Commons Chamber

Wednesday 17th December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking to support sectors identified in the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy 2025. (906988)
-

And a happy Christmas to to one and all here and to all your constituents and loved ones. I
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
None Portrait Q4. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on providing additional funding for the ReImagining Supply Chains Network Plus programme. (906991)
-

Well. start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his fantastic event in Parliament last week on this subject? I am delighted that Queen's University Belfast is
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Right? Let us come to Prime Minister's Questions. Melanie Ward. >> Question number one, please, Mr. speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister. Mr. speaker, the anti-Semitic terror attack on Bondi Beach was sickening. It has had a profound impact around the world, including on Jewish communities here in the United Kingdom. These incidents are not isolated. We think of the appalling attack at Heaton Park earlier this year, and these incidents are chillingly focussed on some of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar. Mr. speaker, I've been in touch over the last few days with the Community Security Trust, the Home Office and the chief rabbi about security for Hanukkah events here in the United Kingdom.

Last night, we held a Hanukkah reception in Downing Street, where I reaffirmed our fight against the poison of anti-Semitism. We will use all of our powers to make sure Jewish communities are safe and secure, as they should be. Mr. speaker, may I also take this opportunity to wish you all the staff in Parliament, every member and their families across the House, a very happy Christmas. And a little festive advice to those in reform. If if mysterious men from the East appear bearing gifts.

This time, this. This time. Report it to the police. Mr. speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later today.
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:40
12:40
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025
-

Ireland Troubles, Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023. Remedial order 2025.
12:40
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the government's commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles related civil cases.

Although the immunity provisions never commenced. It is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book. It is the government's belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on the 9th of December, agreed that the government has such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The committee stated that and I quote, in these exceptional and unusual circumstances, the government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of a remedial order.

I want to set out what the government believes those reasons to be. Firstly, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved victims, survivors and veterans, and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity a key plank of the 2023 Legacy Act remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for Icerir to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.

As the rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the government's view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.

Mr. speaker, the government has a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCE has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.
12:44
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
Alex Burghart, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I've asked because I think that there is asked because I think that there is a very real danger that the government may be about to break the law, and it's very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all of the facts when it wrote its report last year. Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the Legacy Act to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and at the time of the last election, the Conservative government was appealing that highly disputable decision.

The incoming Labour government, for reasons it's never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal and subsequently has laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation. Now, the problem with this, Mr. Speaker, is that earlier this year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court and on the 15th of October this year, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the government, did just that and gave written and oral submissions which the court are now considering.

Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much alive, and this is very important because under section ten of the Human Rights Act, a government only has the authority to use a remedial order unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been determined or abandoned. This test is not met, and if the government decides to push ahead with its remedial order, not only will it be acting ultra vires, it will set a terrible precedent, which will mean that future governments may use remedial orders in ways that they were never intended to use.

To avoid this, all the government needs to do is to commit to not pushing its remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the commitment?
12:45
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Very well done, sir. >> Very well done, sir. >> Well, I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point that he has Gentleman for the point that he has raised. But I would say to him that the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the government in July 2024. And he says the reasons that have never been disclosed, the government have been absolutely clear from the beginning. We disagree with immunity and we are committed to repeal and replace the Legacy Act.

And section ten gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal has been determined or abandoned, it has been abandoned by the government. Now the the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore suggests that we may lack the virus to lay this order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to the hon.

Member in the correspondence that we have had, I think, an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024, the government formally abandoned its appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter this legal reality.
12:47
12:48
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
I do agree with my hon. Friend, >> I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I would just further say that the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the opposition and the principal opposition party remain, it seems, wedded to immunity, which was contained. Well, the the hon. Gentleman says once again, as he does in all these debates. Conditional immunity. I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him what the legislation of the last government said.

It said that the Commission must give immunity. Must give immunity. If, if, if, if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are quite clearly. Well, the the the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Gentleman have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was that for somebody to come forward and to say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, then the Commission must grant them immunity. And I would say to the opposition that at some point they do need to recognise, they do need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists, because the last government said we wish to give immunity to terrorists, had no support in Northern Ireland.

And I'm sorry that they don't recognise that because I've said on many occasions progress cannot be made in trying to deal with the problem of legacy, when the provision that is in the current legislation, which we are committed to repeal and replace, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the course of the troubles.
12:49
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I remind. and try and reduce chuntering from the front benches. I ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Doctor Al Pinkerton. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. This remedial order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 Legacy Act, a policy that may have had benign intentions but which did put us at odds with our international legal obligations, and which regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note the Joint Committee on Human Rights second report published last week, which recommended its approval.

However, I also note that committee's concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation. Now, given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 act, there is an additional responsibility, I would suggest, on this government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair handed. There is a broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 Legacy Act.

But we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups. They fear the risk of prosecution. And so I also welcome the Secretary of state's letter circulated yesterday at annexe A in particular. So can I just ask the Secretary of State, if I may, three things. First of all, to clarify.
12:51
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
You have exactly one minute and you've gone over. So my apologies. Sexual of state. Sexual of state. >> Well, I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for Gentleman for what he said and for the support that he gives to what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility of the government has. These are quite unusual circumstances and the reason that we are here debating this is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged those unusual circumstances and despite having made other comments in this report, which we will all have read, has has come to the conclusion that they give their approval to this and have recommended that the House support it.

And I obviously, I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has had to say. I would also point out one other thing that the government, and I'll acknowledge this did take a bit of time between the Jqr report on the 28th of February and producing the revised draft Remedial order on the 14th of October. I just wish to inform the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the reason for that is that we had listened to the representations that have been made, particularly from the other side of the House.

On the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgement in 2020, we reflected on that and we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, and that is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the troubles Bill that is currently before the House. And I would simply point out that the last government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgement in the Adams case, was not able to do so.

Eventually accepted the amendments, moved in the other place that became sections 46 and 47, but it was acknowledging the arguments have been made that let the House that led the government. I'm sorry to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on the 14th of.
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:26
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
for all the division and divided opinion we have, there is a shared opinion we have, there is a shared determination of everyone. I believe in this House to do the right thing by a vulnerable group right thing by a vulnerable group of children and young people. It is for these, for those reasons, that I am taking the course of action I am taking the course of action that I am. Put simply, that is to follow expert clinical advice and follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence led approach.

