make sure that it does not become a postcode lottery where women have to travel in order to get treatments that should be available for everyone.
In response to my constituent’s petition, the Government acknowledged that such conditions can affect women’s performance at work, but said they had no plans to amend the guidance. That is why I am standing here today, urging my colleagues in the Government to reconsider that decision. When a woman’s condition is missing from the guidance, she starts every conversation with her employer and the human resources department, as well as every claim, on the back foot. That is because courts and tribunals must take the guidance into account. HR departments and managers will use it as their checklist. It opens the door to legal protection, fairer workplace adjustments and a fairer system for millions of women across the country.
Last month, hon. Members may have seen that the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis published its “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. The results were sobering. Evidence was gathered from more than 6,000 employees with confirmed or suspected endometriosis, and from 250 employers. The inquiry provides one of the most detailed pictures yet of the condition’s impact on working life. These are some of the facts: 97% of employees worked with severe pain; 94% believed employers lacked understanding of the condition; 62% were worried about losing their job; 47% had lost income and 39% were experiencing financial hardship; 49% had difficulties progressing in their career after the condition; 28% had been forced to leave their job altogether; 49% had received no workplace adjustments at all; and 72% of employers said they had no training or guidance on women’s health conditions, such as endometriosis.
It is fair to say that women with endometriosis have been failed by the employment rights system. It is damaging their lives, their families and the economy. With only 11% of employers in the UK having a menstrual health policy, employers are not making the reasonable adjustments to accommodate people with endometriosis, who are forced to suffer in silence. That shocking statistic highlights why there is such widespread discrimination of women with endometriosis. That is why gynaecological conditions must be included as impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects in the Equality Act 2010 guidance on the definition of disability. By doing that, we will strengthen workplace protections for women with disabling gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, fibroids, PMOS, PMDD, severe menopausal symptoms and other menstrual disorders.
One of the biggest challenges we have—I have learned a lot of this from my constituent who suffers from this issue—is the unpredictable nature of those conditions. Women can experience severe pelvic pain, debilitating fatigue, heavy bleeding that leads to anaemia, bowel and bladder symptoms, bloating, nausea, loss of appetite and other complications that can fluctuate in severity. For example, a woman with endometriosis may be able to function absolutely fine one day, but the next day cannot get up from her bed. Employers should take that into account. It is overwhelmingly evidenced in medical statistics, but my constituent tells me it is being ignored by employers because the conditions are not listed in the guidance, which is what we are fighting for.
I ask the Minister, who I know is passionate about this topic and has been in touch with me about it, to consider four practical steps. First, will she update the Equality Act 2010 guidance? It is issued by a Minister under section 6 of the Act, so no primary legislation is needed. Gynaecological conditions should be named among the examples of conditions that have recurring or fluctuating effects. The guidance should include worked examples of what a flare can look like in a working day, and it should discuss pain that stops a woman travelling, standing up or concentrating, heavy bleeding, fatigue, anaemia and recovery from surgery.
Secondly, will the Minister look at the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance and set out in the employment code examples of reasonable adjustments for such conditions, such as flexible and hybrid working, adjusted hours on bad days, access to facilities and rest breaks, time off for medical conditions and a phased return from surgery? It is incredible that women have to fight for those things—of course they should have a phased return after surgery, but lots of women do not have that option in the workplace. A lot of those things would cost little or nothing, but they would make the lives of those who are suffering so much easier.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to give employees something tangible to take back to their managers or to human resources. A simple standard workplace adjustments passport, backed by ACAS guidance, would record what has been agreed so that the woman does not have to explain her condition over and over again every time her manager changes, which is exhausting in itself, and the managers know exactly what is expected of them.
Fourthly, I would build on the Employment Rights Act 2025. Large employers will soon have to publish equality action plans that include support for employees who are going through the menopause. The plans should extend to menstrual and gynaecological health. The Government’s Keep Britain Working agenda and their workplace health system should expressly include women with long-term fluctuating conditions.
Those changes would help not only women with such conditions but everyone living with a non-visible chronic condition whose effects come and go. Those basic changes could save jobs and so much money, and relieve so much anxiety for countless women across the county who are disabled by endometriosis and are not given reasonable adjustments in the workplace. By doing that, we can be a Government who ensure women have workplace protections and the right to reasonable adjustments for their conditions.
As the Minister knows, I was a part of the Treasury, so the economy is always on my mind. This is not just a question of fairness; it is actually about a strong economy and sound business. Endometriosis alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year in treatment, lost work and healthcare costs. The Office for National Statistics found that women with endometriosis earned about £4,500 less over the five years after receiving a diagnosis. The Fawcett Society found that one in 10 women who worked during the menopause left their job because of their symptoms, and many others worked on reduced hours.
The PMDD Project found that nine in 10 reported that PMDD significantly or extremely affected their everyday lives—particularly employment. They can be perceived as unreliable, inconsistent or unable to manage their workload, when in reality they are living with a recognised and often severely disabling condition. I am sure the Minister agrees that women are a vital part of our workflows and our economy. It is right that the law and guidance explain that and reflect the reality of their everyday lives.
Employment lawyers acting in such cases describe the same pattern again and again. Very senior women, in whom businesses have invested year after year through training and client development, are managed out after surgery or a period of sickness absence, when a phased return, a flexible pattern of working or a modest change to their duties could have retained them and helped our economy at the same time. The business loses the woman’s skills, client relationships and everything that has been invested in them. It then pays to recruit and train a replacement, and it very often pays again to defend a claim. Claims can take years. At the end of June this year, there were 70,000 claims waiting in employment tribunals—the highest number on record.
The average claim takes well over a year to resolve, with some final hearings being listed for 2028 and 2029. With appeals, a case can run for three years or more. Think about the damage that does to the economy, the business and particularly the morale of all our women who we need back in our economy working for our country. It is three years of legal costs for both the employer and former employee. It is three years of uncertainty and anxiety for all the women, and three years in which neither the business nor the woman can move. That cripples the economy, the business and, often, the woman’s life.
The cases that do reach the courts show what is at stake. In South Gloucestershire council v. Hundal, which was decided by the employment appeal tribunal in 2024, a social worker with endometriosis—who the tribunal found was managing complex cases well despite her disability—had her placement ended because of the absences caused by her medical condition. Her manager had suggested adjustments such as working from home and spreading her four-day week over five days. Neither of those was tried and an occupational health referral was not even considered. The tribunal found that ending her engagement could not be justified and an appeal tribunal agreed.
In another case, a tribunal accepted that a woman with endometriosis could not walk, stand or drive when her systems flared. The condition left her anaemic, exhausted and unable to sleep. It found that she was disabled, observing that nothing in the Equality Act requires a disability to be constant. That is exactly why guidance should be made plain: so that women do not have to waste time, effort and mental energy going to a tribunal to establish it.
Reasonable adjustments are the most effective way to avoid all this. They keep women in work, protect the employer’s investment and stop claims arising in the first place. Prevention is far cheaper than cure. For as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of women in Britain, the injustice will continue. Making reasonable adjustments is simply the fairest thing to do. It is also the most sensible thing to do economically. Naming these conditions in the guidance would give every woman something concrete to point to, and every employer a clear basis on which to act. It would save money and time, and most importantly it would spare women, their families and their employers so much avoidable pain.
The benefits of doing that spread beyond the workplace, to all of us in society. It will improve the mental health and wellbeing of women by enabling them to be seen, heard and protected, and to advocate for themselves. The guidance will also help Department for Work and Pensions assessors, who are rejecting claims from women with endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. For me, that is a win-win because it will protect women in the economy, education, healthcare, the workplace and beyond. I urge colleagues in Government to recognise what women experience every single day. I believe it is time to end this discrimination once and for all.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on an excellent opening speech, which has covered so many of the aspects that we have spoken about for so many years.
I started to raise the issues of endometriosis about a decade ago in this very room. Again, like the hon. Lady, it came to my attention through someone coming to see me in a constituency surgery. I then realised I had a close friend whose wife had suffered from endometriosis since her teen years. What is striking straightaway is how many people do not know about the condition. Therein lies one of the great problems. I remember when I first started doing this, I got lots of comments about why I was bringing this up as a man. I always found that comment particularly strange—surely we are elected to represent all our constituents, and well over 50% of my constituents are women—but it spoke to a greater problem: people do not understand women’s health needs.
Women’s health needs are exceptionally different from those of men. The reality is that men can sympathise, but cannot empathise, because they are unlikely to suffer from chronic diseases throughout their lives, from teenage years through to old age. Women can have endometriosis long after the menopause—it is not to do with being of a fertile age. Also, the growth of the endometrium is not linked just to having a uterus, as it can spread to other parts of the body.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate outlined some of the problems, but—I am sorry for this, Ms Jardine—I will get a little more graphic and try to paint a picture of what some gynaecological conditions can mean. If a person who has stage 3 or stage 4 endometriosis, there is a real chance that it has invaded their digestive system—indeed, that can be when problems start to become apparent, but by that time, it can have progressed a long way down the line. I am sure that everybody in this room will have suffered from food poisoning or an upset stomach, when—I do not want to be too graphic—they could not get off the toilet. We all know what is like, and it is horrific, but we stay at home, take our salts and fluids, and work our way through it for 24 hours. What happens is that we feel a bit rotten for a couple of days, but then we go back work.
For people who have reached such a stage of the disease, that happens all the time. They will be sitting at work and will suddenly have to rush to the bathroom. One thing that people recognise is that endometriosis can cause heavy bleeding, and how embarrassing that can be for a teenage girl. The very fact that people may soil themselves without realising is a great problem, which needs sympathetic employers to arrange an office space and position things so that they are able to go to the toilet quickly. There needs to be understanding from fellow employees, and we need to make sure that employers recognise the issues.
I will not dwell on this point, because many other hon. Members want to speak, but education plays an important role. I worked with some girls born in the 21st century who did not know about the condition, which shocked me. If it is taught to all sexes in schools, understanding will come through. If people do not know what a disease is, it is easy to try to dismiss it and say, “This person just takes time off work. Women get heavy periods. They’re just a malingerer—they’re not doing anything.” As I have spoken about for so long, such conditions need to be protected under the Equality Act. I am proud to chair the board of The Endometriosis Foundation, and that our brilliant chief executive officer, Carla Cressy, who has stage 4 endometriosis, has done so much to support people. Research shows that around 90% of affected people experience a mental health impact, and 50% think about taking their lives—unfortunately, about 30 women a year do take their lives. That is how serious the subject is.
If I can leave people with just one message, it is just to think about it. As an employer or a man, think about if you had to go to work every day, not knowing whether you will suddenly soil yourself while sitting at your desk. Think about that, and about how we should be dealing with people who suffer from this terrible disease.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I ask Members to stick to an informal time limit of three minutes.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this debate to raise an excellent question. We can clearly see a troubling difference between the care delivered for women’s conditions and that delivered for conditions affecting the general population, which is an issue I have raised with my local NHS board. As hon. Members will know, health is a devolved matter in Scotland, but equality is not. I am open to any solution that would help the women and girls in my constituency to get the healthcare they need, when they need it.
When I met NHS Lanarkshire in November 2025, we discussed waiting lists. I was told that the board aimed to eliminate two-year waits by the spring, which I thought was progress, relatively speaking. However, there was a catch: the exception was gynaecology. I wrote to ask what the plan was for that, but was told that it was difficult and challenging. They were not able to share a plan, nor did they confirm that ensuring that women received the same levels of healthcare as men was a priority. It is true that they are operating in very difficult circumstances, and the SNP-led Scottish Government must take their share of responsibility, but this exception is not the answer. For endometriosis, the average wait in England is nine years and four months, and in Scotland, it is 10 years and two months. That is more than a decade of pain and more, as my hon. Friend described so well. The dreams that young women so rightly have for themselves can be lost in this process, which is devastating.
Many of us have heard somebody say, “Well, if men suffered from this, they would have found a cure,” but there is an even more modest question that we need to ask: what do we need to do to make sure that women get the treatment that already exists? Women are not born to endure. They are not born to accept pain or incapacitation as part of the feminine experience, and when they are ill, they should not be dismissed. They should not be told—it happens at every stage of life, quite frankly—that it is their age or, if it is really bad, that they could take a paracetamol. These examples are, and have been, far too familiar to too many women for far too long. We all know that these problems run deep, and my hon. Friend has cut to the heart of the issue. Much more needs to be done. It should not take a rewriting of the Equality Act to make it happen, but she is right to ask the question, and I thank her for it.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
A few weeks ago, I posted a video sharing some of what I am learning about endometriosis, and the response was absolutely heartbreaking. My comments were full of people sharing their experiences—years of pain, being dismissed by doctors, struggling to get a diagnosis and then, on top of that, trying to hold down a job and get their employers to understand. I heard about lives turned upside down by a condition that they have no control over and very little support with.
I hear the same stories from people in Gorton. What gets me the most is that it does not have to be this way. All that is needed is for women’s pain and the pain of those who are assigned female at birth to be taken seriously by the doctors who serve them, by the employers they work for and by the Government who represent them, yet instead, as has so often been the case throughout history, it ends up being the people most affected who are left to fight for the change that they deserve. Despite the pain and debilitating symptoms of endometriosis, they are the ones coming up with the ideas, solutions and plans. They are the experts, and we should all be listening.
One in six women with endometriosis leaves the workplace due to their condition. Almost half say that they have struggled to progress in their career because of endometriosis, and almost half had not received workplace adjustments. Almost half had lost income. Despite endometriosis affecting one in 10 women, it is rarely taught effectively at medical schools as part of the curriculum, leaving future healthcare practitioners without the necessary knowledge.
Those with endometriosis in Gorton and Denton and in every constituency across the country are losing money, missing out on opportunities and struggling to stay in employment, not because they do not want to work but because the support simply is not there. We are talking about basic, practical help that could make the difference between someone staying in work and having to give it up completely. Good employers want guidance. They want advice on flexible working, on time off for medical appointments, extra breaks or a phased return after surgery. Good employers want to help their staff so that their businesses can perform to their highest potential.
We need a Government that will finally listen to, and act on, lived experience by adding gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis to the Equality Act 2010 guidance on the definition of disability. These conditions are long term—often lifelong—and by definition, they fluctuate and recur, meeting the criteria for disability. There must be specificity in the guidance to ensure that employees disabled by debilitating chronic conditions such as endometriosis are supported with reasonable adjustments and legally protected against workplace discrimination.
To Sanju Pal, who has campaigned for so long and so hard on this, as well as the tireless work of countless other organisations, and to everyone for sharing their experiences and who are out there fighting for change, I say thank you. This debate is entitled
“the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance”,
but I think the people living with these conditions would find it pretty shocking that we even have to debate the merits. The debate should be about how much longer we can afford not to.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important debate.
Seven years ago, I was sat in this very room for a debate on endometriosis workplace support, in which the much-missed David Amess announced that the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis would be launching an inquiry into the state of care—at this point I also want to thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) for all his work over the years. I wish I could say that I cannot believe we are having the same debate again, yet I know from the countless emails I have received from women across the country about their experiences that many of the issues identified by the APPG all those years ago still persist.
One constituent recently reached out to me, having been repeatedly bedridden as a result of her pain. She spoke about a fruitless struggle to access healthcare, which had left her untreated and worried about keeping her job. Some changes have been made in the right direction, but we cannot ignore the evidence telling us that support is not reaching far enough. A recent endometriosis APPG call for evidence found that less than half of respondents with the condition had received any workplace adjustments, yet 80% of employers giving evidence supported changes to the guidance to explicitly recognise the condition as meeting the definition of a disability.
Our workplaces are clearly willing to make adjustments, but the guidance is failing them, as well as the people it is supposed to safeguard. The Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission must review the guidance so that it clearly reflects chronic and fluctuating conditions such as endometriosis. Will the Minister look carefully at the APPG’s findings and consider whether the guidance for employers should now be reviewed?
I have two further questions. First, will the Minister work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS on practical guidance that covers support before a diagnosis and the fair handling of short recurring absences? Secondly, as the Government develop the workplace health system, will the Minister ensure that endometriosis and other fluctuating menstrual health conditions are part of that work? Women have waited long enough to be believed by their doctors. They should not have to wait any longer to be supported by their employers.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important debate and to everybody else who has championed this issue, including those joining us in the Gallery.
We all know that, for far too long, women’s conditions have often been dismissed. They have not been a priority, and in some cases they have been misunderstood. Some might say that it is down to misogyny that is baked into the system, but these conditions truly impact every stage of women’s lives, from when they are very young girls and through the teenage years, all the way to when we are supposed to be full of wisdom—or not, in some cases. These conditions are fluctuating, which is partly why employers take the opportunity of not having to address reasonable adjustments. In fact, employees requesting reasonable adjustments are often faced by unreasonable expectations.
The scale of the challenge remains significant, so I welcome the fact that waiting lists are coming down in Wolverhampton’s NHS trust. Over 5,800 people in Wolverhampton were waiting for treatment this summer, which is an improvement on the 6,462 the year before, but hon. Members can see the scale that we are still facing. I welcome the Government’s action on the renewed women’s health strategy, but I call for levers across Government Departments to push faster.
Today’s debate is about more than just healthcare; it is also about employment and workplace protections, as we have heard. Too often, the support depends on whether an employer understands and has the resources to support what an individual is going through. That is inconsistent and can lead to further harm for the individual. The Equality Act already provides important protections where a condition meets the legal definition of disability. However, many women find themselves in a grey area where their condition significantly affects everyday life but the support remains inconsistent. That is why I believe there is a strong case for explicitly referencing gynaecological conditions within Equality Act guidance.
Clearer guidance would support employers to be better and to better understand conditions such as endometriosis, fibroids, PMOS and menopause. It would encourage earlier conversations, reduce stigma and support the reasonable adjustments that are needed. In many cases, those adjustments are straightforward, whether it is flexible working, time off for specialist appointments, temporary changes to working patterns or maybe some flexibility with home working. Will the Minister work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, employers and women’s health organisations to consider how Equality Act guidance can better reflect the realities faced by women living with those conditions?
Women have waited long enough to have these conditions recognised. We are making progress in healthcare and that progress should be welcome, but now we have an opportunity to ensure that the support extends beyond hospitals and GP surgeries and into workplaces.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate. I speak as the chair of the APPG on PMOS and as a woman living with PMOS and endometriosis—I feel like I somehow won the cup when I got both of those. One in eight women in the UK suffer from PMOS, yet despite how common it is, it remains poorly understood, underdiagnosed and too often overlooked. The World Health Organisation estimates that up to 70% of women affected globally remain undiagnosed. Both of those figures are women waiting for answers.
For me, diagnosis took over 18 years. During those years I developed an eating disorder—I became bulimic—experienced depression and lost confidence. I passed out in sixth form on so many occasions. I lost the feeling in my legs and when I went to the GP, he told me over and over again, “It’s all part and parcel of being a woman. Take some paracetamols.” I share that because we must understand what delayed diagnosis costs. It reaches into your relationship with your food, mental health, working life and sense of self. Failure to diagnose does not make the condition disappear; it leaves women managing its consequences without the explanation, treatment or support they deserve.
PMOS affects more than fertility. It can affect metabolism, periods and mental health and it increases the risk of conditions including type 2 diabetes. Earlier diagnosis provides an opportunity to manage those risks and offer support sooner. Instead, women can spend years questioning themselves when the system should be asking the right questions.
Those failures do not fall equally. The condition disproportionately affects women from south Asian and black backgrounds and those on lower incomes, yet access to diagnosis and support remains inconsistent. Without greater awareness, existing inequalities in health can translate into inequalities in employment, career progression and economic opportunity. I cannot tell hon. Members the amount of times I have had a sleepless night before an exam, a driving test or anything important, worried that I would be too ill to stand up and do it.
A woman’s income, ethnicity or postcode should never determine whether she is heard or helped. We must tackle racism, language barriers and unequal access to care. For someone on an insecure contract, attending an appointment can mean losing wages, and asking for flexibility can feel like risking her job. The advice to seek support means little if that support is beyond her reach.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to provide for early diagnosis, access to psychological support, targeted action on inequalities and clear workplace guidance. Changing the name of polycystic ovary syndrome to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome must be matched by changing women’s experience. I cannot get those 18 years back, but we can stop another generation enduring the same wait, the same pain and the same anguish.
Greater awareness of PMOS and endometriosis in the workplace can help to ensure that women are supported, valued and able to thrive at work, rather than being forced to choose between managing their health and progressing in their careers. No woman should have to lose her health, her confidence or her future before the system finally decides to believe her and act.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this really important debate. I would also like to join other Members from across the House in congratulating and commending the campaigners, some of whom are in the Gallery, on the incredible work that they do on behalf of not just themselves but all women across the country and, indeed, internationally.
Millions of women face the difficulty and pain of managing gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, PMDD—the list goes on and on. It is obvious that more must be done to rapidly speed up diagnosis times and provide effective care and accommodations to those with these often incredibly debilitating conditions. Their impacts on women’s everyday lives extend, as we have heard, to education, employment and fertility. Some women leave work altogether because they cannot obtain the support that they need. We cannot—indeed, must not—accept that as normal.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that there would be merit in dealing with these conditions in the same way as cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis, which are deemed to be disabilities, under the Equality Act 2010, from the point of diagnosis and without the need to meet the functional test. I therefore urge the Government to examine that proposal further.
As we have heard, however, even getting a diagnosis is appallingly slow. Women’s symptoms are too often normalised or dismissed across all health conditions. I have heard outrageous stories of women’s persistent health concerns being dismissed with sometimes incredibly sexist comments attached. One young woman described to me fairly recently a particularly awful example. She was explaining to a consultant how she felt physically sick because of her persistent stomach pain, in this case while she was out shopping with friends, only to be dismissed by the doctor, who replied, “I often feel sick when I go shopping with my wife”—[Interruption.] There are groans from the Gallery. That actually happened.
With there being grossly outdated and misplaced attitudes like this, it is hardly surprising that it takes an average of almost 10 years to receive an endometriosis diagnosis in the UK. Recent research by Endometriosis UK has shone a light on the extent of the impact of this condition. In a recent report, the charity found that 97% of those surveyed worked while experiencing severe pain. It is no wonder that almost half of all those with endometriosis said that it had made it difficult to progress in their career, while 28% had had to leave their job altogether because of it. The same survey found that employers overwhelmingly want to help, but with there being little guidance and with employers facing the everyday pressures of running a business, the support for these women often just is not there. That is costing women—in pain, in missed career opportunities and, ultimately, in dignity.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to Baroness Merron, the Women’s Health Minister, on several occasions to raise the urgent need to improve care for women with gynaecological conditions. The Government know that health-related economic inactivity costs the UK £212 billion every year. Even if we think about this only in such crude economic terms, the action needed pays for itself. Indeed, one NHS Confederation report found that for every £1 spent on obstetrics and gynaecology, the estimated return on investment was £11. It follows that tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services should be a top priority.
That is why it was so disappointing that the women’s health strategy contained no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, while the NHS 10-year health plan did not include endometriosis, adenomyosis, PMOS or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Without there being clear direction from Government, we risk consigning more women to even longer waits and prolonged, unnecessary pain. That is why I was proud that the Liberal Democrats tabled to the Health Bill a new clause that would have ensured that the average wait time for endometriosis and other women-specific conditions was no longer than the average wait time for other elective conditions in the NHS. That would be a meaningful step towards equality in women’s healthcare.
Finally, we know that what gets measured gets done in the NHS. I hope that the Minister takes this away and conducts a serious examination of adding gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance. We owe it to these women to do all we can to tackle this injustice.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to everyone here today and welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I thank all Members for their contributions and the campaigners here today for raising it. I also thank the ladies in the Gallery who are studying public health at University College London; that is wonderful. We need more women bringing these issues to the forefront of our public health agenda.
This subject is close to my heart. I have suffered from a gynaecological condition, and I suffered in silence for a very long time. Oftentimes, we are told that it is just a ladies’ problem and that we can just carry on—“Take a paracetamol and you’ll be fine.” But that is not the case. The condition is debilitating, and one often needs surgery or multiple surgeries. It is a difficult thing to explain to employers or even a spouse, or whoever someone is with. Someone can carry on as a normal human being with the condition, but on some days it completely debilitates their everyday existence. I am very sympathetic to this debate and the need for women’s gynaecological issues to be brought to the forefront of public health.
It is a particularly warm and welcome development that the NHS is recognising biological sex. It is important to acknowledge that biological females with endometriosis and particular ovarian issues—all the things that specifically biological females suffer from—have been neglected over the years.
I do not know whether this is just my experience, but I found things to be very difficult on the NHS. There was a very long waiting list, and I was told that I perhaps did not have endometriosis and needed to go back to just taking some paracetamol to get over what was wrong with me. I did have endometriosis, but that was not found out until I had surgery. So many women suffering from the exact same thing are being told, “Just wait—you’ll be fine”, “It’s just your own personal issue,” or, “Take a paracetamol and you’ll feel better soon.” But it gets worse and worse over time.
I want to make sure that women have access to the same public health resources as everyone else. Those things have fallen through the cracks over the years, which is why I want to raise them in this debate. The reality is that women have to endure debilitating pain, uncertainty or discrimination simply because of a condition that is too often misunderstood or dismissed. It is a reality where overall waiting times for appointments with a gynaecological specialist are higher than they were the month before, the year before and since the last general election.
Women are waiting a very long time just to see a gynaecologist and have basic things checked, and then the referral process takes years and years. It is debilitating, and many women just give up. Many across the House have tried to change the reality of the wait that women face in the NHS. I pay tribute to David Amess for starting the APPG on endometriosis and raising this important issue for the House.
Endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome and heavy menstrual bleeding can have a profound impact on women’s lives. They can affect their ability to work, their education, their relationships and their mental wellbeing. Just recently, I heard a powerful story from a brave young woman called Sophia, who shared with me that she is suffering from extreme pain that can affect her ability to attend secondary school. It took a lot of courage for her to talk to me about this. Again and again, she faces the refrain of, “You’ll be fine—it’s just period pain.” Too many young women hear that phrase when it comes to conditions such as endometriosis because our NHS has been too distracted by other realities to put women’s health at the forefront of care and prioritisation.
For women with endometriosis, the average wait for a diagnosis is around nine years—nine years of uncertainty, pain and, in many cases, being told that their symptoms are simply part of being a woman. I hope that we can work together today to bring forward a solution that will help put women’s health at the forefront of care.
The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will endeavour to speak at pace so that I can cover everyone’s points and respond accordingly.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for introducing this important debate on a serious issue faced by so many women and girls; I am sure that we can all agree that she spoke extremely passionately. I thank her personally for her ongoing efforts in this campaign. I extend my thanks to the campaigners in the Gallery and acknowledge the challenges that my hon. Friend’s constituent Sanju Pal has faced, which led her to create this petition to add gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance.
I thank everyone for sharing their stories and for their contributions. I am personally passionate about this issue. The stats speak for themselves; I am not going to repeat them, but we all know that behind every one of them is a woman potentially suffering in silence—a woman getting dismissed and a woman who needs support.
This Government recognise the difficulties and pain that women and girls face in managing symptoms related to gynaecological conditions. As today’s debate has highlighted, menstrual and reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of women and girls, including on their participation in the workplace. The struggle is real and I have felt it myself, so I can relate to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). I personally thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate for her efforts inside this House as well: I have definitely reaped the benefits from those internal campaigns. For example, I have been able to vote by proxy when struggling with my health.
As a Government, we do not believe that anyone in this country should have to choose between managing their health and pursuing their career. We are committed to protecting the rights of women against unlawful discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that they have access to redress. As Members will know, depending on the circumstances, the Equality Act already provides protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, age or disability. The Act’s definition of disability focuses, for the most part, on how a condition affects a person’s day-to-day life, rather than listing specific conditions or impairments. That flexibility is important to allow the law to cover a vast range of conditions, as well as to avoid the risk of excluding changing, fluctuating or progressive conditions that impact on individuals differently.
My hon. Friend and other Members may be aware that the Government intend to produce guidance explaining how the law protects against combined discrimination. We can, of course, consider how gynaecological conditions can form part of that, and I will ensure that that is considered effectively. Alongside that, my hon. Friend and others will agree—I know that she made noises to this effect—that the issue can be addressed more effectively and quickly through ongoing efforts to help employers themselves to take more effective steps to support the health and wellbeing of their female employees: strengthening rights related to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses these conditions.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, and I do not doubt for one second her belief in the policy moving forward. However, I am concerned—and it is just a concern—that putting it into the Act will make employers recognise that it is specifically there, whereas saying that the Act can deal with it is still a bit opaque. This is one of the problems we have had; we want specificity, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, to make employers recognise just how serious the situation is.
Satvir Kaur
I accept that making it clearer will absolutely help; that should be considered as part of the combined discrimination guidance. I reassure Members that that will be considered. It is also important that we stress what else the Government are doing to address these issues. This debate has been healthy in reflecting that this is a wider issue that cannot only be addressed in legislation, although legislation is, of course, important.
We want to encourage employers to implement workplace adjustments, which have been raised by several Members in the debate, to help women remain in work and thrive in their careers. This Government are committed to that—not just because it is the right thing to do, but because equality is a precondition to our economic success, as many have already pointed out.
By creating more supportive and informed workplaces, we can help ensure that women with endometriosis or other health conditions can remain in work, progress in their careers and reach their full potential. That is why there is a great deal of action being taken by this Government to improve the support and protections available to women experiencing symptoms relating to gynaecological conditions.
In April this year, Mariella Frostrup was appointed as the Government’s women’s employment ambassador. In that role, she will campaign on women’s health throughout their life course, working with employers across the country to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health issues and address wider challenges affecting women in work, highlighting the vital economic contribution that women make.
The ambassador attended the launch of the “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. In her remarks, she emphasised that supporting women’s health in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, but vital in retaining talent, reducing inequalities and strengthening the economy. This work will also include engaging with Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent “Keep Britain Working” review, which highlighted the scale of economic inactivity due to ill health and disability, as well as the important role employers can play in helping people to stay in work.
During the vanguard phase, we have worked with employers, providers, unions and people with health conditions to develop and refine approaches that will help people thrive in work, including promoting early conversations about health needs and supporting reasonable workplace adjustments for women’s health conditions.
As we develop workplace health systems, we are considering how health and work interact across different stages of life, including the impact of endometriosis and other long-term fluctuating menstrual health conditions on people’s ability to remain and thrive in work.
We welcome the involvement of Endometriosis UK in the vanguard phase, which provides valuable insight into the experiences of people living with these conditions and helps inform our approach. As well as taking steps to create more supportive and informed workplaces, the renewed women’s health strategy, published in April, represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences, and access to care. Some of the stories shared in this debate are heartbreaking, and all of them have led to this important shift. The women’s health strategy identifies endometriosis as a priority condition and states our commitment to improve the treatment and ongoing care for every woman affected.
Through the plan Make Work Pay, we are strengthening support for people and managing health conditions alongside their work by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests where it is reasonable for them to do so. We want to ensure that all employers are supporting their employees’ health and wellbeing, because that will benefit the employees and their organisation. That is why the Government are getting large employers to publish action plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the steps being taken to improve support for menopause and endometriosis and to address the gender pay gap.
Importantly, the EHRC was mentioned. As Members will know, that is independent of the Government and will make its own operational decisions. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I am sorry if I did not get to everyone’s points.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.
Written Correction
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
… More widely, we have also confirmed that all 20 strategic authorities will be eligible for funding in the new co-operative development programme. This £10 billion programme is the biggest Government-backed boost to co-operatives for decades and shows how we are meeting our commitment to our sister party to double the size of the co-operative economy.
[Official Report, 2 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 619.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner):
Angela Rayner
… More widely, we have also confirmed that all 20 strategic authorities will be eligible for funding in the new co-operative development programme. This £10 million programme is the biggest Government-backed boost to co-operatives for decades and shows how we are meeting our commitment to our sister party to double the size of the co-operative economy.
Written Statements
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
British Steel
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
During the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026, the Government promised to provide regular updates to Parliament on British Steel. In line with the Act’s provisions, British Steel entered public ownership on 16 July 2026. This statement provides an update on the financial and operational performance of British Steel under public ownership and the company’s governance and strategic direction.
Governance and strategic direction
In July 2026, Ministers appointed a new board of directors. This was followed by the appointment of Alan Lovell as chair in September. Two further board members are shareholder non-executive directors representing Government, one from the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and one from UK Government Investments.
Mr Lovell and the board’s immediate priorities include overseeing the stabilisation of British Steel, maintaining a strong focus on health and safety, and developing proposals for a commercially and environmentally sustainable future for the business. As set out in the steel strategy, securing the long-term future of Britain’s steel capability and capacity will require both public and private investment.
The chair, in consultation with the Department, is also looking to strengthen the board and management team to ensure it has the capacity and capability to address the objectives. The board is currently recruiting a non-executive director to chair its audit, risk and assurance committee. Further appointments are expected, and the Government will monitor progress closely.
Governance arrangements, including how the relationship between Government and British Steel will work in practice, will be set out in the British Steel framework document, in line with standard practice for Government-owned companies. The framework document will be published shortly.
Financial and operational performance
British Steel has continued to trade and operate across its sites, maintaining steel production and supplies to customers. Since April 2025, the Government have provided £751 million in working capital support for British Steel. This funding has supported the continued operation of the business, including expenditure on raw materials and salaries.
The guarantees the Secretary of State gave to Npower Commercial Gas Ltd and SEFE Energy Ltd, to keep British Steel’s energy supplies in place while the company was under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, are no longer needed now the company is in public ownership. The Department gave formal notice to both suppliers on 27 August 2026, and both guarantees ended on 10 September 2026, without being utilised.
British Steel has enhanced governance and accountability for its safety improvement plan, with implementation ongoing for all 34 initiatives scheduled for year 1. The Government and board will continue to press for sustained improvements and ensure that health and safety remains at the heart of the company’s operational and transformation plans.
The Government welcome the scrutiny provided by the Public Accounts Committee and are carefully considering their recommendations as part of ongoing work to ensure appropriate governance, transparency and value for money at British Steel.
[HCWS445]
Intergovernmental Relations Engagement Dashboard
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK Government’s commitment to working in partnership with the devolved Governments continues to be reflected in the depth and consistency of engagement.
This reporting period, particularly April to June, directly covers the pre and post-election periods for the Senedd and Scottish Parliament. While opportunities for meetings between Governments were therefore lower than in 2025, the level of engagement remained high, demonstrating the steady and frequent nature of UK Government ministerial engagement with devolved Government counterparts.
Beyond formal forums such as the Interministerial Standing Committee, Ministers and their devolved Government counterparts met across a wide range of policy areas—from industrial strategy and trade agreements to welfare reform and getting people back into work—demonstrating that collaborative working is embedded across Governments. This pattern of engagement reflects a clear principle: that the most effective solutions for people across the United Kingdom are found when Governments work together.
The Prime Minister has been clear about his commitment to delivering good growth and real progress across all four nations of the United Kingdom and working with the devolved Governments to tackle shared challenges. The publication of this dashboard demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to the devolution settlements and genuine partnership with the devolved Governments—working together to deliver for people in every part of the United Kingdom.
[HCWS442]
COP31
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
COP31 in Türkiye comes at a pivotal moment for global climate action. The world is experiencing the accelerating impacts of climate change alongside acute pressures from energy insecurity, economic uncertainty and geopolitical instability. This summer showed climate change is no longer a distant threat. Here in Britain, we saw record heatwaves, droughts and wildfires. Homes were destroyed as fires raged, and extreme heat closed schools across the land and strained our NHS and public services.
The first duty of Government is to protect our communities. And the reality is that Britain cannot tackle a challenge of this scale alone. Climate change does not respect borders, which is why working with other countries through processes like the conference of the parties remains so important. While the scale and severity of the impact varies country to country, it has consequences for us all, right now.
The only way to safeguard our security and unlock the jobs and growth we need for our shared future prosperity is to accelerate the clean energy transition and strengthen our resilience in this new age of extreme weather—from flooding to wildfires—driven by climate change. The UK has a strong history of action on climate change and we remain committed to our clean energy transition, to climate action and to supporting others around the world. Working multilaterally is in the collective interest and in the UK’s interest.
The science is clear: we will exceed 1.5°C, likely by 2030. But this remains the right goal, and we are committed to following the science and to limiting the scale and duration of any overshoot as much as possible. We must use this point in time wisely—it must be the impetus for us to double down on reducing emissions and helping people to adapt to these new circumstances. We must limit temperature rise as much as we can to secure a safer future.
The decisions taken, and commitments made, at COP31 will help determine whether the world can accelerate action to meet the goals of the Paris agreement while delivering greater security, resilience and prosperity for people across the world.
The Prime Minister has set out his intention to attend COP31 in Türkiye, demonstrating this Government’s commitment to meeting the climate challenge and working with international partners to deliver the action needed in response to the growing impacts of climate change. I will attend COP31 and will lead the UK delegation during the negotiations. The Foreign Secretary will also attend COP31, reflecting the importance of climate action to the UK’s international partnerships, security and prosperity.
Our priority at COP31 is to work with all countries to keep 1.5°C within reach, by accelerating the transition to clean energy and electrification, tackling methane emissions, protecting forests and oceans, strengthening our resilience to a changing climate while unlocking finance to deliver all of these objectives. We also want to unlock the opportunities to drive forward clean growth.
So, at COP31 we will work with other countries to:
Accelerate the transition to clean energy and electrification and nature-positive economies. As we drive forward our transition to clean energy and electrify our economy at home, the UK will work with other countries to do the same. This is key to reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, bringing energy bills down, delivering energy security while unlocking opportunities for jobs, growth and investment.
Spotlight the need for global action on methane. The fastest way to slow near-term warming is to curb methane and other super-pollutants. At COP31 we will continue to press for wider action on this critical issue.
We will also push for progress to protect the critical ecosystems on which we rely, including forests and oceans; to support more sustainable food and agriculture systems, including fertilisers, and the transition to a circular economy; and to respond to the risks that climate change and biodiversity loss pose to national security.
Build resilience to the impacts of climate change, unlock finance and accelerate implementation of commitments countries have already made. The climate crisis is not a future threat but a present reality. At COP31 we will push for stronger practical action and a systemic approach to building resilience, particularly for the most vulnerable, and to reduce the impacts of the shocks we face from climate change. We need to make progress to unlock finance, including by mobilising private capital more effectively, and improving access to and quality of finance for the energy transition and adaptation and resilience.
In the negotiations, we must uphold the integrity of the Paris agreement and our collective commitment to limit warming to 1.5°C, even in the face of overshoot and grounded in the best available science. This is critical to build the foundations for a successful second global stocktake at COP33.
The transition is a major opportunity to unlock growth and investment for all countries. We want to maximise UK growth from the rapidly growing global green economy. Building on our own transition to clean energy and electrification at home, we can promote British expertise and clean solutions internationally.
The UK will continue to work constructively with all parties, international institutions, businesses, investors, cities, regions, indigenous peoples, civil society and communities to accelerate implementation of the commitments already agreed and secure further progress where it is needed. Success at COP31 will depend on countries working together to respond to the scale of the challenge while recognising the opportunities that climate action presents.
We will update the House in the usual way once negotiations have concluded.
[HCWS446]
Access to Child Trust Funds
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
In 2005, child trust funds were created to give every eligible child a financial asset at the start of adulthood, with around 6.3 million accounts opened for eligible children.
However, when child trust funds were established, no specific provision was made for how the money could be accessed where a young person lacked the mental capacity to manage their financial affairs when they turned 18. This has meant that an estimated 63,000 to 126,000 young people have not been able to easily access and benefit from money that was set aside for them.
In those circumstances, families have had to go through what can be a lengthy and confusing process of getting a court order.
Parents and carers have campaigned for years to secure a fairer and more proportionate route to those funds. This Government have listened to these concerns and are determined to take action.
That is why today, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby) and I are announcing that we will legislate to finally end this injustice to create a new scheme to allow easier access to child trust funds once the account holder turns 18, so that young people lacking mental capacity can easily benefit from the money in their accounts. The Government will be introducing an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, the amendment will enable the creation of a new scheme through secondary legislation. This will allow suitable people such as parents and carers to access and manage a young person’s child trust fund where that young person lacks the mental capacity to do so themselves.
The new scheme will provide a straightforward and proportionate route to access, while retaining appropriate safeguards to ensure that account holders and vulnerable people are protected. It will uphold the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and its definitions of lack of capacity and of best interests.
We currently anticipate that a suitable person, such as a parent, will be able to apply directly to the providers of child trust funds to access the funds. We will work with campaigners, disability charities and the finance sector to develop the details of the scheme to strike the right balance between safeguards and ease of access. This will include considering who will have permission to access the funds through this scheme, the evidence that will be needed to access funds and any other proportionate safeguards needed to protect young people who lack capacity.
The scheme will cover England and Wales only, recognising that Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own processes to access low-value assets, including child trust funds.
This scheme will not replace the important work of the Court of Protection, and applications to the Court will continue to be available in addition to this scheme to protect the financial interests of adults lacking mental capacity.
Change is long overdue. This is an important step in enabling people who lack capacity to easily access their money, which is why I am proud to be leading this work with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
Further details of the scheme will be set out as the legislation progresses.
[HCWS443]
Pensions: Automatic Enrolment Reviews
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Pensions (Torsten Bell)
Automatic enrolment has transformed workplace pension saving for millions of workers. However, despite this success, the Government recognise that millions are still under-saving for their retirement. That is why we have revived the landmark Pensions Commission to finish the job we started 20 years ago. The commission will examine why tomorrow’s pensioners are on track to be poorer than today’s and make recommendations for change, with the final report due to be published in early 2027.
Automatic Enrolment Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band Review 2027-28
It is against the backdrop of the commission’s work that I have considered and completed this year’s annual statutory review of the automatic enrolment thresholds, which are the earnings trigger and lower and upper earnings limits of the qualifying earnings band. The main focus of this year’s annual statutory review has been to ensure the continued stability of automatic enrolment for employers and individuals, particularly during the ongoing work of the Pensions Commission, which is looking to the future.
I have therefore concluded that all automatic enrolment thresholds for 2027-28 will be maintained at their 2026-27 levels.
The 2027-28 Annual Thresholds:
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will remain at £10,000.
The lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £6,240.
The upper earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £50,270.
The alternative quality requirement triennial review 2026
In accordance with the statutory timetable, we have conducted a review of the regulations which introduced the alternative quality requirements for pension schemes being used for automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.
This review concluded that the alternative quality requirements for UK defined-benefit schemes set out in regulations, made under section 23A(1) of the Pensions Act 2008, should continue to remain in place without changes at this time.
The review also concluded that the tests set out in section 28(2A) of the Pensions Act 2008 continue to be satisfied.
The analysis supporting the thresholds review and the Government response to the call for evidence for the alternative quality requirements reviews will be published and copies placed in the Library of the House. They will both be available on the www.gov.uk website following publication.
[HCWS444]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Laing of Elderslie) (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Time is Money: How Regulators Can Support Growth (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Industry and Regulators Committee Time is Money: How Regulators can Support Growth (3rd Report, HL Paper 301, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in addressing our report I pay tribute to our committee staff, Rhiannon Williams and Dominic Cooper, together with invaluable support from an NAO secondment, Sarah Pearcey, and committee members, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Valentine, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Udny-Lister, from whom your Lordships will hear today, along with my noble friend Lady Carberry and the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, who are also on the committee and from whom we might hear today. We will also hear from my noble friend Lord Chandos, who was in at the start of the process, although he then escaped for good behaviour.
I start with an apology to my noble friend Lord Smith of Ranmoor for misnaming his former organisation, the FSA—obviously it is the agency, not the authority—in the table on page 11. I have to confess that it was he who spotted that, not me.
I also thank the then relevant Ministers, my noble friend Lord Livermore and Blair McDougall MP— notably and significantly from both the Treasury and the Business Department—for appearing in front of the committee, as did the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who was of enormous assistance to our work.
The report examines the Government’s attempt to help boost their growth objective via their action plan for regulators—an objective that I am sure the Committee shares. Writing in the Times on Saturday, however, the Chancellor admitted that
“growth cannot be commanded from Whitehall”,
but that it could be helped by removing the barriers that hold back investment and by bringing down costs and bureaucracy, which Ministers judge includes regulation. That led to the question that we asked as to the impact that regulation can have in encouraging or facilitating growth and whether the Government’s action plan will help regulators to achieve this objective.
Done well, regulation can boost consumer confidence, can provide a level playing field that helps competition and can help provide certainty to businesses and investors, whether from here or abroad. Done badly, particularly if it is slow, regulation can cause uncertainty, costs and delays to new products, services and infrastructure and it can harm the economy and disadvantage consumers by denying them cheaper, improved or new products.