The Cass review found shocking levels of unprofessionalism, a lack of clinical oversight and puberty blockers prescribed to children without sufficient evidence that doing so was safe or beneficial to those children and young people. What Doctor Hilary Cass uncovered was a scandal. That is why, on coming to office, I made the temporary ban brought in by my predecessor a permanent ban. A doctor Cass also recommended a thorough study to establish how best to support children and young people. People suffering gender incongruence.

That is the pathways study. It has four main parts, one of which is the clinical trial to study the effects of puberty suppressing hormones on young people's physical, social and emotional wellbeing. The other aspects of the pathway study will track the physical, social and emotional well-being of all young people attending UK NHS gender services. It will look at young people's thinking and brain development, following both those who are and are not taking puberty suppressing hormones, and it will gather evidence direct from young people, parents and staff about their experiences of living with gender incongruence.

The bar for this trial to be approved was extremely high and oversight will be rigorous. Children cannot consent to being on this trial, so places will require parental consent as well as the assent of young people. And because protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is our primary concern, there are strict eligibility criteria in place to join the pathways clinical trial. As such, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will also be low.

Participants must undergo thorough mental and physical assessments and will be followed over a number of years with regular wellbeing checks. Puberty blockers have also been used to delay puberty in children and young people, who start puberty much too early. Use in those cases has been extensively tested and has met strict safety requirements for that use. The study is being led by King's College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. It has been carefully checked by independent scientists who advise the National Institute for Health and Care Research and by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and received approval from a research ethics committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first.
13:29
Caroline Johnson Portrait Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
Doctor Caroline Johnson. and I first must declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that there are vulnerable children that we are talking about today. Madam Deputy Speaker. The first and most obvious question is why? Why has this government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial? In a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and select committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it.

Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete? 9000 children went through the Tavistock. Many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is he taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? And what assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data? When this is a study to safeguard children? And what of the trial itself? 226 children will go through this trial.

Is that a limit or a target? These children will be randomised to getting puberty blockers now or in a year's time. All will be analysed. At two years they will still be children. They may only be 11 years old. How can these results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group isn't properly randomised, but chosen from the horizon intensive trial group. It's Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias, the criteria of getting puberty blockers under this trial requires just one parent to consent, and for the clinician to think it will benefit the child.

But on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass Review said the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be. So does he accept that the vast majority of children in this history trial will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that, therefore, the vast majority of the children in this trial are being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications.

Under his leadership.
13:31
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
The shadow Minister asks why, to which there is a simple answer why which there is a simple answer why is because it was recommended by Doctor Cass in the Cass Review, which was commissioned by my predecessor, Sir Sajid Javid. I think that was the right thing to do, and it's why when my predecessor brought forward the Cass review, I supported it in opposition and certainly didn't try and play politics with an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people.

In terms of why, I'll tell her why, because under the previous government, those puberty suppressing hormones were prescribed without proper oversight, supervision or safety. And we didn't hear a peep for years about that fact until Doctor Cass, commissioned by Sir Sajid Javid, who deserves enormous credit for it, did the study that was published widely supported with this recommendation, and they may have changed their tune in opposition. But I do remember what the Conservatives said in government when they published the Cass review and supported its recommendations.

And I think that is a real shame. She accuses me of inconsistency. So let me be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical, ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I'm comfortable about that. Am I uncomfortable about puberty suppressing hormones for this group of young people for this particular conditions? Yes, I am because of risks. It is why I was also uncomfortable when I put in place a upheld the temporary ban by my predecessor, but then put in place a permanent ban.

The reason I was uncomfortable with that too, is because I had to look children and young people in the eye, and their parents, who told me in no uncertain terms that that decision was harmful to them, as have many other clinicians who've opposed that decision. And the reason why. Whatever my discomfort in this extremely sensitive area I have made this decision is because I am following clinical advice and because as health Secretary, it is my responsibility to follow expert advice.

And had the Tavistock Clinic face such challenge and scrutiny a decade ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. The Conservatives were right to commission the Cass review. They were right to accept its recommendations. I accept there is now a difference on this particular recommendation. I would urge members not to walk away from the cross-party consensus we built behind that approach to build on the work that Cass has done. As for the important questions she raises, there will be two groups within the trial, as well as a further control group of children and young people with gender incongruence who do not receive puberty suppressing hormones.

At least 226 participants are required in order to detect a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups, however, this is not a target and no young person will find themselves on this trial because there is a drive to make sure there is a certain number of young people participating. In order to participate in this trial, it has to have the most robust clinical oversight from clinicians within the service, as well as national oversight and the consent of parents.

And it is only where it is deemed that young people would benefit, that they will be on this, on this programme. She asks about the data linkage study. That's important. The data linkage study will be undertaken when the data linkage study is completed. It will not provide us with the same evidence as this clinical trial. That's why Doctor Cass made a distinction between this trial and the data linkage study. She asks about the motivations of those who withheld data.

That is an extremely important question. I think it is utterly appalling that anyone in a position of responsibility in the NHS withheld data on a very vulnerable group of children and young people. I also accept that while they are while there were many, well, many people in the Tavistock Clinic involved in these services, the fact that Doctor Cass found such a lack of rigour, such a lack of standards, such a lack of proper oversight is disgraceful. And it is the clinicians who are well meaning and ideologically driven that have given me most cause for concern in this whole debacle and have done more harm to children and young people and the trans community than, than, than than most other people who have taken part in this debate and discussion.

Finally, I do appreciate the work that Doctor Cass has done. I'm glad that she is in the other place bringing welcome scrutiny. Was she not supportive of this approach? I may think again, she's given her recommendation. She's given her support. I'm following clinical advice. It is not comfortable, but I do believe balance.
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:39
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. Democrat spokesperson for her question. I can absolutely assure her that we are doing that wider research, that of course, we will take into account high quality international evidence as well as the research we're undertaking domestically. It is so important that we recognise that for many young people with gender incongruence, even if approved, puberty blockers will never be the right medication. And one of the things that I have been most saddened by with the discourse among adults in this debate, many of whom should know better, is that by elevating puberty blockers to the status that they have received in public discourse and debate, there are many young people out there who think that not only is this the gold standard of care, but it is the only care available.

And of course, that is not true. NHS England has opened three new children and young People's Gender Services in the north west London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the East of England in 2026. And we aim to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model, with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics within specialist children's hospitals to provide good clinical care. The new services will increase capacity, reduce waiting times so that patients can be seen sooner and closer to home.

And we've also commissioned additional support for young people waiting to be seen through local children and young people's mental health services.
13:41
13:41
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
I'm really grateful to my hon. >> I'm really grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and let me reassure her in the House that I am reassure her in the House that I am absolutely open to receiving representations and evidence from representations and evidence from clinicians involved in the care of children and young people with insight, expertise and expertise, and data, including those who might be critical of the approach that the trial team is setting out, or indeed critical, that the Cass review included this recommendation.

The reason why I think that is important is because of the many things that's gone horribly wrong in this area, was the silencing of whistleblowers, the silencing of rigorous debate and discussion. Of course, we've got to do that with due care and sensitivity in mind for young people, in particular in this vulnerable group, for the wider trans community who feel extremely vulnerable in this country at the moment, including as a result of decisions I have taken as the health and social care Secretary.

So we have to consider all of that in the round. But we must make sure at all times we're following the evidence that we're open to scrutiny and challenge, and that where we're making these finely balanced judgements that we're doing so with rigorous debate, the testing of the arguments, the testing of the evidence and data. And that's why I do welcome the urgent question in this discussion.
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:47
13:48
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Can I firstly thank the right >> Can I firstly thank the right hon. Member for the way in which he puts his concerns, and I know he is concerned about this trial. I know concerned about this trial. I know he has stated publicly his opposition to it, and I enormously respect the way in which he has done done that. And these are these are finely balanced judgements. And I acknowledge that the Cass review found that puberty blockers have been prescribed routinely, without good evidence for their safety or effectiveness.

And that's why a clinical trial was proposed. There are licensed and used safely in much younger children for precocious puberty or older adults for certain cancers. For for adolescents, the interaction with all the different processes of puberty may be very significant, which is why more evidence and a better understanding of their impact is needed in this patient group. Anyone on the trial can choose to stop taking puberty suppressing hormones and leave the trial at any time. They do not need to give a reason.

If a young person decides to stop taking puberty suppressing hormones, their care in the NHS, including the gender service, will not change in any other way and their doctors will explain to them and their parents or guardians what treatment options are available. And I know there are concerns about the longer term impacts on fertility. Prospective participants will be given comprehensive information on the advantages and potential risks of these hormones, including details about preserving fertility. Doctors will explain the possible long term consequences and available options.

Young people will also be offered to consult a fertility specialist and the young person and their parents or guardians must clearly demonstrate a full understanding of all of these issues, and only then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

after that, would a clinician sign off on the admission to the trial. I ask colleagues to keep their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and for the Secretary of State to keep his responses on point. Select Committee Member Josh Fenton-Glynn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee Member Josh Fenton-Glynn. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can all agree that the young people involved should not be used by anyone as a political football. Can my hon. Friend, please assure me that the
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:54
13:55
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
Well, can I thank the right hon. >> Well, can I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the way in which he puts his criticism to and for the avoidance of doubt, to and for the avoidance of doubt, as I said earlier, I, I know what my responsibilities are. I understand the decisions that I take in this office, and I understand that I am accountable for those decisions, and I don't resile from that. I am following clinical advice. I do think that is the right thing to do in this area.

On the question of sex. He is right. Sex is immutable and even having undergone treatment with hormones or surgery, there are still nonetheless underlying biology means that, for example, trans women would still need to be screened and treated bearing in mind their biological sex and and the opposite being true for trans men. And we have to draw that distinction between biological sex and gender identity. The final thing I would say is, whatever my discomfort and personal views about this particular trial might be, or the notion of young people using puberty blockers in this way, I cannot ignore, and I should convey faithfully to the House conversations I've had with trans young people and adults who have described in very powerful and unforgettable terms not just the life changing, but life enhancing experience they've had, I think particularly of the university student I met, who, if she walked into this chamber now, you would assume was born female, his living her best life and described in very powerful and unforgettable terms the impact that treatment has had for her and her quality of life.

At the same time, I think of high profile cases like Kiera Bell's, and that is why we have to tread extremely carefully in this area, follow evidence, build an evidence base, and why these are such finely balanced judgements, and why I can be simultaneously uncomfortable with the permanent ban I put in place and uncomfortable with this clinical trial. I think that's I think that's hopefully reassuring to people that I think very deeply decisions.
13:58
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:17
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:19
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:23
Wes Streeting Portrait Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ilford North, Labour)
-
-
I absolutely agree with my hon. >> I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, that we need a strong evidence base, that we need to conduct these conversations with conduct these conversations with great care, consideration, and compassion. That we need to recognise the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people, and the fear that so many trans people in our country feel about whether this is a country that accepts and respects them. The political climate has changed since we made all the progress we've made on LGBT equality over the last 20 and 30 years, but do I think the character of this country has changed? Do I think we are less inclusive, less respectful, less loving, or less caring? Absolutely not.

Those are the hallmarks of this country and the British people. We might be having a debate about the about the efficacy of this trial, but I think the overwhelming majority of people in this House do so in that spirit of wanting trans people to live healthy, happy lives where they feel safe, included and respected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our country. That is the end of the Urgent Question. I'll give the front benches a few moments to shuffle benches a few moments to shuffle over as we prepare for the first EU common understanding negotiations. And I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations. And I call the Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with permission, I'd like to make a
14:25
None Portrait Ministerial statement: UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
-

statement on the government's strategic partnership with the EU. The government was elected with a
14:25
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
The government was elected with a manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners, to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade and to cut costs barriers to trade and to cut costs and red tape for British producers and retailers to increase national security through strong borders and greater cooperation with our closest allies, and indeed to support jobs here in the UK and opportunities abroad. And in May this year, this government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU that the Prime Minister announced at the historic UK EU summit, the first of its kind.

It's a landmark deal that is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. And we took this decision exercising our sovereignty to strike a deal in the national interest. We had to fix a bad deal passed on to us by the previous government. The first trade deal in history that made it harder to trade. And just as we have done with the US and India, this Labour government is striking deals to bring down bills for British people and open new opportunities for British businesses.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, since the summit, I've led negotiations with the European Commission to implement the commitments we made. So I am therefore pleased to inform the House that earlier today, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK's association to Erasmus+ from 2027. And it will open up world class opportunities for students, teachers, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, sport and youth sectors, both for the professionals that work in those sectors and crucially, for our young people too and for students.