While our committee welcomed the intention of the Government’s action plan, it was not always apparent what this meant for individual regulators, whose responsibilities can differ greatly. The Food Standards Agency, for example, wants there to be more nimble and accessible new technologies, but could that conflict with improved agricultural trade with the EU? Other regulators have vital objectives for safety, health and the environment, as well as for consumer protection, so they need to weigh up whether any relaxation on their focus on those important issues could leave workers, shoppers or road users more exposed and carrying more risk themselves. We therefore ask Ministers to provide individual regulators with a more granular picture of what their growth agenda actually meant in practice.
The Government’s response was that they had issued more specific goals to key regulators, although these largely related to specific activities, rather than clarifying how a focus on growth should be balanced with their core objectives. However, just as the Government need to be clearer about their expectation of regulators, so regulators should be clearer as to how businesses should comply with their various demands. We heard from witnesses that too often a lack of early engagement and dialogue and an absence of guidance led to duplication and delay of approvals, which brings us to the question of speed—or pace, as seems to be the in word these days.
Our recommendations here are important for the Government’s agenda but have a resonance beyond this. All regulators should work quicker and smarter than they often do. They are dealing with services and manufacturers, developers, entrepreneurs or innovators in the real world. As the title of our report suggests, time is money. Time can sometimes save lives, when new safety devices, drugs or health breakthroughs could be approved with due checks but without unnecessary red tape. It seems that red tape is indeed the issue sometimes.
Regulators have two tasks: to enforce their actual regulation but also to run an assurance scheme that checks on compliance. We had one question: is the Government’s 25% desired cut on admin the most important measure, or is it the cost to manufacturers of making the adjustment in what they are producing to comply with the rules? The example that we heard was whether it was more expensive for a fridge manufacturer to make sure that the fridge was built to comply with rules or whether it was the paperwork to show the regulator that they had complied with the rules. The Government replied that they had identified £2 billion in admin costs, a third of the £5.6 billion target, although they said that they would also address broader regulation costs to ensure that businesses benefit from reforms. We urge the Government to focus on the wider issue of regulatory compliance, not just red tape, especially as this has lessons for the future.
In this House, as those who have been here a long time will know, we often jib at allowing ministers too much power under secondary legislation, which Parliament therefore cannot influence. But in this report we found that sometimes over-prescriptive rules in primary legislation mean that outdated requirements cannot be quickly altered, even when a regulator wants to do that—so there are lessons for future legislation. Indeed, since this report, our committee has now heard particular examples of legal regulations. The example that we give, looking at the defence industry, is the requirement in law for life jackets on boats. That requirement becomes a little bit meaningless when we are talking about uncrewed vehicles. The regulation cannot be dumped because it is in primary legislation, yet the whole nature of warfare changes as we use autonomous vehicles. That is a lesson for future legislation.
There is another aspect of regulators’ behaviour that is alleged to get in the way, the tendency to risk aversion—and that is easy to understand. When they do something right, nobody notices that the regulators even exist, but one fault, one accident or serious injury, or damage, and the press and Parliament are down on them like a ton of bricks. If the Government want regulators to be bolder in decision-making and less risk-averse, and allow them to see the upsides as well as downsides of new developments, the Government are going to have to provide some political cover for regulators. Each sponsoring Secretary of State must make it clear to their particular regulator that they will honour that.
Indeed, the leadership of regulators is vital in mitigating, rather than avoiding, risk. The appointment of the chair, and often the board, is in the hands of Ministers, as are discussions on their annual reports. Ministers must make their expectations clear and their own tolerance for risk understandable to the regulators, along with the degree to which they are willing to allow consumers to bear any resulting risk if exact regulations are not nailed down and enforced. Ministers are calling for a culture change among regulators, but it will be achieved only if they understand that the level of acceptable risk is a political decision and should be decided by Government, and that they must set out their own risk appetite for regulators and give a clear steer as to when that could be sacrificed to help promote, or at least not stifle, growth. The Government are going to strengthen the growth duty in the regulation for growth Bill and issue steers to guide regulators in applying the new duty, so can my noble friend the Minister let us know when we might expect the Bill?
There is clearly significant room for regulators to improve how they work, especially on the pace of decision-making. Delays increase the cost of borrowing and can make the UK less attractive for investment. Time is money, and speed was the main ask we heard from businesses. While the action plan floated the idea of paid-for fast lanes for approvals, we concluded that allowing some companies to pay for quicker decisions could reduce public trust, disadvantage small or innovative new entrants and remove the incentive for the regulator to speed up all of its processes. All companies need speed, not just the rich ones.
The issue of pace came through strongly, and therefore while we acknowledge the idea of looking for paid-for regulators, it seemed to us that there were other ways to improve things, whether by digitisation, AI, regular and earlier dialogue or a more proportional approach. There are some areas in which companies have to deal with more than one regulator, leading to a government pilot which we welcomed, with a lead environmental regulator. However, that initiative applies only to regulators within the same department, whereas many companies have to deal with more than one department. It also does not allow decision-making to move to the lead body. Can the Minister update us on the work and thinking in that regard?
The committee agrees that the Government are right to turn their attention to the role of regulators, which could make a useful, though not decisive, contribution to the growth objective. Regulators can deter but not actually create growth, but they can certainly facilitate it. However, the Government must take some strategic decisions to fill their scope in this regard. Ministers will have to provide political cover if they want regulators to be less risk-averse, and they must use their role as sponsoring Ministers to ensure regulators up their game in their processes, speed of decision-making and openness to dialogue with the regulated community. Every regulator must maintain a solid focus on their core function, whether that is financial stability, health and safety, consumer protection or fair competition. I commend the Government for their work in this area, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of their action plan in due course. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on chairing the committee, which has produced this excellent report, giving a lot of practical advice on how we can ensure that the regulatory regime is improved. I declare an interest: I chair the Regulatory Innovation Office, in which capacity I gave evidence to the committee. Our task is to ensure that regulation does not stand in the way of desirable innovation and new technologies, and we operate under the scrutiny of the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra.
I want to pick up on three points from the report. First, there is the growth duty, what it means and how one can promote growth. My view is that it is absolutely right to try to be as explicit as possible about the growth duty, and it is also then legitimate for Ministers, within that legal framework, to specify in letters and communications to regulators how they think the regulators can promote growth within their overall statutory responsibilities. All too often, under successive Governments, we have seen communications from government to regulators which are long lists of desirable things but do not give a sense of priority and are not sufficiently granular to provide action or “political cover”, as the noble Baroness called it, for officials in those regulators. So the more specific those guidelines and letters drawing on the growth duty are, the better. As an example, they should clearly focus on timeliness. Pace is indeed an issue, especially if you are a start-up. If you are trying to do something different and have limited resource or an impatient venture capital fund behind you, you need to get on with things, while the big, moneyed incumbents are much less focused on getting things done quickly. So dealing with things quickly helps new entrants. That is one area that can be looked at.
Regulators inevitably tend to focus on the “day job” and on what they are already familiar with. Getting them to think to about the innovative people coming in from the side who have thought of a different way of doing things and have the staff to engage with them is important. One thing we tried to do at RIO was shift the priorities in a regulator to ensure that innovative technologies coming over the horizon are properly understood and the companies delivering them are engaged with. That is another thing that is clearly pro-growth. There is then the frustration that companies have of concluding with one regulator to be told finally, “And now we’re passing you on to the next regulator”. The more that these processes can be simultaneous and parallel rather than sequential, the better.
Another area where RIO, working with Ministers, tries to make process is in convening groups of regulators to confront them as a group with some new technology, just to work out exactly who is responsible for what and how that can be communicated to innovative companies and the technology community. So there are practical things that can be done on growth.
The second point is on risk aversion. Speaking as a former Member of Parliament who used to face real constituents, I can understand the difficulties of standing in front of one’s voters and saying, “We’ve got this great idea: you’re going to take more risk”. It is not always a palatable message. My view is that we can make a lot of progress by looking at what we mean by risk. Often, the real problem is that the definition of risk is very narrow; it is what encompasses the specific responsibilities of the regulation, and it means that wider benefits are not taken into account. I shall give an example—which is not invidious and it is slightly simplified. There are lots of uses of drones. The CAA, with which we have a good, constructive dialogue, is worried about drones flying beyond line of sight and carrying heavy equipment, particularly electrical equipment, so its instinct is to say, “Our job is airspace and protecting airspace, and these types of drones are potentially risky”.
However, there are wider benefits. If the electrical equipment that the drone is carrying is a defibrillator—this issue was raised by the Welsh Ambulance Service—drones flying defibrillators to help people with heart attacks, which is what happens in Switzerland, is a good overall reduction in risk for British citizens. So we are not saying to British citizens, “You have to take more risks because we’re going to going to regulate drones more lightly”. We are actually saying, “When you’re looking at the risks of that bit of electrical equipment landing on someone because a drone crashes, also bear in mind the wider angle of it being used for a medical purpose”. Often, that wider perspective is not one in the minds of the regulators, but we can put it in the minds of the regulators. In other words, benefit aversion is the problem, not risk aversion.
My third and final point is that there is an important section of the report on the difficulties of overspecific regulation. We see that all the time. There is a great example in the report of the FSA requiring chilled foods to be chilled in storage, not allowing for the fact that the transport itself can be chilling now. There is an awful lot of that. The more we can have broad regulation and then use standards and trusted bodies such as the BSI, the better. Let us face it: this House is sometimes one of the worst culprits in adding detail to regulation. If one message that went out from our debate today to our colleagues was, “Lay off a bit”, that itself would be significant progress.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. We did indeed hear some interesting examples about successful sandboxes in our evidence. However, the lessons from those sandboxes did not seem to spread into the wider regulator and its behaviour.
I shall declare some interests. I work as director of place for Business in the Community in cities such as Blackpool, Bradford and Sheffield, and I am chair of Heathrow Southern Railway, which plans to build a railway south from Heathrow to connect with lines to Woking and Waterloo. In both those capacities, the interface with government is fundamental to growth. For instance, Blackpool has just been shortlisted for City of Culture, which would turbocharge its tourism industry, and, post HS2’s northern demise, Bradford needs better rail connectivity to Manchester.
In all the places where I work, youth unemployment is endemic. The Department for Education, the DWP, the business department, local authorities and the Careers & Enterprise Company all have a role, which too often leads to confusion and inaction. For Heathrow Southern Railway, imagine having to make sense of the different ambitions and boundary conditions involving the politics, policy and regulations around the expansion of Heathrow. You have the CAA, as was referred to earlier, the ORR, the DfT, GBR, the Transport Select Committee and the Treasury, to name but a few.
I was delighted to contribute to the committee’s Time is Money report, and I shall focus my remarks today on a few practical examples. Let me start with overlapping regulatory responsibilities. I mentioned the difficulty of getting good careers advice to the young unemployed. Sheffield, however, has created a one-stop shop called See It Be It for schools and businesses involving all the relevant intermediaries, with the result that there are tens of thousands of helpful interventions. One-stop shops are simply a matter of will and good practice. Unfortunately, in our evidence sessions, we heard examples of departments and regulators asking for overlapping but different information or providing conflicting policy advice. Anglian Water told us that in one year it had provided 30 reports on storm overflows to Ofwat, the department for the environment and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The department for the environment is trialling having a lead regulator, but it does not go as far as sorting out agreed policy and it does not work across to other departments’ regulators. Another positive example is the department for business’s provision of dedicated concierge and front door services for financial services inward investors.
The plethora of regulators and departments around Thames Tideway offers a parallel to Heathrow Southern Railway. The super-sewer was designed to prevent London reaching European pollution limits. The department for the environment and Ofwat were concerned to minimise costs to the consumer, and there was the usual toing and froing about whether this would be on or off the balance sheet. The eventual breakthrough was a senior reference group involving all relevant government parties which established a clear investable pathway and the long-term certainty that investors needed to commit capital. Now that the tunnel is open, I am delighted to say that the Thames has improved from being biologically dead in 1957 to harbouring millions of fish and 4,000 seals.
But this example throws up two common challenges. The first is the tension between keeping prices down for today’s consumer versus investing in the future, and the second is the Treasury. In the 1990s, I had regular conversations about funding London’s transport with three bright young things in the Treasury, namely Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Shriti Vadera—now the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera. Their view about being on or off balance sheet was that the primary concern was whether the investment was good for UK plc and whether the Government made a good return on any contribution that they made. The simplicity of this view gets lost in worries about ONS classification. Looked at from the perspective of a lowly regulator, on the one hand one has the Treasury saying, “Be less risk averse and more open to innovation”, but on the other, if your project is novel and contentious, the Treasury’s approach will be scepticism and mistrust. These seem like mixed messages.
Where I have less sympathy with the regulators is on efficiency. It should be a given that all regulators are continuously improving their processes and their transparency about timeframes and stages of decision-making. I am delighted that in two of our investigations, into the Building Safety Regulator and the defence industry, timeframes for decision and procurement respectively are being improved, in each case with new leadership. As the title of the report says, time is money.
I finish with two pleas. First, set every regulator a key performance metric on efficiency as one of a small number of priorities. Secondly, advocate “one-stop shop” arrangements to improve user-friendliness and provide clear investable pathways for investors.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town for her incisive introduction to today’s debate and for her leadership of the Industry and Regulators Committee, which has produced this excellent report. As she said, I was a member of the committee for the first few weeks of its inquiry and much regret not overlapping with my noble friend, who has brought a lifetime of focus on consumer interests to her new role. I declare my interests as disclosed in the register, as the director of RSMB, the Theseus Agency and Digbeth Loc. Studios, and as an adviser to the family office, WFO Services.
I welcome and endorse the analysis and conclusions of the report, which shines a light into what it correctly describes as the “mixed picture” of regulators’ roles in encouraging and stimulating economic growth. Successive recent Governments have placed great emphasis on regulators ensuring that they take proper account of growth as an objective. At the risk of being pedantic, I do not think it is right for regulators baldly to “prioritise growth”, which risks a mistaken direction of the industry or the products and services concerned, as well as raising unrealistic expectations for what the regulator can achieve. Language matters.
I wholeheartedly support a direction to regulators to seek, particularly in the light of the rapid innovation which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, oversees, a better balance between consumer protection and the promotion of growth on the part of the producers of the goods and services being regulated, and hence of the economy as a whole. But that is very different from the rhetoric of prioritising growth. The report accurately identifies the complexity of this issue and the need to make trade-offs between fostering growth and other factors, such as consumer protection and environmental standards. I am not convinced by the Government’s response, shortly before the change of Prime Minister, that the proposed regulating for growth Bill will bring the strategic clarity that is needed to enable widely differing regulators to balance the conflicting objectives that they are having to juggle. I join my noble friend Lady Hayter in asking my noble friend the Minister to indicate the timing of the Bill’s introduction and her current thinking about how to define the judgments and trade-offs that are needed.
The challenges in each regulated industry or sector vary significantly: in financial services, overseen by the Industry and Regulators Committee’s sister committee, there is clear evidence of clumsy and onerous regulation holding back growth in this vital and world-leading service sector without commensurate improvement in consumer protection. In the water industry, under the Conservative Government, short-term and politically influenced focus on holding down consumer prices and lax supervision of corporate behaviour led to serious detriment to the long-term interest of consumers, as well as the undermining of the industry’s financial resilience. The legal services industry is undergoing fundamental changes in ownership and operation as outside capital is introduced through private equity in the stock market, akin to the “big bang” in financial services 40 years ago. The regulation of legal services is currently diffuse, incestuous—dare I say it—and questionably fit for purpose, as these developments change the motivation and behaviour of firms. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether she believes that the regulation of legal services provision strikes the right balance between independence, growth and consumer protection?
The report makes only passing reference to generative AI and AGI, as the committee’s remit was very much focused on existing regulators, but this area poses the starkest challenge in balancing growth and consumer— and, indeed, human—protection at a time when leading companies in this field acknowledge in their initial public offering documentation the non-trivial possibility of devastating systemic harm to mankind. Can my noble friend provide any update on the Government’s intentions for the overarching regulation of AI?
I will end by unashamedly asserting the primacy of consumer protection in regulation, reflecting the asymmetry in power in most cases between consumers and producers and providers. As the report argues, stable, fair consumer protection is a necessary condition for producers and providers’ growth anyway. The most efficient and streamlined application of well-designed regulation is a complementary factor in stimulating that growth. This report gives a compelling summary of the challenges facing the Government in achieving this balance and therefore deserves the closest possible attention and action.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh. I warmly welcome this report and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee on what is an extremely useful piece of work looking at the cost of regulation. It gets to the heart of the debate we have returned to many times in this House and does so with commendable clarity. This debate has been running for some time. I want to suggest that a clear consensus is emerging around three core pillars. What strikes me about the committee’s report is how powerfully it supports that framework.
The first pillar is sophistication in design and efficiency in implementation. Regulation that is blunt, where it should be precise, or rigid where it should be adaptive, does not merely inconvenience firms; it actively distorts markets and harms the very consumers and stakeholders it was designed to protect. Good regulation is not light regulation but intelligent regulation. The two are not the same, and we should resist any conflation of them. The committee is right to call for regulators to provide clear guidance early and ensure their requirements are unambiguous from the outset. That is not a procedural nicety; it is a prerequisite for any regime that wishes to be taken seriously.
The second pillar is the recognition and removal of fragmentation. The committee identifies directly that additional complications arise from companies where their projects are overseen by multiple regulators. This is, in my view, one of the most underappreciated structural failures in our current regime. When multiple regulators operate across overlapping domains without adequate co-ordination, the result is not merely duplication; it is the creation of blind spots. Firms fall between the gaps, risks go unmonitored and the cumulative compliance burden on those caught across multiple regimes becomes, in practice, prohibitive. I hope that the Government will treat this not as a long-term aspiration but as an immediate operational priority.
The third pillar is transparent decision-making. This is where I really want to linger, because I think that it is the main point; the committee’s call for clear guidance connects directly to it. If regulators must provide clarity early, the logical consequence is that they must also be transparent about how they will respond when things are unclear, contested or novel. Industry can absorb almost anything if it can plan for it; what it cannot absorb is uncertainty and the inability to anticipate how a regulator will behave. When firms face uncertainty, they do not take risks. They over-comply, over-report and over-resource.
The waste embedded in that precautionary behaviour is vast and almost entirely invisible to those who design the system, but—this is the point I do not want us to lose sight of—transparent decision-making cannot be achieved by regulators alone. It requires government to do its part. Regulators cannot be transparent about how they will resolve conflicts between objectives if government has never told them how those conflicts should be prioritised. That is a political responsibility. The strategic guidance and political cover that government provides, or fails to provide, is the foundation on which regulatory transparency either stands or collapses. The committee calls on the Government to play that role, and I believe that that call deserves to be heard very clearly.
I also commend the committee on drawing a distinction that previous reforms have consistently missed: the difference between the cost of paperwork and the cost of compliance. Reducing the administrative burden of form-filling is welcome, but it is a fraction of the real cost that firms bear when the system changes, with the structural adaptations and ongoing operational adjustments that regulation demands. If we focus on paperwork, we are, to use a familiar phrase, looking for our keys under the lamp-post. The committee has pointed us towards where the keys actually are.
I look forward with great interest to hearing from the Minister about how the Government intend to respond. The committee has done its work with rigour and purpose; I commend it on that again. The question now is whether the response will match the ambition of the diagnosis.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee on this exceptional report. Having worked across the public, private, corporate and not-for-profit sectors, I entirely concur with its central premise: time is money. In my experience, unlocking growth is not about a lawless race to the bottom or having less regulation; it is about achieving consistency, interoperability and efficiency, with a confident, not defensive, approach from the regulators. Global investors look for speed and predictability, but, right now, bureaucratic silos and delays are costing the UK lost opportunities.
For me, two specific proposals in the committee’s report highly resonate. The first is the call for a single front door for multiregulator projects. Breakthroughs such as AI medical tools or autonomous delivery drones do not fit into historical boxes. A single portal for concurrent assessment would instantly slash time to the market. The second is the focus on improving the pace of decision-making via fast lanes. If a business has already cleared rigorous regulatory hurdles in a trusted jurisdiction, such as Japan or the European Union, we should offer passported compliance. Reinventing the wheel simply drives innovators overseas. I therefore welcome the draft proposals being discussed presently between the European Union and the UK on agriproducts, which will eliminate lengthy checks at ports. Trade and growth are not just about tariffs but trust and speedy flow of goods. That will lead to growth.
However, to truly support growth in a fast-moving economy, we must also address the compounding weight of legacy rules. I recognise that automated sunset clauses are politically controversial, but I am absolutely not suggesting a blanket eradication of laws. Instead, we should tie sunset clauses directly to digitalisation. As technology evolves, the administrative processes used to enforce regulation become rapidly obsolete. The Government should mandate that digital compliance frameworks and administrative reporting requirements placed on businesses automatically expire after a certain time—maybe five years. This would force the regulators continually to modernise their systems, strip away analogue red tape and transition to leaner, data-driven oversight.
Finally, we must also recognise that opening up digital markets is itself a powerful pro-growth policy. When we properly resource units, such as the CMA’s digital markets unit, to curb the market power of tech monopolies, we create the predictable level playing field that some smaller domestic innovators desperately need to scale up.
I conclude by asking the Minister an overarching question. Given that the IPPR found that 79% of digital-intensive UK firms view big tech dominance as a primary constraint on growth, will the Government commit to a modernised, enforced strategy that pairs aggressive digital market competition with targeted sunset clauses on legacy administrative reporting, ensuring that our regulatory state moves at the same speed as technological innovation?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, like others, I warmly welcome this report from the Industry and Regulators Committee. I pay special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her exemplary leadership in this area. As I know from other issues on which she and I work, she is a doughty campaigner and we are lucky that she has brought her skills to bear in this vital area of regulation.
The title of the committee’s report, Time is Money, is spot on. Nowhere is this truer than in digital markets, which the noble Baroness just mentioned, where delay and inaction are not neutral. Every day that the unaccountable big tech platforms go unchecked is another day in which they entrench their monopolies further and, frankly, pile up profits on the back of other people’s labours.
The recent issue surrounding Meta, which was raised in our Oral Questions last week, is an excellent case in point. Last month, it told every business with a Facebook or Instagram account that its new terms and conditions would allow it to scrape their websites with impunity. That was a huge threat to news publishers; it was almost existential—I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group. Its message was: “You pay to produce the news, and we’ll harvest it for free”. The CMA deserves real credit for opening an investigation into this under the Competition Act 1998, but the truth is that it should not have to resort to a tool that can take many months to extract binding commitments or—if Meta does not accept that it is in the wrong and offer solutions—years to reach a remedy. As the report says and the noble Baroness powerfully underlined, speed is essential for effective regulation.
The CMA has called Meta a potential candidate for strategic market status designation under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which would allow it to publish tailored, focused, ex ante requirements. However, “potential” is the problem word there. As far back as 2020, the CMA itself concluded that Facebook’s market power warranted this regime, yet Meta is still not designated. Had it been, I doubt it would have attempted anything so brazen as it did last month.
The legislation, if applied, really does work. Because Google was designated under the regime as having strategic market status, publishers can now withhold content from AI overviews without vanishing from search results. That is the DMCC Act at its best: flexible, targeted remedies, built firm by firm on the evidence. I believe this is far preferable to the blunt instrument of news prominence proposed in the Government’s media Green Paper. What use is prominence if publishers have to withdraw their content because the price of admission to a platform is having their content used as AI training material for free? That way lies commercial perdition—and, indeed, the end of a free press, which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral believes so strongly in.
Also relevant to this excellent report, we need to ask why the CMA has not designated Meta or other big tech services that extract excess profits from consumers and crowd out UK start-ups. I do not think the fault lies with the CMA itself, which has done really good work under difficult circumstances; I fear the culprit is the Government’s 2025 strategic steer to put inward investment front and centre. The IPPR report, Bottleneck Britain, found that digital-intensive UK businesses rank big tech’s market power as the second biggest constraint on growth, ahead of finance and talent. The Government’s steer has the priorities backwards, and they should urgently change their direction by expressly backing the CMA to use the powers that we in Parliament gave it and resource it to match. A regulator facing the world’s most valuable companies cannot do the job on a shoestring.
The same question matters for the regulating for growth Bill, which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos raised. What type of growth will it mandate? I hope it will not be the sugar rush of inward investment announcements of the sort that lets big tech off the hook. It should be growth felt by British businesses and citizens, powered by firms that scale and stay here. The growth duty must never override regulators’ core functions. There is little point in a £500 million sovereign AI fund if the CMA cannot regulate monopolists who swallow up potential UK tech champions. That Bill also risks being lopsided. Ministers propose AI growth labs to exempt AI firms from regulation, potentially with sweeping Henry VIII powers to make those relaxations permanent. Yet where a light-touch rule would unlock massive growth for UK firms, they hold back. AI crawlers harvest content anonymously and ignore the wishes of content creators. The Government should put bot transparency provisions into the regulating for growth Bill.
I would like to press the Minister on a number of points. First, will the Government urgently issue a new strategic steer that backs the CMA to take on big tech with the resources that it needs? Secondly, will they ensure that the regulating for growth Bill focuses on growth that will be felt by UK citizens and businesses? Thirdly, will they put bot transparency provisions into the same legislation? Time is indeed money, and British firms, including our world-class content creators, are paying for every day of delay.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the members of the Industry and Regulators Committee for its report. I declare my interests as the director of AI and AI policy companies.
The report makes a compelling point: good regulation can encourage investment and innovation, but unnecessary complexity, uncertainty and delay can hold back economic growth. I want to focus particularly on artificial intelligence, because the committee heard direct evidence of how regulatory barriers can affect innovation in this sector. The committee heard from MyCardium AI, a company developing AI technology to improve heart scans. Its representative explained that the company’s pilots were taking place overseas because establishing an initial pilot or equivalent regulatory sandbox was more difficult in the UK. Importantly, the same company emphasised that clinical safety must remain paramount and welcomed rigorous regulatory scrutiny. This example captures the challenge before us. We should not have to choose between innovation and public protection; we need a regulatory system that delivers both.
Britain has world-class research and considerable technological talent, but scientific breakthroughs must be translated into products and services that improve people’s lives and contribute to economic growth. The committee rightly recommends clearer regulatory guidance, faster decision-making, early engagement with businesses and greater use of regulatory sandboxes. These recommendations are particularly relevant to AI, where technology can develop faster than traditional regulatory processes. The committee also recognises the values of principles-based and outcomes-focused regulation, which can provide certainty while allowing flexibility for innovation. I welcome the Government’s proposal to introduce statutory sandbox powers through the forthcoming regulating for growth Bill, but sandboxes must provide practical results and not simply opportunities for experimentation. They should help regulators to understand new technologies and give businesses clear guidance about the requirements they must meet.
We must also ensure that smaller companies benefit. The committee rightly cautions that paid-for fast lanes could disadvantage businesses unable to afford them. Faster and more predictable regulatory decisions should benefit all applicants. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. First, how will the Government ensure that smaller AI innovators can access early regulatory guidance and appropriate sandbox opportunities without compromising safety? Secondly, will the Government establish clear, measurable expectations for regulatory decision-making times so that businesses can invest and plan with greater confidence?
Britain’s challenge is not simply to develop the technologies of tomorrow but to ensure that innovations developed here can be tested, adopted and scaled here. Effective regulation should protect the public while giving responsible innovators the certainty and confidence to succeed. That is how regulation can become an enabler of economic growth.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her excellent introduction. I declare my interest as a member of the committee and my interests in various organisations, which are all regulated, as set out in the register.
The challenge with this topic is that, first, there are multiple types of regulator—at least four different types, as we heard in the inquiry: economic, such as Ofcom; market, such as the CMA; technical health and safety, such as the Building Safety Regulator; and systemic prudential risk regulators, like the PRA. So there are at least four types of regulator and there are multiple types of growth. Are we interested in short-term growth or long-term growth—growth in GDP or growth in personal disposable income?
I am in danger of descending into a sort of Oxbridge exam question rather than a five-minute speech in your Lordships’ Grand Committee. It is very hard to generalise, because when we talk about the relationship between regulators and growth, we have too many of both things that we are trying to match together.
However, I will make one general point—others have alluded to this. With the honourable exception of competition regulators, regulators do not drive growth. Generally, they constrain growth. That does not mean that I am against regulators. It is absolutely clear through history that the absence of all regulation is extremely bad for humanity. Think child labour or the thalidomide crisis; it is not difficult to see why we need regulatory guardrails in every market. But generally, too much regulation leads to lower growth, and the challenge is that well-meaning people—the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, is absolutely right that we are those people—add complexity and cost in regulation if they are not very careful.
I am extremely supportive of the Government’s 25% reduction in administrative costs, but like other noble Lords, I think that that is the cherry on the cake rather than the cake itself in terms of reducing the costs. I refer noble Lords to one of our witnesses, John Fingleton, who led the review into the costs of our nuclear programme. He said to us that not only are we the most expensive country in the world to build a nuclear power plant but we are the most expensive country in the world to build one mile of road, one mile of rail, one tunnel or one bridge. That is not because of the admin costs. The bat tunnel and the fish disco are not encumbered by admin; it is the fundamental building of them that is the problem. I therefore ask the Minister, as I am sure she will update us on progress on the 25% reduction in admin costs: what is the Government’s target to reduce the overall cost of regulatory compliance? Unless we measure that and then target a reduction in it, I am afraid that, inevitably, regulation is hampering growth and not driving it.
The second point I want to make, which other noble Lords have also explored, is on the overlapping regulation problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, knows well, most scientific discoveries these days come at the intersection of different branches of science. I think the same is true of truly innovative businesses. They come at the intersection of different sectors and, inevitably, overlapping regulators. We have to find a solution to the multiple regulatory problem, which we heard about in this inquiry. It is encouraging to know that Defra is running a pilot to do that, but I am afraid I have become very old and suspicious. A pilot can go on for a very long time and never turn into something that scales. I would love to hear from the Minister how the Defra pilot is going on, when it will extend to other departments, and when it will extend to regulators from multiple departments, which is the real problem.
The final point I will focus on is the one regulator that does drive growth: competition regulators, which my noble friend Lord Black and the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, commented on. Done well, competition regulation creates the conditions for innovation and for growth. I have absolutely no doubt that the regulation of large, dominant tech firms can unlock growth opportunities for British firms. It can increase choice and can reduce prices for millions of consumers. The problem is, as my noble friend Lord Black said, that the CMA’s strategic steer charges the CMA with prioritising pro-investment alongside pro-growth. I think we have to be quite suspicious of international tech companies promising inward investment in exchange for the absence of regulation. History shows that that does not drive growth; it just entrenches monopolies. Like other noble Lords, I want to ask the Minister when the CMA’s strategic steer will be updated and whether it will be updated to focus more on measures of growth as they affect actual British businesses and British consumers than on announcements of inward investment.
I cannot finish without 30 seconds on AI. I also add my voice to ask the Minister when we will hear from this Government on how they intend to regulate AI. As a general purpose, AI technology touches all four different types of regulation. There is undoubtedly long-tail systemic prudential risk with AI. There is definitely health and safety risk and market competitive risk. Yet we keep being told that it is too early to regulate, which I really challenge. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its report, which is a response to the Government’s deregulation agenda. It lowers the guard-rails on public protection, and even protecting capitalists from themselves, in the chase for economic growth. This project is full of contradictions. The committee is right when it states that:
“Done well, regulation can boost consumer confidence and provide certainty for businesses to invest and innovate”.
The banking crash, Grenfell, the Post Office and numerous other scandals have shown that regulation has not been done well. Instead, the regulators are now hobbled with a growth objective.
The report amplifies the Government’s claim that they want to cut financial costs, but we also need to consider the social cost of not doing proper regulation. Consider the case of HBOS frauds, which date back to 2002-07. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Serious Fraud Office, the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the City of London Police refused to investigate. Eventually, the Thames Valley Police and crime commissioner decided to bring a case. In 2017, two former senior bankers and four corporate turnaround specialists were convicted of fraud and received 47 years of prison sentence. That did not prompt regulators to investigate or secure compensation for the victims. Successive Ministers passed the buck to HBOS owner Lloyds Bank. In 2017, Lloyds appointed Dame Linda Dobbs to investigate and prepare a report on the £1 billion-worth of frauds. To this day, there has been no report, despite the promise that it would be published in 2018, and despite numerous questions in this House, Ministers—who are the ultimate regulators—will not give answers. The victims continue to suffer.
There is little empirical evidence to show that regulators can combine public protection and the growth objective. England’s water regulators announce fines for illegal and anti-social practices, and then, to show obedience to the growth objective, they quietly defer or waive the payment. Executives gaining from anti-social practices are neither fined nor prosecuted. This has neither engendered trust nor secured the required investment.
The dash for growth has turned town centres into economic deserts. Private equity has destroyed city centres. Some 30,000 jobs at Poundland and its suppliers could vanish because regulators simply wave through takeovers by private equity; they do not really want to stop them. Big accounting firms routinely deliver dud audits after public exposure and pass the costs to clients in higher fees. The regulator, the Financial Reporting Council, in pursuit of the Government’s growth objective, is now reducing the number of audit-quality inspections and will instead rely on self-certification of audit quality, a model that has been so successful in the water industry. Numerous leaks show that big accounting firms are key nodes in the global flow of illicit finances. Nothing happens to them. Recently, BBC’s “Panorama” programme looked at how Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich dodged taxes and moved his wealth to the British Virgin Islands. I was asked to examine those documents, and they show that Deloitte knowingly helped to falsify documents to hide Abramovich’s wealth and help him evade taxes.
One thing is certain: no UK Government will do anything to any big accounting firm. In the absence of effective regulation, corruption, fraud and illicit financial flows will grow exponentially and harm the legitimate economy. The report raises the question of accountability, but it does not make recommendations that could improve public confidence, such as having consumer-elected directors on the boards of regulatory bodies or giving consumers the right to vote on the pay of directors of regulatory bodies—that would concentrate a few minds, would it not? Currently, we have regulators who are outside the freedom of information net. Regulators of insolvency and auditing are not subject to freedom of information laws. Why is that, Minister? I hope to get some comment on that.
We are now light years away from Cadbury’s Quaker capitalism. In the era of predatory capitalism, too many are willing to make a fast buck without facing any of the consequences. We need robust regulators to promote public confidence, and that should be their only objective. Promoting business growth is a matter for Ministers.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it was a great pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—nearly as much as the displeasure expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for financial regulation and regulators.
First, I sat on this committee. I had not previously appreciated the full complexity of our regulatory system, with at least 200 regulators—possibly more—and more being added every week. We heard that, of those, around 61 had a real focus on, or responsibilities relating to, growth, while 20 of them had a real impact on getting the economy moving. Yet around one third of the 61 had not even discussed their shared responsibility to increase the national income at a board level. That shocked me, because it is our role today to remind them of our—and their—shared endeavour: to make the nation richer.
It just so happens that we are not the only ones who think that action is needed. Over the weekend, the Times reported that No. 10 wants to improve regulatory oversight and boost local accountability to tackle “out of control” arm’s-length regulators; they are all “in the firing line”, we hear.
As I listened to the evidence, what struck me was how fragile a regulator’s commitment to growth can be. So much depends on the chief executive or chairman, their connections within government, and how effectively that commitment filters down to the case officers who apply the regulations of the organisation. Warm words at Downing Street growth summits count for nothing if the message does not filter down to the front line. When the leaders are gone, the economic drive from the regulator can perish. It is fragile; that is a problem.
As my noble friend said, we heard about several different types of regulation: economy; market; professional, including for doctors and accountants; the safety ones; the environmental and pollution ones; and social regulations for the caring and educational sectors. It is a broad church. However, in one memorable exchange, a Civil Service witness said that Trinity House was a regulator but had no impact on growth. We are an island nation. All of our trade in goods and services often travels by sea. Safe, navigable waterways are crucial to growth. Every regulator has a part to play, even when its core purpose does not appear to be one for the economy. The football regulator is a case in point: it is on the front line in more ways than one as well.
We spent considerable time discussing how to speed up regulation, not just for speed’s sake but to improve predictability and certainty; those things are probably more important. We heard about the sandboxes, fast lanes, pilots, experiments, distended timescales and unpredictable decisions that increase risk and make projects hard to start, let alone finish. Rather than laying these shortcuts over the system, could we not just give everybody access to a good standard of service? Is that too much to ask?
I regret that we could not examine foreign regulators more closely and compare our approach with those of our competitor nations, but we heard of prospective foreign investors who gave up because, as foreign nationals, they could not open a UK bank account. That is a regulatory failure—good intentions producing harmful results. Once they are introduced for the best of intentions, there is little incentive to prune the regulatory bloat.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who is in his place, gave huge grounds for optimism, describing the efforts to enable delivery robots, which if I recall correctly were subject to 19th-century horseless carriage regulations that needed to be superseded. His example showed how regulators could harness and enable new technology, including AI, which offers a tantalising prospect of turning a laggard into a leader. However, his example showed why political leadership matters to cut through the obstacles. Delivery robots are just one example of how regulations for a past age need updating. Perhaps universal sunset clauses—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, who is not in her place—might be a useful innovation here so that we always look forward and are not always stuck in the past.
That brings us back to risk, especially political risk. We cannot expect regulators, and case officers in particular, to be flexible or embrace new methods and technology without backing from Whitehall. It is the case officer’s livelihood and pension that are on the line. If Ministers want growth, they must give the regulators the air cover to do things differently. For all the warm words, I did not get the sense that it was a high priority for the Government, yet that is what our nation needs. I was not convinced that the message has sunk in when we listened to the Minister; I saw little drive from the highest levels of government to ensure that the 61 bodies that are referred to as being responsible for growth needed to discuss it at board level, let alone in that wider landscape of over 200 other regulators. It seems to me that it takes more than a No. 10 summit to turn around that “computer says no” culture.
To put it into focus, we all sympathised with our Chair when she had her bank account frozen by a misapplication of PEP rules, which assume that everyone is a criminal. That is no way to build an economy. Of course, I am not saying that the noble Baroness has been exposed to criminal activity, but it is that approach that everyone needs to demonstrate their innocence rather than the presumption the other way around. I am on sticky ground so I am going to move quickly.
We are in the slow lane of the global race. Clear timelines and predictable decisions combined with realism and focus will unlock investment and get the economy moving, and that is going to generate savings, employment and taxes. Let us stop the imposition of new layers that undermine viability so that we do not feel like we are wading through treacle. If our regulators make everything too difficult then too many others will conclude that the safest way to avoid mistakes is to do nothing, and that is going to leave us all poorer.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Government have stated that their number one mission is economic growth. Regulation can provide the stability that businesses and the economy need to thrive or it can be a source of roadblocks that inhibit growth. The reality is that current regulation is confusing, time consuming and costly to business. Some 47% of businesses reported in 2024 that regulation was an obstacle to their success, an increase from 45% in 2022. Two in five businesses felt that new post-Brexit regulatory arrangements were more challenging, 93% of businesses use some form of external support to assist in complying with regulation, and the mean amount that business spent on support was £10,745 compared to £6,100 in 2022.
A regulatory system needs to be transparent, consistent and easy to understand. Over time, unnecessary regulatory costs have contributed to a less competitive and less attractive British economy for new investment. This country used to be a magnet for inward investment. Some studies suggest that the impact of red-tape regulatory costs could be as high as 3% to 4% of GDP—we are talking about over £70 billion. A regulatory system needs to encourage new investment and regulate only where necessary and acceptable to keep pace with innovation.
Despite campaigning Brexit as an opportunity to deregulate in the name of freedom and growth, the UK has done relatively little to diverge from EU regulations since. The main reasons are that it would become more difficult to trade with the EU, with a lack of clear strategy of how and when to diverge and the priority of other competing post-Brexit responsibilities. However, there are some exceptions: the banning of live animal exports, establishing new freeports and repealing the bankers’ bonus cap.
In March 2025, the Department for Business and Trade published the regulation action plan, which many noble Lords have spoken about, aiming to overhaul the regulatory system to increase economic growth and cut administrative costs of regulation by 25% by the end of the Parliament. It includes plans to merge or remove regulatory bodies, reform registration and require regulators to increase transparency. Its three main goals are to tackle complexity and burden of regulation; reduce uncertainty across the regulatory system; and challenge excessive risk aversion.
In May 2026, the Industry and Regulators Committee published the report that we are debating, Time is money: How regulators can support growth, in relation to the Government’s action plan. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the members of the committee on the hard work they put into this excellent report. I reiterate, very quickly, the main conclusion of the report that the main contribution for regulators to make in supporting investment and growth is to carry on their duties more efficiently. It is unclear what the broad aim of supporting growth means for individual regulators. The Government have not said whether they want regulators to tolerate more risk or just be more open to innovation. It is the Government’s responsibility—I hope the Minister would agree—to provide strategic guidance with an explicit risk appetite for each regulator, with political cover when government wants a regulator to be more open to risk. Does the Minister agree? It is likely that, to prioritise economic growth, regulators will make trade-offs with other responsibilities, such as consumer, competition or environmental protection. The Government need to clarify the extent to which growth is prioritised, not leave this decision up to the regulators.
The Government may be focusing on the smaller cost of paperwork rather than the larger cost of complying with self-regulation. Cutting administrative costs by 25% could be hit without businesses feeling any change. The committee rightly asked for estimates for the reduction of actual cost compliance.
I am chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK and regional co-ordinator for the ICC in Europe—35 countries. We in the UK and the ICC have been leading the charge on promoting digital trade. Most people do not realise that most trade today is paper-based. If that paper-based trade can be moved to digital, it means that what takes three months takes minutes, and saves billions of dollars or pounds. This is where regulations are coming to help promote this, with the UK as a role model for the rest of the world—does the Minister agree?
Of course, there are different perspectives on regulation. To give an example, the Government are talking about bringing down the costs; the Lib Dems support cutting and consolidating regulation, particularly promoting trade with Europe; and the Conservatives talk about deregulation to encourage growth and repealing regulations surrounding net zero, diversity and inclusion and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has brought extra regulation. The regulatory culture is far too cautious, according to the Conservatives. The International Chamber of Commerce supports business self-regulation to build trust between businesses, consumers and the public. The CBI—the Confederation of British Industry—of which I was president, supports the recommendations of the small business taskforce on corporate reporting reform, noting
“the test now is delivery … business will want to see that ambition translated quickly into meaningful reductions in the burden they face”.
The CBI recommends an outcomes-based, principle-led approach.
The report has also said, as very well put by the Advertising Standards Authority, that regulation needs to create stable, predictable frameworks that enable businesses to invest and innovate while protecting legitimate public interest. Octopus Energy says very clearly that it is regulation that allowed it, as a new company, to come in not just to gain top market share but to do so by bringing quite a lot of innovative products.
I conclude that the pace of regulation is often a problem, and we need to work on making it faster. Does the Minister agree that this is a primary challenge? AI, which has been brought up, needs to be addressed as well. The only certainty in today’s world is uncertainty. Encouraging investment, innovation and growth is a key part of the vision of the Government’s plan. Most witnesses cited in the report said that regulators need to provide long-term stability and predictability to encourage investment and enable companies to plan ahead.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, like every other speaker this afternoon, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for chairing the committee.
Nobody here disputes the need for strong and effective regulation. It is through good regulation that we gain confidence, protect the public and nurture the conditions needed for business to invest and grow. That said, however, what became increasingly apparent throughout the process of our inquiry was the apparent lack of urgency in some regulatory processes and the insufficient appreciation of the very real fiscal consequences that come with delay.
I will deal first with the certainty and timeliness issue. We know, as our chair said, that time is money and that delays cause real economic costs. I therefore suggest that the single most important thing that businesses need from regulators is certainty, and they need it to be delivered in a reasonable and predictable timeframe. We know that up and down the UK, companies are facing lengthy approval processes, as we have heard. That uncertainty and delay are making it near impossible for businesses to commit investment, raise finance and plan expansion, including the recruitment of new staff, when they do not know when, or even if, they will get regulatory approval and, if so, when it will arise. That becomes a critical concern when considering major infrastructure projects, where delays of even the smallest amount can translate into substantial additional financing costs.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the evidence from Hoxton Farms. I find it particularly concerning that a British company indicated that it was likely to launch its products in Singapore or the United States well before the United Kingdom. In part, that is because of a much clearer regulatory timeline abroad. We heard about how Hoxton Farms was kept informed all the time of where its application was, so it knew every day where it was going. The situation here is simply not good enough. The United States and Singapore are well-regulated countries; why, then, are we so inferior in dealing with clarity and pace?
I put it to your Lordships that businesses do not demand immediate or even favourable answers; what they need is a clear process, confidence, and for the timetable to be honoured. I hope that Ministers will take action, given the grave consequences that this is having on holding back much-needed investment and growth.
Our regulatory processes must allow for greater flexibility. Although I appreciate that regulation should and must uphold standards and safeguards, I fear that there is a real danger that we are creating a process that is now so prescriptive that we are becoming void of having sufficient room for sensible human judgments. Times are changing, and in the time of innovation and technical advancement, we must accept that not every business or proposal will fit neatly into an established category. I think back to the evidence that we heard in support of a principles-based approach, in which standards are protected but businesses are given the flexibility to determine how these outcomes are achieved. That is something I fully support. Surely, the question must be about how a proposal meets the necessary standards rather than whether it can follow precisely the same path as everything that has gone before. I would therefore be pleased to hear from the Minister whether the Government are committed to achieve the greater proportionality and pragmatism that business requires.
Turning briefly to innovation, I am concerned that our regulatory structures are lacking the forwardness and resources to keep up with the remarkable pace of change that we are going through. As we have already heard, with AI, emerging industries and advanced tech are creating entirely new business models, and they are developing far faster than our regulatory framework. It was clear from the evidence that regulators have a profound difficulty in dealing with something that is unfamiliar or which does not fit into a previously prescribed process.
Does the Minister agree that innovation, by its very definition, involves something different? If so, how can we ensure that our regulators have the freedom to adapt? My fear is that, if our regulators cannot keep pace with innovation, there is a genuine risk that the investment, and thus the jobs that come with it, will go elsewhere. I am keen to hear how the Government plan to ensure that regulators can keep pace with the speedy and innovative times in which we live.
I conclude by asking the Government to take serious note of the concerns raised by businesses throughout this process and to recognise that we urgently need a culture in which regulatory delay is recognised as a serious economic consequence and a barrier to natural growth, as opposed to simply being an unavoidable feature of rather dated administration.
Lord Smith of Ranmoor (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for securing this debate and for leading the committee with distinction. I declare my interests as a chairman of Cranswick plc and as a director of Pret. The committee’s report pre-dates my introduction into your Lordships’ House by some months but I hope that my past experience will be useful to your Lordships’ deliberations, now and in the future.
Good regulation can enable growth. The challenge is not to suppose that we have to choose between effective regulation and economic growth; that is a false dichotomy. Regulators need to explicitly incorporate growth into their long-term and medium-term plans. For some, that might mean that the legal framework that established them and set their terms of reference needs to be altered to include that purpose. Regulators often hide their lack of enthusiasm for this topic behind prescriptive legislation. Are some of those pieces of legislation now so out of step with our objectives that they need a fresh look?
How many regulators have publicly reset their strategy since the Government challenged them with the objective of prioritising growth? In that new look at strategy, I suggest that a partnership with the sector being regulated could provide some fresh, innovative ideas—always remembering the regulator’s core purpose. The strategy should be simple, outcomes-based and follow some core principles.
As an ex-regulator, I know that a well-publicised strategic shift will be an empty promise unless followed by a change in the allocation of resources to meet that new objective. The evidence of that would come in revised organisational structures, with realistic budgets to match their aims. Being clear about what will and will not be done would be a bonus. Some regulators would work better, and with the grain of growth and their core purpose, if those organisations contained some or more people with experience in the sector being regulated, working alongside career civil servants.
The delivery of those strategic growth objectives has to be strictly measured and the results reported with a timely, transparent method. Of course, this accountability should include calculations of any consequent new admin burden and, more importantly, of the impact—growth, I hope—on the sector being regulated. This is often nuanced and properly risk-based, but it is the absence of data that frustrates many of those being regulated. Each regulator should be required to provide measures of the growth it has facilitated in a “comply or explain” mandatory framework.
I will say a word or two about pace. Delays are not harmless. One of the phrases that business grows weary of hearing from regulators is, “It takes as long as it takes”. In the time taken for a regulator to review an innovation in this country, an international business has likely exported those jobs and investment elsewhere. Those of us with global business experience will be able to cite other nations that are able to fast-track innovation and investment by taking a proportionate, risk-based approach. An SME in the same situation might simply run out cash.
There are bound to be trade-offs in conflicts between growth and other objectives; I am clear that the regulator is not best placed to resolve them. They need clear political direction. The Government need to set clear priorities, regulators must make timely and proportionate decisions—my shorthand here is: not light touch but right touch—and businesses must have the clarity and confidence to invest and innovate. I look forward positively in the expectation that this work continues to generate change in the attitudes and behaviours of all those involved.
Lord Camoys (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee on this excellent and important report. I joined the committee after the report was written, so I cannot claim any credit for it, but I have spent the past few years on the receiving end of the system it describes. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a founder of Marlow Film Studios.
I am speaking towards the end of this debate, so most of the substantive points have already been made, but I want to mention three things from my own experience of engaging with regulators on the planning system over the past few years. The first is the lack of accountability for delays. My experience has been that deadlines are set, missed and then missed again. As far as I could tell, nothing happened as a result. If a business misses a regulator’s deadline, there are consequences but, when a regulator misses its own, there seem to be none. The Government’s response promises clearer approval targets and ministerial performance reviews, which I welcome, but I am not convinced that publishing targets alone will change very much. What happens when those targets are repeatedly missed? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how that accountability will work in practice.
The second is the problem of regulators overlapping with one another. I have seen how National Highways, the Environment Agency and Natural England, among others, can each operate to its own timetable and ask its own questions without anyone having the authority to bring them together and get things moving. The Government have seven lead environmental regulator pilots under way, but these remain within Defra’s remit, and the lead regulator can co-ordinate but cannot decide. Will the Government extend this approach beyond Defra, and will the lead regulator actually have the authority to resolve disagreements? A single front door is a fine idea, provided there is somebody behind it with the authority to say yes.
My third point concerns risk. Robert Colvile told the committee that nobody is promoted for approving a company that succeeds and that, if something goes wrong, they may find themselves hauled before a Select Committee. I do not believe that the officials with whom I dealt were deliberately obstructive; they were simply working within the system as it currently operates. Regulators must of course protect the public and the environment, among other things but, as others have said, surely it is for Ministers, rather than individual officials, to decide how those responsibilities should be balanced against economic growth. The Government propose a stronger growth duty and statutory ministerial steers, but will Ministers make clear what level of risk they are prepared to accept and stand behind officials when a decision proves controversial?
The committee has done a valuable job in identifying these problems. The Government have accepted much of what it recommends. What matters now is whether that translates into real change; I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a practising solicitor in the City of London and a partner for the past 50 years in the commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft. I join all other Members in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and thanking her for moving this debate. Few, if any, Members of the House can match her first-hand experience of the world of regulation; that experience is very evident in this excellent report. I also thank her fellow members of the Industry and Regulators Committee, who together crafted a report that is certainly timely, even if it makes uncomfortable reading for His Majesty’s Government.
We have benefited in particular from those members of the committee who have come not only for support but to make their own contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos—although on the committee for just a short period of this inquiry—raised some very important issues affecting AI, to which we will return. My noble friends Lady Harding of Winscombe, Lord Fuller and Lord Udny-Lister not only participated in producing this report but have added to it today. I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Camoys, who rightly summarised in the gap the problems that many people have identified, with delays, targets repeatedly being missed and overlapping regulation.
I will not speak for long, because the Minister has so many questions to answer that we have to give her the maximum time. Still, Time is Money is a great title. I do not know who thought it up but it is brilliant because this Government have now had more than two years to deliver the growth that they promised would be their first and overriding message. They spent that time freely but they have delivered remarkably little money in return. The committee’s most striking finding is not merely that regulators have failed to support growth; it is that the Government—and previous Administrations have been guilty of this too—continue to send mixed, confusing and ambiguous signals to regulators about how a commitment to growth is to be balanced against all those other duties.
It is a strange kind of mission whose commanders cannot describe the objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, set out quite well. What is the objective? Ministers may now tell us that the answer is a new, clarified and strengthened growth duty under which designated regulators would actively promote economic growth, but history tells us that economic development—and social development too, for that matter—will require, above all else, innovation.
In the introduction to the report, the committee observes that:
“Done well, regulation can boost consumer confidence and provide certainty for businesses to invest and innovate”.
That is certainly the case, but it is rarely, if ever, in the nature of a regulator actively to promote innovation. As the report notes, the primary statutory duties of regulators are generally linked to safety or consumer protection. I suppose that is inherently risk averse, but the key question is: what is risk? I suppose that, in many ways, as a solicitor specialising in insurance and reinsurance, my whole life has been to identify and deal with risk, but what is it if it is not, as the noble Baroness put it, benefit aversion?
There is a real and present danger that poorly targeted, overzealous or simply inappropriate regulation can serve to dampen, discourage or even stifle vital innovation. As my noble friend Lord Willetts put it—he chairs the Regulatory Innovation Office, so he should know—innovation is very difficult to promote when faced with detailed, overlapping regulation. As my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister put it, we are competing in a world where other jurisdictions are readily embracing our competitors and giving them answers to the questions for which they still await answers from our own regulators. All too often innovation, investment and growth are fostered and encouraged not by regulatory intervention but by its absence. As the report notes,
“it is not clear whether the Government wants regulators to allow greater risks to be borne by consumers and businesses, or merely to be more open-minded about new innovations”.
Many regulators already operate under the growth duty in Section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which requires them to
“have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”.
Others, such as the FCA and the PRA—both of which oversee an area of the economy that is vital our economic well-being and place in the world—have growth as a secondary objective, subordinate to concerns around consumer protection. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe made a series of key points about how the situation could be improved by what he described as “intelligent” regulation. Let us hope that the Minister has a clear commitment in that direction.
However, as the report points out, the regulator of regulators, the Competition and Markets Authority, has no formal growth duty. Again, the report says:
“If it wishes to have a more meaningful impact, the Government must provide strategic guidance to regulators that addresses how conflicts between objectives should be prioritised and must provide political cover where the Government wants a regulator to be more open to risk”.
That is spot on; there, in a nutshell, is what we require of the Government. I join my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood in asking key questions about the Government’s proposed legislation. Is it coming our way? As we will no doubt hear from the Minister, it is apparently called the regulating for growth Bill. It rests on the implicit presumption that growth can be regulated into existence, when the lesson of recent decades is quite the opposite—namely, that innovation and growth can all too easily be regulated out of existence.
What the country needs—this has come through in many of the speeches we have heard—is not more energetic regulation but a serious programme for how to make regulation genuinely proportionate. In stressing, as we all do, the importance of free speech and free content, my noble friend Lord Black made the point that the Competition and Markets Authority has erred in the past by failing to protect those small businesses and start-ups that could grow, expand and become jewels in the crown of this great country but have been swallowed up quickly by large, mainly American, conglomerates. Where is the competition when these very large entities take over the market?
The other key question that has come through in the debate concerns testing the Government’s commitment to reducing the administrative burden of regulation by 25%. My noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe talked openly about how that target must be reached. First, it must never be forgotten that the administrative burden is by no means the only, or even the greatest, burden that regulators impose on wealth creators. It is important, and reducing it is also important, but regulation goes far beyond the simple costs of ticking boxes and returning forms.
Let us try to look into the future and find a way of attracting the inward investment to which so many speakers referred—but never at the expense of allowing us, in this country, to take advantage of the brilliant brains that we have. I saw those for myself when I was the Cabinet Minister for Science, when a young, 18 year-old undergraduate from Cambridge on the CERN project thought up the world wide web because he had to match and index all the material coming from the Large Hadron Collider.
Let us not forget that we have won more Nobel prizes in this country than the whole of the rest of Europe put together. Let us trust our innovators and set them free from burdensome regulation. I join my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in saying that we need certainty, clarity and pace; the noble Baroness, Lad Hayter, used that word right at the start of this debate. We want pace, and we need answers—so it is over to you, Minister, to provide those answers now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government. I join others in thanking my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town for securing today’s debate and for her leadership of the Industry and Regulators Committee’s inquiry. I also thank all of the noble Lords who contributed to the report, as well as all noble Lords who have made contributions today; they have brought the combined expertise of so many here today.
The committee’s report, Time is Money: How Regulators Can Support Growth, provides a thoughtful and constructive examination of how regulation can better support investment, innovation and productivity. We agree with its central message that effective regulation is essential to a strong economy but unnecessary delay, duplication, complexity and uncertainty can deter investment and slow innovation.
As we have heard today, regulation is not inherently a burden. Well-designed regulation protects consumers, workers, communities and the environment. It creates fair markets, builds public confidence and gives businesses the certainty they need to make long-term investments. Therefore, our objective is not simply less regulation but better regulation: regulation that is proportionate, predictable and effective; regulation that keeps pace with technological and economic change; and regulation that supports growth while maintaining essential protections.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, asked what action we are taking to reflect on the report. The committee rightly called for greater clarity on what supporting growth means for individual regulators. We have acted on that recommendation. We have agreed 54 outcome-focused growth goals with 12 key regulators. These translate the Government’s wider growth mission and industrial strategy into practical priorities that are tailored to each regulator’s remit. The goals are supported by measurable, time-bound results, as well as an explanation of how their delivery is expected to support economic growth.
Growth goals are currently published on the regulator performance dashboard to improve transparency. The goals do not direct individual regulatory decisions or undermine operational independence. The Government set the strategic direction and regulators remain responsible for applying it independently, in accordance with the law and their statutory duties. Through the regulation action plan and the regulator effectiveness and reform programme, we are also tackling delays, duplication, fragmented processes and unclear guidance. We are working to improve digital services and enable businesses to provide information once, rather than repeatedly, to public bodies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others have stressed, timeliness is key. The Government and regulators have already made significant progress in speeding up regulatory processes. The Environment Agency has made its permitting service more efficient and transparent. It has cut its permitting queue by 1,000 permits, cleared backlogs in several categories and introduced a tracked service that now supports more than 60 projects. It also hit its target of responding to 95% of planning consultations 21 days ahead of schedule, and has met it consistently since. However, that is clearly not enough, and we need to do more.
Several noble Lords have, understandably, raised the balance between growth and vital protections; my noble friend Lord Chandos put that very clearly. Let me be clear: supporting growth does not mean lowering standards or accepting unacceptable risks to the public. Growth and high standards are not alternatives. Regulators must continue to fulfil their statutory responsibilities, while ensuring that those objectives are delivered proportionately and without unnecessary barriers to investment and innovation.
The forthcoming regulating for growth Bill will strengthen the growth duty for key regulators. This will be supported by statutory ministerial economic growth steers, tailored to different sectors—reflective of the points made today that different sectors regulate very different industries—and reporting requirements to strengthen accountability. This responds to the call by my noble friend Lady Hayter and many others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Ranmoor, for us to be clear on the Government’s priorities and risk appetite to allow regulators to make confident decisions, in particular in areas of innovation.
Many noble Lords focused, crucially, on the importance of innovation and on creating a regulatory framework that supports our innovative UK businesses. The Bill will also introduce cross-economy sandbox powers, allowing innovative products, technologies and services to be tested safely where existing legislation creates a barrier. The Regulatory Innovation Office, led so well by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has led to many advances in equipping regulators and having discussions with them on how to regulate in this innovative space, and it has provided practical examples which can be taken forward in these formal sandboxes when we are able to legislate for them. The modern world is changing rapidly, and our legislative framework must be able to keep pace with innovation and technological advances, so I agree very much with those noble Lords, for example the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, who exhorted us to update our laws to take account of this. The Bill will provide greater scope to test innovative approaches, using real-world evidence to inform how successful approaches should be implemented more widely.
My noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Chandos asked about the timing of the Bill. It is set to be introduced in the current Session of Parliament, when parliamentary time allows. At present, when regulators and businesses identify a better approach, existing legislation does not provide the ability to test this in practice. My noble friend Lady Hayter put her finger on this: primary legislation remains the appropriate route for many changes, but it does not offer the flexibility to test and respond at pace.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Black, this is a cross-cutting framework Bill, so it will not include any specific technologies or sector regulation. Overall, this is not deregulation by another name: testing will take place under controlled conditions with appropriate safeguard mechanisms, we will suspend or end testing where necessary, and any lasting change will be subject to appropriate scrutiny.
On my noble friend Lord Nagaraju’s observation, we are acutely aware of the needs of smaller innovative AI businesses to access these. That is part of the discussions we have been having with the Regulatory Innovation Office to date, and we will continue to bear it at the front of our mind.
The committee was also right to emphasise that time matters. Low or uncertain regulatory decisions impose real costs: they can delay investment, prevent products from reaching the market and make the United Kingdom a less attractive place in which to do business. We are increasing transparency through the regulator performance dashboard, which brings together performance information for 16 key regulators and is being expanded to cover regulatory approvals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, asked about KPIs. We are also working with regulators to improve KPIs so that they measure genuine performance, including timeliness, quality, certainty and outcomes, rather than activity alone. We recognise that poorly designed KPIs can give the appearance of progress when there is not.
Many noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, stressed the importance of actual change and the importance of this being felt through the whole of the regulator. Performance will be considered through reviews led by the Secretary of State and independent reviews, allowing underperformance to be challenged and targeted action to be agreed. The regulator sponsorship charter also sets out the responsibilities of sponsor departments.
My noble friend Lord Sikka is right that accountability is key. Accountability must extend through regulators, departments and government, and ultimately to Parliament.
The ultimate test will be what businesses experience: whether decisions are faster and more predictable, processes are simpler, duplication is reduced, and whether unnecessary barriers to investment are removed.
A number of noble Lords asked about the lead regulator model. We recognise that there is more to do here and that complex and fragmented regulatory processes can add delay and cost to major infrastructure projects. That is why the lead environmental regulator pilots are testing how environmental regulators can provide clearer and earlier co-ordinated advice to developers, while the wider reforms are focused on improving regulatory approvals and reducing unnecessary duplication. We are committed to learning from these pilots and taking forward their conclusions.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, on progress on the administrative burden of regulation, I underline that that is in addition to all the other changes that we are making to improve regulatory decision-making and regulatory transparency to reduce the effect on business. The Government are committed to reducing the annual administrative burden of regulation to business by 25% over this Parliament. That is equivalent to £5.6 billion against a baseline of £22.4 billion. We have delivered or identified £2 billion in net annual administrative burden savings, putting us over one third of the way towards the target. The Chancellor has now also announced up to £640 million in additional gross administrative savings for businesses in the Budget. We recognise that smaller firms feel regulatory complexity particularly acutely. The Small Business Regulatory Taskforce has made 15 practical recommendations, and we have accepted all but one.
Regulation also does not stop at national borders. We will continue to pursue international regulatory co-operation and—going to my noble friend Lady Gill’s point—the benefits of recognition of trusted overseas approvals. Doing so reduces unnecessary friction and benefits UK businesses and consumers, while preserving our ability to regulate in the national interest.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on the importance of digital trade to the United Kingdom, which is a feature of our trade strategy.
Many noble Lords asked about digital markets and AI: the noble Lord, Lord Black, my noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. The Government recognise the important role that competitive digital markets play in supporting innovation, investment, productivity and consumer choice in the UK economy. In their strategic steer to the CMA, the Government set out how they expect the CMA to operate the digital markets regime independently, flexibly, proportionately, and collaboratively to effectively unlock opportunities for growth across the UK digital economy and wider economy. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government are not issuing a new strategic steer.
To the questions my noble friend Lord Chandos and other noble Lords asked about our AI approach, as my noble friend and others highlighted, this is a general-purpose technology, and the Government’s approach is principally that it is best regulated at the point of use.
The committee’s report has made an important contribution to this agenda. The Government agree that regulators need clearer direction, transparency and stronger accountability if they are to support growth effectively. We will judge success by outcomes: simpler and more predictable regulation, faster decisions, stronger investment and innovation, and continued public confidence in the protections that regulation provides.
I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the members of the committee, and all noble Lords who have contributed today. We will continue to work with Parliament, regulators, businesses and wider stakeholders to deliver a regulatory system that protects the public, commands confidence and supports sustainable economic growth across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I will try to do this briefly, as I can see that team B is just arriving.
I thank all the speakers, and I especially thank the Minister for that reply. She ought to take great comfort from how much agreement there was across the Room—although I know that no Liberal Democrats spoke. There has been a very strong commonality in our responses, particularly on the idea that regulation cannot create growth. The comment from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about infrastructure pointed to where that could be of advantage more broadly. I am afraid I have been exchanging texts with the staff, and they think that it was the noble Lord who came up with the title, Time is Money. Can we congratulate him on that?
I will not try to repeat everything, except to say three things; I apologise for having said them before. One is that there was commonality around the need for regulators to be able to respond rapidly to innovation and to provide the pace, clarity, certainty and predictability that business needs. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, used the phrase “intelligent regulation”, which may encompass it, but I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who said that all this has to be in the interest of British business and the British public. That is really the core of what we want to do.
There are three points to take away. As my noble friends Lord Chandos and Lord Sikka said, we must not lose sight of the need to protect consumers. These regulations did not grow. We do not have statutory regulation by accident; it is there for a purpose, and we need to continue to protect that.
Secondly, we need political cover if we are going to ask regulators to become a little more chancy and to meet the challenge that we and the Government have sent their way.
We also need to recognise the costs of poor regulation. It will fall to the Government to enable regulators to respond to new technology, but there are certain things that only the Government can do—the single front door, for example. No one regulator can do that or, in the words of my noble friend Lady Gill, deal with legacy rules. That falls to the Government, not to individual regulators.
The other challenge is that the existing growth duty—it is not new—has done very little to change regulators’ risk appetites, because it added another duty. They are going to have to make trade-offs. The Government must respond to that and think about how to change the conflicting demands of their core responsibilities and this, as well as about how to balance these new demands.
There are, therefore, things for the Government to do that individual regulators cannot do. Perhaps we can invite my noble friend the Minister to come to our committee when the Bill is published—I hope that the members of my committee will agree to this—to discuss how we can move forward. With that, I thank everybody for their contributions and I commend this report to the Committee.
Fortifying the Fiscal Framework (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Fortifying the fiscal framework (4th Report, HL Paper 291, Session 2024–26).
Lord Liddle (Lab)
This is the second occasion since being appointed chair of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee that I appear before you as something of an imposter. The report that we are debating today was prepared under the guidance of my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield. Having done his bit in this role to save Britain from bankruptcy, he is now more than doing his bit in the Foreign Office under Ed Miliband, so we wish him well.
It is also my pleasant duty to thank the officials who contributed so much to the report before your Lordships today—most of all, the staff of the Committee, Dervish Mertcan, James Parkin, Neil Mellor and our clerk, Matthew Manning, whose balanced judgments shine through its pages. I also thank those who served on the committee when we took most of the evidence for this report and have been rotated off since. A particularly brutal eight members were removed at the new year. I thank those members who have turned up to this debate—and I thank the three current members of the committee, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for participating in it today.
In preparing this report, we had the benefit of advice from two former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Turnbull. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, is speaking today as well. Outsiders criticise the House of Lords, but what other institution in British life could boast that advice on its deliberations?
Fiscal policy is at the heart of our politics. Two key facts about it despite stand out and are rarely remarked upon. First, the OBR, the Office for Budget Responsibility, last July projected that if one simply rolled forward present trends, debt as a share of GDP would be about 270% by the early 2070s. Needless to say, witnesses in our inquiry were clear that that debt level could never in practice be achieved because the markets would stop lending to the Government well before that level was reached. The bond markets would have done their much-maligned job, especially as in Britain’s case—unlike, say, with Italy or Japan—as I think Mark Carney once said, we depend on the kindness of foreigners to fund our borrowing.
The 2070s may seem a long time away, but when I think about it, 50 years were not a particularly long time away for me. When I first started working as a special adviser in the Callaghan Government, in the midst of the IMF crisis, I would wonder whether my job would last more than a couple of months—that was 50 years ago.
The second key point that is rarely mentioned is that debt interest currently accounts for one in every 13th pound spent by the Government. We spend more servicing our public debt than we do on either education or defence, and it is nearly half what we spend on health. These are enormous numbers. A few weeks ago, I introduced the debate on our report on the demographic challenges of an ageing society. I strongly support our new Prime Minister’s ambitions for a radical reform of social care. In my view, it is fundamental to a decent society, and I admire his courage in deciding to reform the triple lock in order to help pay for it. We all know that social care is a huge commitment for the future. We also know that we have huge, unavoidable but as yet unfunded commitments on defence, which in a dangerous world we simply must meet. But in meeting those targets, let us remember that 270% figure which hangs over us on present trends.
This is why the framework within which the Government set fiscal policy is an essential ingredient ensuring that Governments can set themselves on the path towards sustainable borrowing. Our report looks at two elements of that framework: the fiscal rules themselves, which Chancellors loudly proclaim as non-negotiable; and the institution responsible for assessing the Government’s compliance with them, the much-maligned Office for Budget Responsibility.
On the rules, my personal feeling is that Chancellors protest too much. There is some benefit to the Government sticking to the existing rules, but the rules themselves have been shown to be eminently gameable. Debt is invariably shown to fall as a percentage of GDP in the final year of the plan, and the claim of sticking to the rules has limited value if the spending assumptions for the final years of the fiscal plan are of extremely dubious credibility. The risk of gaming was particularly high when the timescale for meeting the fiscal rules was set at five years. Meeting the rules depended on spending assumptions five years ahead that were unspecified.
The present Government—they are my Government and I support them—have, to their credit, shifted to a three-year rolling target to demonstrate a falling public debt to GDP ratio. I dare say Sir Humphrey would have described this as a brave decision because it means that, from now on, the commitment to lower the debt to GDP ratio is aligned with the Government’s three-year public spending plans, and, in our case, they have to be decided next year. This year’s Red Book implies that the Government’s plans for unprotected departments—that is, other than defence and health—would face real-term cuts of some 2.5% in order to meet that target. If I were a Labour Back-Bencher in the Commons, which I am glad I am not, that commitment might cause me a few uneasy nights of lost sleep. But the whole approach to policy remains Augustinian: we are promising to be fiscally prudent, but just not quite yet.
The committee was also generally concerned with the relentless yearly focus on whether the Government have met the short-term rules for so-called headroom rather than the long-term trends, which are more important. In report after report, the OBR has clearly set out the trajectory for debt; it is manifestly unsustainable but no one seems to take any notice. The Government are ignoring this, and we as a committee were concerned that there is a lack of attention to the annual Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report that the OBR produces. Parliamentary time should be set aside for discussing the Government’s response to this report.
Perhaps one reason for the reluctance to do so is the increasingly meagre content of the response that the Treasury provides. Richard Hughes—the chairman of the OBR before, unfortunately, he had to resign—noted that the Government’s response in 2017 was 136 pages of argument, while the most recent was 19 pages, and it was in the form of a Written Statement to Parliament, which of course was never debated. That is not good enough for such a serious matter. Our committee will do what it can to draw greater attention to the Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report. We will invite the OBR and Ministers to give evidence to our committee each year following its publication. The long-term health of our economy turns on Governments grappling with the issues that the OBR repeatedly highlights.
On the OBR more generally, we welcome the change in tone of the rhetoric that was previously unfairly targeted at it. In contrast to some claims, the OBR does not police government policy; it is merely an impartial judge of the Government’s compliance with rules that they impose on themselves. The Government are always free to disagree with the OBR assessment and make their policy accordingly, if they want to. We also welcome the OBR’s approach to forecasting. Projection is not prediction, and confusion on this point underlies misguided attacks on its work.
We heard of the frustration of some at the OBR not scoring the impact of tax cuts or public investment on its growth numbers, but if the Government genuinely believe in the value of a policy, they should implement it whether or not the OBR chooses to score it. Not to do so because of its approach to scoring would be to reveal a concern with meeting a metric rather than promoting the actual well-being of the economy. The Government should be making policy on the basis of their considered view of the economic fundamentals, not on the basis of what they think will lead to narrowly passing rules that they have imposed on themselves.
In particular, the focus on headroom, and how specific decisions of the OBR affect the result of the headroom calculation, are a product of narrow margins. Between 2010 and early 2022, headroom averaged about £30 billion. One might worry that, with headroom in this October’s Budget now falling to £15 billion, we are returning to a world in which OBR decisions about scoring will again be politicised. These decisions should be dry matters, more suited to footnotes in documents than headline news stories. The amounts that we are considering are, in terms of public spending and borrowing, rounding errors compared to the Government’s total tax and revenue spending. Although we accept that buffers are there to be used in tough times, those buffers should arguably be a lot greater than they are.
Sadly, the fundamentals of our fiscal position remain difficult, and nothing in the Budget last week suggests any meaningful change in the country’s long-term debt dynamics. I am expressing a personal view here, but fiscal sustainability is not just a matter of the scale of public spending and taxation. Personally, I want the Government to throw everything they can at growth; in my book, that must include rejoining the European single market. I want a simpler, radically reformed tax and welfare system that removes the multiple disincentives to work with which we have ended up. I would like to see a much sharper focus on public sector efficiency, where the public sector trade unions recognise that the only sustainable route to higher wages lies in greater public sector productivity.
The fact is that the public finances are on an unsustainable path. Apart from the Government’s brave decision on the triple lock, which I applaud, it is unclear how we are going to address this situation. The Prime Minister says that he is in favour of radical reform of our politics and electoral system to bring more consensus to our politics. Perhaps that is a fundamental change; we will have to see. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this very perceptive and timely report, and I congratulate all those who prepared it.
I agree that the current fiscal rules system set up by the previous Conservative Government, and extended and modified by this Government, cannot possibly achieve its main aim, which should be to control debt better. Whether there is a five-year target or a three-year target does not really make much difference. Some people thought that that was a welcoming tightening, but the underlying truth is that year 3 or year 5 never comes and there is no pressure on the Government to make sure that they meet it. By the time they get to that year, it is no longer year 3, so it no longer has a biting target. That is clearly absurd.
I also agree with the committee saying that the OBR’s role has to be that of an independent forecaster and that the Government should be able to talk to it but should not be bound by it. Obviously, a good Government would wish to explain why they disagreed, or should explain how they intend to handle debt and deficit if they do not like the figures that are being produced.
In 2010, when this family of targets first started after the banking crash and the explosion of debt and expenditure over the period of that crash, public spending—that is, total managed expenditure—was £760 billion. This year, according to the latest forecast, it will be £1,449 billion. That is an increase of 90% over the years. I cannot remember a year, until we got to a Labour Government, when I was not told that we were cutting public spending, but spending is up 90% in cash terms. The inflation check from the Bank of England says that there was 62% inflation over that period, so there was a fairly substantial real increase, which occurred in most years. Some individual programmes were cut, and some priorities could not be pursued, but it is difficult to see that we have had a rigorous set of controls over either spending or borrowing.
If we look at where these targets came from, ultimately, they are derived from our Maastricht targets, which we were meant to obey when we were a member of the European Union. Noble Lords may remember that there were two treaty-driven targets. We were to keep debt at 60% of GDP or lower. Every country bar one, I think, broke that—including the United Kingdom—so it was transposed into something saying, “As you are over 60%, you should start getting your debt down towards a 60% target”; that was transformed into our fiscal rules after we left. There was also the 3% running deficit ceiling, which, again, has been often broken; it was broken by us in our period of membership. This Government have revised and tightened that by saying that there should still be a 3% deficit ceiling, but only to allow 3% of GDP borrowing for capital purposes, and that the aim should be to have a current balance. That is a good amendment to a target that does not work.
Where one needs to go from here is to say, as the committee does, that we are close to running out of money—and the people who lend it to us are close to running out of patience—for us to carry on spending at the rate we are doing. We have had three very big spending increases over the past 20 years: over the banking crash, with a big increase in debt; over Covid; and post Covid. I do not think that enough was done to control the spending coming out of the Covid exceptional expenditure; the extra borrowing was complicated, with a massive programme of quantitative easing. We then had, of course, a very substantial policy decision to go for more spending and more borrowing by the incoming Government in 2024.
I think that we would be much better off if, on a cross-party basis, we could agree on two overarching aims for the UK economy, based on one of our targets at the moment and some of the American experience. We should have as our aims 2% inflation and 2% growth, so that all policy and Bank of England considerations recognise that there can be trade-offs between those two, and we should embed the 2% inflation target on the Government as well as on the Bank of England, because inflation in public sector costs is one of the main forces of inflation at the moment; that should be taken much more seriously by the public sector.
In the brief time I have, I want to mention two expensive quirks in our figures, which I have highlighted and in which I would like other people to get interested; I find them fascinating, and they might be of use to those conducting public policy. The first is that Rachel Reeves made a decision, which I and my party condemned as being anti-jobs and anti-vacancies, to increase national insurance. The curious financial thing about it was that, of course, the bulk of the national insurance revenue has to be paid into the National Insurance Fund. That is now accumulating a surplus of £12 billion extra each year and has a surplus of £100 billion already, so I am not quite sure why she wanted a bigger surplus in the fund; it has to be lent back to the Government at the base rate.
The second funny money is the dreadful situation with the ownership of bonds by the Bank of England. The latest OBR figure says that the losses will come down a bit: it now thinks that, from 2022, when the losses started, until 2033, the losses will be £228 billion. Can we not get that figure down a bit?
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his introductory remarks to, again, a report to which I do not think he contributed when we wrote it. As he mentioned, I was a member of the committee during the investigation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, for chairing the committee during that period, and I wish him well in his new tasks. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redwood; I agree with much of what he has said today.
I want to discuss, first, the OBR’s role in budget-making, and, secondly, whether the fiscal rules are really helping. The OBR has recently been getting a tough press from some corners about its role. I regret this; I must declare an interest as a past chair of the oversight committee of the OBR. Releasing the forecast early last year was clearly an embarrassing mistake. Anyone who has been involved in forecasting knows that all forecasting is difficult, particularly when we have a background, as we have had, of unexpected military conflicts. However, the OBR basically does what it is asked to do in the legislation that set it up. At Budget time, it produces forecasts, offers an independent view of the impact of various Budget measures and provides an opinion on whether the Government will meet their own rules. Separate from the Budget, it also gives its opinion on whether the long-term fiscal outlook is sustainable on present policies, which has already been mentioned.
There is nothing to stop the Government producing their own forecasts in parallel. They can dispute the longer-term effects of policy measures. They can also change the fiscal rules, as we have often seen them do in the past. The suggestion that the OBR somehow dominates the construction of the Budget is simply not correct: it is the Government who set the rules and procedures. For me, the OBR’s value has been its real contribution to impartiality and transparency. It has published much more analytical information than before; it has shown much more of the workings in how it has reached its conclusions; and it undertakes a regular evaluation of its forecasts, providing a public record to all even when they might be embarrassing.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that the 2010 fiscal framework has not been enough to prevent a huge increase in the Government’s debt since 2010, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, pointed out. The crucial questions are: how much responsibility lies with the OBR, with the various crises over the past 18 years, or with the specific rules and policies that successive Governments have chosen to follow? There is no time to get into that today, but I will touch on the issue of fiscal rules.
The committee’s report highlights some weaknesses in the rules. The pattern is for the post-Budget forecast to show the debt ratio stabilising or increasing in the first year or two, followed by a decline in the later years. However, this improvement often relies on optimistic public expenditure figures set by the Government, and the projected decline of the debt ratio does not happen; the debt ratio has been stuck at the present level for some years now.
Personally, I am not a fan of short-term Budget rules. The word “rules” seems inappropriate in a world where the likely margin of error around the forecasts is large relative to the fiscal offer. We do not have an inflation rule; we have a target. Why do we have Budget rules? Rules are very difficult to set when there is so much global uncertainty, and the changes that take place inevitably generate suspicion that they are being made to give Governments more discretion and room for manoeuvre.
Governments of course need a strategy for fiscal policy. The committee’s report argues for a greater focus on reducing the debt ratio over time, rather than the endless debate about rules and fiscal buffers. This can be achieved only by bringing down the balance of current spending and income closer to zero. The OBR forecast published last week shows a decline in the deficit, but the question remains: will this be achieved in practice? Once again, the forecast for government spending appears ambitious. Even if it is accurate, the debt ratio is likely to be higher in the final year of the forecast than it was last year.
We now look forward to the forthcoming 10-year plan. It will be another stab at setting out a plan for the future. It is crucial that this next step also includes a compelling pathway to financial sustainability by reducing the debt ratio.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Liddle for securing this debate and introducing it so cogently. I congratulate him on his appointment as chair of the committee.
The committee’s report, Fortifying the Fiscal Framework, could not be more timely or important. Today, the day of the US mid-term elections, might be a good time to remember that, in 2016, President Trump promised to eliminate US national debt, which was then around $17 trillion. In recent months, it broke through the $40 trillion level—around 130% of GDP. If the US had a fiscal framework, we can be confident that President Trump and Secretary Bessent would pay little or no attention to it. Even if there has been intermittent nervousness in the US Treasury market—arguably caused predominantly by other factors—the US continues to be able to finance itself on internationally competitive terms. So who needs a fiscal framework?
The US, fortunately or unfortunately, is not a representative model in the light of, inter alia, the dollar’s dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. Why do we attach so much importance to a stable fiscal framework? It is of course vital in maintaining confidence—international and domestic—to ensure that, whatever the national borrowing requirement is, the Exchequer pays the lowest possible interest rates. It is also a framework for promoting intergenerational fairness, which I acknowledge needs nuanced analysis but is an important and relevant consideration none the less.
One of the most striking parts of the report is contained in its final pages, in the form of Appendix 4. It shows over 20 changes in fiscal rules since the global financial crisis in 2008. The report correctly acknowledges that the rules should not be set in stone for many decades, but also argues that moving the goalposts this much and this often does not generally engender the very confidence that is the central purpose of the exercise.
I will not take much more time, as I unequivocally endorse the report’s conclusions and recommendations. The welcome reduction of the rolling forecast period from five years to three could, as the report recommends, usefully be amended further to include the requirement that debt at the end of the third year should be lower than in the first. I hope the Government will reflect on this beyond the initial dead bat that they have played.
I welcome the support given by the committee to the role and performance of the OBR, as well as the appointment of Jonathan Haskel as chair after, inter alia, his distinguished tenure on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. I also endorse the support given for the new cycle of two forecasts and one fiscal event each year, whether or not the gap between the forecasts could be evened out to some extent.
I was struck by the evidence given by the economist and journalist Ben Zaranko advocating a broader assessment of financial resilience than the numerical level of headroom, as my noble friend Lord Liddle also argued in his introduction. The fiscal framework should not be overly mechanical in its interpretation and analysis, but the symbol of the financial responsibility and discipline pursued by the Government. If it is not too frivolous, I am reminded—for film buffs—of “Pirates of the Caribbean”, where the pirates’ code is argued to be not so much a code as a guideline.
The Government have made a strong start in stabilising the country’s fiscal position. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we are anywhere near the point of being unable to cover our financing needs, and this report can further strengthen that position.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the committee that produced this report, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and to the committee staff. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his excellent chairmanship of the committee and his opening remarks.
I shall make four points. First, when our committee decided to undertake this inquiry, the OBR was experiencing unprecedented levels of publicity and criticism. You would have thought it was directly responsible for the country’s challenging and deeply worrying fiscal situation, rather than consisting of analysts and messengers. A year later, after another Budget, that seems no longer to be true; if there were widespread attacks this year, I missed them. I think that this is because, in the meantime, and in no small part because of the OBR’s work, far more people are aware of our ever-growing national debt and the state of our public finances.
However, while this growing recognition in Westminster and the country is welcome, we are not doing anything very significant about it. To quote the executive summary of the OBR’s own October report, in classically somewhat bland language:
“The UK’s economic and fiscal position remains very challenging”.
It points out that weak growth and government borrowing have resulted in a sharp increase in government debt while debt interest spending is expected to grow yet again by billions of pounds.
Observers of the Budget regularly point out how bizarre it is that so much time and national attention goes on whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer is using up her or his headroom, an amount that is a tiny proportion of total public expenditure. However, the reason for this is that we are in fact in hock to the bond markets and in an unnecessary situation where small changes in interest rates are a major daily concern for the Government because of their impact on total debt interest.
Secondly, it is perfectly possible to reduce the national debt. In 1946, after the Second World War, the national debt reached 252% of GDP, but by 2006 it was down to 36%. As our committee has argued in this report, and in its previous 2024 report on debt, we really have to act.
Thirdly, I underline the hugely valuable work done by the OBR in producing its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability reports. As we said in our report, these reports get far too little attention, but, if you want to understand what is going on with the public finances, they are an essential source; I commend them to everybody.
Fourthly, there is a concrete change that this Government and future Governments could, and should, make; in my view, it is the single most important recommendation in this report. The Government should set out an additional debt target that will show cumulative performance over three years, such that, in normal times, debt in the third year is lower than in the first year. That should be easily monitored and clearly understood by the general public. However, this has not been our recent experience. This October’s economic and fiscal outlook predicts that, in 2029, public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP will, again, be significantly higher than was forecast just six months ago.
We are hardly the only people to observe that, all too often, the current and recent fiscal rules allow ample room for gaming the debt target. As a former member of the Budget Responsibility Committee confirmed to us, as a witness,
“you can have debt rising for ever”
and still meet most of the targets that the Government have set for themselves and observe their rules. The committee criticised this situation in 2024, but nothing happened. We called for change in this report, but the Government’s response to our report said:
“The Government has been clear that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable”—
end of subject. Well, the rules may be non-negotiable, but it is beyond time for them to change and for them to be discussed publicly and widely. We need a cross-party commitment on our fiscal framework, including a clear, easily monitored commitment to ongoing debt reduction—and sooner rather than later.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, this is an extremely interesting subject. I thoroughly enjoyed the opening comments from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, without necessarily endorsing every single one of his points; nevertheless, that is the way to start a good debate on this subject.
When we debate this subject, as we did in the Chamber the other day, it is a little difficult to suppress the feeling that we are attacking it from the wrong end. I am told that our total national debt is just about to pass, or has just passed, £3 trillion. That is a milestone; it is almost too big a number to write on a single piece of paper. Of course, that prospect also includes the very expensive debt interest bill, which is coming in now and will be coming in for years to come—it should be falling, but it is not.
I think it was the 18th-century philosopher Adam Ferguson who said that a nation that burdened with high debt is on the path to decline. He was a bit premature, because things did not quite work out that way in the succeeding century, but that is the possibility if we saddle ourselves with this kind of debt interest. Never mind whether it is inhibiting or encouraging growth, or even what it is doing to inflation: if that is one of the huge bills that is intruding on our national payments and government payments every year—it is, at present, and it is getting bigger all the time—we are in deep trouble.
To say that the Budget, such as the one we have just had, is “steady as she goes” and has not worried the bond markets is not enough. Where she is going is down, so it is “steady as she sinks”. That is what this do-nothing Budget, which fails to begin on the path and halts this fantastic growth, is doing. There is no opportunity for just ignoring the whole thing, like the MMT—modern monetary theory—movement in America, which says that the whole thing is just a myth. That is not right. There are appalling prospects unless we get some sort of grip.
In the country as a whole, there is a feeling that our full productive capacity is not being exploited. The economists have come up with a lot of numbers, a sort of a new fiscal prison. As Keynes faced in the 1930s and 1940s, there is a need for a balanced budget. He pointed out that, if you depart from that prison, there are possibilities of escape to higher living standards and a better-balanced life for the citizens of this country. We are in the same sort of position now. I was wondering why everyone was flocking to this play in the West End about Keynes’s life; it is absolutely full and impossible to get seats. Perhaps the answer is that they are looking for a new Keynes, or what Keynes would have to say in the face of this apparent imprisonment, which seems to bar us from breaking out and realising our full potential.
When it comes to what we do about this, there are only three broad sets of approaches worth considering—three unburdening strategies. The first is doing nothing very much, which is roughly what we are doing now, and hoping that inflation and growth, if there is any, will lift us out of debt through time. We hope that the OBR will nobly reduce its two forecasts a year, plus a single fiscal event, whatever that is meant to be, but we will not actually do anything to affect policy.
The second strategy, which is related, is to talk about cuts—yes, cuts—and a new war on efficiency, the sort of language we had in the last century under every Government from Ted Heath onwards, and promise to have a review next year. I cannot quite see the point of this review next year. For 50 years, we have been reviewing the possibilities on the efficiency side and indeed of transferring whole functions out of the public sector altogether. I have filing cabinets full of suggestions and proposals worked out in enormous detail. There is no need for another review. In the 1970s, we marshalled the 20 ablest brains in the nation to work out how to challenge waste and redefine objectives in every department. They worked very hard; we chose them very carefully. I have to say that, after 18 months, every single one that we brought into government left, because they found a complete wall of obstruction to everything they wanted to do. We had a pamphlet, “A New Style of Government”, which outlined this; it is all ready and sitting there unused.