This means more chances to study, to train, to work, to volunteer abroad, gaining language skills and experience that makes them attractive to employers for our teachers, youth workers and those who work in the sports sector. It means greater opportunities for professional development and for our schools, colleges, universities and providers. It means access to networks and partnerships that will drive quality, encourage research links and enhance the reputation of the UK's world leading education system. And indeed, I was meeting with students at the New City College in Hackney this morning.

Madam Deputy Speaker. See the range of benefits they're going to be, including also playing basketball now as part of Erasmus. Plus, participants can travel to any European Union member state and indeed several countries outside the European Union as well. It will go further than schemes that have come before it, offering a broader scope of activity and a specific focus on unlocking opportunities for all. This is an investment in opportunity for young people from all backgrounds, our workforce and our future, and it will open doors for tens of thousands more young people across the UK, and renewing our ties with Europe and beyond.

Yeah, this Labour government has always been clear that we want young people, no matter what their background or where they live in this country, to have access to the best opportunities in life. It's what we consistently deliver and is what we are delivering with this announcement today. And we are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms that represent a fair balance between the UK's contribution and the benefits this programme offers the 30% discount in 2027, compared to the default terms in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, is what has paved the way for UK participation in the programme and we have also agreed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be a review of the UK's participation in the programme ten months after our association, so we can look at the actual data concerning the demand for funding in the UK and going forward, any continued participation in Erasmus+ under the next Multiannual Financial Framework will be informed by that data and our experience of association in 2027. We've always said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we won't sign deals unless they're in the national interest. And in this case, I'm happy to say the agreement passed that test.

The government will now work to maximise take up across all sectors. So the benefits of Erasmus+ association can be fully realised. We'll work closely with institutions on our young people to support this, particularly amongst disadvantaged groups. And a UK national agency will be appointed to administer the programme in due course. In addition, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to inform the House that the UK and the European Commission have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK's participation in the EU's internal electricity market, and the details of this will be set out in an exchange of letters that will be published next week between Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and myself.

Closer cooperation on electricity will bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe. It will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. It will drive up investment in the North Sea and strengthen energy security. The UK and the EU will now proceed swiftly with negotiations on a UK EU electricity agreement. But Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not all. I welcome the clarification from the European Commission today that in practice there should be no carbon border adjustment mechanism.

Costs levied on UK electricity exports a welcome, welcome development that reflects our extensive use of renewables. Negotiations to link our carbon markets are also underway. This will cut costs. It will make it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and once agreed, it will save UK goods exports from EU Cbam charges on 7 billion worth of exports. Negotiations on the food and drink agreement are also underway, which will enable food and agricultural businesses to trade more cheaply and easily by slashing red tape and costly paperwork introduced by the last government.

Whether it's the £200 businesses currently face for export health certificates on every single shipment, or small businesses choosing not to trade with the EU altogether, and the new agreement that we have will put this right boosting our exports, cutting costs for importers and bringing down prices on supermarket shelves. The UK and the EU are committed to implementing the commitments of the May 2025 summit in a timely manner. We are working swiftly to conclude negotiations on that food and drink deal and Lincoln our carbon markets.

I can tell the House by the time of the next UK EU summit in 2026. So across all these areas, the UK is clear. Of course, there will be no return to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement. We will agree deals that are in our national interest. This government is exercising our sovereignty to deliver for the British people. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are committed to building this new strategic partnership with the European Union. Indeed, I spoke with my counterpart in the Commission, Maros Sefcovic, last week, where we underlined our shared commitment to implementing the common understanding.

The Prime Minister and the Commission President agreed that the UK EU summit in May, whether it is through boosting opportunities for young people and educators across the country, or cutting energy bills or a food and drink deal that slashes red tape and cuts costs, I will always negotiate in the interests of this country and our people, and I will continue, Madam Deputy Speaker, to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK EU summit, where this government will continue to build that new strategic partnership.

It is what a grown up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together and a shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach this government is taking. That is the approach that is delivering results. House.
14:33
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Call the Shadow Minister, Mike Wood. Wood. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We on this side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational young people educational opportunities, but it is vital that opportunities, but it is vital that it is vital the government benches clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. Now the UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the last government recognised that that scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer, that we chose not to.

And that is why the previous government created the Turing Scheme instead. A global programme for young people in the UK that did not require a one sided blank cheque to be handed over to Brussels. Now the Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of them to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds at a cost of just over £100 million. So can the Minister confirm that this statement does not in any way undermine the future of the Turing scheme, that that scheme is guaranteed? Or are those opportunities being sacrificed for the smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+? Now, the Minister has confirmed that the UK is to pay £570 million as the cost of rejoining Erasmus+.

We understand that is being paid for from existing budgets. So can the Minister tell us where is that money coming from? Or is this £570 million being added to the £6 billion black hole that the OBR identified in the education Budget? And does the Minister expect more than the 10,000 students a year from the UK who previously took part in Erasmus+ to to take part in the new scheme? Or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year? Now the Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount.

Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the government was briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount, so it clearly failed in those negotiations. But can the Minister assure us that whilst he says he has got this discount in the first year, that a discount will be available in subsequent years, and if that hasn't yet, those assurances haven't yet been received. Is he prepared to walk away if the EU does not offer us a similar deal in future years for a year? So the opposition has set out clear tests to ensure the government does not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement.

So can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people. This is particularly important given his complete failure when asked multiple times to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility. Now, the rejoining Erasmus is just the latest attempt by the government to undo Brexit by stealth, and this fact became Madam Speaker.

This fact became clear from the very outset of these negotiations, when the government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights for 12 years to the EU under the pretence that this would, and, I quote, pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU's proposed new defence fund. Yes. Six months later, this deal has collapsed after the EU's extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on the investment in the form of procurement.

So can the Minister explain to our hard working fishing industry why there won't be getting their fish back even after this deal has fallen through? Madam Deputy Speaker, the British people made clear their decision to take back control in 2016. But despite the government's protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for this democratic decision.
14:38
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Thomas Simons. >> Thomas Simons. >> If I get this right, I chose I chose not to sign up to the safe to participate in safe. It didn't represent value for money and they're criticising me for that. They now criticise me for signing They now criticise me for signing up to something that is value for money. So let me just tell him about let me just tell him about fish. I'll tell you what's a big advantage to our fishing sector that exports 70% of their catch to the EU, the food and drink agreement that I am going to secure by the time of the next UK EU summit, that is what will benefit our fishers.

And as for his point about the the Turing scheme, I should just say from the Dispatch Box, first of all, that any person in this academic year currently on the Turing scheme will continue to be funded. I think it's important that I say that, but I have to tell him, I mean, the hon. Gentleman's numbers are absolutely all over the place. And the Erasmus plus. First of all, the Erasmus+ scheme has changed significantly since the version that his government walked away from.

But not only that, come off it. Do you think seriously that that lot could have secured a 30% discount at all? Absolutely not. So last the last year of the Turing Scheme, the honourable the one figure the hon. Gentleman did get right was it was 43,200 people. Erasmus is a far bigger scheme. We will be looking for tens of thousands, 100,000 plus young people and others having opportunities from Erasmus. But let me just tell him this as well. It is a lot broader in terms of the opportunities than the Turing scheme because unlike the Turing scheme is about colleges, it's about schools, universities.

Erasmus+ has wider opportunities around youth work, around sports, around staff being able to have professional exchanges as well. And let me just say, before they start talking about the fact that Turing is all around the world, the fact is that the grant making bodies for Erasmus+ in the UK can still allocate 20% of the funding if they want to. If people want to go to other parts of the world as well. So what this is doing is vastly increasing the opportunities not just for young people, but for adult learners as well.

And frankly, if the conservative position is now to oppose a massive expansion in opportunities for young people, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will welcome that debate at the next election. Rosie Wrighting Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rosie Wrighting Deputy Speaker young people have lost so much. The pandemic kept them in their homes when they should have been in the when they should have been in the classroom. Years of austerity under the Tories saw cuts to the services they rely on, and a bad Brexit deal they rely on, and a bad Brexit deal stopped the invaluable chance to study abroad in Europe. Rejoining
14:41
14:41
14:41
14:42
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Mr. speaker, can I thank the Minister for his statement? We welcome his announcement today as a recovering academic, which is a distinction I think I share with the Minister. I have witnessed first hand the impact that the existing, the X-ray, the exiting the Erasmus scheme had on university student intake, welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our students the opportunities to study abroad, undeniably has strengthened our education system. So after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme.

However, and I'm sure the hon. Gentleman expected there to be here. However, whilst this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge the Minister to go further and faster. So beyond this fixed term experience of Erasmus+, will the government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation? So can the Minister update the House on what progress has been made in those negotiations? Secondly. Secondly, can he state how confident that that he is that our food, drink and SPS agreement will be agreed by 2026? And how long thereafter will it take to fully implement that scheme? Agri food and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays.

And then finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade, which is where he started his statement, will his department commit, at the very least, to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic economic growth benefits of a UK EU customs deal of the kind that this House voted for last week.
14:43
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. >> Hear, hear. >> Thank you. So, on the issue of the Youth Experience scheme, which I see being in the context of the I see being in the context of the 13 youth mobility schemes that already exist, many of which signed by the previous government, though by the previous government, though they seem to have collective amnesia these days about it, that together with the linking of our emissions trading systems and the food and drink agreement, we are aiming to conclude negotiations by the next summit.

Now, he asked me the direct question about the implementation of the food and drink agreement. I want to see it implemented by the first half of 2027. That will mean a piece of legislation in Parliament in 2026 and getting it through Parliament. I hope whatever our views may be, that we will have support in doing that as quickly as possible in 2027. Then I want to say more broadly as well about Erasmus+, just for a moment. Indeed, it applies to the Youth Experience scheme as well.

I want both of them to be open to people of all backgrounds across the United Kingdom and Erasmus+. Of course, people often talk about it as a university exchange, and of course that is a vital part of it. But it isn't just a university exchange program. It is accessible across the country. I've been looking, for example, at the Welsh Government's programme, which has done an extremely good job with regard to accessibility. And I think where there is there are lessons to be learned from that we will absolutely do it.

Where, of course, the hon. Gentleman, I disagree is on the issue of the customs union because the government has only in recent days signed an additional free trade agreement with South Korea. We have the economic deal with the United States, the free trade deal, free trade deal with India. All those things would have to be torn up if we went down the path, suggested Helen Hayes.
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
Ben Coleman Portrait Ben Coleman MP (Chelsea and Fulham, Labour)
-
-
Minister 100%. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's this Labour government is delivering for our young people. >> Final question Ben Coleman an hour. Ben Coleman. >> Thank you, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and may I congratulate the Minister as heartily as everyone else has for bringing the UK back into Erasmus and ensuring that people from all backgrounds, including university students, can once again enjoy the opportunities that the Tory Brexit took away. Part of my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham ranks among the 12 most deprived areas in the United Kingdom, and I am looking forward, I should tell the Minister to helping young people there seize the new opportunities. But may I also encourage the Minister to be ambitious in concluding a youth experience scheme, which would further restore the opportunities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our young people deserve? Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed, by the time of the next and indeed, by the time of the next UK EU summit, we hope to have concluded negotiations on the linking of our emissions trading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

linking of our emissions trading systems on the food and drink agreement and also as well on the Youth Experience Scheme. That is the end of the first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the end of the first statement. I'll give the frontbenchers a few moments to shuffle over as we go on to our second statement on provisional second statement on provisional local government finance settlement and if the Minister is ready, Minister Alison McGovern.
15:25
15:25
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2026-27
-

Speaker, on the 20th of November. This year, my department.
15:25
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
Policy statement setting out our approach to the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. Today, we published the provisional settlement itself and launch our formal consultation on these proposals. And it represents the choices we are making as a government. Unlike the Tories, we won't look the other way. As poverty gets worse, we won't ignore the economic and social costs of deprivation. The Spending Review announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services over the multi-year settlement period.

This includes 3.4 billion of new grant funding being delivered through this settlement. Madam Deputy Speaker, before I give more details, I want to make this point because for 14 years the Tories decimated local government, asking local leaders to do more with less. And this had consequences. Local high streets are always changing, but deprived towns saw more empty shops, more vape shops, more pawnbrokers than other places, and their councils didn't have the resources to do anything about it. In 2019, Cipfa found that nearly 800 libraries had closed since 2010, and in 2022, The Guardian newspaper uncovered a real terms annual cut of nearly £330 million to the upkeep of our local parks, with the biggest cuts in the poorest parts of the country.

The last decade and a half of austerity impacted every community, but the very worst effects were felt by people living in the most deprived areas. And that was a choice. By breaking the link between funding and deprivation, the Tories punished poorer councils year after year. They exacerbated inequality and as a result, too many places in this country feel forgotten, left to fend for themselves. Now the answer isn't reforms return to austerity or the Tories carping from the sidelines.