In my last 30 seconds, I have to say something about transferring functions, because that is the only way that this can be done. The only possible way to reduce the rate of growth of this colossal figure is by reducing functions, which will in turn reduce the number of civil servants—as we did, from 800,000 to 500,000, in the 1970s and 1980s—and the functions of government, as we did on the industrial side. There now has to be a list of new things. I have in my hand a list that anybody can put together, with about £100 billion that could be taken off tomorrow morning. You do not need any reviews at all. It can be done by determined people. It can be done even with parties in the House of Commons that disagree with everything. Some things can happen automatically. I do not have time to read out this list now, but if anyone would like it, I would happily give it to them. It is all around the corner. Reviews can wait for another day. We can act now if we are serious about curbing the enormous growth of this enormous burden.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Economic Affairs Committee report, Fortifying the Fiscal Framework, was done in April 2026. To summarise, it said that the UK was
“on a path to unsustainable debt”,
and it urged the Government to introduce a rule to ensure that debt falls in normal times and permit a larger fiscal buffer. The Government’s response is that the rules strike an appropriate balance and their fiscal buffer provides flexibility against future shocks—surprise, surprise.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the noble Lord, Lord Wood, who was chair at the time, and the members of the committee on their report. If you look at the fiscal headroom, the figure that we just talked about, it was £9.9 billion in March 2025, £21.7 billion in November 2025, £23.6 billion in March 2026 and £15 billion in 2030, according to the latest Budget. In context, on the headroom, the average buffer has been over £30 billion from 2010 until 2022. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s average forecast error is £54 billion. Borrowing is 4.4% of GDP in 2025-26, falling to 1.8%, which is £18 billion higher than March’s forecast—some £65 billion over the period. National debt is approaching 100% of GDP. If you look at the other measure on the public sector, the PSNFL, it is 83.2%. Debt interest is now £124 billion, which is £14 billion more than forecast in March, and is more than defence, policing and prisons combined. It is forecast to go up to £147 billion by 2029-30.
The tax burden is the highest on record, at 38.5% of GDP. This is the highest since records began in 1948. Of course, tax never ever matches spending, and spending is 44.3% of GDP in 2025-26. There is therefore a constant deficit but, as we know—and this is surprising, given the backdrop of the geopolitical situation, the challenges we are facing, and the figures I have quoted—we are still managing to grow at about 1% a year: 1.2% this year, 1% next year, and cut from 1.6% because of the Iraq war. The 2% inflation target is now meant to peak at 3.8% in quarter 1 next year. On gilt yields, 10-year gilts were 5.32% on Budget Day, which was the highest in the G7, and 30-year gilts hit 6.04% on 7 October, the highest since January 1998. Greece borrows at a cheaper rate than we do as a country. In the long-term projection, and this is the scary figure, debt is heading for 300% of GDP by 2075-76, on an unchanged policy. There has been rule churn, with nine sets of rules since 2008, and 28 since 1997. The average rule since 2010 lasted just 1.8 years.
Where borrowing is concerned, we are scared about this 100% figure, and we should be. To put it into context, at the end of the Second World War, our borrowing was 250% of GDP. After a six-year brutal, horrible war, it reached 250%. It took from 1945 until 1963 to get it down to 100%. Then, in the Gordon Brown years, it came down to 40%. Now we are climbing back up to 100%.
The question before the committee concerns the fiscal rules and the OBR. We have done two major things in recent memory. First, there was the independence of the Bank of England, brought in by Gordon Brown. I think most people would agree having an independent central bank is a good thing and is trusted by businesses and the market. Secondly, the OBR was brought in. Is the OBR doing a good job? Is it forecasting well enough? The £54 billion of average forecast error is quite a frightening thing. The OBR has had a pretty tricky time—for example, leaking its report before Rachel Reeves came to the Dispatch Box, leading to huge embarrassment, the resignation of its director and a new director coming in. So is the OBR a referee, a policeman or a watchdog? Is it to be trusted? I think that on balance we are all going to conclude that yes, it should be there, but is it doing enough when it comes to dynamic scoring? It was agreed that that would probably not work. The OBR’s independence is there to stay.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, spoke about US debt being 130% of GDP, $40 trillion. Its debt interest is higher than its defence spending, which is almost $1 trillion, the highest in the world, and of course it has the dollar as reserve currency.
The bottom line is this: Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s Budget in 2022, containing £45 billion of tax cuts paid for by extra borrowing but with no OBR forecast, led to disaster, with the bond markets absolutely reacting. James Carville, Bill Clinton’s adviser in 1993, said:
“I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody”.
It is good that we have the OBR and that we have that independence. We must bring down taxes, welfare spending and borrowing and then generate growth. That will generate the jobs that will pay for our public services.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Wood, and the committee on a persuasive and thoughtful report.
I must confess to having a love/hate relationship with fiscal rules—love because I am all in favour of fiscal rectitude but hate because, whatever rule is put in place, it is steadily subverted as Governments become fixated on hitting the target while missing the point. I am arguably the author of my own misfortune, since I was Permanent Secretary to the Treasury when five of the 10 fiscal rule regimes, so expertly catalogued by the committee, were put in place.
I recognise and share all the committee’s criticisms of the rules, and last week’s Budget provides further proof of its analysis. Borrowing and debt is higher in every year of the forecast compared to last year’s Budget, but nevertheless the Government meet the rules with broadly the same headroom. That is counterintuitive. I should be clear that that is not a criticism of the macro judgment of the Chancellor’s Budget; I thought that judgment was broadly correct, and I welcome the reception that has been given by the gilt market.
I also welcome the strengthening of the framework in 2024, but the challenge of fiscal policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, is that spending and revenue levels are huge and subject to substantial forecasting error. Left to my own devices, I would set a fiscal target of balancing a Budget—or at least the current Budget—year by year, but such a target would not lend itself to the current fiscal rules framework without having a very large cushion indeed. Fiscal targets therefore have to be set over the medium term. That means they have to be rolled forward year by year, and that provides endless scope for gaming, as just about everyone has pointed out.
No doubt the rules can be further improved, and the committee makes some good suggestions but, as I told successive Chancellors, “Don’t get mesmerised by the rules. Meeting them on their own does not give you credibility. Rather, focus on the substance. If you have a credible plan underpinned by credible tax and spending policies, the markets will reward you”.
At the weekend, I ignored the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, and read the book by the last Prime Minister but two, Bank Job, in which she argues that the OBR should be abolished. It is always important to expose yourself to different views, and actually it is worth a read—it is quite short—but, sadly, I was not persuaded. In my view, the committee is right to praise the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is not the OBR’s fault if Governments feel constrained; that is the inevitable consequence of sailing too close to the wind. The OBR will never get its forecast right—that is because no forecaster gets forecasts right over and over again—but at least its forecasts are unbiased, unlike the Treasury’s of old. One of the many things I learned there is that, when Governments assumed they had increased the trend rate of growth in the economy, they were invariably deluding themselves.
Between 1945 and 2008, the British economy generally grew by 2.25% a year. Since then, it has grown much more slowly. The OBR’s latest forecast reflects that. Perhaps it assumes that the economy will grow too slowly, but it should attach a high bar to raising its view of the trend growth in productivity. As the committee advises, it should also attach a high bar to the dynamic scoring of policy measures. In my experience, it takes many years, even decades, for any structural reform to feed through to economic growth. I worry that Chancellors and officials of late spend too much time trying to press the OBR to accept their view of the dynamic effects of policy changes. Again, they would be better advised to focus on the substance; if policies have a dynamic effect, they should regard that as a bonus.
Finally, I endorse the committee’s desire to upgrade the status of the OBR’s Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report. You did not have to be a genius to spot the demographic time bomb, which has finally exploded; indeed, I remember working on the Fowler reviews in the 1980s, which were predicated on this demographic time bomb. Setting out its fiscal consequences so lucidly provides a service to a media and political class who have an uncanny knack of ignoring it. Anything Parliament can do to give it a higher profile should be warmly welcomed.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its timely and informative report. The fiscal rules have focused mechanically on selected macroeconomic issues but they have not been accompanied by social objectives, such as targeting a reduction in poverty or in NHS waiting lists. The rules are suspended to support corporate welfare but not human welfare. They were suspended after the 2007-08 crash to save banks from their own follies but are not suspended to save lives.
Around 300,000 people a year die in England while waiting for a hospital appointment. In 1948, when the NHS was launched, government debt was 270% of GDP. I cannot recall our parents lamenting that. The resources enabled the entrepreneurial state to invest in infrastructure, biotechnology, information technology and aerospace, and to promote economic prosperity, which helped the private sector grow. By 1979, the debt had declined to 42% and, later on, to 36% by 2007. Now we have a phobia about the debt being 94% of GDP. The key question is: what exactly is it used for?
The constraints on government borrowing have forced the privatisation of vital services and increased government costs. Public borrowing through the PFI has been undertaken to keep within the fiscal rules. Every £1 of private investment has resulted in £6 of repayment from the public purse. Fiscal rules have reduced the economic levers available to the state. It cannot easily nationalise water, as that would violate fiscal rules; for the same reason, it cannot nationalise energy and end profiteering, even though that fuels poverty. It cannot get rid of potholes on roads, even though they impose extra costs on households and businesses. After fiscal rules, elected Governments cannot promise affordable housing, energy, safe roads and timely healthcare. Faith in democracy is the inevitable loss in having fiscal rules. Swathes of the NHS have been privatised because Governments choose to follow the fiscal rules. The private sector makes whopping profits from it. Cataract surgery contracts handed out by the NHS have profit margins of 32% to 43%, leaving less for front-line services.
The committee’s report seeks a reduction in public debt, but it does not discuss the resulting social consequences. Let me give some examples. What would happen to social cohesion and businesses if, say, tomorrow—or in the next year or the next decade—£500 billion were removed from the economy? How would savers get a risk-free rate of return? Would banks and building societies be forced to hold risky portfolios? What might the consequences be? Would pounds sterling still be regarded as a global premier currency?
For the past 30 years, the UK has been at or near the bottom of the OECD league for investment in productive assets. That has coincided with the rise of blunt fiscal rules, which constrain public investment. The entrepreneurial state has been restructured as a guarantor of corporate profits. The private sector has not delivered the required investment. Public and private investment work best in tandem, but the fiscal rules have disabled that partnership.
The report could have examined the fiscal rules through the lens of modern monetary theory and asked questions about the composition of public debt, but it does neither. So I have two questions for the Minister about the composition of this public debt. First, why is the balance of the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility included in the Government’s debt? The Treasury indemnifies the Bank’s losses, but the Bank is solvent and cannot go bankrupt; it can even create money, as the £895-billion quantitative easing experience shows. In short, is the public debt grossly overstated?
Secondly, why is the Bank of England paying interest on central bank reserves? That is part of the Treasury’s debt-servicing cost. More than £100 billion has been paid in the past three years. The European Central Bank has adopted a tiered approach to managing the reserves and has drastically reduced such payments. Under what circumstances would the Treasury do the same?
I have asked these questions a number of times; I have never received an answer to them, but I am feeling lucky today, so I am sure Minister will add to them.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, it was a pleasure and privilege to sit on the Economic Affairs Committee to interrogate the effectiveness of our fiscal rules under the astute chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield.
Just a year before this report and before our brutal rotation, the committee conducted an inquiry into the sustainability of our national debt; it was entitled, somewhat fancifully, National Debt: It’s Time for Tough Decisions. Since then, I regret to say that there has been an almost complete absence of tough decisions on the fiscal front. Chancellor Healey’s muted Budget was, I am afraid, yet another example of procrastination and back-ending a whole host of decisions on spending into the next three to four years, which history shows are never, or very rarely, fulfilled.
We now have a new term: a “breathing space”— that is, a period in which we will do as little as possible to address our addiction to borrowing in a low-growth economy but keep just within the fiscal rules. Therein lies the problem with our fiscal architecture: it allows for rolling forecast targets to be three years out. That is an improvement on the pre-existing five-year rule, admittedly, but it ignores the cumulative impact of our deficit financing and thus allows our debt to grow and grow. Our track record on debt is deeply disturbing. Having breached £3 trillion, as we just heard, it has tripled in size over the past 15 years in spite of, or perhaps because of, our fiscal architecture.
The committee’s report also points out, correctly, that there is an excessive focus on short-term rule compliance but insufficient attention is paid to longer-term trends, as the OBR’s much-maligned long-term forecast of debt approaching 270% of GDP by the middle of the 2070s has highlighted.
I have sympathy for the OBR, particularly after last year’s pitch-rolling and kite-flying exercises by the Treasury. However, the truth is that when Chancellors operate with such little headroom, now down to £15 billion, their margin for error is tiny when taking the difference between around £1.5 trillion of both tax and spending by the end of the forecast period.
My background is private sector, not public sector, first as an entrepreneur seeking to raise debt and to attract investment, and latterly on the other side of the table, as an investor seeking to lend or invest in start-ups and scale-ups. The debt and equity financing that goes into loss-making companies is judged on their ability to grow revenues at a faster pace than costs, and ultimately to generate profits on a sustainable basis.
As investors, we pay special attention to what we call fantasy hockey sticks resulting from excessive optimism. I was reminded of that when reading the OBR’s latest economic and fiscal outlook. The OBR has a history of bias, specifically optimism bias, in terms of both budget deficits and borrowing requirements. Now the OBR is projecting that borrowing will fall from last year’s £134 billion to £133 billion in FY 27, this year. It will then apparently fall steadily over the next four years, down to £67 billion in FY 31—an inverted hockey stick, if you like, but no more credible. That also assumes that the Government make unspecified but substantial real cuts in spending, which was likened to fiction by the former chair of the OBR during our national debt inquiry.
Remember that these cuts have to be achieved despite the “five D” headwinds. I remind the Committee that they are demography, with an ageing society; dependency, with a soaring benefits bill; a defence programme that is to increase by 40% over the next eight to nine years; decarbonisation; and the fifth D, which has now become the most menacing of all: debt, as in debt interest, which has grown from £40 billion to £120 billion this year and, warns the OBR, will structurally settle at between £160 and £190 billion in the 2030s.
If our national economy was treated as a private company, not a sovereign entity, the bond markets would not just be charging us a premium for lending but would very likely pull up the drawbridge altogether as there is no credible plan to get us back into surplus. The hope is that AI will positively impact productivity, but that is a hope, not a strategy.
I agree that the rules have their place. They provide us with guardrails so that we can show the bond markets some level of fiscal discipline that enables us to go on borrowing and piling up national debt. Ultimately, though, we can only reduce the debt, let alone our servicing costs, by delivering real GDP growth per capita over a sustained period, but that cannot happen if you keep increasing borrowing, as well as raising the tax burden to ever higher percentages of GDP. Fiscal rules without economic growth are, to an extent, sticking plasters that enable us to go on tapping the bond markets for finance as we continue to generate huge budget deficits.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the committee I believe, without conceit, that this is an important and timely report. At its heart lies a fundamental question: is the UK’s current fiscal framework sufficiently robust to ensure the long-term sustainability of our public finances? The committee’s conclusion is concerning. It warns that the UK is on a path towards unsustainable levels of public debt and that the existing fiscal rules, despite successive revisions, do not provide sufficient assurance that debt will fall over the long term.
I believe that the report deserves serious consideration, because fiscal credibility is not simply about meeting targets in an individual Budget. I believe that the answer to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is that fiscal credibility is about establishing confidence that the Government can maintain public finances responsibly, withstand economic shocks and protect future generations from an excessive tax burden.
First, I will address the effectiveness of the current fiscal rules. The committee identifies a significant weakness in the existing framework, as people have said. Under the current arrangements, the Government are required to demonstrate that debt is falling as a proportion of GDP by the third year of rolling forecast. However, this does not necessarily mean that debt is falling over the longer term. Indeed, the committee highlights that the Government could technically meet their fiscal targets while the overall level of debt continues to increase. This raises an important question about the credibility and effectiveness of fiscal rules: rules should not be designed simply to demonstrate compliance at a particular point of time but should ensure that public debt is placed on a genuinely sustainable downward trajectory. As people have indicated, the committee therefore recommends an additional debt target requiring debt in the third year of the forecast period to be lower than in the first year. I support the principle behind this recommendation: fiscal rules must focus on the underlying direction of public finances rather than short-term improvements that may prove temporary.
Secondly, the report raises important concerns about fiscal headroom. The Government’s relatively small fiscal buffer leaves limited room for manoeuvre when economic forecasts change or unexpected pressures emerge. We know that economic forecasts are inherently uncertain and that, when the fiscal buffer is too small, even relatively modest changes in economic conditions can force difficult decisions about taxation and public spending. The Government obviously have not helped in the recent Budget by lowering the estimated fiscal buffer from £25 billion before the Budget to £15 billion. The committee therefore recommends that the Government commit to maintaining a substantially larger fiscal buffer, reflective of the unavoidable uncertainties in economic forecasting, and I support that recommendation. In addition—I do not think anybody has really touched on this—fiscal headroom should not be treated as money available for immediate spending commitments; it should provide genuine protection against economic shocks and unforeseen circumstances.
Thirdly, I highlight the importance of stability and credibility in fiscal policy. One of the report’s central concerns is the repeated modification of fiscal rules by successive Governments. Frequent changes risk undermining confidence among investors, financial markets and the wider public. A credible fiscal framework must provide predictability. Businesses need confidence when making long-term investment decisions, while international investors need assurance that the UK remains committed to responsible economic management—Liz Truss talked about that in her book, no doubt. This does not mean that fiscal rules should never change; economic circumstances evolve, and Governments must retain the flexibility to respond. However, changes should be carefully considered, evidence based and subject to meaningful consultation. The committee is right to argue that further changes should follow a comprehensive consultation process rather than being driven by short-term political considerations.
A number of noble Lords touched on the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR provides independent economic and fiscal forecasts and assesses the Government’s performance against its fiscal rules. Its independence is absolutely essential to maintaining transparency and accountability. The committee rightly supports retaining responsibility for economic and fiscal forecasts with the OBR. It also recommends maintaining two forecasts each year while adjusting the timing of the spring forecast to create a more balanced interval between forecasting exercises. I particularly welcome the emphasis on strengthening co-operation between the Treasury and the OBR while preserving the latter’s independence. Independent scrutiny should not be seen as an obstacle to government policy; rather, it should help ensure that policy decisions are informed by realistic economic assessments.
Finally, we must consider the wider implications for economic growth. The UK’s public finances face considerable long-term pressures, including an ageing population, rising demands on public services, and commitments and the transition towards net zero. At the same time, weak productivity growth and the burden of debt interest payments constrain the Government’s ability to invest in the economy. We must therefore strike the right balance between fiscal discipline and productive investment. A strong fiscal framework should not simply focus on reducing borrowing; it should also support sustainable economic growth, encourage investment and ensure that future generations are not left with an unsustainable debt burden.
The Government have responded to the committee’s recommendations by defending their existing rules and arguing that their reforms provide an appropriate balance between fiscal discipline and flexibility. I would argue that the Government should remain open to the committee’s proposals, particularly on debt reduction and maintaining a large fiscal buffer.
To conclude, the central message of the report is straightforward. Fiscal responsibility must be measured not simply by whether a Government meet their targets today but whether they leave the country’s public finances stronger and more sustainable tomorrow.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Economic Affairs Committee for producing this excellent report and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his enjoyable and historically-focused introduction. As he said, we are lucky to have two Permanent Secretaries, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Macpherson, speaking in the debate. I also want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, for his work in chairing the committee and congratulate him on the positive start he has made as FCDO Minister. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the interesting points made by my noble friend Lord Redwood on different macroeconomic targets, 2% inflation and 2% growth, and on the quirks that he identified in national insurance funding and the ownership of bonds by the Bank of England, a theme that was also picked up the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.
His Majesty’s Opposition broadly support the report’s conclusions. This debate is exceptionally timely coming, as it does, in the immediate aftermath of an unsatisfactory Budget. Let us quickly come to the essence of the matter, which is to be found in the final paragraph of the report’s summary:
“On current tax and spending settings, the UK is on a path to unsustainable debt levels”.
There we have it, starkly put. Noble Lords may ask if the position has been affected by the recent Budget? The answer is “not much”. This Budget can only be described as a missed opportunity. However, since the necessary decisions have been put off—yet again—the position has deteriorated somewhat since the Committee’s report was drafted.
In short, the recent Budget presented 108 tinkerings to the Commons, while probably the most pressing and ominous shadow facing us as a country went unaddressed. When the markets decide, as at some unknown time they will do, that enough is enough and the prospect of debt being repaid eventually has become too small to countenance, 10-year plans and other gimmicks will not cut the mustard. Very unpleasant things will happen. Just look at the experience of another Healey, Denis, Lord Healey, in 1976.
With the level of national debt close to 100% of GDP, a responsible Government would be planning to move as quickly as possible to a position of surplus, not making up excuses for doing nothing about it. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford quoted the £3 trillion debt figure on this point, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who said it had trebled over the last 15 years.
I turn to two lesser, but still important, matters. The first is the committee’s conclusion, echoed in discussion, that the current debt rules can be gamed. As noble Lords will know, the existing rule requires debt to fall as a proportion of GDP only in the final year of a rolling forecast, meaning that debt can rise substantially in the preceding years, while the Government continue to promise a reduction. As the forecast period moves forward, this may never materialise. In other words, a Government can comply with their fiscal rules year after year, even as the national debt continues to rise. The committee recommended an additional debt target, requiring debt in the third year of the forecast to be lower than in the first. This is an interesting and sensible proposal that warrants serious consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said.
The Government have rejected this recommendation. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why. How do the Government consider that the present debt rule provides a meaningful guarantee of fiscal discipline, when it is possible to meet that rule without achieving a genuine reduction in debt over the forecast period? The current system is satisfied if you predict a fall, rather than measuring one that has actually taken place, resulting in an upward spiral. Is that the Government’s plan? I add that the OBR is unlikely to go along with that indefinitely. I agree that Jonathan Haskel will be a respected new chair, and I am sure we all miss his father, Lord Haskel.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that the long list of changes in the fiscal rules in Appendix 4 is unsettling. I remember presenting a similar annexe for our Built Environment Committee report on demand for housing, but that listed the large number of Housing Ministers that there had been. These long lists are worrying.
A further risk arises from the growing use of public financial institutions. Under the Government’s chosen debt measure, borrowing can appear less burdensome where it creates a corresponding financial asset. Ministers must ensure that PuFins, such as the British Business Bank, do not become a means of moving borrowing outside the effective constraint of the fiscal rules, while leaving the public exposed to the risk of future losses.
My second point concerns the so-called fiscal headroom. The current Budget rule requires receipts to cover day-to-day public spending, with a deficit of no more than 0.5% of GDP permitted in 2029-30. Once that year becomes the third year of the forecast, the current Budget must be forecast to be in surplus in the third year of the rolling forecast period. Fiscal headroom is the estimated margin by which the Government are forecast to meet that rule. It is intended to provide some protection against adverse changes in the economy, higher spending, lower tax receipts and the ordinary uncertainty inherent in forecasting. Of course, if there were a serious plan to reduce the deficit over time this would be of less importance—but, for now, it is important. Following the Budget, the Government now have just £15 billion of headroom, down from £24 billion in the spring forecast and contrary to the recommendation in paragraph 40 of the report, which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, also supported.
Indeed, the OBR estimates that the Government have only a 56% probability of meeting that rule, which I find extraordinary. We face a time of considerable economic and geopolitical uncertainty, while the Government have left themselves with a margin for error which could be eliminated by a relatively modest deterioration in the forecast. The OBR has noted, for example, that a 1 percentage point change in gilt yields and bank rate expectations across the forecast could change medium-term borrowing by approximately £16 billion. That single risk is greater than the Government’s entire £15 billion margin against the current Budget rule.
Further, the Government’s forecast assumes that the extraordinary post-pandemic growth in health-related benefit caseloads will moderate significantly. The OBR forecasts that annual spending on health and disability benefits will nevertheless rise from £86 billion in 2025-26 to £120 billion in 2031-32, an increase of almost £35 billion under its central forecast. However, if incapacity and disability caseloads continued to rise at their post-pandemic rates, the OBR estimates that welfare spending in 2031-32 would be approximately £25 billion higher than in its central forecast. That additional expenditure is for one year alone. The fact is that just one assumption in one department could eliminate the headroom the Chancellor has left himself.
Nor is welfare the only area of concern. We have growing commitments to defence, considerable pressures across our health and social care systems, and a prison and justice system that requires substantial investment to meet its existing obligations. These are not some remote or unforeseeable possibility. That, to me, is the central problem. If our fiscal rules can be breached by the continuation of existing spending trends, an ordinary forecasting revision or a relatively modest economic shock, what confidence can we have that those rules are being met today?
This brings me to the wider economic picture presented in the Budget. The OBR forecasts real growth of just 1.2% this year and 1% next year, with no real earnings growth in 2027 or 2028. This is too low. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we need a simpler tax and welfare system and need to do more on public sector productivity. However, I do not agree that we should reopen Brexit, ushering in years of more uncertainty for business and citizens.
The situation is worrying. May I give noble Lords one or two more figures? Borrowing remains at approximately £133 billion this financial year, debt is expected to reach around 97% of GDP, and the tax burden is forecast to reach a record 38.6% of GDP, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. Meanwhile, the cost of servicing government debt has risen from £39 billion in 2019-20 to £109 billion in 2025-26 and is forecast to reach £160 billion, which is 4.2% of GDP, by 2031-32.
These are enormous sums increasingly being spent on servicing debt. They are burdens on our children, grandchildren and later generations. That is a reason, indeed, for a greater focus on the OBR’s annual risks and sustainability report, as recommended by the committee. The noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Bilimoria, drew our attention to the enormous figure for the 2070s if markets were to allow that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, rightly praised this annual report by the OBR. I very much agree that this should be given a higher profile.
Despite the historically high level of taxation, as I said earlier, the Budget contains no plan to reduce the deficit. That is why I welcome the committee’s emphasis on the long-term sustainability of the public finances, rather than simply considering the Government’s compliance with an arbitrary target in a particular year. Fiscal rules matter, independent forecasting matters, and the credibility of our public finances matters enormously—not simply to financial markets but to every household and business.
We all know why the Government are not dealing properly with this huge challenge: their Back-Benchers will not face up to the actions necessary to do so. As the committee has effectively demonstrated, meeting the rules on paper is no substitute for achieving those objectives in practice. I fear that the Budget has illustrated precisely the weaknesses which this excellent report identifies. We will return to that in our debate next week—by then, I will have seen the Keynes play mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this debate on the Economic Affairs Committee’s report on the fiscal framework, and to do so alongside so many distinguished noble Lords: to have the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Macpherson, talking at this debate, with their experience, is a real treat. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and considered contributions during today’s debate and congratulate the Economic Affairs Committee on the report.
In particular, I thank the committee’s first chair, my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield, and its current chair, my noble friend Lord Liddle for his opening speech and chairmanship. I also thank members of the committee, past and present, and the committee staff for producing the report. It raises important questions about fiscal rules, the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the long-term sustainability of the public finances. Along with officials across the Treasury, I have studied the findings and look forward to continuing to work with the committee in my role as Lords Treasury Minister.
Indeed, I have studied the report more often than noble Lords might imagine, because when I was appointed as a Minister in the summer, I asked civil servants to put together a package of documents which they thought would be particularly informative, including on the fiscal rules. That the committee’s report was among that bundle is testament to the seriousness in which it is held.
Before I address the substance of the report, I should say a few words about the wider economic context and the Budget that took place last week, since it has been raised a number of times. I do not want to address the particular political points that have been made. If we want to look at the graph of when the debt of this country was built up and map that against the administration, we can. If we want to look at the time when Britain had to start paying a premium, we can do that too. I set that aside.
I would like to talk about the Budget, set, of course, against the backdrop of global economic storms. The Chancellor has made it clear that we cannot wish those storms away. Indeed, we must set a course to steer through them. That is why both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that fiscal responsibility will underwrite every promise that the Government make. In this Budget, we met our fiscal rules. For the first time since 2022, we are meeting fiscal rules which are assessed in the third year of the forecast, with borrowing falling across the Parliament.
Despite the warning from forecasters that our economy would slow down, Britain has shown real resilience. The OBR has upgraded the UK’s growth forecast for this year to 1.2%. One swallow does not make a summer but, in the first part of this year, we were at the top of the G7. Productivity was up at 2.2% last year, compared with an average growth rate of 0.5% between 2015 and 2024. Whole economy investment and business investment have grown more in this Parliament so far than they did in the entirety of the last one.
Nevertheless, debt and the deficit are big and considerable issues. People have said that there is not enough will or evidence that the debt and deficit are being kept under control, but I note that earlier this month the IMF forecasted that our deficit would be the lowest in the G7 by 2029. It also said that the UK now “stands out” as a country where
“action to reduce the debt and deficit has been taken decisively”.
I know that concerns have been raised about this, quite rightly. It is an important thing to be thinking about but, in saying that this is just a fantasy hockey stick, the noble Lord, Londesborough, is in disagreement with Kristalina Georgieva. That is certainly not to claim that everything is rosy, but it shows that this Government take fiscal discipline seriously. Indeed, we believe that it is a sine qua non for steering through these difficult times.
Let me return to the report, where I think we find a considerable degree of consensus. First, we all believe that fiscal rules are important. I think even my noble friend Lord Sikka would think they are important, although he would want a social report on their effect. The report suggests some reform. It covers five areas: the control of debt and whether a new debt rule is required; the adequacy of headroom; fiscal rules and whether new ones are needed and how they should be agreed; fiscal forecasting and the critical independence of the OBR; and long-term sustainability. Let me try to take each of those in turn, beginning with debt.
As I have already set out, this Government met the fiscal rules at the Budget last week and, for the first time for the Government, they were assessed in the third year of the forecast. The second fiscal rule, the investment rule, ensures that government debt, defined as public sector net financial liabilities—when I got this job I discovered that this is known as “persnuffle”—must be falling as a percentage of the GDP. We are meeting that rule with a headroom of £24 billion in 2029-30, so that will be lower at the end of the forecast than now.
I accept that a number of noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, asked: is this not just always “jam tomorrow”, and therefore do we not need something that tightens the fiscal rule? Indeed, the committee’s report proposes that the Government should set out an additional debt target that would show cumulative performance over three years. I understand that, but the Government’s position is that the design of the fiscal rules needs to strike an appropriate balance between maintaining a clear, medium-term anchor and allowing near-term adjustments in response to changing economic conditions before the three-year target. Similarly, the committee’s report raises concerns that debt can rise while the fiscal rule is still met. However, targeting a reduction allows space to respond to near-term shocks and return debt to a sustainable path.
To be clear, all the statistics and measures that we are looking at are fully transparent. From the independent record, outsiders in particular, such as this committee, can see how debt is evolving over time. These are important numbers, and it is appropriate that the Government are questioned on them, but it is another, bigger step to say that a new fiscal rule therefore needs to be introduced. The fiscal rules just set a minimum target, and the OBR forecast shows that debt stabilises in 2008-09 before falling in the following year.
That is supported by the fact that the level of borrowing falls across the forecast to 1.8% of GDP by the end of the forecast, after having already fallen by 0.7% of GDP last year. This may not be St Augustine—we are not entirely holy yet—but it feels as if things are happening here. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others said that perhaps it is possible to game the fiscal rules that we have, but the IMF’s independent and serious international observers have noted that our consolidation plans, underpinned by our rules, stand out compared to our peers. The UK is one country where action to reduce debt and deficit has been taken decisively. So it is not clear to me that a new debt rule is needed, although the figure may be an important one to look at.
With regard to the fiscal rules, the committee’s report makes three further recommendations. The first relates to the frequency of changes in the fiscal rules, the second argues for fuller consultation before fiscal rule changes are made, and the third calls for an additional fixed rule rather than using the rolling rules alone.
First, I think we have consensus on the frequency of changes. It has been pointed out that fiscal rules in the past have often had a short lifetime, but we have stuck to the rules for three Budgets and there are no plans to change them.
On the second recommendation, there is some scepticism that consultation on the rules would be done better through a broad political grouping. Rather, it is right that the fiscal rules are set by the Chancellor in line with the Government’s priorities and fiscal strategy, consistent with manifesto promises. The Government’s economic priorities and fiscal strategy are set out in the manifesto before a general election. However, when it comes to consultation, of course the Government regularly engage relevant stakeholders and experts, as well as those from other countries. Fiscal rules were legislated through the Charter for Budget Responsibility, providing a full opportunity for debate and scrutiny.
On the third issue of rolling and fixed rules, as noble Lords will be aware, from this fiscal year the fiscal rules target the third year of the forecast, which binds near-term decisions while still providing some space for macroeconomic adjustment. It also links to the three-year spending plans of government departments. We therefore believe that rolling rules provide the Government with the flexibility to respond appropriately to adverse shocks in the near term and allow time for public finances to recover, while maintaining a clear medium-term anchor. With a fixed rule, as the target grows nearer, adjustments to in-year savings or tax rises become more challenging and potentially economically damaging. A rolling target instead provides a medium-term anchor to support stability and sustainable public finances.
I turn to headroom, which is needed to absorb the impact of economic shocks. This is what a buffer is for: to be used when needed before being rebuilt when conditions allow. The conflict in the Middle East has driven up borrowing costs all around the world; for the UK, this is broadly in line with the G7 average. All G7 countries have seen borrowing costs rise. It is our forecast that costs will be about £14 billion a year in extra government debt interest. At the last Budget in 2025, the headroom was, £21.7 million. It is now £15 billion for 2029-30, before rising to £22 million in 2030-31, so some of the increase in borrowing costs has been absorbed in the Budget. We feel that is the right level, as a matter of both contingency and challenge, to make sure that the Government stick to their fiscal consolidation.
As regards forecasts and the OBR, the report and the Government are in entire agreement as to the importance of the OBR and the critical role it plays. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, it is the Government who set the rules and the procedures, but the OBR is an independent adjudicator on what those plans look like. The committee’s report argues that requiring two OBR forecasts a year creates unnecessary policy volatility. The UK has a long-standing practice of having two official forecasts per year. This predates the OBR, and we value the OBR’s role in ensuring economic and fiscal transparency. It will continue to publish two forecasts a year, in line with best practice internationally. In line with the recommendation made by the IMF, the OBR now assesses the fiscal rules only once per year, in the Budget. This aims to create a more predictable framework, strengthen stability and give business and households certainty about the future.
I turn to the question of a long-term fiscal sustainability. The OBR’s recent Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report confirms the need to boost growth and maintain sustainable public finances. That is what the Government are committed to doing. It also shows—I think some of the figures have been quoted—that if there were no change from the assumptions made today then, over a long period of time, debt goes very high indeed. The report says that that is a path to unsustainable debt levels. However, one can overlook the Government taking action to think about this, to bring down borrowing over the long term, including, for example, announcing the electric vehicle excise duty, which is necessary to replace taxes on petrol. I think that might have been part of the projections that noble Lords were looking at. We mentioned that, from April 2030, the Government will adjust the triple lock, which will have a big effect on what the long-term future looks like. That reform ensures that the state pension is sustainable, protecting pensioners today and today’s workers when they are pensioners. The observations of the committee are understood, but these actions show that they have been taken on board by the Government.
The charter for Budget responsibility, which this Government updated to reform the fiscal framework, ensures that fiscal sustainability will remain central to the Treasury’s objectives for fiscal policy. We will continue to consider a wide range of metrics to inform a full assessment of the sustainability of public finances. As a result of our 2024 reforms, the OBR will also continue to report on the long-term impact of capital investment and government policies in its forecasts. But fiscal stability is an ongoing process. Constructive criticism is welcome; indeed, it was part of the briefing for a new Minister in the Treasury.
I once again sincerely thank the Economic Affairs Committee for its work on this important report. The Government share the committee’s overriding commitment to fiscal responsibility and to ensuring that the fiscal framework continues to operate effectively. The challenges to the fiscal outlook set out by the OBR last week demonstrate why this position is necessary, because it is only by delivering sustainable public finances that we can maintain resilience in the face of global shocks. I look forward to continuing to engage with the committee as we take forward the measures in this Budget, including through the upcoming 10-year plan and the spending review.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for an excellent response to the committee’s report. I also thank the Members who have contributed, who have all had something very interesting to say; that is not what you often get in the House of Lords, but every contribution has been of great interest. I will not talk for long, because the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, will be glaring at me about how we have to terminate this debate. However, I want to say just one thing about fiscal rules.
In the 1990s, when Labour was trying to make itself credible under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, I remember having long discussions with Brown and Ed Balls about the fiscal rules. There was this wonderful, simple idea that we came up with: we will borrow only to invest. I think that that is a good rule and principle; obviously, you need to take account of Keynesian fluctuations in the economy et cetera, and perhaps some social investment is justified, but you have to be careful that that does not become just a means of extra borrowing.
I disagree strongly with my noble friend Lord Sikka, who seems to think that you can get away with 300% borrowing to GDP or something of that kind—I do not know what he said. I would say to him that my kind of social democracy, and the reason I supported toughness in borrowing only to invest, comes from what I learnt from Sweden, the most successful social democratic country in Europe, which had always pursued a fiscally responsible policy—except for a period in the 1990s when it got it very badly wrong, and it knew it had got it badly wrong. The truth is that, if you get into a fiscal mess and you have a crisis, it is precisely the working people who you claim to defend who suffer most. That is the myth of the left, which is wrong, and we must have a sensible approach to these questions.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, do I have a moment of reply, since I have been accused? Indulge me, please, because I have been incorrectly represented.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I have been misrepresented and it will go in Hansard, but my reply will not if I respond privately. I at no point mentioned 300% debt—I do not know who the noble Lord was listening to. I reminded the Committee that debt was 270% when the NHS was founded in 1948, and that brought—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has already responded to the debate, so I think it has come to an end.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Ashley of Lambeth
Introduction: Lord Lehrfreund
Business Hiring Intentions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of current business hiring intentions and their impact on the wider economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK labour market and economy remain resilient despite geopolitical uncertainty. The UK had the joint fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of 2026. All the labour market and ONS data show that there are 356,000 more people in work than a year ago, and the Business Insights and Conditions Survey shows that more than 80% of businesses intend to either maintain or increase their staff levels in October 2026.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Office for Budget Responsibility has just concluded that the Employment Rights Act 2025 will have a negative economic effect—something that we on these Benches and all employers have been warning about for a very long time. Does the Minister agree with the OBR and, if so, what is he going to do about it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I say in the nicest possible way to the noble Lord and to noble Lords opposite that supporting business enterprise means combining a hard head with a soft heart. The Employment Rights Act strengthens provisions, protections and security for working people, but legislation can only set minimum standards. The law establishes the floor; good businesses should compete to raise the ceiling. No Act of Parliament can make an employer care about their staff. That comes from leadership, values and culture. In my experience, looking after your people is fundamental to business success. We respect the OBR’s independent judgment. It expects a negative economic impact, as the noble Lord has said, but finds no clear evidence that it would exceed 0.1% of potential output, so it has made no explicit forecast adjustment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister is talking about hard edges to business, it is two years since the then Chancellor made a surprise increase in national insurance contributions for UK businesses. Can the Minister tell us how many more jobs there would have been if this had not been brought in? How many SMEs have gone to the wall as a result of this, tipping them over the edge, and how much investment has been deferred because of this measure?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the pressures on employers. We took the difficult decision to stabilise the public finances and fund essential services, while increasing employment allowance to £10,500 to protect smaller businesses. We are also supporting recruitment through the youth jobs grant of up to £3,000 and apprenticeship hiring payments of £2,000. Our aim is to help businesses create opportunities and give young people the skills and experience to build lasting careers.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important to be positive about these matters and that the Employment Rights Act, along with today’s announcement about the potential SPS agreement, will underscore the importance of our food exports, our food industry and the many jobs in it, and the potential for new employment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I totally agree with my noble friend. The labour market is changing, and the provisional ONS figures for the year to September 2026 show that the payroll has increased by 66,000 in administrative and support services, by 20,000 in education and by 19,000 in health and social care. The wholesale and retail sector lost 71,000, accommodation and food services lost 46,000 and manufacturing 32,000. We are backing investment into skills and sector jobs plans to help businesses recruit and people move into secure long-term employment.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK and a former university chancellor, it saddens me that almost a million young people are not in education, employment or training. What are the Government doing to help university graduates get jobs? They are really struggling to find jobs at the moment and they deserve to get them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I fully accept that the labour market is failing too many graduates. Repeated rejection wastes talent and damages confidence. We are investing £7.8 million in university AI courses and graduate traineeships and our £20 million early careers jobs alliance helps employers maintain routes into work as technology changes. The digital and technologies jobs plan targets 20,000 entry-level jobs annually. Our responsibility is to turn those commitments into interviews, paid opportunities and lasting careers.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to disassociate himself from the remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that employers are not “working people”? Thousands of small businesses and employers like myself take great exception to this because it goes to the mindset and attitude of the Government.
Lord Leong (Lab)
Employers, employees and suppliers are part of the ecosystem, and we need to support the employers and suppliers as well. The way to tackle unemployment is by working with employers and looking at pathways into growing industries. Professional and business services firms have pledged to create 22,400 apprenticeships for young people under the age of 25 over the next five years. Construction aims to create 10,000 job opportunities each year, while digital and technology employers are targeting 20,000 entry-level jobs. These sector jobs plans will link investment to skills and recruitment, and our focus is on turning those commitments into lasting careers.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, as we have just heard, there are a million youngsters who are not able to get into work. Many are university graduates, who then face the questions: “Have you got a degree? Have you got two years’ experience?”. How are they going to get two years’ experience if employers will not take them on? That is just one example of dysfunctionality in the labour market. What are the Government doing actively to engage with employers to get a rational labour market that will enable our youngsters to get into work at all levels of jobs?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, we are determined to tackle youth unemployment and look forward to receiving Alan Milburn’s recommendations. In addition, we have committed a further £2.5 billion to the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy, helping nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 move into jobs, education and training. This will create 200,000 jobs, provide £3,000 for youth jobs grants and £2,000 in apprenticeship hiring payments and guarantee jobs for young people claiming universal credit who have been unemployed long term.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister could not answer my noble friend Lord Leigh’s question, because the Chancellor slapped down the Chief Secretary for her ridiculous comments, and I am glad that he did. The Minister gave a good answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, about how to deal with the 1 million young people out of work. How does he think importing up to 80,000 young people from the European Union under the youth mobility scheme will help British young people get into work?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Settlement is based on contribution, not just on time served, as it was under the last Government. We have cut net migration to 82% below its peak under the last Government. We will not leave young British people behind, which is why we are investing an additional £2.5 billion, as I said in my previous answer, to support almost 1 million young people into education, employment and training.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday an industry guide was published by UKAI which finds a distinct lack of progress in the promised advanced technology jobs, particularly for women in many inner-city areas? Will the Minister look at the report and its findings and consider meeting the group?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I have not had a chance to look at the report, but I definitely will. AI is automating repetitive tasks, and we take the risk to entry-level jobs seriously. The £20 million for the early careers job alliance that I mentioned earlier is helping employers redesign roles while maintaining routes into work. Through our AI skills boost, we aim to equip 10 million people with practical AI skills by 2030. Our priority is adoption that supports workers, improves productivity and opens opportunities. Technological progress must give young people a better future, not close the door.