It's to use the best data we have available to redesign the funding system so that deprivation is recognised and addressed within the settlement. That's why the figures we are publishing today are derived using the very latest data from the 2025 Index of Multiple Deprivation, released at the end of October this year. It's why, according to our analysis, whereas under the old system, deprivation scores could only account for 25% of variation in per capita funding allocations under this settlement, it's up to 75% with other important factors such as coastline, miles of road or visitor numbers making up the rest and more.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are giving councils more certainty. With the first multi-year settlement in a decade allowing local leaders to focus on long term investment and change, we're addressing the damage of austerity by maintaining the £600, the £600 million recovery grant allocations from 2526 targeted towards those most impacted by the cuts, and introducing a recovery Grant guarantee, providing an above real terms increase to social care authorities who received the grant last year. We're supporting local authorities through change by providing funding floors and phasing in new allocations across the multi-year settlement we're approving.

We're improving efficiency and value for money by simplifying and unprecedented 36 funding streams worth over 56 billion over the multi-year settlement, we're resetting the business rates retention system to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding local growth, and we are unlocking the dream of home ownership for more people by boosting real incentives for councils to build new homes. And we know councils are concerned about what will happen at the next spending review, so we'll keep working very closely with them to avoid cliff edges in funding this settlement.

Madam Deputy Speaker, is our most significant move yet to make English local government sustainable. At last, it will take over overall core spending power for local government to over 84.6 billion by 2829, equivalent to a 15% cash terms increase compared to 2526. The Labour government has made it clear it backs local government through action. Since coming into power, we have made available a 23.6% increase in core spending power in 2829, compared to 2425. However, we have to do more because the previous government's funding system left local government in chaos.

Social care costs were soaring out of control, with very little focus on prevention. And right now, children's social care, the impact of a failing system and the spiralling costs of homelessness and temporary accommodation has destabilised council funding. Even where councils have acted judiciously to protect the public pound through this difficult era. And that is why we need national change to empower local councils to maximise the benefits of this statement. This government is building a national care service based on high quality of care, greater choice and control and better integration.

This is backed by around £4.5 billion additional funding made available for adult social care in 2829, compared to 2526. We're changing children's social care through the Families First Partnership, funded with 2.5 billion over the next three years. Because all children deserve good parenting and a loving home environment, and we know, we know that cost less in the long run, too. And the children's social care residential market is broken. That's why we're taking action through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Using these powers, the Housing and Education secretaries will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the children's social care placement market. This would be a crucial step in ensuring public money delivers value and care, not profiteering, and we will set out further information on our approach in 2026 on special educational needs and disabilities. The government will bring forward the Schools White Paper in the new year, which will set out ambitious plans to reform special educational needs provision. But we recognise the impacts that the dedicated schools grant deficits are having on local authorities accounts.

In future special educational needs provision will be funded by central government. Local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in March 2028, and will provide further details on our plans to support local authorities with these deficits later in the settlement process. And Madam Deputy Speaker, members have already heard me say this on homelessness, but I know temporary accommodation is also a growing financial pressure on councils, with spend reaching nearly £3 billion in 2026.

That's why last week we published the National Plan to End Homelessness, our strategy to prevent homelessness before it occurs. And we've set clear objectives to get our children out of costly B&Bs and to help councils balance the books. Now on council tax, the government intends to maintain a core 3% council tax referendum principle and a 2% adult social care precept. For the vast majority of councils. The government is committed to ensuring the funding system is fair for taxpayers across the country and in some areas, council tax levels are radically lower than others.

Council tax bills for £10 million houses in some of the wealthiest parts of the country can be less than an ordinary working family pays in places like Blackpool or households in these councils, it will also provide greater flexibility for these authorities in deciding how to manage their finances. Following our reforms, the councils will decide on the level of council tax increase to set on whether to draw on the relatively relatively high alternative sources of income that a number of them benefit from. Now, we know adapting to our reforms will take time.

That's why we'll continue to have a support framework in place next year to help authorities in challenging positions following precedent set by previous governments. Councils in significant financial difficulty can request additional flexibility from the government in making this decision. Unlike the Tories, the government has been clear that it would not agree to increases where the council has above average council tax. In recognition of cost of living pressures. Each application will be considered on a case by case basis, and decisions will reflect the support offered to low income and vulnerable residents.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I go back to the libraries closed and the parks neglected under this Labour government, not only is our Chancellor of the Exchequer making sure our schools have libraries, but with this funding, councils can make sure that parks are good for our children to play into. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can never turn the clock back. We can't undo all the past damage to councils, but we can change town hall finances so that councillors battling the consequences of poverty have a government on their side.

For once, we said that we would restore the link between funding and deprivation, and today we are doing exactly that. No more, no more forgotten people left to fend for themselves, no more forgotten places sneered at by members opposite, but a fighting chance for every place in this country. And I commend this statement to the Shadow Minister. Attention.
15:36
David Simmonds Portrait David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)
-
-
Proposed. Proposed as it was for simply a written ministerial statement at the last possible second. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can all see. We can all see that poverty is rising. A shrinking economy and rising unemployment are driving that. Combined with inflation running at 3.6% and energy bills higher, rising business rates. Madam Deputy Speaker are crippling our businesses and local communities everywhere are feeling the pressure created by this government's choices. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, how does this settlement help our councils to deal with that? Well, firstly, it assumes that working people, all people, will pay higher taxes everywhere.

We should not misunderstand the minister's words on core spending power. This enshrines an assumption that taxes will rise to the maximum possible extent everywhere, with fees and charges for parking, libraries and everything else following the same trajectory. And Madam Deputy Speaker, even if the inflation target of 2% is reached and currently a 3.6%, that seems unlikely. The increase the increase assuming 2%, represents a 1% uplift for local government during the whole life of this Parliament.

For a sector that was left £1.5 billion worse off by the rise in National Insurance contributions alone, resources at a local level are going backwards. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a settlement that punishes efficiency with those councils that deliver the best value for money being raided to bail out the more spendthrift. And I'm sure we can guess, I'm sure we can guess which parties tend to run those councils. It is a settlement which introduces new higher taxes on hospitality voted for by every other party besides the Conservatives in this chamber.

Bearing down on investment and opportunity, it brings in a homes tax on more expensive homes. Money that goes to the Treasury, not councils. In the book Red book that's estimated to cost the government a net £335 million due to the damage it does to the housing market. Only this hapless Labour government could bring in new taxes that actually cost the Treasury money. And here they go again. And also, Madam Deputy Speaker, it repeats the fallacy that poverty is the only driver of council costs.

The average English local authority delivers over 800 different services. Our rural coastal areas, anywhere with lots of retirees, faces high costs of adult social care, but don't necessarily score high on indices of deprivation, despite those costs being driven by statutory duties. The Undertaker Prime Minister is ushering many councils towards their financial doom. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, as they hammer Wychavon and Stratford on Avon, they also hammering Ashfield, Dartford, Burnley, Cambridge, Hyndburn, Lichfield, Burnley and Bolsover amongst the places worst hit by this financial settlement.

Their detachment from the consequence of their actions is striking. And this is whilst the Prime Minister and Chancellor dodged the new high value Council tax in their grace and favour accommodation. And all of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, behind those smoke and mirrors which disguises from our local authorities the financial impact they have been required to carry out their public Budget consultations without having had sight of the impact that this will have. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me conclude with some straightforward questions.

Can the Minister tell the House when our locally elected brethren will learn the net impact of this on their council tax Budget? Can she tell the House when we'll debate the impact of their cuts to send capital funding? When will the House have the opportunity to scrutinise the government's decision to impose exceptional financial support or higher council tax rises, to bail out the consequences of its decisions? When will it provide clarity on the impact of its proposals on council budgets? How will the government use the budgets allocated to the new devolution areas and now snatched back to mitigate the impact of their decisions? And will the Minister admit to the House? Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a tax raising, job destroying, housing, hobbling, rate raising, service slashing, community crippling, election, cancelling, settlement that fails even on its intended purpose of shunting resources to politically favoured areas.
15:41
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I can hardly I can hardly wonder at getting that purely wonder at getting that purely political response when I made the perfectly legitimate political point that under Tories a lot of councils were dealt very bad funding settlements indeed. I mean, literally, literally. But we don't we don't need, we don't need, we don't need to trade political insults to just to to see the libraries that were closed, the parks that were left unmaintained, and the damage that the damage that was done to councils.

But I look forward to discussing this issue with him across the despatch box as we move forward. When he's talked to his own councils about the funding settlement that they will be receiving. He asked some slightly more important questions, particularly on send. He'll know, as I know, that this is primarily a matter of getting the absolute best outcome for our children. The Department for education will be bringing forward plans in the new year, and I am working very closely with my fellow Ministers in the Department for education to make sure that we get this right.

And I mentioned some of the details in my contribution earlier on devolution. I don't recognise the picture as he describes it, and the Minister for devolution is right here and I feel confident in saying nor does she she she announced significant investment for those places affected, and we all look forward to working with areas up and down the country to make sure that our country grows as we look ahead. Chair of the Select Committee. Florence Eshalomi.
15:42
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. I know statement this afternoon. I know that this is an issue she's been working really hard on since she took the role a few months ago. The took the role a few months ago. The Minister is also aware of the many pressing issues facing our councils up and down the country, from send up and down the country, from send to temporary accommodation, housing and adult social care, and 14 years of underinvestment will not be reversed by one funding settlement.

So it's important we continue to work with our councils. This is the first multi-year settlement in a decade which will help our local leaders in terms of planning for the future and, most importantly, planning for their local residents. I welcome the inclusion of the local housing costs in the new funding formula, but ultimately, this doesn't take in the local housing allowance, which the Minister knows has been frozen for many years and is still causing a lot of pressure for councils. The Minister also mentioned that they'll be looking at the council tax freeze in some of the areas and lifting that referendum.

The Minister knows that there's growing consensus on us. Instead of tweaking with council tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wholescale reform. It's the most. Regressive form of taxation and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regressive form of taxation and inequality across the country. Will the Minister look at our reports on the committee in terms of full the committee in terms of full scale review of council tax band across the country, so that local leaders can have that funding to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spend on their local areas and make come. Through here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the chair of the Select Committee for that comprehensive run through all of the issues. The first thing I'd say is that she is right, that it's not just about funding, but also policy change,
15:44
15:44
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead, something we on these benches have long called for. But a benches have long called for. But a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care send and homelessness costs are destabilising. Council costs are destabilising. Council finances a direct result of years of conservative neglect.

But recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it now. It is going to take us time and council teams as well, to review the detail of settlement and what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the send debt. This settlement provides minimum information on how councils are to manage send costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the send deficit? Without one responsible, financial planning is simply not possible, and I would also like to seek clarity today on the issue of social care.

While this statement does include various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that even with this, it will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. So I ask the Minister, when will the government finally bring forward a fully funded long term plan for adult social care reform that ensures local authority funding? Settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of social care system that is currently bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
15:46
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She mentions multiyear settlements mentions multiyear settlements themselves alone, not not being the answer. No, but they do help. And that relates to the two other points that she mentions on send and also on social care, because, of course, multiyear settlements allow councils to plan properly and undertake commissioning activities over a longer period of time. And that was our objective that we have achieved with this.

She asked some more details on send. I did mention it in my speech earlier that local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in 2028, and we'll have more to say on that on throughout this settlement process, she also asks about adult social care. There's a significant reform is needed here, but I don't think anybody could say that. We haven't done anything. We have. We're building a National care Service, backed by about £4.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2829, compared to 2526, including 500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement.

And I will never forget visiting care homes after they got through the hell of Covid. And I think all that we do on social care has to back those people who did the most when our country needed them. Members will have seen that there are a lot of members wanting to speak in this statement, so I do make a plea to help each other out and keep questions and answers concise. Helen Hayes.
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon MP (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )
-
-
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The review is significant. The first review is significant. The first multi-year settlement for a decade, the first real attempt at fairly distributing resources based on need, cost and the ability to raise revenue locally. It represents a serious piece of work by decent public servants, and I pay tribute to the finance team in her department. The consultation asked councils to make their case for adjustments, and London councils did ask for housing to be included in the measure of deprivation.

And we can see that one of the changes have been made, but that does see a significant shift towards London. The recovery grant has made a significant difference and I'm pleased to continue. But it does show that fundamentally the formula in itself is not picking up yet the real cost pressures being felt by local government as a result of the previous government. And so much has been said about council tax. But the inequality, she knows goes much further on car parking income £2 billion.