Parthenon Sculptures
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of proposals for the permanent return of the Parthenon sculptures held by the British Museum to Greece.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government have made no assessment of the proposals for the permanent return to Greece of the Parthenon sculptures held by the British Museum. We welcome the fact that the British Museum is in discussions with Greek Ministers, seeking a constructive partnership.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we hear the legal and nationalistic arguments for return, but surely the key argument is the aesthetic one. If, for example, Picasso’s “Guernica” were to be cut into pieces and displayed in different museums, there would be an almighty clamour to get those pieces reunited. Should not the same consideration be given to Phidias’s masterwork? Secondly, the Government say that this is a matter for the British Museum, except that its hands are tied by the British Museum Act. Will the Government amend the Act in a limited way so that a decision can be made?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The British Museum and the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this. The British Museum has consistently stated that it would consider a loan request for the sculptures on the condition that the British Museum’s ownership is acknowledged and that a binding undertaking is given to return them. In relation to the Charities Act 2022, which I think is what the noble Earl was alluding to, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has committed to review the implementation of Sections 15 and 16 as part of the post-implementation review of the whole of that Act. This review is due to report in February 2027.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, given that our museums are stuffed full of artefacts acquired from abroad, frequently in rather doubtful circumstances, returning the sculptures will be a most unfortunate precedent.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have a clear view that museums are independent of government; this is one of the principles that we adhere to. There are clear examples of museums returning items. As I said, however, the current position is that the British Museum is not planning to permanently return the Parthenon marbles, and that remains its position.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, many of us have long argued that the Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece, notwithstanding what the Minister just said. Can the Minister clarify something? Does she believe that the present legislation—that is to say, Section 5(1)(c) of the British Museum Act—would be sufficient to return the sculptures, or does it require new legislation?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The British Museum Act 1963 prevents the museum disposing of items in its collection. There are limited exceptions for duplicates and objects that are not fit for retention, with specific exemptions created in legislation for objects taken during the Nazi era and for human remains that are less than 1,000 years old. We welcome that the British Museum is in discussion with Greek Ministers to seek a constructive partnership. The director of the museum has alluded to the Bayeux Tapestry loan as a potential model. That is an interesting idea. The loan of the tapestry is proving a huge success story.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Government assure us that if an agreement is reached by the British Museum with Greece, any legislation that is required will be passed within this Parliament?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
At present, there is no agreement for us to lean into in that way but, as I said, the British Museum recognises the strength of feeling on this. It is working very hard to find an arrangement that works within the current legal framework. I refer noble Lords to the point that I made earlier around the implementation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Charities Act, which is part of the review. However, we are open to the museum exploring a loan agreement if that is agreeable to Greece’s Ministers and population.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, if some of the crown jewels had been pinched, we would not be so glad of a loan agreement. Given what my noble friend the Minister said about this being a matter for the British Museum, will the British Museum Act be amended to untie the hands of the museum?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have no plans to review the British Museum Act. It was not in the King’s Speech. However, we recognise the strength of feeling on this. I can only stress that the British Museum is working extremely hard and discussing possible solutions with Greek Ministers.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, over 6 million people every year enjoy viewing the Elgin marbles. The British Museum’s stance is clear. It is of far greater concern that this Government are considering allowing mayors to introduce a holiday tax on British and international visitors, such as those to the British Museum. It will weaken tourism and put jobs at risk. Why are the Government intent on yet another tax levy that will hurt the economy?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am slightly surprised that the noble Earl is taking this line of questioning. The Government are empowering mayoral strategic authorities and strategic authorities to introduce a potential visitor levy on short-term overnight accommodation in their regions in order to drive economic growth, including full support for the visitor economy. Personally—I know this will be the case for many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House—I think very little of an additional fee when I pay for hotel accommodation overseas routinely. We are clear that local leaders will be setting out plans for how the revenues will be invested by early 2028. There will be plenty of time to discuss how the levy would work and the potential impact. We are clear that this is a positive step to enable mayors to drive their local economies.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, referring back to a previous answer by the Minister, can she reassure the House—and any international partners who may be listening—that the Government’s intention is to permanently return the Bayeux Tapestry after its sensational run here? I understand that it has had more than 200,000 visitors.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord, not least because of his role in ensuring that we were able to bring the Bayeaux Tapestry to the UK for the first time in more than 900 years, that there is no intention to keep the Bayeux Tapestry in this country. It would be over my dead body.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I wish all noble Lords a happy Diwali, which is at the weekend. When Britain annexed the Sikh Empire in 1849, the koh-i-noor diamond was taken from its young maharaja, Duleep Singh—he was only 10 years old—and subsequently presented to Queen Victoria. Many Sikhs have long maintained that the diamond was taken under duress and rightfully belongs to their heritage. Will the Government consider returning the koh-i-noor diamond to the Sikh community as this was an act of historical injustice?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising this issue, and I share his best wishes to everyone celebrating Diwali. I recognise the historical significance for the Sikh community. The diamond has a contested history. However, it remains the UK Government’s long-standing position that the koh-i-noor diamond should remain in the UK.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, as a former archaeologist, I have some sympathy with the Greek Government, who argue that the sculptures were actually bought from the Ottoman Empire, not the Greek Empire. Therefore, perhaps there is a strong argument for returning them. I have visited the Parthenon and there are some quite naked bits where the sculptures ought to fit back.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only reiterate that the UK has a really strong relationship with Greece that is built on shared values and history. We greatly value the friendship that exists between our people today. The Government do not have any plans to change the law or introduce legislation to permit the Parthenon sculptures to be returned permanently. However, we recognise, as the British Museum does, the strength of feeling on this and support the museum in its stating that it would consider a loan request for the sculptures should that be agreeable.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, based on numbers so far, it is the turn of the Lib Dems.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Greek Government have been trying to negotiate the return of the Parthenon marbles for decades, and we need to acknowledge that they are an integral part of Greece’s cultural heritage. A museum has been purpose-built near the site of the Parthenon where the sculptures were originally displayed for 2,000 years. The noble Lord on the Conservative Benches put his finger on it: the British Museum is stuffed full of artefacts from around the world. In fact, I understand that there is much that is not displayed in the basements and vaults. Maybe it would be an opportunity to bring some of those artefacts out if the museum returned the Parthenon marbles to Greece.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only reiterate that we have no plans to legislate to do that at the moment, but we genuinely understand the strength of feeling, as does the British Museum.
National Brain Cancer Lead
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards appointing a national lead for brain cancer, and what measures are in place to ensure that the role supports improvements in research funding, clinical care, treatment pathways and patient outcomes across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, last month the Government confirmed plans to recruit a national brain tumour lead, with details to follow. As announced by the Prime Minister, the national lead will co-ordinate action and drive forward work to improve outcomes for brain tumour patients, supported by our rare cancer clinical and research leads and working with the National Cancer Board.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate 25 year-old Archie Goodburn, the Commonwealth medallist living with a currently incurable brain tumour, on securing this commitment from the Prime Minister for a clinical lead on this devastating disease. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and young people under 40, but despite this, there has been no change or progress in treatment in over 40 years. Does the Minister agree with me that the only way to change outcomes is to accelerate at pace the number and range of clinical trials taking place so that there is a chance of a cure for Archie and other patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know how much the Prime Minister appreciated his meeting with Archie. Indeed, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that enough progress has not been made in this area and committed, as my noble friend said, to a number of actions. I certainly would agree with my noble friend’s view on the importance of clinical trials. I can say to my noble friend that, as we set out in the national cancer plan, we are committed to ensuring that the UK supports new clinical trials for brain cancer and boosting participation in research. Both of these really need to be pushed forward, and we are fast-tracking clinical trial set-up times to 150 days to ensure that more patients can access innovative treatments in our country.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the swimmer, Archie Goodburn, for his courage in campaigning for people affected by brain cancer. I welcome the Government’s commitment to commission an expert review. Will they ensure that it will set out clear, time-bound recommendations, with named bodies responsible for delivery in this area, and that progress against them is published?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are keen to be open about this. The immediate expert review, which will take just three months, will be led by Professor Anthony Chalmers. It will examine progress since the 2018 brain tumour research report. I look forward to that review being published within three months. A national action plan, which I am sure will refer to the points that the noble Baroness made, will then help us to move discoveries from the laboratory into treatments and clinical care much more quickly. That is where we need to be.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, what powers will the appointment have, given that 74% of patients are diagnosed in A&E because of delays in diagnosis in primary care? This results in 45% of patients being told in A&E that they have a brain tumour. Even when they have a biopsy, there are inadequate freezing facilities for biopsies to be taken and kept so that personalised medicine can be developed and entered into studies.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On the point about brain tissue freezing, NHS England has, as the noble Baroness may be aware, just completed a freezer capacity gap analysis and is in the process of working with sites to ensure additional capacity. I share her view that identification in an emergency setting is not the best place, although that will sometimes be the case. All this movement is to reduce that incidence.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up two aspects of this very welcome new appointment. The first is the degree to which the patient’s voice—so often overlooked in this area—will be heard, and that listening to it will be part of the remit. The second is about timing. Can the Minister reassure us on the speediness of the appointment, given that most brain cancer patients have 12 to 18 months to live after diagnosis? They do not have the luxury of time on their side.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think that has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister in this review being so rapid—delivered within three months—and in the fact that he is taking personal oversight of this work. Again, that is to be welcomed. On the patient’s voice, one of the outcomes from discussions is that the Secretary of State will be convening researchers, clinicians and charities to identify practical ways to increase participation in brain cancer trials. Certainly, the Prime Minister has asked patients, families and charities to work with us to help raise awareness and support participation in clinical trials. For me, the patient’s voice is absolutely critical and I know that it will be at the heart of this.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, we recognise that outcomes for people with brain tumours and cancers, particularly children, is a survival time of no more than 13 months to five years. Although it is important to do clinical trials using drugs, the problem we have is the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from being affected by these drugs. We need to find novel ways of treatment. Some are being researched; for instance, focused ultrasound, micro-RNA treatments and personalised vaccines developed for particular patients for each of their tumours. We need to support these novel ways of finding treatments for brain tumours that do not apply to other diseases.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. That is why we have to work so much more quickly to move discoveries from research into treatments and clinical care. That has been sadly lacking, which is why the points that the Prime Minister announced include an accelerated review by the MHRA of the regulatory arrangements for rare disease medicines, known as orphan drugs—I mention that just as one example—that would see that work completed in two years rather than three. We understand the need for speed and acknowledge that we are in a position, sadly, where not enough progress has been made in this area.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a dedicated national brain cancer lead. My question is about accountability, going back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Will the Government publish a set of measurable objectives for the national lead, particularly for access to treatment and patient outcomes, so that this House and others can assess whether the role is achieving the real progress that patients and families want to see?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I mentioned a national action plan that will be informed by the three-month review, and I confirm that the Government will publish that national action plan. I would expect to see the markers that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have called for within that.
Baroness Linforth (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend Lady Paul asked this Question today as our great friend Baroness McDonagh died of a glioblastoma in 2023. I understand that the NHS is currently running 35 clinical trials related to brain cancer, of which nine are related to glioblastoma, the most aggressive form of brain tumour. Will the Minister either tell the House today or write to me setting out how many patients have been recruited to each of those trials?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for honouring the memory of Baroness McDonagh, as other noble Lords have done, and Baroness Jowell. I know that many noble Lords are affected directly or indirectly by this and will be feeling the weight of that as we discuss this matter. To answer my noble friend’s question, the number of glioblastoma patients who have been recruited into specific trials is not centrally held. There is a reason for that. It is because many studies enrol patients who have more than one type of brain cancer, and the data is managed by study teams and sponsors. I also note that some data for commercial trials is considered commercially sensitive. Each trial will have its own inclusion and exclusion criteria that are set out by the study team. Having said that, if there are particular things with which I can assist my noble friend, of course I will be pleased to do so.
Binance Security Breach: Consumer Exposure and Interim Safeguards
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nagaraju
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the security breach at Binance, what assessment they have made of the exposure of UK consumers to that incident; and what interim cybersecurity safeguards they plan to introduce before the new cryptoasset regulatory regime takes effect in October 2027.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests in AI and technology as set out in the register, and I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
I welcome this Question. The Government are closely monitoring developments following the Binance security breach and are engaging with the Financial Conduct Authority and other authorities to assess the implications for the UK. Binance is not authorised or registered to provide crypto asset services to the UK. However, it is possible that UK customers may still have been affected, and the Government are currently working to understand the associated impacts and risks.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, given that a large number of UK consumers engage with crypto assets and that the new regulatory regime will not take full effect until October 2027, will the Minister commit today to working with the FCA, the National Cyber Security Centre, the Bank of England and other relevant authorities to put effective transition arrangements in place now and publish a clear interim cyber security and consumer protection plan with a timetable before the end of this year?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
We are looking to learn from what happened at Binance, but I am not clear that it makes sense to put in an interim arrangement. By October next year, we will have a comprehensive FCA regime for crypto assets, including disclosure, market abuse and resilience. To put that in place requires changes by the firms, and it then requires authorisation. There will be an iterative process there, and I think it might not be helpful to have an interim regime in the middle of that. It would perhaps slow things down.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the hacking of Binance demonstrates that large-scale theft is far more possible in a crypto world. At present, UK banks are resisting providing accounts, financial services and credit lines to crypto service providers, but that is expected to change in the next year when the FCA’s crypto providers authorisation scheme kicks in. What would be the consequence to bank stability of such a heist happening after that authorisation and the relationship created between the banks and the crypto world? Would the banks be covering the losses? It is certainly unclear who is covering the losses now.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I am not quite sure what heist the noble Baroness has in mind. We can say that, right now, the Financial Stability Board does not believe that crypto assets are a systemic risk to the financial system, but if she would like to write to me with her thoughts on how this heist might come about to affect one of the large banks, I would be very interested to read that.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I bring to the attention of the House my registered interests in AI businesses and digital assets.
Digital assets operate across borders, as do cyber security threats, as we have seen in the issue with Binance. Given the considerable progress being made internationally on regulatory co-operation, does the Minister agree that there should be an increased amount of discussion about that co-operation on regulatory compliance? Also, does the Minister agree that the Government should commit to making digital assets a security and regulatory priority as part of our G20 presidency next year?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
Digital assets and cryptocurrencies are two related things. As regards digital assets, this is something that the Government are promoting through our industry group with Chris Woolard. He has been quite successful in thinking how we do that safely and well to make the UK a centre that can take advantage of digital assets and tokenisation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ask his officials to provide for him a copy of the House of Lords Written Question HL4338 from December 2017? That contained warnings about the ability of North Korea to hack cryptocurrency and to commit cyber robbery—2017 being the year of the attack by North Korea on our National Health Service. Will the Minister ask his officials what notice was taken of those warnings? In light of the evasion of sanctions and the recycling of revenues into nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles programmes, what progress is being made in tracing the stolen assets and identifying those responsible? Will the Minister agree to meet the officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Crypto and Digital Assets?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I would be very happy to meet, but I wonder whether there is a misunderstanding here. Binance, which is the institution that has been hacked, is not authorised in the UK. It is not registered in the UK; it is a foreign entity. While I am sure that there will be lessons to be learned from the issues that the noble Lord is talking about, what happened with Binance did not happen under any registration in the UK.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this incident shows that society as a whole faces very serious risks from cyber crime and that lessons need to be learned, as the Minister has said. I know that the Minister is concerned about financial education. Will he use his influence to ensure that the prevention of fraud in all its aspects, including cyber crime, plays a full part in plans to improve financial education?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I would be more than happy to do that, and to do it jointly with the noble Baroness.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the Government are issuing digital gilt instruments, and I believe that the first trades are expected to happen in Q1 of next year. What lessons are we learning in terms of the security for DIGIT from this hack?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The DIGIT is a digital gilt instrument which we are experimenting with. The hack, of course, was to an exchange, which is rather different, so I am afraid I do not have an answer to that question. If the noble Lord would like, I could write when the evidence is in about what happened on Binance and any relevance it might have for DIGIT.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, to help the Minister’s bewilderment at my noble friend Lady Kramer’s question, he is right to say that Binance is not registered in the United Kingdom at the moment. But under the conditions of change, as outlined by my noble friend, there is every reason to believe that Binance or an equivalent organisation will be registered after the changes next year. Her question was: in the event of that, how would such a theft be dealt with? Would it be by the banks or the exchange, and where would the Government and the Bank of England sit in that position?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I do not know the details of what happened at Binance, but my understanding is that the money came from custodial operations at the exchange itself, not from a bank. Perhaps I could get back to the noble Lord if I am wrong on that.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the Minister will probably be aware that yesterday the US Treasury announced that it had overwhelming evidence that it was rogue North Korean state actors who perpetrated this appalling fraud. Given the number of UK investors in this particular exchange, what can he and his department do to work with the US Administration to pursue this?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I am not sure that we know how many UK investors there were because, as I say, Binance was not authorised or registered to provide crypto asset services to the UK. But when we discover that, which we are looking to do today, I am sure we will want to co-operate with all regulatory authorities in making sure that this cannot happen again.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, North Korea has form in attacking financial markets to fund its foreign currency requirements. It attacked the London reinsurance markets 15 years or so ago, when there were heavy losses for London reinsurers and losses for German reinsurers. This is a pattern of attack by North Korea. Can the Minister tell us whether we are co-operating internationally, not just with the Americans but with the Germans in this instance, to try to make sure that we can stamp out this abuse by North Korea?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
Indeed we are. We have been taking some powers to trace, seize and recover, and we have been getting financial institutions to do more about disclosure and know your customers. I am not aware of the specific conversations that we have had with individual countries, but if that is of particular interest to the noble Earl, perhaps I can write to him.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 28 October.
Health Bill
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-II(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2026)
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Hyde of Bemerton) (Lab)
My Lords, before we continue to debate Amendment 21, I remind the Committee that this is an adjourned debate. Therefore, unless you were present at the start of consideration of the group, you are not able to contribute. The Clerk at the Table has a full list of those who were present.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as I moved the first amendment in this group, it might be helpful if I recap the nature of the debate last week. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoke to a number of amendments on carers. She said that there are
“4.7 million unpaid carers in England”.—[Official Report, 28/10/26; col. 1234.]
They lack support. One of the reasons for that is that we do not have a system of identifying who they are. This was backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Young, who spoke about young carers. He spoke of
“15,000 schoolchildren spending more than 50 hours a week looking after their parents or siblings, and 3,000 of those were aged between five and nine”.—[Official Report, 28/10/26; col. 1237.]
They face many disadvantages in the field of education, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, identified. They are rarely identified by the relevant authorities until, on average, three years have passed since they first began caring.
My amendments run in parallel to those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. They are about introducing a new legal right to ensure that no one is cut off from relatives and friends in care homes, hospitals and other care settings. This would mean that anyone relying on health and care services, either in the short or longer term, would have the right to nominate a trusted relative, friend or paid carer to provide essential in-person support. Their access will be protected and their advocacy respected. During Covid in particular, but subsequently too, there was a lot of evidence that, when a carer, relative or friend raised concerns about their loved one in a residential care home, in some cases they were told that they were not allowed to visit again. There have been some cases, too, where the resident was required to be removed from the home. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, recognised the importance of this in her recent Covid-19 inquiry report:
“In a future pandemic, visits from essential carers should be available to all residents where possible and should be distinct from considerations regarding general visiting”.
Her report recommended this protection be framed as a right.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, it is sometimes frustrating when sitting on the Woolsack or at the Table during Committee when a debate is taking place and you wish you could jump up and say something—a situation I found myself in on Wednesday night. I was very glad when the Committee adjourned the debate on Amendment 21; in fact, I think I was the person who adjourned the debate, which allows me to say just a few words today on this group of important amendments.
I must admit to noble Lords that I have not spoken on a health Bill since I was the Opposition health Whip to my noble friend Lord Howe many years ago. I was also the shadow Minister for what was then the department for children, schools and families. In that capacity, I met many young carers. I was humbled by their dedication and the sacrifices they willingly accepted; my admiration for them—then and now—knows no bounds.
I wish to add my voice to the powerful speeches already made on this group, particularly in support of respite care. In doing so, I have just one question for the Minister. I recognise from the Government’s unpaid carers action plan that much work is going in to the collection of data and identification of unpaid carers by bringing together multiple services, but, from my own experience, many young carers are wary of official services, fearing that they may think them unable to cope. However, many will turn to the wonderful charities who are active in this space, such as Action for Children. Therefore, can the Minister say whether the voluntary sector will also be included in this bringing together of services to improve the outcome for young carers—indeed, all carers—and their families? Will carers also have a voice?
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the concerns that have prompted the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to table her amendment, and I support her fully. Many times in this very Chamber I have raised the issue of the burden of unpaid caring on one’s health, well-being and finances. The majority of unpaid carers are women who sacrifice their own health and well-being needs to care for others. It is very important that we care for them. As many noble Lords said last week, we know that many unpaid carers do not identify themselves, but women are less likely to do so. Identifying carers is important, but they must not simply become another statistic, because behind every carer there is a family. Identification should and must lead to meaningful support for carers and their families.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has already pointed out, there is evidence of under-identification of unpaid carers. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust of 13 million GP records found that only 1.4% of patients were recorded as unpaid carers in GP systems, compared with the census estimate of approximately 8.8%. That means that for every unpaid carer identified by GP practices, roughly four were not identified. In other words, around 1 million unpaid carers were missing from GP records.
I welcome Action 102 in the Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England, which pledges to support unpaid carers to balance their work and care. The single patient record can be an important enabling tool to identify unpaid carers and record all their caring responsibilities. Therefore, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the single patient record will be set up to systematically identify unpaid carers, and whether ICBs will have a clear responsibility to act on that information to protect their health and well-being? Will the Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England be joined up to this to support women who are unpaid carers? We owe it to them.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this debate, though it started last week, has highlighted the extraordinary contribution made by unpaid carers across the country. Every day, millions of people provide care, often around the clock, enabling their loved ones to live with dignity and independence. Their contribution is not only invaluable to the individuals they support; it is fundamental to the sustainability of the health and care system as we know it. As my noble friend Lady Tyler rightly pointed out last week, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out today, the unpaid care provided by an estimated 4.7 million carers in England is worth some £152 billion a year—a figure comparable with the NHS budget. Without those carers, our health and social care services would be unable to cope.
Throughout this debate, noble Lords have highlighted the stark reality that carers too often remain invisible to the very systems that rely most heavily upon them. For too many carers who are not identified by health services, this means that they miss out on support, advice and interventions that would protect their own health and well-being as well. Amendments 88 and 89 would help to address these issues.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will undoubtedly be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for bringing forward these important amendments and for highlighting the vital contribution that unpaid carers make to our health and care system.
It is an obvious truth, but a truth worth stating, that carers are the people who know the person they care for best. They provide not only practical support but continuity, reassurance and an understanding of individual needs that can make a real difference to the quality of care. I very much welcome the recognition of the key role that carers play and the need to ensure that they are, first, identified—as many noble Lords have emphasised—and then listened to and appropriately involved in decisions about the people they support, while at the same time respecting the wishes and rights of patients themselves.
Carers are often family, friends and neighbours, and they usually do not foresee the duty happening upon them. They demonstrate the most admirable qualities in fulfilling that duty. The pressures that caring responsibilities can place on individuals and families are frequently very considerable, which is why we must never lose sight of the need to support carers’ own health and well-being, including opportunities to take a break from caring, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned.
Amendment 21 would enshrine the right of carers to be involved in patients’ decisions, which seems eminently sensible and right. Carers, with patient consent, already have the right to be involved in discussions with clinicians. At the same time, clinicians will always need to make a judgment according to the situation, because it is just as important to go back and check the wishes of the patient and to make sure, for example, that they have privacy when they want it. Without wishing to downplay in the slightest the value of these amendments, it would be helpful to have confirmation from the Minister that a patient has the right to withhold from a carer sensitive information in their medical records that they might not want shared.
We will be debating the Government’s proposals for a national care service in a later group, but I wonder whether the Minister can give us a sense of how the Government view the position of unpaid carers in the context of those proposals. In what way do they think a national care service could or should affect the status of family carers? I ask because, with the concerns that noble Lords have raised during the debate, it seems doubly important that we do not inadvertently sideline or devalue the extraordinary contribution to society, and indeed to the economy, that unpaid carers make, or overlook the practical support and respite that carers need.
Unpaid carers are the backbone of so much of our health and social care system. Carers can be of any age. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham rightly emphasised the role of young carers. Their contribution is immense, as are the burdens they carry, yet so often those things go unseen. Caring is a profoundly challenging role that, over time, will undoubtedly affect a person’s mental and physical health. The support for carers that noble Lords have so often called for can come in different forms: the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to the vital importance of respite and the part that care homes play in providing it. My noble friend Lady Morris has just reminded us that there are many great charities operating in this field. I wonder whether the Minister could give us a sense of what the Government’s vision is for how such support and respite should be delivered: whether they see it as primarily a role for the state or whether there is a broader palette of provision that is right and sensible to avail of.
Whatever the future structure of our care system, we must not lose sight of the people who give so much to care for others. Their voices and needs must be recognised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for initiating this important debate about carers, and indeed health and care partners. The points that have been made in the debate on this group were well made and well heard, and I know they are very much rooted in personal as well as professional experience. I too pay tribute to the vital work that carers, friends, families and neighbours all do to support their loved ones, often in the most challenging circumstances. I particularly note the reference to young carers by the noble Lord, Lord Young, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord Hunt.
I turn first to Amendments 21, 214, 173 and 174, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt. Integrated care boards have an existing duty to promote the involvement of patients, and their carers and representatives, in decisions relating to their care or treatment. To the point the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just raised, carers are the patient; they are the key person and they have control, as long as they are able, to make decisions about what is appropriate and what is not, as is usual. In addition on these particular amendments in this group, local authorities are required by the Care Act to have regard to the importance of people participating in decisions and being provided with information. I point out that the Health Bill also introduces a duty on integrated care boards to promote opportunities for visiting and a duty for local authorities to have due regard to the importance of individuals being able to involve other people in decisions about their care and about being able to receive visitors.
Regulation 9A already provides legal protections by placing a duty on care home, hospital and hospice providers to facilitate visits and accompaniment in a way that meets the person’s needs. As I just said, at the centre of all this are the needs of the individual. To clarify, a visit includes somebody providing physical support or companionship in person, and encompasses the support envisaged from a health and care partner.
My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised this matter in the earlier part of the discussion. The existing legislation intentionally avoids establishing a distinct term of “health and care partner”, simply because a single definition may not appropriately reflect the range of relationships that there may be and those that apply across different health and care settings. Also, the reference in Clause 57 to “other people” encompasses family, friends and carers and would already include a health and care partner.
The proposed amendments may inadvertently constrain how contact and support are provided and would inadvertently fail to provide for exceptional circumstances where offering support becomes a significant risk to the health, safety or welfare of a person using the service or on the premises. Instead, we are building on existing protections through non-legislative measures, including through the development of the NHS health and care partner policy. I hope that will meet the intentions behind these amendments.
Amendments 89, 175 and 176 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, relate to unpaid carers. The existing legal framework already requires the system to support carers. The Care Act 2014 places requirements on local authorities to assess and meet eligible needs. Carers are also explicitly referenced in the NHS constitution, and local authorities and NHS bodies have a duty of co-operation.
As for Amendments 175 and 176, existing legal duties establish a framework where needs assessments and subsequent care planning focus on the individual and their circumstances, rather than prescribing a particular service or solution such as respite care—something to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred.
Amendment 88 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, raises a point that a number of other noble Lords have spoken to, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. It is of course important that carers are properly recorded and identified in the system. However, we do not believe that setting explicit requirements is appropriate for legislation, important though that is. We are making clear commitments in the 10-year health plan and are taking practical steps to improve identification, recording and support.
My noble friend Lady Nargund asked specifically about the single patient record. The Bill contains powers that will enable regulations to make patient information available to people other than patients on the patient’s behalf, if that is required. That can include all carers. The main point here is that we want to ensure that carers who act on behalf of those they care for can also get full benefit from the single patient record.
There is also guidance to support general practice to better identify and record which patients are unpaid carers. There is ongoing work to improve identification by promoting more consistent coding of unpaid carers by GPs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the partner policy that she referred to—which is being developed as guidance and would avoid anything going into statute—will include a requirement that the carer providing principal care for someone when they are discharged from a unit will be assessed for how much they can and are willing to do in providing care and will be taught procedures that may make the care of the person easier? This includes simple things such as how to help someone get up from a chair, how to manage if someone falls on the floor and even how to give injections for breakthrough medication, such as for pain relief if that is indicated—so that carers are not left feeling that they do not know what to do when the person they are caring for comes home.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes extremely fair points. The discharge process takes account of whether somebody can be safely and properly discharged. The care that is provided, whether by a professional or an unpaid carer, has to be absolutely right. She is right to make the points and I am sympathetic to them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in seeking leave to withdraw my amendment, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate both today and last week. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, made an important point for us to consider on respite care for young carers, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, on the identification of women carers. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made the point that intervention before crisis occurs is so important. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the pressures facing carers more generally.
My noble friend the Minister is resistant to legislation because of the existing needs assessment framework. On the recording of people, she felt that the 10-year plan, alongside the action plan she mentioned, would meet those needs. One must take that as a positive response.
We have been here before, though, and a huge number of carers, faced with the bureaucracy of the local system, find it very difficult to get support. Respite care, in a sense, is a visible indication of the issues that we face. I am sure noble Lords will wish to come back to that.
On my amendments, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her support last week, and also to Care Rights UK and to John’s Campaign, which have been campaigning for a long time to see some statutory protection for loved ones and partners who see and have concerns about the way their loved ones are treated in a care home. They have faced vindictive action by the people operating those care homes for raising legitimate concerns.
I take the Minister’s point about definitions; obviously, that is something to reflect upon. I also take the point about the current statutory duties. However, I think that people need some protection against the behaviour of so many care homes, when faced with legitimate questions about their loved ones. I hope, because the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, produced her recommendation on this only recently, that the Government will consider legislation in the light of it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Howe
“(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must act with a view to enabling patients to make choices with respect to aspects of health services provided to them, including to make choices as to the provider of those services.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that patients who are referred for a service to be provided outside a hospital setting (“out-of-hospital services”) are offered a choice of provider of that service from among the providers available in their integrated care board area and, where relevant, in neighbouring areas, in accordance with regulations made under section 14Z45B.(3) Regulations under section 14Z45B must provide that, where an out-of-hospital service is to be provided to a patient, the integrated care board must—(a) offer the patient a meaningful choice of at least two providers capable of providing the service, which may include NHS bodies and independent sector providers approved to provide that service under arrangements with the integrated care board,(b) provide the patient with information to support an informed choice, including for each available provider—(i) indicative waiting times,(ii) the location at which the service would be provided,(iii) the quality ratings or outcomes data applicable to that provider for that service where such data is available, and(iv) whether any costs would be incurred by the patient in travelling to or receiving the service at that provider,(c) not exclude from the list of available providers any provider approved solely on grounds of commercial interest or organisational type, and(d) take all reasonable steps to give effect to the patient's choice within a clinically appropriate timeframe.(4) For the purposes of this section, “out-of-hospital services” means services—(a) provided in community, primary care or ambulatory settings rather than in a hospital inpatient or outpatient department, and(b) which the Secretary of State specifies by regulations as being within the scope of the choice obligation under subsection (2), and may include diagnostic services, audiology and hearing aid care, podiatry, dietetics and nutrition, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and such other services as the Secretary of State may specify.(5) In specifying services under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the potential for the expansion of choice to reduce waiting times for the relevant service,(b) the availability of sufficient independent and NHS providers to make genuine choice meaningful, and(c) the desirability of ensuring access to choice for patients in all parts of England, including in rural and deprived areas. (6) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, within 12 months of the day on which the Health Act 2026 is passed, a statement setting out—(a) the out-of-hospital services for which choice obligations under subsection (2) will initially apply,(b) the timetable for extending the choice obligation to further services, and(c) the support that will be made available to patients, in particular those with limited digital access or literacy, to exercise the choices to which they are entitled under this section.(7) The Secretary of State must review and update the statement required by subsection (6) at intervals of not more than two years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the new patient choice duty inserted by Clause 5 to provide a specific right to choose between providers for out-of-hospital services.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 22, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will speak also to Amendments 24 and 68. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling Amendments 23 and 67.
These amendments concern a principle which we on these Benches have long supported and which I believe ought to be central to our thinking about the future of the health service: how we can give patients greater choice over their care and make better use of the full range of healthcare services available to them.
Those services are what I would describe as a wider healthcare ecosystem—a complementary system in which the NHS works alongside independent healthcare providers, community organisations, charities and other bodies to deliver services in the way that best meets patients’ needs. The principle behind this is straightforward: many services do not necessarily need to be delivered in a hospital or by an NHS organisation, in an area where other qualified and appropriately regulated providers are capable of delivering them. These might include diagnostic services, physiotherapy, audiology, eye care or other forms of community-based treatment. Where those services can be provided safely and effectively by organisations outside the traditional hospital setting, we should surely be looking at how we can make use of that capacity.
There are several potential benefits that flow from this approach. It can allow patients to receive treatment closer to home and it can reduce unnecessary journeys to hospital. It can also provide access to services more quickly. At the same time, it can relieve some of the pressure on hospitals and specialist services, allowing them to concentrate their resources on the patients who need them most. Where services can be delivered more efficiently, they may also provide better value for the taxpayer.
I appreciate that some noble Lords may have concerns about what they might regard as encouraging the privatisation of the health service, but I want to be very clear that that is not what we are proposing. We are not suggesting that patients should be required to pay for their treatment, nor that core NHS services should be replaced by private provision. We are arguing that the NHS should have the fullest possible range of resources available when it comes to treating patients, and that patients should be able to benefit from those resources regardless of the organisational structure of the provider. The important question is whether a service is safe, clinically appropriate and accessible, and provides good value, rather than whether it happens to be delivered by one particular type of organisation.
This brings me to the question of patient choice. There is a risk in the present system that patients are not always given the opportunity to make decisions that they are well placed to make themselves; for example, a patient may be entirely happy to travel further for a particular service or may prefer to receive treatment closer to home. They may be willing to wait for one provider or prefer to be treated more quickly by another. These are reasonable choices and, wherever clinically appropriate, patients should be supported in making them. However, the watchword of “choice” means very little if patients are not told what alternatives are available or if the way that services are commissioned prevents them from accessing those alternatives in the first place.
Amendment 22 therefore seeks to strengthen the provisions in the Bill relating to patient choice, specifically in relation to out-of-hospital services. Amendments 23 and 24, meanwhile, raise an important question about what happens when a patient is referred onwards by a hospital, an NHS online service or another integrated healthcare provider. As more care is delivered through digital services and integrated pathways, we need to be certain that patients do not lose the choices that would otherwise have been available to them, had they been referred directly by their GP. Amendment 68 explores how we might extend meaningful choice into community services, which can provide an alternative to hospital-based care.
Some of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mention optometry services. Another good example is audiology. Adult hearing loss affects 11.6 million people in the UK. It is the third leading cause of years lived with disability, and it impacts all aspects of people’s lives. Unlike most other hospital services, audiology is not consultant-led. Currently, choice over elective care applies only to consultant-led NHS secondary care services. As a result, NHS community audiology services are being commissioned in fewer than half of ICB areas. Patients often endure long waits and attend hospital when services could often be offered safely and more swiftly in the community.
The Government’s stated ambition is to move more care out of hospitals and into communities. It is a good ambition, but if we are serious about moving care closer to patients, we must also be serious about making use of the organisations, including independent providers, capable of providing that care. It would be helpful if the Minister could use this debate to tell us a little more about the Government’s plans in this area. What further steps are being taken to empower patients to exercise meaningful choice, particularly in relation to community and out-of-hospital services? I will press her, if I may, on primary care audiology provision in particular, which seems an especially salient example, given the statistics on hearing loss I have just mentioned. What is the position? Are integrated care boards being encouraged to make full use of the healthcare capacity available in their local areas, including through independent charitable and community providers? What barriers might stand in the way of this?
Much of our debate on the Bill thus far has concerned the savings that the Government hope to achieve through structural reform, but I hope we can agree that the structure of the system should not be such as to dictate or otherwise limit the choices available to patients. There is surely an opportunity both to make savings and to improve services, by looking more closely at how care is actually delivered. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her helpful letter last week, answering the range of questions I had raised at Second Reading. I think that that is a symptom for a wide variety of policy issues that this important Bill raises.
I have added my name to Amendment 22, on choice, which was so persuasively and sensitively introduced by my noble friend Lord Howe. I believe that private care can complement NHS care, allow treatment nearer to home, and cut waiting times. I particularly support the “have regards” in proposed new subsection (5). I also favour the follow-up review, although there should be more focus on the value and usefulness of the independent sector in a health system that, frankly, is under so much pressure. I have had very positive experiences at Specsavers, which is contracted to do eye and audio tests in a number of NHS trusts.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the group, particularly Amendments 22 and 24, in the names of my noble friends Lord Kamall and Lord Howe. I say to the Minister that patient choice needs to be significantly strengthened, particularly in three important areas.
Currently, there is choice, but we need to make choice much more meaningful, rather than simply theoretical, by giving patients greater control over access to services and their care pathways and ensuring that choice is available across the whole of the NHS and the health ecosystem, not just elective hospital treatment, as was clearly outlined by my noble friend Lord Howe. Patients are not always aware that they can choose which hospital or provider they attend. In practice, patients may simply accept the hospital suggested by their GP or referral system, without being told about alternatives.
How do we improve this? I passionately believe that GPs should have a duty to routinely explain patients’ rights to choose, and patients should be offered a meaningful range of clinically appropriate providers. They should be provided information about waiting times, quality, outcomes and location, as Amendment 22 suggests. Patients should be supported to make informed decisions, rather than being directed towards a single provider. The NHS England guidance recommends currently that referrers should shortlist an average of five provider choices where it is practical, clinically appropriate and preferred by the patient.
Choice is particularly relevant in relation to NHS 111 and A&E attendance. Patients contacting NHS 111 are often given a recommended pathway, but their ability to access alternative services may be limited. For example, a patient might be advised to contact their GP, attend an urgent treatment centre, access a community pharmacy, receive a telephone or face-to-face clinical assessment, or attend A&E if clinically necessary. The problem is that a recommendation is not necessarily a genuine choice if the alternative service is unavailable.
Improvement is needed. There needs to be better access to same-day GP appointments, wider choice in the NHS and wider health ecosystem, more accessible urgent treatment centres, greater availability of evening and weekend services, better integration between NHS 111 and local urgent care providers, and much greater transparency about where patients can receive treatment. The key principle should be that patients are given practical alternatives, not simply redirected from one service to another—audiology has already been mentioned. Amendments 22, 23 and 24 would enable this. I know that this can happen, because, back when we had regions, we had the ability to refer patients to other providers where waiting times could be reduced, and it worked very well. Of course, we must not allow cherry-picking, which is a danger, and we must clearly define what outcomes are to be expected.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the amendments. The original duty included by the Government feels a bit lightweight and almost declaratory, rather than anything of substance. That it is why it is proving a useful debate, through the variety of amendments, to look at putting more substance to this.
In the real world of the NHS, in my experience as a patient and previously as an advocate, what is convenient for the NHS is more important. We will come to this in a broader sense later in the Bill, but it is vital that we try to help patients, as with the earlier duty in the clause that is not being changed, to have more involvement in their healthcare. As my noble friend Lady Manzoor just said, patients are often not aware of the availability of other services. It would be useful to get an understanding of how the Secretary of State intends, through this clause, to make patients more aware.
At the same time, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe points out, in effect, probably due to budget constraints, rationing has started by not allowing patients to take advantage of provision in the interests of trying to manage budgets. I am not saying that the NHS is a bottomless pit—it is not—but we have to come back to what the NHS is there for. The constitution is quite clear that patient choice is a key element. That is reasonable in order to try to make sure that we have a healthier society. As my noble friend pointed to, quite a lot of illnesses are stopping people working, or working to their full potential. That is no good. A lot of illnesses mean children are not allowed to reach their full potential and are spending time out of school.
We need to consider such factors when carefully considering the amendments tabled by my Front Bench and that of the Liberal Democrats to beef up what it means to ensure that other provision can be readily accessed to have a healthier society. I hope that my noble friends will bring this back on Report if we do not have any satisfaction today.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the aims of Amendments 22 and 24 and welcome the intentions of Amendments 67 and 68 in this group.
I want to concentrate on what these proposals would mean in practice for patients and families. The question is whether choice is meaningful, accessible and protected throughout their care. For patients, the questions are straightforward: where can I receive appropriate care, how long will I wait and how will I get there? Amendment 22 rightly draws attention to the information that is needed to make those decisions, including waiting times, location, quality and travel costs. Simply presenting someone with a list of providers does not necessarily give them a meaningful choice. A service offering an earlier appointment may be difficult to reach, while a nearby service may involve a much longer wait. Patients need help to understand those options and decide what works for them.
Does the Minister accept the case for strengthening patient choice in services outside of hospital? Whether she accepts Amendment 22 or not, how will the Government ensure that patients receive the information and practical support that is needed to exercise choice, particularly those patients who cannot readily use digital services, have communication needs or require help with transport?
Amendments 23 and 24 raise an equally important question about onward referrals. A patient’s ability to choose should not depend on which door they entered through, or which organisation happens to make the next referral. As services become more integrated and virtual services play a greater role, we must ensure that patients are told about the choices that are available to them. Integration should make their journey easier, while preserving access to suitable providers beyond the organisation arranging their care. Can the Minister explain how patients will be protected from being directed automatically to a closed list of preferred providers without being offered the choice to which they are entitled?
Amendments 67 and 68 raise a related issue about choice in community services, including eye care and audiology, very eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Moving care closer to home should bring benefits to patients. We should ensure that a change in the setting or organisation of care does not unnecessarily narrow their options. For a family seeking an ADHD or autism assessment, choice can also have very practical consequences. Where choice rights apply and an eligible provider can offer appropriate care sooner, families need to know that this option exists and understand what the service includes. They should also have the confidence that their choice will be respected as referral pathways change.
As the noble Earl said, choice must operate within appropriate clinical criteria, with providers meeting the required standards and regarding the sustainability of local services. It must also be available fairly, rather than depending on a patient’s confidence or ability to navigate the system. Can the Minister explain how existing choice rights will be protected as services are reorganised, how compliance will be monitored and what remedy a patient will have if available choice is denied? The practical test is whether patients can reach appropriate care sooner, with clear information and continuity of treatment. I hope that the Minister will respond to the concerns behind these amendments and explain what the Government will do to make meaningful patient choice a reality.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 22 and am encouraged by this debate, which definitely needs to happen. Indeed, the GPs I work with in the East End of London would definitely want to open up these very choices to patients from many different backgrounds, because sometimes one can get a sense on the ground, certainly in challenging communities, that the NHS can be quite condescending to people in assuming they do not want these kinds of choices. Yet if you go into East End housing estates you will find lots of different people living there from lots of different backgrounds who do want choice. This is a really important message and needs to be grappled with and taken seriously.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support for this group of amendments from noble Lords across the Committee. If the health service is to be truly patient-centred, patient choice needs to be a key part of this. Different patients will have different needs. Therefore, choice is a key part in having ownership of their care and treatment.
My Amendment 23 in this group picks up a key issue as we move to greater use of digital health. The NHS app will start to play a greater role. My amendment picks up the potential loophole that if a patient is seen in person, they may be referred for treatment or diagnostics by their GP or other primary care practitioner and given a choice of where to go for their referral. However, if this is done virtually, via an app or online, patients may not have the same choice that they would have received in person. This amendment seeks to ensure that there are no closed lists and that patients are referred to one provider only. Amendment 24 is similar in its aims.
Amendment 67 in my name, Amendment 22 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and Amendment 68 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, are similar. My amendment specifically pushes for patient choice for non-consultant-led community services, including optometry-led glaucoma care and community urgent eye care services. The amendment seeks meaningful choice from providers available in an ICB area for out-of-hospital services. We know that waiting lists have increased for community services, yet these are often preventive services. I have raised in this Chamber before that 600,000 people are on hospital waiting lists for eye care services, yet we have optometrists on every high street who could be used to help address this and bring routine treatment nearer to people’s homes, thus leaving specialists able to deal with patients who need their services in a more timely manner.
Audiology, as we have heard, is another really important area. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, highlighted, NHS community audiology services are commissioned across the whole of an ICB area in just 42% of ICBs. This means that the majority of patients are being denied choice. Often, patients are required to attend hospital-based services and experience long waits for services which could be offered safely and in a more timely manner in the community. This could be nearer to home or to a family member’s home—somebody who helps them get to an appointment and helps them with transport—giving them genuine choice. If we are serious, as we debate the Bill, about shifting care out of hospitals and into the community then patients must be given the same right to choose their provider for community services as they currently have for consultant-led hospital care.
Community waiting lists have now reached record levels, with around 1.25 million people waiting for treatment. Patients should be empowered with clear information on waiting times and location, allowing them to choose the provider that best meets their needs. By placing choice in the hands of patients rather than commissioners, which it too often is, we can improve access to timely treatments and actually deliver on the Government’s ambition of more personalised care closer to home. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the wider principles underpinning Clause 5 and Amendments 22, 23, 24, 67 and 68. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and consideration of matters that are key to patient choice—a concept that is, as I know noble Lords are aware, neither new nor innovative but is absolutely at the core of the Bill.
Clause 5 introduces new duties to require the Secretary of State to promote the involvement of patients, their carers and their representatives in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of illness, care or treatment. This applies where the Secretary of State exercises her health functions. As I said, this is absolutely core to the Bill and I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.
The clause also requires the Secretary of State to act with a view to enabling patients to make choices about the health services provided to them. I hope that noble Lords are aware that the Government are committed to involving patients and carers in decisions about their care, as we discussed in the last group. One of the reasons is that we know it supports better experiences of care and in many cases leads to a better outcome. It is not just a “nice to have”, but a “necessary to have”.
I refer the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to the new Choice Charter, which will strengthen this approach by setting out—this is key—what patients can expect so that they can make informed decisions about their health and care. There is no point in just expressing a wish to have patient choice if we are not equipping patients to make that choice. That is why we are protecting the patient’s right to choice and the duty to involve them in decisions. As I said, that will remain a central principle of the health system. I was glad to hear noble Lords across the Chamber welcoming the move from hospital to community provision. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, set out, many services can be provided better in the community than they can in hospital. I welcome that support.
Amendments 22, 23, 24, 67 and 68 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. These amendments would go further than Clause 5 currently does by expanding patients’ right to choice to a wider range of out-of-hospital services and onward referrals by virtual and integrated health services, and by prescribing how this must operate in practice. I reconfirm our commitment to strengthening patient choice as part of our wider agenda to improve access to care and reduce waiting times. It might be helpful to remind your Lordships’ House—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might be particularly interested in this—that existing choice rights already apply to some consultant-led out-of-hospital services where the regulatory conditions are met. These include dermatology, pain management services, gastroenterology and diabetes services.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, made a number of key points. Community services are by their very nature designed differently from hospital services. I assure him that those who need help to exercise their choice will get it around what their needs are. They will not simply be expected to manage with one size fits all. The points that have been made are fair and I take them on board but, as a point of principle, we do not think that this level of operational detail, important though it is, is appropriate for primary legislation. Our preference is to use secondary legislation to set out the services covered by choice rights and the detailed requirements for offering choice. The key thing is that that will allow that framework to be updated as services, evidence and system capability develop, because we are not going to be stuck in one place and healthcare will develop as we go along. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, that we will continue to look at the scope of the choice rights and ensure that we are provide the most effective offer to patients.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we are taking the practical actions they seek, as set out in the elective reform plan. We are empowering people to take control of their health by making the NHS App and the “Manage Your Referral” website the default route for patients to choose their provider. To enable patients to make an informed choice, we are improving the information available to them, following the point I made earlier, including on waiting times. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was right to say that not everybody can use online access. We completely understand that, and I emphasise that online tools are in addition to traditional channels. We will ensure that people who need help to make a choice receive that support and information in the way that suits them, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—this might also be helpful to other noble Lords—patients will continue to be able to choose any provider that holds a contract to deliver NHS services. As I said in my letter to the noble Baroness, that includes independent sector providers, within set circumstances. It is the responsibility of ICBs to ensure that their processes comply with the right to choose. That includes any qualifying contract requirements, clinical appropriateness and eligibility criteria. There is guidance for the use and implementation of indicative activity plans and activity management plans. That is detailed in the NHS standard contract technical guidance. If the noble Baroness would like more information, I will be happy to ensure that it is there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, talked about the need for real choice to be strengthened. The government guidance on choice makes it clear that GPs, dentists and optometrists have clear duties to ensure that patients are offered a choice of where they go to their first out-patient appointment. I totally agree with her that a right is only as good as the information and confidence that you have. That is why we are taking these steps.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, she mentioned that the Government are minded to use secondary legislation rather than amendments to the Bill. Are the Government minded to include the non-consultant community services we have been discussing in the Chamber today in such secondary legislation, for genuine patient choice?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Secondary legislation will ensure patient choice across all NHS services, so that will be included.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think the Minister’s answer showed that this local variation is a problem, partly because of the standards, contracts and framework that she described. Some of this may be in future secondary legislation, as the Minister has just said. I would like to pursue this a bit further to see if one can tap the capacity that could reduce waiting times in these important community areas of medicine. I am worried that the existing system is not providing the incentive for that. I would like to understand a little more detail, perhaps in a meeting before we get to Report.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have been listening very carefully and, in answer to my noble friend, the Minister has just said that secondary legislation will be for all NHS services by choice. What stops that being put on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is the point I have just raised: we feel that secondary legislation is the better place to put it for flexibility and future-proofing; it is not appropriate, in a static way, for primary legislation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
As I am sure the Minister agrees, that would make sense if you were putting the operational services down. If you were making a commitment in Clause 5 that all NHS services in secondary, primary and community services will be accessible for choice, it would then give discretion within that boundary. I do not understand what stops the Government putting those principles on the face of the Bill, rather than making the operational amendments, which the Minister said were too restrictive.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think we just have a difference of approach to and opinion about the roles of primary and secondary legislation. I respect what the noble Lord is saying and I will of course review the points that have been made, as I always do; however, the position is exactly as I have described.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her response and, indeed, to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. This has been a valuable opportunity to explore how we can give patients greater choice while making better use of the resources and expertise available across our wider healthcare system. In particular, services such as optometry and audiology have been highlighted.
I was encouraged by much of the Minister’s response, particularly her reference to the need to empower patients, not least to optimise patient outcomes. She is right that there are already several consultant-led NHS services delivered in the community. It would be helpful, though, if she could reflect on the issues I raised about audiology, which is not consultant-led. Perhaps she could consider what could be done to increase audiology provision in the community. As I said at the outset, our intention is not to undermine the NHS but to support it. Where independent charitable and community providers can deliver high-quality care closer to home and more efficiently, we should be making full use of that capacity.
My noble friend Lady Coffey rightly said that politicians of every colour all too easily make declaratory statements about choice, but that we do not do enough to bring meaningful choice to the attention of patients. I confess that I worry sometimes that the absence of choice in certain situations may, in part, not be wholly unintentional. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, it sometimes seems to suit NHS commissioners not to bring down waiting times. The primary reason for that, I suspect, is the way commissioners channel and direct their commissioning budgets. It is important, though, to keep in mind, and perhaps remind commissioners, that out-of-hospital services can often be less expensive to provide than services delivered in hospital.
Having said that, I hope the Government will take these points away and give further consideration to how patient choice can be strengthened as this Bill progresses. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 22.
“(5) The Secretary of State must establish a transformational fund, within a year of the date on which the Health Act 2026 is passed, to enable improvements in access to specialist palliative care and its support to generalist services.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to create a dedicated palliative and end of life care transformation fund to support service redesign by scaling proven models of care that help deliver the government’s intended shift from hospital to community care for people at the end of life.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Patel and Lady Hollins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for having added support to my amendments. I declare my interests as a vice-president of Marie Curie, an international adviser to the Cicely Saunders institute and professor of palliative medicine at Cardiff University.
Amendment 26 proposes a transformational fund to improve palliative care by scaling models for which there is strong evidence of proven benefit. Amendments 279B, 242 and 78 state what must be commissioned to rectify current deficits. These amendments are all important.
It is a rare finding in health economics to know that if you invest in a health or care service, people’s well-being and quality of life will improve, while overall NHS costs are likely to fall. The evidence for this benefit is strong. We know such care works; there is very clear and robust evidence of good benefit from specialist palliative care, for all conditions. When home-based, it improves symptoms and increases the likelihood of home death, when preferred. In hospitals, specialist teams reduce in-patient bed days, deaths in hospital and healthcare costs, while improving simultaneously quality of life. In 2022, specialist palliative care supported more than 20,000 people in England to die outside hospital, saving 1.5 million hospital bed days and £117 million in healthcare costs. Currently, one in three people in England and Wales die with unmet palliative care needs; by 2040, this is predicted to increase by over 23% if nothing is done.
This unmet need in a third of all expected deaths relates to both general and specialist palliative care provision. Specialist palliative care is essential for those with complex needs and for upskilling generalists. Failures in care lead to poor outcomes, more hospital deaths, and higher health and care costs. Shifting from hospital to community will require upfront investment; hence the call for a transformation fund to deliver longer-term savings and better care by investing in proven interventions of home-based care with specialist support.
Of those dying from non-sudden causes, one in five people with cancer and four in five with dementia or heart conditions cannot access the specialist palliative care input they need. Difficulties getting care, challenges navigating a complex system and poor co-ordination lead to a lack of physical and psychological safety. Patients and their carers feel that care at the end of life in the community is unco-ordinated and insupportive. As a result, over half of people approaching the end of life resort to A&E to get the help they need.
Despite the Health and Care Act 2022 stating that palliative care services are core, less than a quarter of integrated care system strategies have this as either a priority of focus or an ambition. In 2023, only three ICBs could state that they commissioned core components of the relevant NICE guidelines. Almost half of ICBs realised they could not meet palliative care needs even moderately. Implementation of the NICE recommendations made over a decade ago remains patchy. The 2025 National Audit of Care at the End of Life—NACEL—in hospitals found poor access to palliative care.
Yet crises and difficulties occur at all hours. For those at home, only one in three UK areas have a designated phone advice line at all hours despite NICE guidance, and such lines are often charitably funded. Only one in five ICBs commission 24/7 access to advice, and fewer than one in 10 actually have access to a specialist nurse overnight—although access is a bit better at weekends and bank holidays. Fewer than two-thirds of hospitals provide face-to-face specialist palliative care seven days a week. This is hardly surprising, as the consultant staffing levels range from one per 154 hospital beds to one per 3,673 beds. Only a third of areas provide direct admission to hospice out of hours.
For children, only a third of paediatric palliative care teams meet NICE staffing guidance. Some tertiary children’s hospitals, such as Manchester and Leeds, and hospitals with paediatric intensive care units, such as King’s, still do not have a consultant lead. For babies, children and young people at home, only 31% of ICBs could evidence commissioning 24/7 end-of-life care to national quality standards.
This data shows that ICBs clearly do not know whether they are meeting their populations’ palliative care and end-of-life care needs. Some 65% of people across the UK being worried about access to such care, and 41% thinking too little resource is allocated to it. The evidence strongly supports specialist palliative care being stipulated in the Bill, as in my Amendments 279B and 242.
Covid revealed how integrated palliative care teams cared better for patients and contributed across health and care. Those in community and in publicly managed services appeared better able to respond to escalating needs. We must collate person-centred outcomes; outcomes are not the same as experience. People cared for with kindness and compassion may report a good experience, even if their care fails to manage their pain or other symptoms optimally. Data on unmet holistic palliative care needs and gaps in access is essential to service improvement. Robust national post-bereavement surveys can capture the voices of recipients and those who represent those who were very sick and dying.
Increasingly, electronic systems share information, although sometimes slowly, between NHS and charitable hospices on discussions and decisions people have had about their care. Such conversations guide advance care plans, which are the advance statement of wishes in the Mental Capacity Act, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is to be commended. Sensitive holistic conversations are part of good care. They must be at the person’s own pace, respecting ambivalence and changes, and not risk becoming a tick-box exercise.
Care improves through evidenced innovations. The IMPACT centre’s digestible research summaries foster the adoption and spread of innovation and inspire researchers whose outputs contribute to our economy. Evidence from the NIHR policy research unit is that specialist palliative care increased quality of life with reduced costs at home of £7,900 per person and reduced hospital costs of around £6,500 per person who dies.
We know that specialist palliative care works. The evidence is clear and robust: it reduces hospital bed days, deaths in hospital and healthcare costs, while improving quality of life. We have a moral and economic duty, and an opportunity, to ensure that access to specialist palliative care is improved. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 45, which refers to “Promoting palliative care equitably”. In particular, it refers to the need to be
“accessible to all regardless of wealth or geography”.
I am very fond of the Minister. Nobody can get grumpy with the Minister, but I am getting grumpy with the Department of Health and Social Care, and other Ministers, because we still do not have the modern service framework for end-of-life and palliative health care, which has been going on for some time. I think the latest Written Answer, published in September, said that it would be published in the autumn. To be generous to the Government, that normally means right up until Christmas Eve, but I hope we will see this framework; it is a long time coming. The stories that we hear, such as that which we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, illustrate that access to palliative care often seems to be a postcode lottery.
When I first moved to Suffolk, I became aware of the Halesworth Community Nursing Care Fund—it no longer exists, having been absorbed into the Pear Tree Fund, which is still in Halesworth. The local people, frankly, got fed up of waiting for a hospice, and there are still valiant efforts to try to have a building. I appreciate that hospice at home is a key element of the modern hospice service. Nevertheless, it was felt that, unless there were people with deep pockets or those who run marathons around the country, or take part in other ways of raising funding, too often either that nearby hospice would never open or its continuing support would collapse. That is why I welcome the proposals and ongoing targets—I think aimed at 2029—regarding this in the neighbourhood health plans, but we still need the substance. Living in a rural community, I am very conscious that not everything will be on hand, but that does not mean that it should be so far away that it more or less becomes irrelevant. I would like to understand more about how the Government will consider the provision of such care in rural settings.
Amendment 230, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would, as I understand it, require a conversation about end-of-life care once a terminal illness has been diagnosed. The amendment as drafted provides that such a conversation would need to be offered but the person would not necessarily have to take it up. However, another provision in the proposed new clause suggests that, where the person does not or cannot take up the offer, the family must be offered it instead.
I appreciate that having conversations about the end of life can be very tricky. We should bear in mind what happened in the not-too-distant history to people who were nearing the end of their lives. I think of the heinous Liverpool care pathway, where people were, in effect, starved and not allowed water. That was horrific. I was pleased when the recommendations of the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—it is good to see her here—were followed by the Government, and that was cast to history.
There is also the wide-ranging element of do not resuscitate, and here I will share a personal anecdote. I recall that, when my mother broke her hip, they constantly tried to get her to do a DNR but then told her that the consultant could do it anyway. It is not very encouraging. When she was finally, sadly, diagnosed in hospital, they did not know exactly what was wrong with her but told her that she had less than a month to live—which was true; that is what happened. It was very clear that, for my mother, her patient choice was that she was desperate to die at home. To be fair, a particular nurse tried everything and was successful, but there was argy-bargy to get it done. For a woman who was dying, I was prepared to shove her in my car and drive home, although eventually we got the agreement for an ambulance to take her home. Even then, all of a sudden, as we were ready to leave, the DNR was there, and I knew my mother did not want it. They went and found her; she was not speaking very much by then, but she shook her head to show that she did not want it. It involves an element of trust, and, frankly, I do not know how many people necessarily have confidence that end-of-life care will be provided.
My mother was a woman of faith, and a priest from the local Catholic church, Father Joseph Welch, happened to be on duty. He came in, and that conversation, more than anything, helped a woman of faith who was scared of dying to effectively be reconciled. It is important, in a different way, to recognise that this is not just about the NHS saying, “Let’s have a chat about the end of your life”, because I am afraid that there is still nervousness about where that will end up.
I am conscious that, when debating another Bill in this House, we spent a lot of time on the fact that people are scared, towards the end of their lives, and that there may be pressure to take a particular pathway. We need to be careful, and how we get that judgment right is important. That is why, although I understand the sentiment behind Amendment 230, I would be pretty nervous about putting it in the Bill and about how delivering it could be done in a way that is absolutely right for everybody. Can we get the quality and a real understanding that this would work to the benefit of the patient, albeit perhaps in their final weeks?
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay for making the strong economic case for specialist palliative care and for these thoughtful amendments. I have added my name to several of them.
On Amendment 78, ICBs already have responsibility for commissioning palliative care. That came about following amendments to the 2022 health Act, which my noble friend Lady Finlay introduced, but there is insufficient accountability for whether and how they are meeting the needs of their local populations. The House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee’s recent inquiry found no clear standards or reporting requirements for ICBs for the provision of palliative and end-of-life care.
Geographic inequality is striking. In 2023, the proportion of people dying in hospital varied from 36% to 52% between ICB areas, and the proportion dying at home varied from 26% to 33%. Why are there so many differences between different areas? We cannot improve what we do not properly measure, and palliative care at the end of life is an essential component of healthcare, not an optional extra. This amendment would require annual performance assessments regarding the standard of palliative and end-of-life care provided.
Amendment 26 would require urgent investment in palliative care through a transformational fund. The Health and Social Care Committee considered the specialist palliative care workforce to be in a critical situation. It described 78 consultant vacancies and around 40% of hospitals not providing a seven-day face-to-face specialist palliative care service. More funding would support the Government’s intended move towards more care in the community and help to avoid needless prolonged hospital admissions.
Amendment 242 would ensure that NHS and hospice services can work together effectively, with timely information sharing and the access to beds, medicines, equipment and appropriately trained staff that patients need and deserve. At the moment, it is so fragmented; it is very hard for people trying to co-ordinate and manage their own end-of-life care at home, as I know only too well after my husband died last year.
The scale of the voluntary sector’s contribution is considerable. In 2024-25, hospices across the UK provided palliative and end-of-life care to 310,000 people, alongside direct support to 89,000 family members, friends and carers. But the financial pressures they face are significant, and of course they rely heavily on charitable donations and fundraising. However, voluntary sector providers are not peripheral to our health and care system; they are essential partners.
The Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons has estimated that 300 hospice in-patient beds have been lost due to lack of funding. It would be very timely to agree all these amendments and I give my wholehearted support to them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I commend all the amendments in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said when introducing it so powerfully, I attach my name to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 26, which would provide for a transformational fund for improvements in access to support service redesign by scaling proven models of care, supporting also the planned shift from hospital care to community care.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, alluded to, we have to consider this group of amendments in the context of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, generally known as the assisted dying Bill. I spoke at its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House and my noble friend Lady Jones covered Committee. It is worth noting that, the second time the Bill was presented in the other place, Andy Burnham said, in a very influential intervention, that before assisted dying is considered in England and Wales, the funding of palliative care should be fixed. That is what the amendments in this group, in their various ways, seek to achieve. The Government often say they will do this when legislative time allows. We have the opportunity before us at this moment.
We have covered many of the points already, but it is worth noting that, by 20 October, more than 100,000 people had signed a petition, which was delivered to No. 10, calling for sustainable hospice funding to be made a national priority. At that event, the Shakespeare Hospice chief executive said:
“Our ask is simple: a fair and sustainable long-term funding model that ensures everyone can access high-quality hospice care, regardless of where they live”.
The fact is, of course, that, in many ways, hospice care and provision is not only a postcode lottery but is going backwards in many parts of the country. On average, about 270,000 people each year receive hospice care, but only 40% of the funding comes from government sources: 60% of the funding comes from people—very often pensioners—standing at train stations rattling buckets. We have a reliance on charity shops, but that funding model is in significant difficulty, in part because of fast fashion and other changes. We have a cost of living crisis that means many people who may have made contributions before are simply not in a position to make contributions now.
I have spoken in your Lordships’ House previously about the very sad closure of the Richard House hospice in east London in 2025. I note as one further example the Queenscourt Hospice in Southport, which has been going for 35 years. In the middle of this year, it cut its in-patient provision by 50%, decreasing bed capacity from 10 to five. It also reduced out-patient services, therapies and hospice-at-home clinical provision. Associated with that was the loss of 20 full-time equivalent medical posts.
I note also that the Royal College of Nursing, at its congress in May, supported overwhelmingly a resolution that the RCN advocates for decent coverage of hospice care. That should not be necessary. We have before us a Bill that gives the possibility for the Government to put this into a legislative statutory framework to support proper palliative care, which the Prime Minister has said that he wants to do.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 26, 78 and 242, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and support everything that has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins, and others. They have highlighted the serious problem of the underfunding of palliative care, whether that is specialist, community or hospice palliative care.
To make my points, I need to personalise them, which I hope I can do successfully. What impressed me most when I had to experience the provision of palliative care was the personalised care plan that was written by the team who were going to look after my wife when she died last year. That was so fundamental for the family and for the patient. The other important bit was the compassion that was shown. I do not know of any other branch of medicine in which I personally feel that compassion is so paramount. It is a person who is dying. There can be nothing more final than death. If we cannot show compassion at that time, then we fail.
The next bit was communication: with the patient, with the team who were going to look after her, and with the family—and the inclusion of family in that communication was extremely important. The team was identified: it was the GP, the district nurses, and the specialist palliative consultant, who, in the end, did not need to provide her services but who none the less was available.
The other important bit was the co-ordination. There was total co-ordination of Macmillan nurses, district nurses and the GP, importantly to assess the medication that was required on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. What I learned, although I am a doctor of long standing, was that for patients who are dying, medication tends to change hour by hour, because their symptoms change. There are not just the symptoms of pain; there are other symptoms that make them uncomfortable, and they need to be relieved of those. In the middle of the night, that service was available. At 2 am, by phone call, somebody appeared five minutes later to provide that medication and care by the team.
The next factor was continuity of care. It was the same GP who visited every day, and the same district nurses, including at the weekends, day and night. That continuity of care was provided all the time.
The next bit was comfort. It is difficult to understand how much comfort is important to these patients when they are dying. They are uncomfortable because of pain, because of the disease that is killing them, and because they have developed symptoms that are difficult, such as retching, vomiting and other symptoms. That requires treatment at the time. If that is not available, the patient who is dying suffers.
Choice—patient autonomy—was another factor: that patients have a say, even though they are dying, as to what would help them. That was important. Furthermore, it was about control, that the patient was helped to achieve their goals. They do have goals, even though they are dying. They know what they want, in terms of comfort and other issues.
Any palliative care proposals and frameworks developed must address this issue, paramount in which should be compassion. If we fail to do this, then we fail. We should not rely on funding from charities organising fêtes and coffee mornings; we should fund the service appropriately and demonstrate that we are a compassionate society.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I take a rather different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We need to look back at the foundation of the hospice movement—it was founded within the charitable sector. It has always been valuable that a lot of the funds to run them have been raised by hospices themselves. That has given them a certain degree of independence, which they clearly would not have if they were funded entirely by the state. It also meant that they brought innovation into palliative care in a way that directly funded services would have found difficult.
There is, however, a need now for more support from government. I acknowledge and welcome the resources the Government have put in in the last two years. I hope my noble friend can say when the framework is coming. As I understand it: one of the issues about hospice funding is that it is so hand to mouth. For some reason ICBs, and their predecessors, have seemed to be incapable of giving longer-term contracts and certainty—they always give short-term contracts and operate hand to mouth.
In a sense, this takes us to the heart of the Bill. So many of these amendments are really because we do not trust ICBs to do the job properly. Their main focus is on waiting times and financial performance. With the huge variation in the funding of palliative care, can we have any confidence that, even with the modern framework, we are actually going to get a more comprehensive package of long-term services for hospices?
Of course, there is a wider challenge of palliative care in the NHS itself, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to. Some reassurance on the hospice issue—that the framework, when published, will mean that ICBs have to sort this out, that they have to give long-term certainty and deal with some of the variation in funding that we see at the moment—would be welcome.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke movingly and others spoke powerfully to make the case for palliative and end-of-life care, and I will not seek to repeat what they said. The whole of Parliament has expressed that view extensively over the last 18 months.
I will comment briefly on whether the provisions should be in the Bill or should rely on action by the Government. I anticipate that the Minister will make the case that this does not need to be specified in primary legislation; it can be done by an administrative or political act from the Department of Health and Social Care. I believe that to be the case. In principle, there is no need for new Secretary of State powers or administrative reorganisation to allocate funding to meet unmet need in palliative and end-of-life care. However, the question before the Committee is: are the Government actually going to do it? What we can do is give the Minister a bit of leverage inside the department between now and Report by perhaps sending a signal that if the modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care has not emerged by then, it is possible that your Lordships’ House will take a more stringent view on the need for primary legislation.
The Minister told us in writing on 4 June that we will see this modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care in the autumn—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out. We are now in November: the nights are drawing in; the clocks have gone back; Guy Fawkes night is this week; and Halloween has been and gone. Is the promise of an autumn modern service framework trick or treat?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments because they have an impact on amendments that I have in other groups. I read with interest Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure equitable palliative care regardless of wealth or geography. I am not entirely sure whether disability would be included in this, but I am keen that disabled people are not forgotten in the Bill.
Last week I spoke to an organisation that works with wheelchair users. It was a very worrying conversation about the impact on general NHS services and specialist services from changes in spinal units and the support they give people who have had a traumatic accident, and about the lack of accessibility to a number of services that we take for granted, particularly breast cancer screening and smears. A number of disabled women have been in contact with me to say that they have been refused those basic treatments because they are disabled or because of the inaccessibility of the machines. I have had to have several mammograms over the years, and the machines are just not designed for somebody who cannot stand. Last time I had one, three nurses had to lift me up into the machine, which was not particularly easy or useful, but they managed to make it work for me. I am worried about the number of people for whom it is not made to work, who might end up in palliative care services far earlier than they need to because of the lack of treatments they are able to access. The postcode lottery is layered on top of that. I am keen that there is a real understanding of the quality of life of disabled people as part of this, to ensure that they get the right support at the right time.
It is really difficult to discuss this Bill without mentioning my recent experience of three stays in hospital since August. The first and second times, I had cellulitis. Interestingly, the papers that I took home with me when I was released the second time had my DNAR status on them. Luckily, it said “no”, but it was interesting that that was not discussed with me; I would not have expected to have that discussion, based on the condition I had, but a number of disabled people worry when their DNAR status is put on their documentation with or without a discussion.
That leads to Amendment 230 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the conversations it would require. Whether it is one conversation or many, it is about making sure that the right time is made available so that they are properly carried out. In this group, I am keen to focus on the specialist aspect of palliative care: it is about not just generalist education but making sure that we are absolutely able to raise the bar for the specialist palliative care that is available to everyone, to make sure they get the right support at the time they need it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, I spend a lot of time sitting on the Woolsack. I did not take part in the debates on the assisted dying Bill; I could not, because I was caring for somebody who, as I said at Second Reading, died in June. I am actually very pleased that I did not take part, because I do not think that I could have done so with the composure required. I listened to a lot of the debates, and that Bill did a substantial amount of damage to this House in many ways.
One of the things it did was to damage the reputation of the House among carers’ groups, because several speeches on that Bill really denigrated carers—“some carers”, I imagine the people who made those speeches would say—leaving the impression that many in this House believe that carers can be unfeeling and mercenary, without any evidence to substantiate that. When we go on to look at what happened with that Bill, as we must, we will need to think carefully about things like that.
I say that because my experience and the experience of my wife was completely different from that. My wife was diagnosed with a condition that she knew would be terminal. At the point that that happened, she made her advance choice direction and she stuck to it; she did not want to be resuscitated. My experience and hers—she was always in charge, as far as I was concerned—was that every healthcare professional she came across asked her about that. They did not argue about it but, time and again, they asked her whether she still wanted it. She was quite clear; her statement was as clear as it could be. Yes, she would be treated for something that was treatable and could be reversed but, no, she did not want to be revived if she was dying.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate—I was saving myself for social care and those other issues—but I was very moved by the interjection by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. This is an important suite of amendments, because comprehensive integrated care has to include end of life—of course it does. I know that the noble Lord and the Minister will be discussing how best to do that; it may not be to put it on the face of the Bill, but it definitely has to be included in this legislation. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, is a very good one, and I completely agree with it.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Barker for their very personal and raw contributions, as recent carers, on the recent losses of loved ones.
I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for my Amendment 230 in this group, which also has the support of Marie Curie and Hospice UK. At its heart is the principle that people approaching the end of life should be able to have their wishes, preferences and priorities for care understood, recorded and respected. Advance care planning enables people with terminal illness to express how and where they wish to be cared for. It supports more proactive and personalised care and, as we have heard, it has been shown to improve patient and family satisfaction while reducing the likelihood of crises, avoidable hospital admissions and the need for emergency care out of hours. I have seen at first hand how, in Devon, the system seems fairly well set up to support people in their own homes, and to have these very difficult conversations with a hospice at home service, with people who have real skill in communicating and talking about these difficult topics at a time when someone may have just learned that they have a terminal illness and when lots of things are going around their mind. It is important for them to be able to get some clarity, going forward, about what they wish for and do not wish for. As we have heard, other parts of the country do not work so well.
Importantly, the evidence suggests that advance care planning does not increase costs to the health and care system, and may in some cases reduce healthcare expenditure by ensuring that care is delivered in accordance with patients’ wishes. We will come on to the single patient record on a later date, but I flag here that advance care planning can be effective only if the information is available to those providing care when it is needed. The single patient record offers a significant opportunity to improve co-ordination and continuity of care, but its success will depend not simply on sharing data but on ensuring that advance care planning is routinely embedded in clinical practice so that people’s wishes can be accessed, understood and acted upon, wherever and whenever care is provided.
The other amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Coffey, highlight the many issues with the current landscape of palliative care and specialist palliative care services, and the difficulty in getting access to those services. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that, and her response to the trick or treat challenge.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and timely debate, coming not long after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and the Prime Minister’s remarks. While these amendments address a range of issues, they all point to the same conclusion: palliative and end-of-life care must have a central place in this conversation.
If the Government are serious about shifting care from hospitals into communities, supporting people to remain closer to home—notwithstanding the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—and delivering truly patient-centred care, palliative care must be part of that vision from the outset. The need for action is clear. Marie Curie estimates that each year around 170,000 people in England die with unmet palliative care needs, equivalent to almost one person every three minutes. We must ensure that those approaching the end of their lives can access the support they need, when and where they need it. This is closely linked to my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment. She spoke movingly of her mother’s experience and the need to ensure that patients have access to high-quality palliative care, wherever they happen to live and choose to die.
If the Government’s proposed national care service is to succeed, it cannot simply be a discussion about structures, responsibilities and reorganisations. It must be about the experience of those who rely on care. No group demonstrates that more clearly than people approaching the end of their lives. Palliative care is perhaps one of the clearest examples of where health and social care are inseparable. While clinical support may be provided by the NHS, the ability of a person to remain at home or close to home, to maintain their dignity and spend time with loved ones, often depends just as much on the availability of social care. For many families, social care provides the day-to-day support on which good end-of-life care depends. Evidence shows that when effective support is available in the community, people are more likely to be cared for and pass away in a place they choose, rather than in hospital. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins, said, this will also reduce hospital deaths, save the NHS money and make more beds available.
Palliative care does not begin and end with the NHS; it depends upon social care providers, community services, carers, local authorities, hospices and voluntary organisations working together around the individual and their family. When those services are joined up, people are more likely to receive care in the setting they choose and with the support they need. When they are not joined up, it can profoundly affect those approaching the end of their lives.
In that context, I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which recognises that good palliative care depends not on any single organisation but on effective collaboration across the NHS, adult social care and the voluntary sector. Too often, services that support people approaching the end of their lives are commissioned, funded and delivered separately, despite the fact that patients and families experience them as part of a single journey. The amendment would help to ensure that integrated care boards take active steps to bring those services together, whether through access to specialist hospice care, shared equipment, medicines, workforce development or closer collaboration between providers.
Crucially, the amendment recognises the vital contribution of hospices and charitable organisations to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care. These organisations are not peripheral to the system; they are an essential part of it. If the Government are serious about creating a national care service and a neighbourhood health service that are genuinely joined up for patients, the expertise and capacity of the voluntary sector must be properly integrated into the way care is planned and delivered.
Indeed, some of the most important services available to people at the end of their lives are delivered by hospices and charitable organisations. For decades, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the voluntary sector has not merely supplemented statutory services but has been fundamental to the provision of specialist palliative care. But too often it is forced to operate at the margins of the system, dependent on local arrangements, local funding decisions and local fundraisers, and subject to tax rises, such as employers’ national insurance, from which state providers are understandably exempt. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shared examples of recent hospice closures.
If the Government wish to build a neighbourhood health service and develop a national care service, integration must mean integration not only within the NHS but between the NHS, adult social care and the voluntary sector. Ultimately, the measure of success will not be the structures we create but whether individual patients receive seamless support at one of the most difficult moments of their lives and for their families.
The issue of patients having a conversation about their end-of-life care, addressed in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was illustrated by the very moving stories from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. These amendments seek to move us towards that goal. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the issues that have been raised during the debate.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I can certainly confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that I will give complete consideration to the points raised.
As other noble Lords have acknowledged, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for bringing their loved ones’ stories into the Chamber for the benefit of others, and for their willingness to share with us such a painful but realistic time. I believe that many people will identify with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, and it will mean so much to so many.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord says “conditionally”. I would I expect it always to be conditional, but I thank him for clarifying.
To address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as we have already discussed in Committee, Section 1C of the NHS Act 2006 states:
“In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from the health service”.
This is a deliberately overarching duty that applies across the whole of the health service, so we do not consider it appropriate to create separate versions of that duty for individual services. That would risk duplication and make the legislative framework overly prescriptive.
The much talked about modern service framework for palliative care and end-of-life care was referred to as a “trick or treat” test by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens —I will leave him to conclude, when I finish. I also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that no one in this Chamber wants her to feel grumpy, and I am sure that nobody in the department wishes her to feel grumpy.
The modern service framework will focus on reducing inequalities. It will identify, measure and reduce inequalities, and reduce unwanted variation in access, experience and outcomes—I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that that absolutely includes in respect of disability. The modern service framework is indeed anticipated in the autumn, which we remain in. I know that we are all keen to ensure that everyone can receive high-quality and personalised care in the right place at the end of life. I look forward to the modern service framework giving us the best way forward on that.
I turn to Amendment 78, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As per Clause 21, the Secretary of State is already required to undertake an annual performance assessment of each ICB in discharging its statutory functions. Again, that was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that the latest report for 2024-25 was published on 17 December last year. Future assessments will continue to consider how ICBs are discharging their statutory palliative care duties. I very much understand the calls from noble Lords across the Chamber and their emphasis on how important this is.
The modern service framework will indeed build on the ambitions set out in the neighbourhood health framework, which includes increasing the identification of those approaching end of life by 10% and reducing non-elective admissions and hospital bed days by 10% for those at end of life. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made about measurement and ambition in particular. On the NICE guidance in this area, in keeping with all NICE guidance, although it is not statutory or legally binding, as local healthcare professionals need autonomy to make clinically appropriate decisions in relation to their patients, there is an expectation that commissioners and service providers take it into account when they make those decisions on how to meet the reasonable needs of their populations.
On Amendment 230, tabled and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, alongside the existing statutory framework that I have already outlined, the already published universal principles for advance care planning promote opportunities for individuals, including those with a terminal diagnosis, to discuss their wishes, their preferences and the clinical recommendations. Health and care professionals are expected to provide appropriate opportunities for individuals to engage in advance care planning. This area was spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Patel, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
These principles explicitly recognise the importance of involving a person’s family, carers and those who are important to them. I emphasise the point that those who are important to us do not always come neatly packaged. They are to be involved in discussions, including through the nomination of a named spokesperson. The outputs of these discussions may include one or more of the following: an advance statement —I have heard how helpful that is, along with the importance of an advance decision, where it is to refuse treatment—context-specific treatment recommendations and lasting power of attorney, where it is appropriate, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Additionally, for those nearing the end of their life, the Government’s priority is to provide people with financial support quickly and compassionately. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, both spoke to the absolute importance of compassion being at the core of everything that is done. In a practical sense, the main way that this is done is through the special rules for end of life, which apply to five key benefits, including the personal independence payment.
I move on to the points on medicines access raised under Amendment 242, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The pharmacy quality scheme forms part of the community pharmacy contractual framework. The scheme’s palliative and end-of-life care domain aims to ensure sufficient arrangements are in place so that patients, relatives, carers and healthcare professionals can obtain medicines in a timely manner—again, something spoken to very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. ICBs commission out-of-hours dispensing arrangements where there is a need for patients to access medicines outside core pharmacy hours.
Finally, I will address Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on which we heard a number of contributions. Funding for palliative and end-of-life care is available through existing NHS funding arrangements and, as I have outlined, ICBs have statutory responsibility for commissioning. Indeed, as we have discussed on a number of occasions, local commissioners are best placed to determine how funding should be allocated according to the population need, local service provision and the best use of available resources. The ring-fenced fund proposal, which would mean establishing it in primary legislation, would, we believe, risk being overly prescriptive and would limit the flexibility of local commissioners to determine how resources are best used.
On the point about hospices and funding, I very much recognise, as have noble Lords, the absolutely vital part that voluntary sector organisations, including hospices, play when providing support to people at the end of life, but also to their loved ones. It is also worth noting that the majority of palliative and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and services, to whom and for which we are also most grateful. It is true that the amount of funding for each charitable hospice will vary but, by definition, that depends on the demand in local areas and on the type of palliative care provision. My noble friend Lord Hunt made the point that hospices value their operational independence—that is something that I have found in my discussions with them—and they are great innovators. I understand the point about funding, as I do in this whole area. However, when I have looked at this and spoken with hospices, that ability to operate independently is one that they really value.
The modern service framework will ensure that palliative care and end-of-life care is well within a strategic commissioning model. Importantly, there will be clear and transparent contractual arrangements, which I hope noble Lords will welcome.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Patel and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for sharing recent experiences, and my noble friend Lady Hollins and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who have also drawn on their experiences. Everybody in this Chamber has experienced being bereaved: it is a universal experience, and we all carry with us the mark of whatever happened.
Lord Kamall
“Access to health innovation networks(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a wide single national point of access to the health innovation networks in England.(2) The arrangements must enable a person to—(a) make a single request for support,(b) be directed to the appropriate health innovation network or networks, and(c) receive coordinated support where an innovation has potential application in more than one region.(3) The Secretary of State must publish information about the operation and performance of the arrangements.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require a single national point of access through which innovators and other organisations could obtain coordinated support from the health innovation networks in England.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, let me make it clear that I recognise that what I am asking for does not need to be in the Bill and does not need legislation. However, my frustration at the lack of progress, both when I was the relevant Minister and as shadow Minister, has forced me to table this probing amendment.
I often meet entrepreneurs and tech companies who claim that they have an innovative product or solution that could transform healthcare. They ask me how they can have a conversation with the relevant person within the NHS. When I was a Minister and I asked my officials about this, they would give me an email address I could share. However, two things stayed with me. First, why was this email address not widely advertised and known by more people? Secondly, when I asked such entrepreneurs whether anyone from DHSC or NHS England had replied, the answer was no.
In opposition, I began thinking, “How can I help more innovators into the NHS?” It was suggested that I meet the Health Innovation Network, which told me that it is the front door for innovation. However, once again, many tech entrepreneurs have never heard of it. I was surprised to read on the Health Innovation Network’s LinkedIn page that it has “501-1K employees”. How about that for precision? Speaking to noble Lords and others interested in health innovation, I have heard a range of opinions about the local networks—that some are good, some are bad and some are in the middle. While some regional health innovation networks are good, others are not so good and coverage is patchy. This brings me to my question. What is the Health Innovation Network’s remit, and what assessment have the Government made of local networks’ effectiveness? What plans do the Government have for the networks in the reorganisation?
I recognise that there is a fantastic clinical entrepreneurs programme led by Tony Young, an NHS surgeon and clinical entrepreneur. He has always been very open and has encouraged me to send on to him clinical entrepreneurs who have approached me, in order to have further conversations. The question relating to this amendment is: what about entrepreneurs who are not clinicians, but who have an innovative solution that could transform health or social care? For them, there is no obvious front door to the NHS or one-stop shop. What do they do? They spend ages trying to get into the system at primary care, trust or ICB level, sometimes wasting their time but also clinicians’ precious time. Sadly, they then give up or go abroad, meaning that the UK loses out on British innovation.
In July, during an Oral Question, I asked the Minister to ask the DHSC Minister for technology and innovation to create such a front door or one-stop shop to triage those who approach it. That front door could distinguish those salespeople who have no minimum viable product, telling them what they need to come back with to be taken seriously. Secondly, what about those who have a solution but need more support, so that they can be signposted to someone who can advise them on coming up with a more feasible approach? Thirdly, there are those who have potentially a fantastic solution that could transform healthcare and need to be piloted as quickly as possible.
I was grateful when noble Lords from all Benches later told me that they agreed that this was a practical idea. Has any progress been made since I asked that question in July. If not, what are the reasons why? Time and again I hear the same concerns from entrepreneurs, researchers and businesses: the system is difficult to navigate, and numerous organisations are involved in supporting innovation, all with different remits, processes and points of entry. Expertise clearly exists throughout the system, but identifying the right door to knock on can be a challenge in itself.
This amendment seeks to address that problem through a simple but important principle: that there should be a single national point of access through which innovators and other organisations can obtain co-ordinated support. The purpose is not to create another bureaucratic layer; on the contrary, it is intended to reduce complexity, improve co-ordination and ensure that innovators spend less time navigating the system and more time developing solutions that could benefit patients. The principle behind the amendments mirrors one that the Government have embraced elsewhere in the health service. The concept of a single point of access, or a single front door, is designed to simplify routes into services, triage inquiries effectively and direct people to the most appropriate expertise at the earliest opportunity. Rather than forcing patients to navigate multiple pathways, the system assumes responsibility for guiding them to the right destination.
My Amendment 27 applies precisely that same logic to innovation. Instead of requiring innovators to work their way through a maze of organisations and programmes, a single front door would provide a clear route into the system, supported by intelligent triage to the most appropriate person in the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS. It could be, but not necessarily, one of the 501 to 1,000 people who work for the Health Innovation Network. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for moving this amendment and for the very short debate that has followed. I believe that the frustration is real, but the Committee deserves answers to two questions: what is in place now and would the proposed new clause make it better?
As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, there are 15 health innovation networks, each serving its own region, but there is already a national point of access. The NHS Innovation Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, has been running since 2022, when it was set up by a very forward-thinking junior Health Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. NHS England describes it as a single entry point. An innovator completes one record. Experts from within the network review it within 10 working days, give tailored advice and can refer the innovator to one or more local networks. More than 2,000 innovations have had support through that service.
Proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (2) in this amendment largely describe something that already exists. Does it work? As a front door, it appears to do so in some regions for some people. The problem is that if the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was accepted, it would create two front doors for people to come through, which would probably not be a wise thing to do.
I believe that the front door is not the main problem here; the problem is spread. Adoption is one trust taking up a good idea; spread is that everything gets to the patient, no matter where they live. The Health Innovation Network’s own evidence to Parliament says adoption is
“slow, uneven and overly dependent on local early adopters”.
It describes what it calls
“a postcode pattern of spread”,
and warns that
“proven technologies do not spread through evidence alone”.
An innovation proven in one place can face the same hurdles all over again in the next, so I do not believe that we have a front door problem.
Therefore, I must be honest. As drafted, this proposed new clause would help only at the margins and it could hinder. It could create a second door beside the one we have, unless it simply puts a statutory label on the existing service. It would write an operational arrangement into primary legislation, when the way innovators are supported should be one that changes quickly. It would place duties around networks that neither the Bill nor the proposed new clause define.
There are two parts that I welcome. Proposed new subsection (3) would require published information on performance, and we should be told how many innovations spread beyond their first site and how far. Proposed new subsection (2)(c), on co-ordinated support across regions, goes closer to the real issue, but the network says that spread needs systems with
“the resource to redesign pathways, train staff and evaluate impact in practice”.
A referral service does not provide that.
The amendment’s most important contribution is the question it raises. NHS England runs the innovation service. The network’s national commission comes from NHS England, with the Office for Life Sciences. However, the Bill abolishes NHS England. Clause 6 gives the Secretary of State a duty to promote innovation and a power to award prizes, but it says nothing about the networks. A prize will not help a company stuck between a successful pilot and its second trust.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Who will run and fund the innovation service, and commission the networks, once NHS England has gone? Can she guarantee that there will be no gap? Will the Government publish performance data, including on adoption and spread, which is lacking, whether this amendment is accepted or not? Who, after abolition, will be responsible for making sure that proven innovation spreads across the whole NHS, not just to the early adopters?
A single door is a reasonable aim and we largely have one. What patients need is for it to work in one part of the NHS and then to reach all of it. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for bringing this debate before the Committee. I commend his honesty that this is born out of frustration and a wish to improve things, rather than seeking a legislative response—something the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also observed in looking at the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that the amendment raises important points to be considered more broadly, so I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, of that consideration.
I will make a few points that may be helpful. The NHS Innovation Service already provides a wide national point of access. The way it works is that an innovator makes one request, creates one product record and is referred according to product type, maturity and location. More than 2,200 products have been registered with and have received support through the service, including 710 innovations in the 2025-26 financial year. All health innovation networks participate alongside 11 other organisations. That means that innovators have access to a broad range of expertise through a single service. Almost all products reach at least one health innovation network and are referred to four organisations on average. Innovators may also approach a network directly. Support can span several networks and regions, with onwards referral requiring no new application. Uptake is already reported at a high level while, of course, protecting commercial confidentiality.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, will understand that funding a second route—or, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, a second front door, which would confuse us—where an effective national service is already in place may not exactly represent what we might call the most effective use of public resource. The amendment’s core aims are therefore already met. Prescribing an operating model in legislation could limit its ability to evolve—something I know the noble Lord understands.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about health innovation networks. I can confirm they are subject to performance and impact monitoring. They also produce impact reports to show what their local impact is. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked what would happen following the abolition of NHS England. Nationally funded health innovation networks’ work will continue and will be overseen by the Secretary of State. I will look at the other points that have been raised, because they are all certainly relevant and will be drawn to the attention of my colleague, the relevant Minister, Chris McDonald.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the very many noble Lords who queued up to speak in this debate—I obviously raised a very important point. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for reminding me how innovative I was when I was the Technology and Innovation Minister. In fact, I set up the very service that I am now asking for many years later. It does beg a question, because even I, as the person who set it up, still did not know that this service existed. When I speak to people in NHS England and elsewhere and say, “You know what you need? You need a front door for innovators”, they say, “You’re absolutely right; we haven’t got one”. So even people in NHS England do not know that this exists.
I was up front that I knew this was not meant to be in the Bill. I just wanted to get discussion. It probably helped to prompt my memory as well—my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—but it is really important that more people know about the NHS Innovation Service. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the many other noble Lords who are interested in this topic to let us know what the Government intend to do to promote the NHS Innovation Service, so that more people are aware and so I do not ask for the same thing next time we have a health Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thought the logical conclusion would be that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson
“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish an independently verified long-term assessment of the workforce needs of the health service and a ten year education and training plan to deliver on those needs.(1B) The first assessment and plan under subsection (1A) must be published within one month of the day on which this Act is passed. (1C) The Secretary of State must keep the assessment and plan under review and revise both at least once every five years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an independently verified assessment of the long-term workforce needs of the health service and a ten-year education and training plan to meet those needs, with the first assessment and plan published within one month of Royal Assent.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding of Winscombe and Lady Cass, for their support for this amendment. In moving Amendment 28, I want to make a very simple argument. The Bill gives Ministers direct responsibility for training and educating the NHS workforce. I believe that it should also make Ministers responsible for setting out what workforce they believe the NHS requires and for developing a training and education plan to deliver that workforce.
This is not a controversial proposal—Amendments 92, 252 and 253 in this group make a very similar case—nor is it a new proposal. In 2022, your Lordships’ House passed a very similar amendment to the Health and Care Bill, not once but twice, with support from the Labour Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches. In 2023, the Conservative Government published a long-term workforce plan and asked the National Audit Office to scrutinise the modelling behind it. In 2024, the Labour Party manifesto promised “regular, independent workforce planning”, and Ministers subsequently committed to producing a new workforce plan with independent scrutiny.
Therefore, in theory, we all agree. But in practice, we are now more than two years after the election and Ministers have set aside the Conservative Government’s 2023 plan, understandably, but have still not published their own. In June, Ministers said it was coming imminently. We are now told that it will arrive in due course.
An insufficient NHS workforce is a problem that has been many years in the making. At the end of June, the NHS in England had more than 100,000 vacancies. But vacancies are not the whole story. Since 2015, the number of patients registered with GP practices has risen by more than 10%, but the number of fully qualified full-time GPs has gone down. Others in this House can describe far better than I can what workforce shortages mean on the front line, so I will not talk about how hard it is to plan services when you have insufficient staff to deliver them or the toll on healthcare professionals when we constantly ask them to cover gaps or the impact on patient care. But I hope that others in this debate will do.
Instead, I want to talk about how we ended up here. I believe that all Governments understand the importance of NHS workforce planning. But experience shows that very few are able to develop and deliver a comprehensive plan. That comes down to the very simple fact that training must be paid for today and the benefits of training are realised only in the future. It takes three years to train a nurse, around 10 years to train a GP and up to 15 years to train a consultant. So Ministers constantly face a choice between the pressures of today and the prospect of a better NHS in three, 10 or 15 years’ time. Every £1 spent on a GP for 2035 is £1 not spent this winter or on this year’s political priorities. At any one moment, choosing to prioritise today makes sense. But, repeated year after year, that choice leaves us with a workforce that cannot possibly meet the demands it faces.
Of course, politicians can and sometimes do take long-term decisions. As chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Sir Jeremy Hunt championed independent workforce forecasts. As Chancellor, he was in a position to fund an NHS workforce plan and did so. That 2023 plan was backed by over £2.4 billion. It set out ambitions to double medical school places, increase GP training places by half and almost double adult nursing training places. It was not a perfect forecast, and the NAO kindly pointed that out when it was asked to scrutinise it, but it was a baseline and it showed that, when the political will exists, it is possible to plan for and invest in the future. However, hoping for sufficient political will is not a strategy. We will not often have a Chancellor who was previously Health Secretary.
This amendment would make long-term workforce planning a duty and not a matter of personal commitment. It would require independently verified assessments of what staff the NHS needs and a 10-year plan to train and educate the staff needed. The first assessment and plan would have to be published within one month of Royal Assent to the Bill. Both the plan and assessment would be kept under review and would have to be revised at least every five years.
In 2022, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, told the House that
“without mandated forecasts of staff numbers, meaningful workforce planning—something that every other efficient organisation undertakes—cannot take place”.—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 223.]
I really agree with her and hope that she will support this principle from the Government Benches as she did from the Opposition Benches, and back this amendment or one along similar lines.
I would be grateful if the Minister could also answer two questions. First, when will the Government publish their own workforce plan? Secondly, who will undertake the independent scrutiny of that plan?
Every Government must have the right to set their own spending priorities. But every Government should be transparent about the workforce they believe the NHS needs and what the decisions they are making today about education and training will mean for tomorrow’s workforce. I hope the Committee will agree. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Solihull, for co-signing my amendments in this group.
I will start with Amendment 252 because it relates to the points made by the previous speaker. It would place a duty on the Government to publish a follow-up mental health workforce plan within 12 months of the highly anticipated publication of the next 10-year NHS workforce plan. It would require detail on how the mental health workforce will be effectively retained and recruited to meet the scale of the mental health demand. Retention and recruitment measures, combined with a clear commitment to the resources required, would help to assure many patients and people across the mental health sector about how the Government’s ambitions in this area will be matched by a strategic approach to delivery. The sector is looking for tangible outcomes for patients, particularly those who live with a serious mental illness.
Mental health and well-being support for NHS mental health staff is integral to the plan, including developing occupational mental health capacity and investing in staff mental health and well-being hubs nationwide. Staff sickness figures reveal that anxiety, stress, depression and other psychiatric illnesses continue to be the most reported reasons for sickness absence among the NHS workforce. In the 12 months up to and including May 2026, those conditions accounted for more than 8.3 million days of sickness absence, equivalent to 29% of total sickness absence over that period. So, while I welcome the commitment in the 10-year health plan to introduce staff treatment hubs for NHS staff, I am keen to understand how the hubs will interact with existing NHS staff mental health and well-being hubs. A dedicated NHS mental health workforce plan would help to ensure that the hubs are as effective as possible.
Amendment 92 would require ICBs to assess and report on mental health workforce efficiency for their local area every two years and propose measures to address the challenges faced by their workforces in delivering services for the communities that they serve. This takes me back to the discussions during the passage of the Mental Health Bill about the need for sufficient community services for people with learning disabilities, and autistic people, to avoid unnecessary and lengthy admissions to hospitals.
Localised focus is vital. Organisations across the mental health sector are concerned that the NHS 10-year plan is too vague about how ICBs are expected to both successfully manage system pressures and, at the same time, meet the ever-growing need for an expanded mental health workforce. Does the Minister agree that requiring ICB-led assessments would be an effective way to ensure that the Government’s programmes of national reform can be matched with local plans so that the ambitions of the 10-year health plan can be delivered?
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. She has put her case forcefully and clearly, so I will not detain the Committee for long.
Poor long-term workforce planning creates significant challenges for NHS staff and patient care. Inadequate forecasting, insufficient investment in training and recruitment and poor staff retention contribute to persistent vacancies and skills shortages. This increases workforce loads, stress, burnout and sickness absence, resulting in low morale and higher staff turnover. The NHS becomes increasingly reliant on expensive agency workers and international recruitment, placing additional pressure on budgets. Consequently, services experience longer waiting times, reduced productivity, compromised continuity of care and potential risks to patient safety.
NHS England estimates an existing workforce shortfall of approximately 150,000 full-time equivalent staff, potentially rising to 260,000 to 360,000 by 2036-37 if there is no intervention. Effective long-term planning is therefore essential to develop a sustainable workforce, improve staff well-being, strengthen retention and ensure safe, high-quality patient care. I strongly urge the Minister to support this amendment. Ministers should be held accountable for the delivery of this workforce plan.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and I have added my name to it. She spoke so eloquently and made her case so strongly that I have put aside what I have written down because it would have been a repetition of what she had already said. I am going to take a slightly different tack but make the same point.
The noble Baroness quite rightly linked education, training and workforce planning. You have to know what workforce you might require for the health service you plan to have. I guess one can say that the Government’s 10-year health plan and the 10-year cancer care plan outline the kind of health service that the Government wish to see develop over the next 10 years. If that is the case, we need to address what kind of training and education and what kind of people we will need to deliver that plan.
I am guessing now that the reason why the 10-year workforce plan is delayed is because the premise on which it was to be formulated was that technology such as AI and digital technology would free a lot of clinical time, and hence the headcount need not be so high. That is a false assumption. It is false because we need to train people to use AI and digital technologies. The assessment is that, if you use these technologies, you might free about 40 minutes a day for front-line clinicians. With the pressure that the NHS now faces and the needs of the workforce it now faces, that time will be used to deliver better care to patients, particularly as the 10-year health plan identifies that technologies such as genomics and personalised medicine will be the way healthcare will go. There is an ambition by 2040 to have 50% of patients with some idea of their genomics, and the treatment is therefore based on that.
If you add all these together, and the Secretary of State now has responsibility for education, training and workforce planning, you ask the question: why is the workforce plan delayed? It is delayed because maybe the penny has dropped that, if you do not count the numbers and do not present a case about how technologies will reduce front-line clinical time, then you cannot plan the workforce.
Furthermore, I wonder whether the Bailie review of productivity in the NHS is based on the premise that greater productivity will be delivered in the NHS because of using technologies such as AI and digital technologies. We do not know that that will happen, but we have to wait until the Bailie review comes out. I wonder whether that is another reason—the Minister might comment on that—why the workforce plan is delayed.
It might be political pressures, it might be fiscal pressures or it might be the pressures from not knowing how to get the workforce numbers that we would require to deliver the 10-year plan and the cancer care plan that are holding up workforce planning. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, pointed out, if we do not have a plan, things will get worse. We will introduce technology, which will not be across the board, and we will then look for workforce that is not trained to deliver it. I hope the Minister will give us some answers about where we are going.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, Amendments 92 and 252, regarding the mental health workforce. More generally, I was very taken by the way this important group of amendments was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, because she is right that all the things that we have been talking about in this Bill so far—all the things we all want to see to improve the health of this country, and all the things we want the NHS to be able to do with, yes, efficiency and increased productivity but also with great care and compassion—will none of them be achieved unless we have the right workforce with the right skills and the education and training in place. That is why I think this is such an important group of amendments.
As I said, I was very pleased to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the mental health workforce. She set out the case clearly, so I do not need to do it again. I simply reiterate that, once we have the long-awaited NHS workforce plan, this will be vital. I would be grateful if the Minister could make some commitment here about how quickly we will see a follow-up mental health workforce plan. We need to see some detail about how the mental health workforce will be recruited and retained and will be able to meet the scale of the mental health demand, which we have debated so many times on so many occasions. That is critical. Both those amendments are important in that respect.
My final point is that, during the passage of the Mental Health Bill, in which many noble Lords here were involved, we all quite rightly thought how important it was that as many mental health services as possible should be located in the community. We all agreed with that; it was the premise, as it were, on which the rest of that legislation was built. As important as the consultants and psychiatrists and so on are—of course they are; it is a wide-ranging workforce and includes mental health nurses and others as well—unless we have that workforce in the right place, in the community, appropriately skilled, educated and trained, we will never be able to deliver those community mental health services, which are so vital. So I was very pleased to support these amendments.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. It is an important amendment raising two fundamental questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. The first is this: ultimately, in preparing a workforce plan that will enjoy broad confidence, there must be external scrutiny of that plan. It would be most helpful if the Minister could confirm how His Majesty’s Government’s healthcare workforce plan will be independently scrutinised. Also, how will His Majesty’s Government be able to reconcile potential differences generated as part of that independent scrutiny with what they consider to be deliverable at this particular moment in time?
The second issue is how a mechanism will be secured—now that the functions independently exercised in NHS England will become the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health—in respect of long-term workforce needs and short-term financial pressures. As we have heard, investment in the workforce is a long-term investment, and Ministers will always be faced with short-term financial problems and crises. Historically in the NHS, the education and training budget has been periodically sacrificed when there have been other service, access and delivery demands on NHS institutions.
In providing an opportunity now with this Bill, how will the Government address that fundamental tension and secure a mechanism both for independent scrutiny and to ensure—with all the powers now lying in the hands of the Secretary of State for Health—that the education and training budget that secures the long-term development of the workforce cannot be sacrificed for short-term exigencies?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak mainly to Amendment 252 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I apologise for not putting my name to it; I wish I had.
But I wish to speak first on two other amendments. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, is useful, and I thank her for the way that she presented it. An independently verified assessment and a 10-year plan is exactly what is needed. But I do have a word of caution. Publication within one month of Royal Assent could be a real challenge, even considering the amount of time that we have been waiting. Also, a plan that is produced that quickly risks being inaccurate, and an inaccurate workforce plan is worse than none at all, because people will make training and funding decisions on it. The amendment from my noble friend Lady Pidgeon offers a better timescale of 12 months from Royal Assent as well as an assessment of the staff needed, a funded plan to close the gap and an annual report to Parliament.
Amendment 252 matters because it names people who are easily forgotten in workforce planning: that is, the staff who care for people with a learning disability. Let me start with why that matters. The latest—in fact the last ever—national LeDeR report found that the median age at death for adults with a learning disability was 62.8 years, compared with 81.8 years for the general population. That is a gap of 19 years. Many noble Lords will know that my own wonderful nephew, Myles, who was 31 years old, is part of that terrible, tragic statistic. Some 39% of deaths of these adults were judged to be avoidable, against 21% for the general population. No workforce plan can fix that alone, but no plan that ignores it is worth having.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 279J seeks to increase the transparency of continuous professional development in terms of the funding and protected time allowed, and requests that the Secretary of State report on and review both those variables within six months of the passing of this Act. Continuous professional development, or CPD, is the mycelium—the material—that nourishes and sustains professional development and progression for nurses and midwives. It is also an evidence-based intervention for staff retention. Were the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, here, she would have added allied health professions to our group, but she will speak to that point on Report.
I am sorry to say that, too often, CPD is paid for by nurses and midwives themselves or treated as an optional extra, although core to training and career development for doctors. Unlike doctors, nurses and midwives lack a predictable career pathway underpinned by training support, despite many elegant models for implementation. Funding has been at the heart of this dilemma, with fluctuations reflecting the buoyancy of the health economy, but a lack of transparency means that such funding is often shrouded in mystery regarding what is available where, when and for whom.
Our amendment seeks to place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on funding and, just as important, as I mentioned, on protected time for training, for the first time. This change will open the black box of CPD support from which helpful benchmarking can ensue, putting what has hitherto been hidden on a more secure footing.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson on Amendment 28, to which I have added my name. My first experience of workforce planning in the NHS was when I applied to be chair of NHS Improvement in 2017. I can remember asking the then Permanent Secretary, who is not in his place at this moment, if there was a plan for the workforce in the NHS. I came from retailing, where we spent a lot of time worrying about long-term people planning. I was absolutely gobsmacked at the time to be told, “Oh no, we don’t really do that here”.
Fast forward two years to 2019, when I was asked by the then Prime Minister to develop a people plan for the NHS. Again, maybe rather naively, I thought, “Good, this is an obviously sensible thing to do”. I remember speaking in this Chamber in 2022 when that people plan had not yet been published. That was not because the numbers had not been run; they had. It was because the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care could not agree on whether it would be a good idea to actually publish them.
I do not think it is an accident that there was a workforce plan published in 2023. It was because of the work we all did in this House with the last health Bill. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, nodding his head, and the Minister was herself instrumental in that pressure that together we put on the then Government to publish a workforce plan. So here we all are again, in slightly different positions in this Chamber, but with basically the same problem that my noble friend set out so beautifully. We must not settle for what we did in 2022, which is just a commitment to publish a workforce plan. There are huge structural disincentives for any Government to publish it, as the Minister is undoubtedly feeling at this moment, which is why we have to put it in the Bill.
The first rule of solving a problem is naming it. If you do not acknowledge the problem of the escalating demands for a growing workforce in our health and care system, you cannot even begin to solve it. I am afraid that by not acknowledging it, we also lose the faith and trust of that very workforce. Go and speak to any junior doctor, and they know there is a problem with this. They know that if we do not find better ways of working in health and care, we will all be working in the NHS by the time we die. We have to name it, but I recognise the very real political problems that naming it presents.
Unless we legislate for this, nothing will change, so this is a very important group. I am sad that, once again, the people of our NHS warrant discussion in only one group in the Bill. Frankly, it should be multiple groups so that we really dig deep on how we not just plan for the numbers but change the culture and leadership in the NHS; but it is where we are for the moment. I very much hope that when we come back on Report, we will find a combined amendment. I recognise the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about Amendment 28 being quite speedy, but it would require a regular five-yearly update, which Amendment 253 would not. Maybe we could all align around some combination of those two amendments. I would very much welcome a discussion with the Minister, because I know that she thought deeply about this when she was sitting in another place in this Chamber.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 240 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My amendment is much more narrowly focused than the excellent debate we have had so far. Nevertheless, I am surprised that this issue has not been addressed before, but it is terribly important and needs to be addressed now. This proposed new clause would require statutory regulators of health and care professions to remove permanently from their professional register any individual found to have committed sexual misconduct. It would also make it clear that erasure from the register is a mandatory sanction and cannot be replaced by a lesser penalty.
At the heart of this amendment lies a simple proposition. Sexual misconduct by a healthcare professional is not merely a disciplinary failing; it is a profound abuse of professional trust. Healthcare professionals occupy positions of exceptional authority. Patients are often frightened, vulnerable, in pain, under sedation, partially clothed or entirely dependent on the judgment and integrity of the clinician before them. Society grants doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals access to situations and circumstances unlike almost any other profession. With that privilege comes an obligation to maintain the highest standards of conduct. When a healthcare professional exploits that position for sexual purposes, they do more than violate professional rules. They betray the trust on which the entire healthcare system and relationship depends.
The current system does not always reflect the gravity of the breaches taking place. Recent analysis by the Royal College of Surgeons has highlighted a disturbing gap between what the medical regulator believes is necessary for public protection and what tribunals ultimately decide. An examination of cases involving proven sexual misconduct found that nearly one in four doctors whom the General Medical Council argued should be struck off were instead given suspensions and allowed the possibility of returning to practice. The cases involved serious misconduct including sexual assault, harassment, grooming and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
That raises fundamental questions. What message does it send to patients when a doctor found guilty of serious sexual misconduct is merely suspended, rather than permanently removed from practice? What confidence can patients have in the regulatory system if findings of grave sexual wrongdoing do not automatically lead to removal from the profession? What reassurance can be offered to those contemplating reporting abuse if they believe that their abuser may eventually be allowed to resume professional practice?
Regulation exists first and foremost to protect the public. Of course, regulators must be fair to practitioners and due process must be observed. Of course, allegations must be thoroughly investigated and misconduct properly proved. But once serious sexual misconduct has been established, the primary duty of the regulator must be the protection of patients and maintenance of public confidence.
Too often, arguments were produced that an individual should be allowed another chance because they had an otherwise distinguished career, because they possessed valuable clinical skills which the NHS needed, or because they expressed remorse or there were mitigating personal circumstances. Such considerations may have relevance in cases involving competence, judgment or less serious professional failings, but they should carry very little weight when the issue is sexual misconduct involving an abuse of professional trust.
The question is not whether the individual remains clinically competent; it is whether they remain fit to hold a position that requires vulnerable patients to place complete trust in their integrity and professionalism. Many professions recognise that certain forms of misconduct are fundamentally incompatible with continued membership of that profession. The deliberate abuse of a position of trust for sexual purposes should be regarded in exactly the same way within the healthcare profession.
The amendment we propose seeks to establish a clear statutory principle. Where sexual misconduct is proven, removal from the professional register should follow automatically—not sometimes, not usually, not subject to different interpretations by different panels and not dependent on which tribunal happens to hear the case, but always. Some may argue that this removes discretion from regulators and tribunals. I would respond that Parliament frequently determines that certain conduct is so serious that a clear and consistent consequence must follow. Consistency is not an enemy of justice. In cases involving abuse of professional trust, consistency can be an essential component of justice. Others may argue that regulators are already reforming their procedures. I welcome these reforms if they are actually happening. I hope the Minister can elucidate on that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I find it extraordinary that we might have to legislate to get what seems very sensible work done. I commend my noble friend on raising this important issue. I also say to my noble friend Lady Harding: just wait until group 45 when we have another opportunity to develop this in more detail. I look forward to leading that group in due course.
I generally support these amendments, particularly the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. There is no doubt that trying to come up with a workforce plan for more than 1 million people, who are working either directly as employees of the NHS or as contractors, may seem overwhelming. But I put it to the Committee that it is absolutely necessary to deliver what is expected and the promises made. I am conscious that a lot of the mechanisms in the Bill are about the Secretary of State effectively taking over the functions of NHS England. Nevertheless, I think it is great. I enjoy this Bill and would like to see even more in the hands of Ministers in trying to make stuff happen. I am a great believer in the Nike model, “Just do it”. At times it was JFDI—please do not put that in Hansard. It is a case of trying to get momentum going.
Even in the short time I was in the Department of Health and Social Care as a Minister, we tried to get certain things moving. I will give an example of what may seem extraordinary and why it still seems to take an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of getting stuff to happen. I was astonished to find out that dentists in Scotland could not automatically come and practise in the NHS in England. We had to do some regulations to enable the General Dental Council to do something, then there was some other local commissioning, instead of just making the rule that anybody who is qualified to work in the NHS as a dentist in any part of the United Kingdom can also do it in England. There is no doubt that we should be thinking about how we ensure that qualifications we recognise from other parts of the world—we need to be careful—match the standards of the NHS in this country. But I would hope that we can agree it, at least among the United Kingdom, without too much effort, without regulation and without bureaucracy.
My noble friend referred to the more than 100,000 vacancies. A lot of those are filled by agency and bank, which we know is very expensive. I give credit to the Government as I think they put a lot of focus at the beginning of their administration on working with NHS England to bring that down. Undoubtedly, that huge cost should be unnecessary in a well-run organisation, particularly where management should be highly rated and world-class. Unfortunately, what we see in reality is often very different. People will leave the NHS or turn to these other forms of helping patients because of the inflexibility across the system, which is a real tragedy.
We see this in a different way when we look at the sickness rates of people who work for the NHS, particularly in secondary care. It continually surprised me that the sickness rates are a lot higher for non-clinical staff than for clinical staff. Something is not right there. I would hope that the level of detail that future Ministers will have at their fingertips to try to understand this, or at least to be able to see the analysis and ask the questions, will prompt a thorough workforce plan.
My noble friend suggested that the NAO is the right body to do this. That could be right. I often find that the NAO is great at looking backwards rather than forwards. In trying to understand some of the operational challenges, it varies. When 40% of our annual budget for day-to-day spending is consumed by the NHS—the Barnett formula makes that even higher in other parts of the United Kingdom—it is right that we have a parliamentary body through the NAO involved in scrutiny to give confidence to the scrutiny of both Houses and to give an element of independence that is not so far from reality. This is so that it can be seen as credible and not necessarily wishful thinking by the Government. Sometimes think tanks will come up with a lot of wishful thinking on what should happen.
I turn to how we get the workforce in, how we keep the workforce—I have already briefly touched on that—and what is happening with the exit. After Covid there was a huge spike—a surge—in people wanting to go to university and train as nurses. It was roughly 22,000 per year for 2022, 2023 and 2024. The sad reality is that a lot of those people who are graduating have not found jobs within the NHS as there have been recruitment freezes. Something has gone fundamentally wrong there. It should not be a surprise to us, sadly, that the attrition rate for nursing degrees is about 20% to 24%.
On the other hand, we have quite a modest number of people going through the nursing apprenticeship degrees—about 2,500 to 3,500 per year on average over the last five years. The advantage those people have is that they have a guaranteed job; they are already working in the NHS. That is concerning, such that the Government put out a nursing graduate guarantee scheme, but I do not think there is any evidence that it has had any impact whatever. I may be wrong on that, and I would be happy to hear from the Minister, but I appreciate that she has a lot to cover in her 20-minute reply. I would be grateful if she could write to me if that information is not available now.
My successor made it a degree requirement to become a paramedic, which had been pushed for by the Royal College of Paramedics and other chief executives. I am still at the stage of questioning why, over the past 15 to 20 years, there has been a massive push to require degrees for lots of public services, such as to be a police constable, whereas when we challenge the private sector and other professionals, we say it is outrageous that you must have a degree if you want to become a solicitor. We need to get our thinking caps on and work with the brightest and the best.
I commend my noble friend Lady Harding. She gave up a lot to run NHS Improvement and work alongside other people there, particularly during challenging times. This can be done. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, was also exemplary in his running of the NHS during his time there. Not everybody has all the skills, but together we can make it better. That is why I support something as serious as this being in the Bill. As I mentioned, it is something that I will explore in a later group.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has filled the missing gap regarding the care service being part of the workforce plan. That is understandable, given the ongoing work on the creation of a national care service. It was Jeremy Hunt who requested that health and social care be put together. He recognised that having these work together was part of the same desirable outcome, and that it made sense to broaden that. However, I appreciate that that risks a strategy that will cover between 3 million and 3.5 million people in England alone, which is challenging.
I appreciate that when a new Secretary of State comes in they may be in the middle of a Bill that they never dreamed of doing and must now look at the detail of the NHS 10-year workforce plan. That is why “imminent”, which normally means that the Government are waiting for a grid slot, becomes “in due course”, which means it has almost certainly been completely rewritten from word one. This will take a bit of time, but the clock is ticking. We know there was a change made on waiting lists and that we need the staff to get that done. That is why, for the benefit of patients, I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I also strongly welcome the leadership that the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, has shown in tabling her amendment, which is before the Committee. To paraphrase her speech, the proposition, in essence, is that Parliament should help save the Government from themselves. When it comes to these workforce questions, the dual pathologies of short-termism multiplied by wishful thinking equals the problem that we have. There is a need to do something better. In supporting other amendments in this group, I will briefly illustrate why that might be the case in respect of mental health and primary care.
On Amendments 92 and 232, which concern mental health, I think we can all recognise there is quite a degree of uncertainty as to what mental health services will have to address on the demand side over the course of the next decade. It is not just the review, which recently took place and has partly concluded, on the increase in self-reported mental health problems and the question around unmet need and diagnostic fluidity. Look at the NEETs problem, the huge fiscal crunch that the country faces and the spending review next year, which will be a slaughterhouse.
Solving that problem will require much greater flexibility in offering targeted services and support, rather than simply putting people on to benefits. That will require a movement from what our colleagues in Grand Committee, who are noting Fortifying the Fiscal Framework, will know as AME spending into DEL spending and translating automatic entitlement to benefits into services. Some of those services will have to be mental health services, which will require a workforce. Therefore, we need a much more forensic approach to some of the scenarios and how we will respond to this from the point of view not just of the NHS but of the fiscal sustainability of the United Kingdom. It is high stakes getting this stuff right.
Primary care is less a demand-side question and more of a supply-side conundrum. In my opinion, a lot of what is happening in the gulf between the increased population and the decreased availability of GPs has been misdiagnosed. However, a very useful quantitative analysis published by the BMJ in 17 September last year shows that part of what is going on is that a much higher proportion of GPs and consultants who come through training are choosing to work part-time, and that gap has widened over the course of the past decade. In 2015, the ratio of FTs to GP headcounts was 0.81—in other words, the typical GP in general practice was working four-fifths of the week in NHS general practice. That had fallen to about 73% by 2024, whereas, throughout that period, NHS consultants were working over 90% of their week in their hospital or in specialist care.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I also welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. I will speak to Amendment 253, which is in my name. Before I do, I will say that when I started in general practice in 1991, 80% of the GP workforce were men. We now have a reversal of that, so part of the issue is the feminisation of the GP workforce. Women get pregnant and care for small children and our elders. This was predictable. When I was a GP leader, I said that we needed to replace every retiring male GP with 2.4 GPs—men and women, for various reasons. Nevertheless, I digress.
I will speak on district nurses, who are our generalist practitioners in patients’ homes. I will paint a little picture. It is a wet Tuesday evening in November and somewhere in a village, town or city near any of us a district nurse is parking outside a terraced house. Inside is an elderly man with a leg ulcer that will not heal. Down the road there is a woman with diabetes who cannot manage her insulin on her own. A few streets further on a family is sitting with their mother in her final days, frightened and exhausted. The district nurse is the only one who can put up a syringe driver. This district nurse will visit them all. She will dress their wounds, check their blood, ease their pain and hold their hands. Tomorrow, she will do it again. District nurses are there every day of the year, in every corner of this country, at almost every hour of the day and night.
Successive Governments have promised to shift care out of hospitals and into the community. This Government have done the same, and I welcome that. But that shift will be extremely difficult without district nurses. They are not an optional extra; they are the linchpin. Neighbourhood health without district nurses is a building without a foundation. As the Nursing and Midwifery Council has said, district nursing is key to the achievement of the shift in healthcare that this Government seek.
I will remind your Lordships of some of the figures—we have heard a lot of figures today, so I will cut them back. According to analysis by the Nuffield Trust, in 2009 there were some 7,600 full-time equivalent district nurses in the NHS. By 2024, there were 4,322, a fall of 43%. Put simply, for every seven district nurses we had in 2009, we now have four. Over the same period, the number of adult nurses working in hospitals rose by 43%. The contrast is striking. We have said that we want care closer to home, but our workforce has continued to develop in favour of the hospital.
Some will say that this is an artefact of how we count the data because, around 2011, some community services moved to voluntary and independent providers, and some district nurses consequently stopped appearing in NHS figures. That is true, but it does not explain a decline that has continued over 15 years. The picture is even more concerning when we take population growth and ageing into account. On that basis, district nursing has fallen by 55%. The decline is continuing. The Care Quality Commission’s latest State of Care report found that the number of qualified district nurses fell by a further 5% between 2024-25 and 2025-26.
The problem is not just numbers; there is also the question of skills and experience. More than one in four of those recorded as district nurses are employed below band 6, which is the grade at which qualified district nurses would normally start. So we are losing not just numbers but the expertise on which this whole community service depends. What does this mean for patients? When district nurse teams are stretched, the first things to go are the things that matter most and are seen least: psychological support, prevention—such as looking at trip hazards and adequate lighting—and continence care. That care is now too often delivered less well, not delivered at all or pushed on to services that are already at breaking point. Investing in district nursing is not simply an investment in better care; it is an investment in preventing avoidable deterioration, unnecessary hospital attendances and expensive admissions.
The pressure is set to increase further. The Nuffield Trust estimates that the demand for district nurses could rise by 34% by 2040, based on the projected population numbers. So demand has grown but the service has contracted. This is not a failure of district nurses, who have held the line with extraordinary dedication. It is a failure of planning, as we have heard, as well as priorities and political will. That is exactly why this amendment matters. We cannot keep promising to move care into the community without first asking how many people we need to deliver it.
District nurses are indispensable. We cannot deliver neighbourhood health, safely shift care out of hospitals and provide dignified care at home without a properly trained and adequately staffed district nursing workforce. We know what happens when plans fail, and we will see the numbers of patients admitted to hospital. My question to the Minister is: will the Government commit to assessing the number of district nurses needed to meet current and projected demand, identifying the shortfall and setting out a funded plan to address it?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said. A very high percentage of our district nurses come from other countries. Therefore, what will the Minister do, talking to the Home Office, about the supply of district nurses that we will undoubtedly need in the future?
I will make one or two brief points, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about planning. If any member of the Committee has spoken to anybody currently employed by an ICB, they will know that seared in their minds is the date on which they were told, about 18 months ago, that their jobs were going to go. For the last 18 months, they have continued to work under that threat. I do not know any other employer that would do that to a workforce and expect to retain it. I talked to members of staff who work for ICBs. I had the misfortune to ask them, “How are you?”, and 25 minutes later I knew how they were—it was not good. I rather suspect that the biggest demand for mental health services at the moment is coming from members of NHS staff, because they have been living with this uncertainty for 18 months.
I am not being flippant but, if the Minister cannot share great detail with us, can she at least tell us the Government’s working assumptions about the number of staff there will be in the future who are members of ICB staff now? I suspect that the attrition rate will be enormous, especially given the age profile of some members of ICB staff, in particular, who have built up specialist expertise over many years. Secondly, what working assumptions are the Government making about members of staff, particularly nursing staff, who will move out of the acute sector and into the community?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, since taking over as our spokesperson, I have lost count of the number of times the Minister has talked about the workforce strategy that will at some point emerge from the department. I am not sure whether we will be given a season this evening, but hopefully it will be published soon.
My Amendment 253, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, have added their names to, would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish
“a health and care workforce strategy for England”.
I have included “care” on purpose because the two are so importantly linked. It must assess the staff needed to meet current and projected demands, expressly including registered nurses and primary care practitioners, and it must contain a funded plan to close staffing gaps. Annual progress reports would be laid before Parliament, keeping that issue on the agenda for us all. Putting staff in is an important marker too. We need to properly plan and invest in our workforce, both health and care, hand in hand.
The Royal College of Nursing supports this amendment, as do a number of representatives of primary care. Too often, primary care seems to be forgotten in the debate on workforce, but it is critical: GPs and district nurses—we have just heard passionately from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, about their role—as well as optometrists, dentists and pharmacists. As the Government look to shift services into neighbourhoods and hospitals—something I think we all support—this is really important. The early years workforce is important as well, as are health visitors.
The other amendments in this group, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, all require similar reports, perhaps on different timescales. Some are focused on really important areas such as the mental health workforce, the education and training that is needed alongside a workforce plan, and continuing professional development. Noble Lords have flagged the current vacancy rates in a number of roles, as well as skills shortages and the need for independent scrutiny of the workforce plan.
My noble friend Lord Scriven rightly stressed, using his personal family experience, the need for nurses for people with learning disabilities and the investment in that workforce, as well as the need to understand the whole workforce, looking at models in, for example, the Netherlands. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, talked about the complexity around primary care and the challenges with part-time workers, with perhaps more women coming into the workforce, as well as the challenges of work-life balance. Some people want to work part-time rather than full-time. These are key questions for the Government on this issue of workforce. I look forward to a comprehensive response from the Minister, and possibly a date, a season or a hint of when we might at last see that workforce strategy.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this has been a crucial debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling and speaking to their amendments, which raise fundamental questions about the future of the NHS workforce, the quality of care patients can expect and the Government’s ability to deliver health service reform.
The amendments from my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, go to the heart of a simple but vital question: how can this Government, or indeed any Government, credibly plan for the future of the NHS without an independently verified assessment of the workforce that we need? As my noble friend said, the previous Conservative Government, albeit belatedly, recognised the importance of this challenge when we published the first NHS Long Term Workforce Plan in 2023. This was a baseline step in establishing a long-term approach to workforce planning, with clear ambitions to expand domestic training, improve retention and reduce our reliance on international recruitment.
We recognised then, as we must recognise now, that workforce planning cannot be conducted from one spending review to the next. Training doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals takes years, and decisions made today will determine the quality and availability of care for patients a decade, or decades, from now. Yet we are still waiting, as other noble Lords said, for the Government’s new 10-year workforce plan. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, offered some possible reasons for the delay.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debate we have just had. Unsurprisingly, but not exclusively, a lot of it focused on the promised workforce plan, so I will address that straight off. There has been lots of thought about why it is “in due course”, and that is the situation. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, appreciated the impact, without blame, of a new Secretary of State: she is well placed to speak to that point.
Let me say that, first, our absolute commitment to the workforce plan for the NHS remains. There is no shift in that. I also say that, as I mentioned, the reason we await it and it is “in due course” is that, as is absolutely reasonable and right, a new Secretary of State has to be allowed to provide views; that is the situation. I hope that clarifies the position.
With permission, I will address Amendments 28, 92, 240, 252, 253 and 279J together. Amendments 28 and 253 have been tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and Lady Pidgeon. I absolutely agree that the health and care workforce is fundamental. It is fundamental to everything we are doing and to this entire debate, and it is fundamental to the interests of patients, which is why we will publish the 10-year workforce plan. As most noble Lords spoke to the plan, I will emphasise that the Secretary of State already has duties to ensure effective planning and the delivery of healthcare, education and training—as has been called for, rightly—and also has a duty to report on the system for assessing and meeting NHS workforce needs.
To the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar, Lord Stevens and Lord Kamall, I can say that an expert panel of external stakeholders has scrutinised the 10-year workforce plan approach to workforce planning. To the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I can confirm that sickness absence is indeed factored in to the workforce planning process. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, talking about the way in which the workforce has changed; that is absolutely right and, again, the plan will reflect that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, raised points about short-termism versus long-termism in workforce planning, and so on. I am sure noble Lords will understand that decisions about the education and training of healthcare professionals will continue to be driven by data, based on evidence and intelligence led. That will be through the new restructured system. The point here is to make sure that we have the right people in the right places, with the right skills, to care for patients when they need it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about a bottleneck in medical training pathways. I can say on that point that noble Lords will recall the passage of what became the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act, and we are easing competition for medical training by prioritising UK-trained graduates for foundation specialty training places, alongside some other groups. The recently agreed 2026 resident doctors deal also significantly expands specialty training places by up to 4,500 over three years, including 1,000 next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, made a very strong, and correct, point about the role of district nurses, borne out by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Through NHS England, we are actively monitoring future nursing and midwifery student numbers and will continue to assess the 2025-26 graduate guarantee as a mechanism. There is a wide range of measures to support students, educators and universities with the transition into employment, including Student Hub, which offers guidance and resources for students and newly qualified practitioners.
To the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I will be pleased to speak to colleagues in the Home Office about the supply of district nurses, if not directly then through the appropriate Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, in her opening comments made reference to numbers of GPs. We have committed £292 million for GP recruitment this year, which translates to 1,600 GPs, and there are 4,100 more GPs than a year ago. It is important to note that, while we wait for a workforce plan, we have not waited in taking action. For example, we have resolved the long-running doctors’ dispute and we have published a set of core NHS staff standards.
On adult social care, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that was another point I pushed when we last debated this matter and when we were in Opposition. There was also a comment about legislating on planning duties. That would pre-empt the vital work to develop a national care service which will follow from the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which we will receive in the summer. That work will have important implications for the shape and skills of the future adult social care workforce. I agree with noble Lords: it is inextricably linked with the NHS workforce, which is a point I have made over a number of years. In the meantime, we will commit to publishing a workforce plan and we will set out immediate action to further support and develop the adult social care workforce.
My noble friend Lady Rafferty tabled Amendment 279J on continued professional development for nurses and midwives. I agree that that is critical for patient safety and outcomes. That is why we are investing in their professional development, with £181 million of continued professional development funding allocated for nurses, midwives, nursing associates and allied healthcare professionals in 2026-27 as part of a three-year cycle and to support equitable access to professional development. To respond to her questions, I can tell my noble friend that organisations are responsible for the planning and governance of their CPD, to ensure that staff have a fair opportunity to benefit from the funding. We expect employers to provide support, supervision and guidance, and to foster a culture of continuous learning, which, again, we would expect throughout the NHS.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks as short as possible. I am grateful to the Minister for answering so many questions and setting out so comprehensively what the Government are already doing in this space.
The Minister mentioned external scrutiny of the Government’s workforce plan. It was not totally clear to me whether that meant published scrutiny. I would be grateful if she could pick that up in writing to explain what independent scrutiny has been and will be done, and what is going to be published.
I am taking a leaf out of the book of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in that I would like to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, of 2022—she put it better than I could:
“This powerful debate has focused on two simple truths. First, without the full team of people in place at the right time, it will not be possible to provide the health, social care and public health services we need. The second simple truth is that this will not just happen on its own”.—[Official Report, 3/3/22; col. 987.]
I am afraid that everything I have heard this evening suggests it is even more important that we put this amendment in the Bill. I am very glad that this Government remain committed to producing a workforce plan in due course. I would like to ensure that all Governments are committed to producing workforce plans in a timely manner and with the independent scrutiny that is required. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to return to this on Report if the Government do not produce their own recommendations, which I hope they will do.
Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:45 - Division on Lord Farmer’s Motion - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 67 - Lord Farmer’s Motion disagreed.
Lord Farmer
That this House regrets that the Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026 remove and restrict social visits as a punishment despite (1) the potential effects on rehabilitation, prisoner behaviour and family relationships, (2) prison governors’ hesitancy, and (3) the lack of an assessment of likely impacts.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak and have made time to take part this evening.
The Victims and Courts Act 2026 gave judges the power to impose in-prison punishments for non-attendance at sentencing hearing. The MoJ gave these new judicial sanctions a big push in the media last month when they were laid as the Sentencing Act 2020 (Prison Sanctions) Regulations 2026. I agree with the MoJ’s intent to make:
“Cowardly killers who dodge sentencing face tough new prison punishments”.
These punishments include no visits for up to 27 days and restriction of social visits to once every 28 days for up to 84 days. For these prison sanctions to have effect, the Sentencing Code requires that they correspond to the punishments that may be imposed by a governor under prison rules, so governors who oversee them need parallel powers—hence the Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026. These are the subject of my regret Motion because they give governors new disciplinary powers that do not correspond to judges’ very limited sanctions but far exceed them. Whereas a judge can restrict visits at the very beginning of a sentence, governors are now able to do so at any point to punish any offence.
The prisoner discipline procedures adjudications policy framework sets parameters as to the seriousness of the offence but, first, these could change and, secondly, why are such sanctions generally available? Removing visits for non-attendance at sentence hearings is reasonable and hard to disagree with. However, the measure has been expanded beyond this initial justification and prison rules changed in a way that was not made clear during passage of the parental Act. The Government might claim they are being tough on crime, but at best it is an ineffective measure to that end and at worst a counterproductive measure. It is not being soft on crime to oppose it but the opposite.
Social visits can restrain bad behaviour because prosocial relationships improve rehabilitation—the lack of such relationships is a criminogenic need. These are an individual’s characteristics, traits, problems or issues that directly relate to their likelihood of reoffending. Offender assessment system data says that 72% of all offenders in custody have a relationships need, and 80% of women in prison. Obviously, governors are immediately concerned with reoffending that happens inside their jails. This is the justification for making harsher punishments available. However, I saw during my first review for the Government how family visits can turn around dreadful behaviour.
The mother of one young man complained to the deputy governor of a prison I visited about allegations of unfair treatment made by her son. The deputy helped her understand that the shoe was actually on the other foot. On her next visit this mother put her son right and told him to get a grip—his behaviour changed utterly. This anecdote is backed up by the MoJ’s own research on reoffending, which found that the protective factor of positive family relationships can moderate risk factors including having an attitudinal criminogenic need: a way of thinking, belief or attitude likely to lead to further offences. That young man would probably be among the 85% of male prisoners in that category.
Prisoners who have family visits are significantly less likely to reoffend than those who do not. The old MoJ figure of 39% dwarfed the effectiveness of other rehabilitation pathways such as education, employment and drug treatment. It was the reason they asked me to do the reviews, first for the male estate and secondly for all female offenders. HMPPS’s commitment to implementing all my reviews’ recommendations since 2017 has gone far beyond words on the page. It knows that the greater prize is to shift the culture towards a greater emphasis on improving relationships, whether between officers and prisoners, between senior officers and junior officers they are mentoring or between prisoners themselves. The transforming prisons directorate is reconceiving prisons and designing new builds around the need for relationships.
Yet, despite 10 years of progress, social contact is now a disciplinary sanction. The Prison Reform Trust says that this devalues family members, treats them as instruments of prison discipline and completely neglects the impact on family members despite them having done nothing wrong. Thankfully, those with children will not be so punished, but such prisoners already have a far greater incentive to keep out of trouble in prison. Category A prisoners in HMP Frankland told me they walk away from conflict because their families and children will hear of altercations and will want to know that they are safe.
Indeed, I have heard that governors do not want to use this sanction as they see it as counterproductive to running a safe regime. The report on prison riots in 1989 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, warned that messing with the ability of families to visit was one of the most resented acts the Prison Service could take.
To conclude, this is the recurring problem that Governments of all colours face: how to appear tough on crime—which this is not—without turning our prisons into overcrowded places where rehabilitation becomes impossible. With attention on capacity pressures and early release, I fear measures are being introduced that make regimes appear tougher on crime but that are simply tougher on prisoners and more toxic to a rehabilitation culture. If this increases in-prison and community reoffending, our prisons will simply fill up.
King and Willmott’s Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation tracked 40 years of tough penal policy and the personalities responsible for crafting it. They found time and again that once politicians had moved on from the justice portfolio, they would acknowledge the futility of bowing down to public opinion instead of doing more to shape it. I am grateful to the Minister for making herself available to discuss this SI, and I wonder if there might be room for manoeuvre. The Government could rewrite and reissue it, so that removal of visits could be used only as the judge-imposed sanction for non-attendance at sentence hearing. This could be achieved by taking it out of Rule 55, covering governor punishments for any offence, and by following the example of Rule 55AB, which specifically requires a prisoner to pay for damage to prison property once found guilty. This could then be new Rule 55AC. I hope this will be considered and I beg to move.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I normally back wholeheartedly initiatives that improve rehabilitation of prisoners. However, in this instance, I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, because I believe that we must look at these new rules through the lens of fundamental justice, public confidence and the rights of victims’ families.
These new rules counter a disturbing trend of offenders refusing to leave their cells to face the court at the time of their sentencing. Let us remind ourselves that the public and victims’ families are demanding action. We saw the murderers of nine year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa refusing to face the families whose lives they had destroyed. This trend is becoming increasingly common; it was adopted by the serial killers at the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Southport murderer. Grieving families sitting in a courtroom watching an empty dock because a perpetrator simply chooses to opt out is an intolerable insult. It makes closure extremely difficult for them and makes a mockery of our justice system.
Traditional internal punishments, such as adding days to a sentence, mean absolutely nothing to a murderer already facing a whole life or half a century behind bars. If a prisoner deliberately defies the authority of the court, there must be immediate, tangible loss of privileges within the prison estate. I know that critics argue that these rules risk damaging rehabilitation, but true rehabilitation cannot begin without accountability. An offender who refuses to look their victims in the eye is actively rejecting the first step of reform and rehabilitation.
The Government have approached this issue with care. There are vital safeguards: the rules explicitly exempt an offender’s children from these restrictions. Wider privileges are being targeted—visits must be earned through compliance with our justice system. We need to back the Government in restoring this vital lever of authority; however, we must ensure that its implementation has checks and balances to avoid abuses. So I have a question for my noble friend the Minister: how do the Government plan to monitor the implementation of these rules—in particular, how the prison governors are using them, and that there are no violations?
In recognising that public confidence in our courts is fragile, these rules protect children, target defiance and ensure that court orders are respected. I urge the House to reject this Motion.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this matter before the House and for all he has done over the years in trying to improve rehabilitation in prisons. However, I also have great sympathy with the Government, because they are faced with the action of both political parties in winding up the prison population, which is probably the root cause of all these problems. I will not say anything about that tonight.
I want to raise the point that shines through the excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Select Committee, which is that we do not seem to understand two things. First, what is the cause of the inexorable rise in the number of disciplinary offences and their sanctions, which have had to be increased? Secondly, if you can find out what the cause is, it is normally useful to try to understand the most effective way of preventing it. It is very clear that we need a proper examination of the cause and the best way of trying to deal with the problem.
It might be thought that we should set up some Grand Committee or ask people to look again and take a year or so to resolve this. I do not believe that is necessary. We have two expert charities—the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League—and, as the Minister knows, we have admirable governors in our prisons and other experts in penology.
What is called for, as soon as is practicable, is an answer to the question of why prison indiscipline is getting worse, what the best way of preventing it is and how what is proposed in this statutory instrument is working. Instinctively, I feel that cutting off social relations is bad for prisoners. I also believe that incentives are probably more effective, but that is a belief; it is not based on evidence. Experience has taught me that you need to find out the why, the solution and the best way to deal with a problem. We cannot afford to make a mistake, because adding days to prisoners is increasing our prison population and we cannot afford not to seek rehabilitation through visits by families. The two policies seem wrong, but I do not know and we need to know why.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Prison Rules 1999 already provide prison governors with an extensive suite of disciplinary measures. Prisoners who offend against prison discipline may be cautioned, suffer forfeiture of privileges, be excluded from work that they carry out in the prison estate, suffer a deduction or loss of earnings, be confined to their cells, suffer removal from the wing upon which they are located or experience payback punishment. What do these existing measures have in common? They are all directed against the offender himself—his privileges, earnings, freedom of movement on the wing or opportunity to work. Prisoners serve terms of imprisonment because of things they have done; we punish people for the crimes they commit, not the crimes others commit.
My concern is that this amendment to the rules will punish not only the prisoner but those who would seek to visit the prisoner—those on the outside who have just as much interest in his rehabilitation as any. Those people, those loved ones, have not offended or breached prison discipline but, just as the prisoner will be punished by being deprived of their society, they will be punished by being deprived of the society of the prisoner.
It is undesirable to impose penalties on a person for something that someone else has done. Prison discipline is exercised summarily, necessarily and responsibly by prison governors, but I emphasise summarily. It may well be that a prison governor contemplating the use of this punishment could easily be expected to overlook the effect on someone outside who would wish to pay a social visit—a parent, relative, good friend or genuine well-wisher. Let prisons help prisoners amend themselves for the better. Let us not punish people on the outside for the disciplinary lapses of those inside prisons whom they love.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. When we debated the Victims and Courts Bill, I had qualms about the targeted punishment of withdrawing social visits, even from those prisoners despicably refusing to attend sentencing hearings. I do not like the families, even of selfish, cowardly perpetrators, being used as a stick. Then I thought of the families of the victims, shown such contempt by such prisoners, and I swallowed my concerns.
But if ever there were an example of why we should beware laws passed here being weighed down by secondary legislation powers, it is the dangerous slippery slope on display here. It shows another type of contempt: contempt for democracy. No one in Parliament agreed to this mission creep that has amended the Prison Rules to allow restrictions on family visits as a general disciplinary punishment. None of us gave permission for that. Why would we, when it shows politicians’ contempt for any of the common-sense advice or on-the-ground expertise of prison officers and criminal justice campaigners about how real discipline works in prisons?
One of the most effective restraints on bad behaviour or criminal activity inside, or indeed on release from prison, is the influence of families and loved ones. Does the Minister understand that the way for a prisoner to have any sense of regret or shame for past crimes, or to be inspired to change, is via their mum, their fiancé, their kids? Not letting them down can be a powerful antidote to getting into further trouble. These social visits can lead to encouragement, even to tellings off, and while it cannot conquer all of the toxicity and brutality of prisons, having to face down your mum can do a hell of a lot.
Cutting off this pro-social influence is inexplicably foolish, and it is performative toughness. If the Government really want to be tough on the chaos in too many prisons, then do the hard jobs: tackle the thriving drugs industry behind bars; take on the unchecked growth of Islamist gangs; expose how human rights laws are being deployed to limit staff’s ability to exert authority and impose rules. Do not take the soft option of weaponising family visits. If only the Government used their executive powers to tackle cuts in purposeful activity and prison education, to invest in training and support for inexperienced, overworked staff.
I have been involved in the prison project Debating Matters Beyond Bars. The most moving moments have been those prisoner debaters beaming at their certificates because they cannot wait to send them home, and the letters from their wives and their kids saying “It helped him see another future: something to be proud of for his family”. Families are the best rehabilitation aid ever; they are cheap, and you dispense with them at your peril.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, irrefutable evidence from the academic sector, independent reviews, Government-led inquiries and the Ministry of Justice itself demonstrates that maintaining family and social relationships is fundamental to prisoners’ wellbeing, rehabilitation and successful reintegration. It is therefore puzzling, to say the very least, that the Government choose to introduce a punishment that risks undermining the very conditions necessary for safer prisons, improved behaviour and successful rehabilitation.
The lack of adequate consultation with prison groups is also of great concern. Many have expressed doubts on the proposed restrictions, pointing out the possible negative consequences. These include the damaging effect on children, who are innocent and for whom keeping in touch with relatives in prison may be an important means of emotional stability and support.
Prisoners, especially those from minority groups, tend to convey instances of bullying, unfair treatment and other inequalities to family members during visits, which are then reported onward by those family members. Financial hardship, geographical distance and other inequalities already significantly restrict family visits. Do the Government really believe that removing a prisoner’s source of emotional support is likely to improve behaviour, or will it remove one of the strongest incentives for positive change?
The new powers are disproportionate, they infringe prisoners’ fundamental rights to family life and they are counterproductive. They directly contradict the Government’s wider objectives of improving aspects of prisons and of prisoners’ lives. Family contact must be recognised as an essential component of rehabilitation and not simply as a privilege that can be withdrawn as punishment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this. I hate staying up late, but this is worth it, because this is a cruel idea. The Government say that they want to tackle rising indiscipline and violence in prisons, and of course they do; nobody wants to see prisoners or prison staff living in unsafe conditions. But I am against this decision to take away social visits as a punishment, not least because the Government’s own evidence tells us that family contact is one of the things that helps people behave better, supports rehabilitation and reduces reoffending.
Plus, we should not pretend that violence and indiscipline in prisons have appeared out of nowhere; they have to be understood in the context of years of pressure on the prison system, overcrowding, poor conditions and staff shortages—and the staff who are there are often inexperienced. What is the Government’s response? More punishment.
The Ministry of Justice produced its research into the impact of social visits on reoffending, self-harm and accommodation after release. It found that people who receive visits were significantly less likely to have a proven reoffence within a year of release. They committed fewer further offences and took longer to reoffend. They were also less likely to self-harm and more likely to have accommodation when they left prison, and the more visits people received, the lower the reoffending rate.
In March, HM Inspectorate of Prisons published its thematic review and found that regular family contact was associated with better mental health, improved behaviour and greater feelings of safety. People who received regular visits or social video calls were less likely to be at risk of suicide or self-harm. They were also less likely to experience bullying and victimisation, and less likely to be restrained or held in segregation. The inspectorate was clear that family contact should be treated as an essential part of prison safety and rehabilitation, so why are the Government taking away something that their own evidence says helps make prisons safer?
We constantly hear the refrain that prisons have to be a place of punishment, but you cannot keep making punishments harsher; it just does not work like that. At some point, you end up filling up more prison spaces with extra days—days when prisoners should be on licence and supervised. I ask the Government to please rethink this. It is a very nasty move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Government advanced two inconsistent reasons for the statutory instrument. First, they say that the incidence of violence and rule-breaking in prisons is going up, and therefore governors and independent adjudicators need harsher or stricter options available to punish the serious and repeat rule-breaking. Secondly, they say that, because the Sentencing Act 2026 reduced the amount of time that prisoners will serve on their sentence, governors need to have the ability to keep them in.
It strikes me as odd and sad that the central question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has not been thought about by the Government: has anybody asked themselves why prisoners commit acts of indiscipline or break the rules in the first place? It is largely because they are incarcerated for 23 out of 24 hours a day, in a multi-occupied cell, they essentially live in a public lavatory, and they are largely mentally ill, illiterate and innumerate. The Minister used to work in Holloway prison, so she will know that everyone who spoke this evening, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, said some quite sensible things.
If you keep people in those conditions and fail to give them a sense of purpose and to rehabilitate them, you not only let them down, and endanger the lives and working conditions of the governors and the prison staff, but you waste taxpayer money and do not provide us with the requisite safety that we require of a rehabilitated prisoner—because they come back just as they went in, and so they reoffend. I ask the Government to be a little more intelligent and think a little more strategically about this, and not to resort to the usual government rubbish of reacting in a knee-jerk way without having applied their minds to the problem in front of them.
It is not surprising that, when prison governors and other prison group directors were asked about these measures, they were hesitant and sceptical. If the Minister believes that this will be a good idea, when the professionals in the business clearly think it will not, she needs to have another think.
I will not complain about the English of the Explanatory Notes, but when the Government say:
“Engagement with internal stakeholders to explore the impact on external policy areas, such as prisoner family and relations, trade unions, and third sector stakeholders, has commenced and will continue to occur prior to this instrument coming into force”,
I ask myself, first, what on earth that means, secondly, has it happened, and, thirdly, when will we hear about the result. Please do not allow this House to be fooled into thinking that this is a good idea; it plainly is not.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is quite right to draw the attention of the House to this ill-judged measure. To oppose it is in no way to condone the crime or the criminal, but it is to acknowledge the appalling conditions in many of our prisons, which are giving rise to discontent and the offences that are being committed, as we just heard graphically described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.
Given that the majority of the prison population consists of people with numerous problems, disadvantages and frustrations—many of whom would have been much better and more successfully dealt with outside the prison system—clashes with authority within are inevitable, and the conditions they now are serving in make that only worse. The potential doubling of penalties under these rule changes risks dramatically damaging the mental health of the recipients, but I will concentrate my remarks on their potential to add to the chances of prison leavers being homeless.
People leaving prison regularly walk out straight into homelessness. In the year to March, the number averaged 300 a week. Is it any wonder that, for some, reoffending seems the easiest way to find accommodation and a degree of security? These ill-thought-through measures are likely only to add to that problem.
Many prisoners have family relationships that are, at best, fragile. Visits from relations can at least preserve those flimsy relationships—they might even nurture them. They could be crucial in ensuring that, on release, the prisoner has a home to go to. Damaging those relationships by forbidding visits seems a dangerously short-sighted move. All the evidence is that strong relationships on the outside can be pivotal in allowing a prisoner to rebuild his life after release. Having friends or family prepared to provide immediate accommodation may be the crucial factor in preventing the individual reoffending. Governors should never jeopardise that chance.
As a society, we surely should not tolerate people being released from incarceration by the state into a life on the streets. Last month, it was alleged that, on release, some prisoners were being issued with tents. The Government’s response to that was simply: “It is not government policy”. To underline why I believe it is so vital that governors should not endanger any chance of prisoners leaving into proper accommodation, I ask the Minister for a simple yes or no. Under this Government, have prisoners been issued with sleeping bags and tents on their release?
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, reducing reoffending is widely recognised as the central purpose of our prison system. This was true when I worked in the Ministry of Justice 10 years ago and remains so today. Yet these rules, allowing social visits to be removed or restricted as a punishment, potentially undermine one of the very things that can help reduce reoffending.
We know that our prisons are full to bursting. We cannot carry on as we have been. We also know what helps reduce reoffending: education and training, drug and alcohol treatment, preparation for employment, stable accommodation on release and, where needed, mental health support. Provision remains inadequate. HM Inspectorate of Prisons reported last year that 94 of the 104 closed prisons it had inspected were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. At a time when public finances are stretched and difficult trade-offs are having to be made about what to prioritise, many of these areas are not being adequately resourced.
There is one area, though, which the state does not need to fund and which will save money over the long term, if it leverages it: developing strong social networks around offenders. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer and Dr Samantha Callan for their important work in this area over many years. The Farmer review makes a compelling case for maintaining family ties during imprisonment. It cites Ministry of Justice research showing that for a prisoner who receives visits from a family member the odds of reoffending are 39% lower than for one who does not.
Removing visits risks undermining precisely the relationships that can help prevent reoffending after release—a point that has been made many times already. Family relationships should not be treated as a luxury item for those who behave well. Ensuring an ordered and disciplined environment is the foundation for a well-run prison. The irony here is that these rules risk undermining one of the building blocks that can help create the very behaviour and stability that prison discipline seeks to achieve. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, we need to be asking how we can strengthen family ties, not treating them as a special treat that can be removed as punishment. That governors have themselves expressed hesitancy over these changes and that their likely impacts have not been assessed mean that we should surely proceed with caution.
Ultimately, prison discipline should support a prison system that protects the public, and this must mean reducing reoffending. We should not risk undermining that objective without a clear understanding of the consequences.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we support the broad thrust of the Government’s proposals, but, like many others, we are concerned by the proposal to withdraw family visits as a punishment in the cases covered by the SI. That is why we support the regret Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Few have done more than he has to demonstrate the importance of family relationships in reducing reoffending and helping prisoners rebuild their lives.
I chair your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee. In our report on prisons last year, we argued that the prisoners’ punishment is the loss of liberty, and that the job of prisons is to reduce reoffending through education, purposeful activity, tackling addiction and mental health problems, and preparing people for release. That also means, as so many people have said, maintaining family relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has rightly described, family ties are the golden thread in reducing reoffending. Evidence shows that family contact improves prison behaviour, supports mental health, reduces self-harm and, importantly, reduces reoffending.
Against that backdrop, I find it extraordinary that the Government should introduce rules allowing family visits to be withdrawn as a disciplinary punishment. Of course, effective sanctions are needed, but why introduce a punishment which undermines the very thing that makes prisons and the public safer?
There are three fundamental objections. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, it is counterproductive. Family contact provides hope, emotional stability and an incentive to behave responsibly; removing it risks increasing isolation, frustration and resentment.
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said, it punishes innocent people. Partners, parents, adult children and other relatives have committed no offence, yet lose contact with someone they love. The exemption for children under 18 is, of course, welcome, but what about everybody else?
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, it damages relationships essential for successful resettlement. Families often provide accommodation, practical help and emotional support on release. Why weaken those relationships?
Disciplinary sanctions may be necessary, but they should address a prisoner’s behaviour without damaging relationships that will help to prevent future crime. We should strengthen relationships that help prisoners to turn their lives around, not take them away. The consequences will be felt by prisoners, innocent families and, ultimately, by the communities to which prisoners return. If we are serious about fewer victims, safer communities and less crime, we must stop treating family contact as a privilege that can be withdrawn and instead recognise it as essential to reducing reoffending and protecting the public. I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we appreciate and acknowledge the extensive work and experience of my noble friend Lord Farmer in this area and therefore understand what has prompted him to table this regret Motion. However, we cannot offer him support on this occasion.
This statutory instrument will increase the powers that are available to governors and independent adjudicators in relation to disciplinary breaches. Given the rising levels of violence and disciplinary issues in prisons, it is important for prison governors to have these additional powers available to them, to manage those prisoners who repeatedly break the rules.
An obvious concern with the instrument is the failure of the Government to provide a considered impact assessment. That would include a consideration of the impact on prison capacity, with the increased 84-day limit on the number of days that can be added to a sentence. We would like to hear from the Minister the expected impact of this extension on prison capacity.
The Ministry of Justice recently published a rapid evidence assessment on safety in prisons, written by Professor James McGuire. It looked into violence in prisons and sought to explore the factors that impact the level of violence. It noted:
“Higher staff numbers, a stable staff cohort, and a minimal level of vacancies were associated with lower levels of violence”.
There is hardly any surprise there. The most recent quarterly data for the Prison and Probation Service, for the quarter ending June 2026, showed that the number of prison officers in post had actually reduced over the last two years by more than 1,500. What steps are the Government going to take to support prison officers in reducing violence by increasing recruitment and retention?
In conclusion, while conscious of the concerns that have been expressed about the potential impact of these proposals, we are broadly supportive of the need to give prison governors greater powers to deal with indiscipline. Accordingly, we will not seek to oppose.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Hyde of Bemerton) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate, and all noble Lords who have contributed. I recognise the work that the noble Lord has done over many years to make sure that family relationships are taken seriously within our prison system. He has been a consistent and powerful voice on the importance of those relationships in helping people to turn their lives around. I thank the noble Lord for his reviews on prisoner family ties in 2017 and 2019, which many noble Lords have referenced today.
The noble Lord’s Motion focuses particularly on the introduction of new restrictions on social visits. I understand why he has raised concerns about potential consequences for prisoners and their families and for rehabilitation. I will lay out why the Government believe that these changes are needed, what safeguards have been put in place and how they strike a reasonable balance. I make it clear from the outset that I do not see prison order, safety and rehabilitation as competing priorities—quite the opposite. They all depend on each other. A prison that is not safe cannot properly rehabilitate and a prison that does not rehabilitate properly cannot fulfil its duty to protect the prisoners within it and the public. It is not about being unnecessarily punitive, or appearing as such.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Government are absolutely committed to prisoner safety. We are focused on supporting safety and rehabilitation, working with partners across government and at a local level to improve outcomes for people in custody and on release through better access to treatment and recovery services, prison education, employment and stable accommodation.
On the point raised by several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about the more general state of our prisons and the contribution of that to prison indiscipline, I will take the opportunity to point out that this Labour Government inherited, in 2024, a prison system that was on the brink of collapse after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, with fewer than 100 spaces left in the prison estate.
Lord Garnier (Con)
There really is no point in saying, “We inherited this”. Every Government could come in and say that. I said the same things in 2010. It makes no difference. We have to deal with what is going on right now under her watch.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I will move on to those comments, but it is only fair and right that I lay out the territory, as the noble and learned Lord would expect me to, including referencing the work of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in my opening comments when I have 10 minutes to speak.
As I was saying, this Labour Government have spent over £40 million on physical infrastructure across 34 prison sites. We have introduced specialist staff and equipment to stop the smuggling of contraband into prisons, which can contribute to violence and instability. We are modernising prison education and creating that joined-up system so that basic literacy and numeracy are in place, supporting people into employment and higher education. There is much discussion in this of carrots and sticks, and incentives and sanctions, so I flag that the Government have expanded incentivised substance-free living units, where prisoners who agree to regular drug testing can access enhanced opportunities. This will be increased by a further 12 prisons by the end of 2027-28.
As I am sure all noble Lords who are contributing to this debate know, we have launched the independent review of the prison system, led by the right honourable Amber Rudd and supported by a panel of experts. That is to provide that strategic, risk-based assessment of the current risks and opportunities facing the system, to identify the reforms that will enable us to build that prison system fit for the future. That is due to report back next month and I am sure all noble Lords would welcome that.
The purpose of this instrument is to strengthen the range of measures available to governors and independent adjudicators. As noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, this is for when serious or persistent rule-breaking occurs, to provide a fair, proportionate response that is sensitive to the circumstances of each individual prisoner.
It is really important to be clear about why the measure has been introduced in this way. The new social visit sanction forms part of the wider measure in the Victims and Courts Act which, once enforced, will give Crown Court judges the power to impose prison sanctions where an offender aged 18 or over refuses, without reasonable excuse, to attend their sentence hearing where a court has ordered them to do so. Parliament has long considered secondary legislation the most appropriate for matters concerning the management of prisoners, via the Prison Rules, as it allows flexibility to amend the regulations. To enable Crown Court judges to restrict social visits, the sanction must be contained within the Prison Rules, making it also available as an option for prison governors or independent adjudicators to use in limited circumstances.
It is impossible to include a sanction for non-attendance at a sentence hearing that only judges can impose without an amendment to Section 41B of the Sentencing Act 2020. This is because the Act specifies that the power of judges to give sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing hearings is limited to sanctions that correspond to the ones governors can give in the Prison Rules. The affirmative statutory instrument specifying sanctions available to Crown Court judges will be debated and the timings for that will be announced imminently. Therefore, I will try to keep the focus of my response to the subject of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.
The Government recognise the importance of family contact, as referenced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Porter of Fulwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, among other noble Lords. First, and really importantly, children are exempt from this sanction, so they can continue to visit their parents. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, of that. That reflects the Government’s commitment to protecting that relationship between children and parents in prison, wherever that is safe, appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Secondly, this measure should be used only as a last resort. The prison discipline policy framework said that it
“should only be used exceptionally for very serious breaches of the Rules … in cases of severe and persistent rule breaking for which other interventions or punishments have not proved effective”.
Adjudicators will have to set out the reasons why they consider the sanction appropriate.
Thirdly, those under the age of 21 when the offence was committed must not be given forfeiture or restriction of social visits. This is to reflect the separate policy approach for young offenders and children in custody.
Fourthly, individual circumstances will be taken into account. Some prisoners face serious mental health difficulties or are vulnerable, and losing social contact could make their situation worse. The Government expect those circumstances to be considered carefully before any restriction is imposed. This is about giving governors and independent adjudicators an additional option where other measures have failed—a measure of last resort.
A number of family circumstances should be taken into consideration by the governor where social visit sanction would cause disproportionate or unintended harm. This includes where a prisoner’s family is going through a key transitional period, such as a separation or other period of instability.
I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about the effect of restricting social visits, and I take them seriously. As other noble Lords pointed out, having someone on the outside who cares about you, encourages you and gives you a reason to keep going can make an enormous difference. As your Lordships know, rehabilitation that genuinely cuts crime is central to this Government’s approach. The Ministry of Justice is supporting this by updating the strengthening family and relationship ties policy framework and reviewing the current social visits policy to promote child-friendly practice, safeguarding, and consistency across prisons.
The Government have not lost sight of the importance of family relationships and recognise that there will be times where serious or repeated misconduct requires a different response. When a small number of people are violent, threatening or potentially disruptive, they make life harder for those trying to use their time in prison positively. Those trying to get an education, learn a trade or deal with an addiction should be able to do so in safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, raised the question about whether these new sanctions will improve things for those in prison. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it is crucial to get to the heart of what causes prison indiscipline. Prison order should not depend upon sanctions alone, which is why governors can use rehabilitative adjudications alongside or instead of traditional sanctions, helping to increase accountability and encourage behaviour change. This includes unpaid rehabilitative or reparative projects.
In the interests of time, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, to answer her question. However, it is completely unacceptable that people are leaving prisons with tents. That is not the Government’s position, but I will write to her to outline that more fully.
To conclude—at speed—this debate has been valuable and I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed for their scrutiny and insight. I hope that I have addressed the principal points raised. I am aware that I need to write to a few noble Lords.
If the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, would be happy to meet me and perhaps my noble friend Lord Lemos to discuss further the detailed proposal he outlined in his opening speech, we can arrange for that to happen. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord for tabling this Motion.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work to make prisons places of rehabilitation and to keep prisons safe. Therefore, this instrument should be supported. The Government do not believe that the instrument should be regarded as a matter for regret. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, having heard the assurances the Government have given today, will feel able to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed so powerfully to this debate. I think that all noble Lords, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, supported the argument against these sanctions being available to every governor to punish any prisoner for any crime. It is all very well to say that there will be advice and that governors will take things into account, but we have 110 prisons with 110 different prison governors. If the sanctions are there, they will be used differently.
I hear the Minister when she says that she will be happy to talk to me. However, I am aware of the mood of the House. I am also aware of the whipping on the other side and my own party’s lack of support, but this is, frankly, a very important matter and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Health Bill
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-II(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2026)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we start with Amendment 29. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, will be taking part remotely in this debate. I remind the Committee that unless Members are leading a group, remote speakers speak first, after the mover of the lead amendment in a group. They may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of Members who tabled them.
Clause 7: Education and training
Amendment 29
Baroness Gerada
“(1A) In discharging the duty in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that education and training for persons employed in the health service in England includes training on recognising, preventing and responding to antisemitism and other forms of racism.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the workforce education and training duty transferred from NHS England will include training on antisemitism and racism, as recommended by the Lord Mann review (recommendations 32 to 36).
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29 in my name I will also speak to Amendments 79, 258 and 259. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Austin of Dudley, for adding their names. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his review of antisemitism and other forms of racism in the NHS, and the Government for accepting all 36 of its recommendations. These amendments do not seek to reopen that decision; they aim to ensure its implementation.
According to the 2025 NHS staff survey, as reported in the review of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, 13% of Jewish staff reported discrimination from managers or colleagues, compared to 11% from patients or the public. Jewish staff are the only group for whom discrimination from within the workforce exceeds that from patients. The review heard evidence that staff no longer wish to work in the NHS. This is unacceptable and must never be accepted as normal. The review also found that some Jewish patients are putting off the care they need. A consultation works only if a patient can tell their doctor about themselves without fear. When that trust goes, it is a question not only of equality but of patient safety.
For many years, I led the NHS’s Practitioner Health service, to which over 40,000 doctors, dentists and other healthcare staff turned for help with their mental health problems. My work has taught me that doctors who do not feel they belong become unwell, and doctors who become unwell leave—and we cannot afford to lose them. These findings concern Jewish staff and patients, but the principle at stake is far broader. A health service that makes any group of patients hesitate to seek care, or any group of staff feel unsafe at work, fails us all. That is why these amendments address antisemitism alongside every other form of racism.
Why bring them to this Bill? Much of the work required to deliver the review rests on guidance, contracts and programmes already owned by NHS England, even if the Bill transfers its functions elsewhere. Commitments that exist only in guidance can be quietly lost when the body that wrote them is wound down. These amendments will place the essentials in statute.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, to make a remote contribution.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [R]
My Lords, I support Amendment 29 and other amendments in this group. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, but it is a mixed one. That is not a reflection on the noble Baroness but a reflection of my disbelief that we are even having to raise this crucial issue. But raise it we must. I thank the noble Baroness, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Austin of Dudley, for giving your Lordships’ Committee the opportunity to consider it.
I say “disbelief” because I cannot imagine that those noble Lords who helped pass Labour’s Race Relations Act could ever have envisaged that, 61 years later, we should be debating whether it is necessary for the Government to take measures to counter the shocking anti-Jewish racism that scars our NHS, a founding principle of which is surely equality. As a lifelong patient who owes so much to the NHS, I would say that, for such a treasured institution to apply that principle in practice, the provision of healthcare must be made in an environment in which all feel safe and mutually respected, patients and staff alike. The reason why I believe this amendment is essential is that, sadly, some feel neither, on account of their Jewish identity.
I would hope that it is generally recognised that racism is wrong. What I am less sure about is that antisemitism is recognised as racism. Adolf Hitler was very clear: his virulent hatred of Jewish people was racist. Indeed, he was so passionate about his racism that he made it a central tenet of the Nazi creed, which, sadly, as we all know, underpinned and informed the Holocaust. Jews were to be murdered for the crime of being Jewish. It therefore strikes me as bizarre that anyone could either delude themselves or seek to delude someone else—on social media, for example—that antisemitism or anti-Zionism is somehow not racist. This is simply factually incorrect, which is why the recommendations made in the review of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the amendments in this group, are so important.
I wonder whether the Minister, in her response, can assure the Committee that the third aspect of training mentioned in the amendment—that of responding to antisemitism—will include reference to historical facts, such as: the fact that the Jewish people have a historical claim to the land of Israel; that Israel has a long, if broken, history; that biblical records about, for example, the construction of the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, which is believed to have existed between the 10th and 6th centuries BC, bear testimony to this; that the Jews were dispersed from their homeland by the Romans almost 2,000 years ago; that perhaps no other race has been subjected to such extreme prejudice and barbaric persecution in the history of humanity; and that, given the history of how the Jewish people have been treated, Israel has learned that there is only one country on which it can rely to defend its interests—most recently in the face of the egregious fabrication that the tragedy of Gaza is a genocide—and that is Israel. In short, can the Minister assure the Committee that any training on the need to respond, and on how to respond, to antisemitism and other forms of racism will be informed by, not divorced from, factual historical context?
In conclusion, there is another reason why I support this group of amendments. I discovered only after he had passed away that my childhood orthopaedic consultant, who played such a vital part in optimising my life chances, fled for his life on the last Kindertransport to leave Prague before the Nazis closed the borders in June 1939. Records show that the family members he left behind were murdered at Auschwitz only 82 years ago—within the lifetime of some Members of your Lordships’ House. Hanuš Weisl lived with that memory for the rest of his life. I am not Jewish, but for me his memory will always be a blessing. It is in recognition of the debt I owe to him, and indeed that I believe many of us owe to members of our wonderful Jewish community—particularly those who have dedicated their skills and their lives to the NHS—that I support this important group of amendments. I hope the Government will give it the careful consideration it deserves.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the proposed new clause in my Amendment 279C would require statutory regulators of health and care professions to remove from their professional registers any practitioner found to have engaged in antisemitic behaviour or speech, as defined in my amendment. It would also make clear that removal from the register is a mandatory sanction and cannot be replaced by a lesser penalty.
The amendment is founded upon a simple principle: medicine depends upon trust. Every day, patients place themselves in the hands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. They disclose intimate details of their lives. They place themselves in vulnerable situations. They trust that they will be treated fairly, equally and without prejudice, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or beliefs.
That trust is not optional; it is fundamental to the practice of medicine. If patients lose confidence that they will be treated impartially, the doctor-patient relationship is damaged. If an entire community begins to doubt that healthcare professionals regard it as deserving of equal dignity and respect, confidence in the healthcare system itself is undermined. That is why racism has no place in medicine. That is why antisemitism has no place in medicine. That is why this amendment is necessary.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, following the review by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I certainly hope that the regulators toughen up their act, and in accepting its recommendations the Government certainly expect them to. I agree with the thrust of where the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is coming from. Whether all discretion should be taken away from the regulators, I very much doubt, but it will be interesting to hear what my noble friend has to say on that.
In supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, I want to reflect on two points. First, I repeat what the noble Baroness said, which was striking, arising from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. Drawing on the NHS staff survey, Jewish staff are the only religious group where discrimination from managers and colleagues exceeds discrimination from patients. This is a very serious indication of the stress and pressure on Jewish staff within the NHS.
I am afraid that, so far, the response from management has been pretty poor. We have seen that in relation to what we might call uniform policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, described it:
“Examples such as the brandishing of badges, the display of uniforms on political marches or the co-branding of the NHS by staff or others with third parties has made it unclear what patients can expect from the NHS”.
Patients are entitled to be treated without seeing staff display any political leanings whatever or support for campaigns. Teachers are simply not allowed to do this. One has to ask, what is with NHS employers that they have failed to put across to their staff the behaviour that is expected of them?
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, clearly called for NHS England to review what we might call its uniform policy. It is not the standardised uniform, but what people wear and how they display it. My understanding is that that work is being undertaken, subject to consultation. I hope that, when it comes out, it is not going to be wiffly-waffly, leaving too much discretion to local employers. Now that the Government are taking this over—because I doubt it will be finished before 1 April next year—they should make it abundantly clear to NHS employers what should and should not be expected.
I know that Manchester has been cited as a very good example. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, some trusts do not permit the wearing of political badges, of any item of clothing with a political message or of a uniform to political rallies. We need to see something firm about this so that employers are implementing what is required of them from the centre. For employers, this would be much easier than going through the agony of developing local policies that are subject to consultation and lead to variation. Patients and staff are entitled to be in an environment where somebody else’s political views are not displayed in a way which causes huge upset and concern.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I understand and support the aims and sentiment behind this group of amendments—particularly Amendment 29 and 258. Any form of discrimination or racism is abhorrent. How one identifies oneself should not be a problem. Antisemitism is not acceptable.
It may be helpful to remind ourselves of some figures as, sadly, racism and discrimination remain embedded challenges within the NHS, affecting both staff and patients, as acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. It is worth noting that 28.6% of NHS staff in 2024 were from ethnic-minority backgrounds. That was around 450,000 people, yet only 12.7% of senior managers came from those backgrounds. The 2025 NHS staff survey found that ethnic-minority staff were more likely to experience discrimination from managers and colleagues: that is 13.9% of ethnic-minority staff compared with 6.51% of white staff. Some 29.16% of ethnic-minority staff experienced harassment, bullying or abuse by patients and by the public, compared with 23.54% of white staff. It is important to further strengthen legislation as there are gaps.
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation. However, significant weaknesses remain. The public sector equality duty requires organisations to “have due regard to” equality but does not guarantee measurable improvements. The NHS equality standards lack sufficient enforcement and meaningful consequences for persistent institutional discrimination. Will the Minister consider how the Government can strengthen this further, particularly as reporting, investigating and addressing racism remains inconsistent, with inadequate protections and support for whistleblowers? How will the Government address this? There is no sufficiently robust uniform accountability framework ensuring that perpetrators and senior leaders face consequences, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, stated. Will the Government consider developing such a framework on all forms of discrimination? This would also support the 2026 review by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which reinforces the need for stronger investigations, transparency and organisational accountability.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I strongly support the intentions behind these amendments. Two practical issues are leadership and accountability, and the protection of those who speak out.
Tackling antisemitism and racism must be a clear responsibility of NHS leadership. These issues should be included in the performance objectives of every chief executive in the NHS—I have done this in the past. The boards would be required to monitor them and hold the executives and themselves to account. I am sure the CQC could incorporate this into its well-led reviews and make sure it happens. It is not enough to have policies and training programmes; we need to know whether they are making a difference and who is responsible when they are not.
Secondly, we must protect those who report racism or antisemitism. Too often, staff are reluctant to speak out because they fear the consequences for their careers or their relationships with colleagues. We need clear reporting arrangements, protection against victimisation and retaliation, and independent routes to raise concerns if senior managers themselves are involved. I hope the Minister agrees that we should hold boards and NHS chief executives to account and properly protect those who call this out.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I just have a very quick practical suggestion to deal with some of the issues the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others raised about staff neutrality, because that is what we are talking about. Would it not be wise, rather than going through a long process, to make it part of the NHS constitution that staff have to be neutral in how they deal with fellow staff and patients with whom they come into contact? I ask the Minister to consider that seriously when she reports back not just today but on Report. It is just a practical suggestion.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I will be very brief in supporting that suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. When I was listening to the debate, I was thinking about people who have told me about feeling discriminated against. They often do not declare their racial, religious or whatever view, because they are terrified of being further labelled and discriminated against. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, spoke about the history of this for the Jewish people; there were lists of who was Jewish, particularly in the Netherlands, which were rapidly exploited to round them up with speed and persecute them further. That is a very deep-seated fear in a lot of these people.
The other fear is that, if they disclose that they have been discriminated against, they will be undermined in other forms that make their lives even harder. I can again think of other specific examples that have been brought to my attention. I commend this solution as a way forward.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is incredibly important. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, for tabling most of them and for her powerful words about Jewish staff and patients, and their experiences in the data that she also presented. In different ways, all these amendments are trying to ensure that all parts of the NHS stamp out antisemitism and racism, and provide the right training on it, as recommended by the review from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
I completely agree with the neutrality point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised about the uniform that staff wear. I recall that, several years ago, the Metropolitan Police had a huge issue with badges that officers started to wear as part of their support for charities such as Help for Heroes. That was ruled out of order, and they were not allowed to wear them. I think this is a similar thing, and there has been a sort of creep in uniforms over the years in what is acceptable or not. We need to make sure that all staff are seen to be neutral and behave neutrally.
The amendment on assessing the performance of ICBs is important in ensuring that trusts have a duty to prevent this and respond to it; it would ensure that that is integral to these organisations. The noble Lord raised a point about leadership. We on these Benches fully support the Mann review and the implementation of its recommendations, and my noble friend Lord Scriven’s practical suggestion about the NHS constitution is certainly a good idea worthy of consideration by the Minister. I hope the Government will look at how best to implement these amendments—as worded or in a different way—and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, this looked like a very serious group of amendments on paper but, until we had this debate, quite how grave the current gaps are in the NHS did not really emerge. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, for tabling her amendments and the noble Lords who spoke to them. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his review and to the Government for accepting the recommendations that Members from all Benches in the House appear to accept unreservedly.
I sympathise with and support the intent of every amendment in the group. I particularly support Amendments 79, 258 and 259, given the gaps they highlight and the urgent need to close them. Even in light of what the Government have accepted, it is quite apparent that shocking levels of antisemitism are continuing, and there need to be some urgent interventions to stop that.
I spoke quite recently in this House on Sir David Bell’s review of the levels of antisemitism in schools. It is really quite sad, and a shame for this country, that the review by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, shows the same pattern in the NHS. There is clearly a major problem and it is racism, plain and simple, directed at Jews. Too many institutions are tolerating it in a way they would never tolerate against any other group.
The facts are devastating. Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in 2025—the second-highest total ever recorded. In the 2025 NHS staff survey, as we have heard, 13% of Jewish staff recorded discrimination from their own managers or colleagues. That is intolerable in your workplace. How can anyone possibly feel safe going about their day-to-day interactions? We have heard from a number of noble Lords this evening that Jewish people are the only religious group, the only ethnic group, for whom discrimination from colleagues is more common than discrimination from patients. The hostility is coming from inside the institution, and it is therefore beholden on us, debating this Bill, not to miss the opportunities to address this and close the gaps.
The Commission on Antisemitism found Jewish patients considering whether they should remove their religious symbols before treatment. Imagine feeling so unsafe in a healthcare setting, when you are at your most vulnerable, that you may have to consider concealing that about your identity. Patients who feel they have to hide who they are to be treated have lost trust in the NHS; they have lost faith that their doctors will do no harm—the first and basic premise of healthcare—and they have lost confidence that they will be safe.
The regulator has not done its job, which is why I support these amendments, even though the Government have actions in progress and even though they have accepted the recommendations of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. Around 70% of completed appeals by the GMC against tribunals have succeeded, and we know that if the regulators are succeeding seven times out of 10, there is something fundamentally wrong in the disciplinary decisions.
I will not repeat what has been said by noble Lords in support of their amendments, but we should give serious consideration to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, so that we can address the fundamental issue here: a loss of neutrality and an overt willingness to attack colleagues and patients on the basis of their Jewish identity. My noble friend Lord Blencathra goes even further in his Amendment 279C, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that. He outlined the very serious reasons why he has asked for that, and those reasons and facts need to be addressed.
On Amendment 29 and training, I support the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that it is needed, but he was very specific in what he asked for. He called for the mandatory module, used by 1.5 million staff already, to be updated with quality assured content on antisemitism and anti-Muslim hostility. He added that subject experts should be consulted and that the training be monitored and reported on publicly to ensure it has the desired impact, but I have real reservations about the training that would be possible under Amendment 29, because as drafted it does not contain any of the noble Lord’s safeguards. That does not mean we should not consider or expedite the training that is needed.
The record of equality training in the public sector gives a good reason for us to take care. In 2020, the Government phased out unconscious bias training in the Civil Service after a review found no evidence that it changed behaviour, and some NHS anti-racism training has left out antisemitism entirely. Moorfields Eye Hospital’s compulsory anti-racism seminar was reported last year to have made no mention of Jews at all. Training built on theories of privilege has too often placed Jews among the privileged and therefore outside the protection it claims to offer. So, there are lots of types of training that will make the problem a lot worse. I would like to hear from the Minister what types of training and suppliers will be used, and what accountability and monitoring there will be for anything currently being developed.
It is very important to note that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, recommended mandatory training for the chairs and chief executives of NHS trusts within six months of his review, but the Government’s same statement in response to his review said that senior leaders would be invited to complete it by March 2027. I hope that the Minister will explain to noble Lords why a recommendation for mandatory training became an invitation to train, and when that training will be completed by all chairs and CEOs of NHS trusts, as recommended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords across the House for their sensitive consideration of something that is very insensitive: antisemitism and other forms of racism. I know that the words spoken today—the sentiments and the commitments—will resonate across communities in a way that will make a difference, and I personally am most grateful for that. I also am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mann for his review and, indeed, to the former Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, for listening to the voices of those for whom the situation they have to live with day in, day out, is quite intolerable, and for commissioning that review. That set the tone.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, observed from the outset, we have accepted in full the recommendation of my noble friend’s review, and we are taking action to deliver. As was referred to, we provided our latest update last month. This work is continuing, and I understand that noble Lords are asking for more to be done. Indeed, there is no let-up, but we want to get this right, of course.
I will address Amendments 29, 79, 258, 259 and 279C together. We have all said this, but it always bears saying: there is no place for discrimination, antisemitism or racism in our NHS. As noble Lords have said, patients and staff and those associated with them must be free from all forms of racism and religious hatred—and, indeed, from the fear of that, as well as the actuality. That is at the core of these amendments and this debate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that Ministers have asked all NHS bodies to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. We are receiving a good response and will continue on that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My point about the important value of neutrality is this, and let me give an example. You might not be discriminatory: you have somebody who is Jewish, somebody who is Muslim, somebody who is Christian and somebody of no faith, and you treat them all equally, but you might have something on your body which is not neutral to two of them. You are therefore possibly treating that person differently, from their perspective. If neutrality and fairness is such an important value for the NHS, can the Minister go away and look seriously at making it a key component in the NHS constitution, because it is not there at the moment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I take that point and I certainly accept the spirit in which the noble Lord suggests it. I will take all the points that have been discussed away to see whether there is any way that we can work with it, rather than extending a debate on what neutrality means, because I know what the noble Lord is getting at. It is helpful that he has given thought to that.
On Amendment 258, NHS bodies are already subject to clear legal duties to prevent and address discrimination and racial harassment, alongside established responsibilities to tackle extremism and safeguard patients and staff. In a technical fashion, I certainly caution against adding further legal duties here because it would risk confusion about what we expect ICBs and trusts to do. I know that is not something that any of us would wish to do.
On Amendment 259, we have accepted the recommendation from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, to consider amending the performers lists regulations, which would enable conditions to be imposed on suitability grounds. We intend to amend the regulations, subject to consultation. The amendment is unnecessary as the Government are already taking forward the substance of it. It would also impose a six-month statutory deadline before the necessary consultation and consideration have taken place, whereas we have to allow sufficient time to make sure that any changes are legally robust, proportionate and workable. Nor would we wish to pre-empt consultation by committing in this moment to how particular forms of conduct should be addressed in the regulations.
On Amendment 279C, under NHS staff standards—which, as I referred to on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, were launched on 6 July—employers must take sustained and meaningful action to prevent and root out racism. NHS organisations will be measured on this through the national oversight framework. In addition, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that regulatory processes are already in place to which all registered healthcare professionals are subject. Regulatory fitness to practise processes allow concerns about misconduct to be investigated. They allow evidence to be considered and the appropriate regulatory action, which could indeed include removal from the register, to be determined in each case. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care acts as an independent body in this regard to make sure that regulators apply the right sanctions. Where it considers that a decision does not provide sufficient public protection, it has the powers to refer the decision to the courts for consideration.
In drawing this together, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, and your Lordships’ Committee that we are ensuring that ICBs and providers are fulfilling their duties. The key means to do that is through performance assessments. I gently caution against adding additional criteria to the current approach, because it is important that assessments have sufficient flexibility to adapt to the evolving role of ICBs as strategic commissioners, which, after all, is at the heart of the Bill.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for that very detailed and thorough answer. Can I just check that, in the midst of what she said, she made it clear that NHS staff and NHS providers are under a legal obligation to ensure that all the protected characteristics under the Equality Act are treated properly and with respect?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
They should absolutely have regard to the law in respect of protected characteristics. That is the fullest answer I can give at this moment.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for her assurances. I just want to make a few very brief comments, because I am aware of the time.
I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. If I heard him correctly, his orthopaedic surgeon was on the last Kindertransport out of Prague. Our own noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was also on the last Kindertransport from Prague, as was my father-in-law. Such are the coincidences that happen in this life.
I am not Jewish, but I have been subject to antisemitism. I suspect that is because people assume I am Jewish. I have been left fearful, hurt and angry, with all those emotions and not knowing where to take them. If I experience that, I can see that my Jewish colleagues experience it in spades. I work in the NHS, and I can tell noble Lords that antisemitism has become normalised. Although the figures we have seen—13% and 11%—are pretty awful, I suspect it is considerably higher than that. It has become almost de facto that one can abuse Jewish colleagues, although not necessarily Jewish patients because you are subject to greater regulatory forces. Certainly, in the last 12 to 18 months Jewish staff have been subjected to quite appalling behaviour from colleagues with whom they work. Antisemitism has been normalised and almost accepted.
Nevertheless, I thank the Minister. I hope that the training does not become a tick-box exercise and includes the issues that we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. I may wish to return to this issue on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.