But Westminster City Council alone generates £90 million. That's more than the entire entire recovery grant for Manchester, for Liverpool, for Newcastle, for Sheffield and from Leeds combined. So there are structural issues, much wider that need to be addressed. And she'll know that despite best endeavours, councils will still find this settlement very challenging and those bigger reforms are needed. So can she make the case? As I know she will, to her colleagues in the Treasury, that if the government wants to see the benefit in every community felt on every street, that in the end local government needs more money put into the pot more generally?
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:37
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
poverty in London has changed and areas like Croydon have experienced an increase, and this funding supplement is a recognition of the supplement is a recognition of the reality of that. We want to see Croydon thrive. That's why, after the information that we're the information that we're publishing today, we'll work with local authorities over the coming months so that they can set their budgets in the normal way in the budgets in the normal way in the spring. But I would just say to her, Croydon has got a great future ahead, and I want to work with her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ahead, and I want to work with her closely to make sure that happens. Peckham Elsie Blundell. You. Madam. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the additional investment the Minister has announced today and what it will mean for my constituents in terms of local government funding. Firefighters like those based at Hayward Fire Station in my constituency, are attending a massively increased number of massively increased number of flooding and water rescue incidents, up 40% over the last ten years. Has any consideration been given to any consideration been given to introducing a statutory duty for local fire and rescue services, along with commensurate funding to ensure that firefighters are ensure that firefighters are properly resourced and equipped to respond to flooding and water rescues.

Sir.
16:38
16:38
16:38
16:39
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:41
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
unique contribution it makes to the UK economy. This government is clear that closure is not an outcome that we are willing to accept. That is why I can confirm to the House today that we are stepping in, and we are providing a support package of over £120 million to Ineos, which forms part of a wider £150 million investment with Ineos to help ensure the site remains commercially viable and sustainable in the long term. This support package comprises a grant and a government backed loan to protect 500 jobs in Grangemouth, and many hundreds more within critical supply chains.

As part of this agreement, Ineos will continue operations and will invest at least £30 million into the site. On top of the hundreds of millions of pounds it has already invested in recent years, this agreement will therefore protect, protect jobs and safeguard taxpayers money. The government sets a very high bar for interventions of this kind. We assess the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of our investments and the contributions of the private sector, including shareholders. And where we do intervene, we set clear strict conditions on how these investments are used.

In this case, our funding will secure ongoing operations. It will improve the site's energy efficiency, decrease carbon emissions and increase productivity. Funding for this support will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as part of the Departmental Spending Review settlements. Interventions of this kind are rare, but when workers livelihoods and our strategic interests are at risk, a Labour government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation's assets and economic security. We will work with businesses to build a secure, prosperous future for our industrial heartlands and for the whole of the UK.

We are taking bold action today to ensure that the chemical sector in this country remains strong for the workers and communities who have depended on it for generations. But we are also ensuring that this sector can play its part in making the UK a clean energy superpower by the end of the decade. The chemical sector plays a fundamental role in the supply of parts for wind turbines, for carbon capture and storage from nuclear power plants. We cannot afford to see those domestic supply chains disrupted and we want.

That is why, beyond this agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will improve the business environment for British industries, including our chemical sector. The industrial strategy is one of the ways that we are doing that. Whilst our gas prices remain competitive in Europe, where tackling long standing problems with high electricity prices. We have already pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals. 550 of our most energy intensive businesses will save up to £420 million per year in their electricity bills from next April, thanks to this one change alone, our new British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme is going to reduce electricity costs for over 7000 eligible businesses, including chemicals.

We want them to save up to £40 per megawatt hour, or 25%, from April 2027. Supporting a skilled workforce is also at the heart of the industrial strategy. We are providing an additional £1.2 billion of investment into the skills system by 20 2829. This is because we recognise Madam Deputy Speaker that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations. That includes our defence capability, energy security and our chemical sector. I say this because hon. Members will know that Ineos is not the only business, and Grangemouth is not the only site to have experienced challenges over the last few years.

That is why we have a vision for Grangemouth long term future, which is energy efficient and sustainable. And the agreement we have announced today shows that we will forge the right partnerships between industry, the UK and Scottish governments to make it a reality. As part of these efforts, up to £200 million of investment from our national wealth fund will support new opportunities in Grangemouth. Several projects are already under active consideration, backed by funding from the Chancellor of the Budget. The Scottish company Mialgae has announced it will deliver a new biotech project at the site, creating 400 well-paid green jobs and to support workers at the nearby ExxonMobil Mossmorran plant, which will close next year.

The UK and Scottish governments, alongside Fife Council, are setting up a dedicated task force. It will ensure that employees affected by that closure will be afforded every chance of securing valuable employment. And as part of the agreement being announced today, Ineos Grangemouth has committed to giving those impacted workers a guaranteed interview for available roles at their site. The Grangemouth Training guarantee will also be expanded to those employees who provide a shared services for the refinery, ensuring that they have the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the local labour market.

And all of these measures complement the efforts being undertaken as part of the Grangemouth Just transition. This is important Madam Deputy Speaker, because the agreement we have announced today is not just about supporting a single site or a single company, it is about securing a stable industrial pipeline now and for many years to come. It is about having a clean break from the managed decline of the past and delivering the decade of national renewal we promised for Grangemouth and for the whole of the UK.

For those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
16:49
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister. statement today. The steps announced today by the government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth is, of course, welcome news, especially for those workers news, especially for those workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site and vital. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is, as the Minister said, the Grangemouth site is the UKs last ethylene plant. Ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors.

To have lost domestic production capacity for such core product would have been unconscionable. But it cannot be ignored that this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites like Grangemouth have become under this government. This government's policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country. With unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Lindsey Oil refinery in Lincolnshire, and most obviously and glaringly our oil and gas industry operating in the North Sea. This government is not just overseeing, but engineering the decline of energy intensive industries in this country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am, of course, glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected genuinely, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry that have already lost their jobs or are about to spend Christmas next week not knowing if they will have a job next year because of Labour Party policy. It was Harbour Energy last week. Before that the Port of Aberdeen Apache Petrofac TotalEnergies have had to merge with Next Energy to operate.

Shell have merged with Equinor and they all say the same thing. Madam Deputy Speaker, the exorbitant taxation regime increase and extend until 2030 is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, it is no surprise that Sir Jim Ratcliffe added in his response to today's announcement that high energy costs and punitive carbon taxes were driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate.

He went on if politicians want jobs investment in energy security, then they must create a competitive environment. Week after week after week, we see more jobs in the sector being lost and critical national assets shutting up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this government. Since Labour stepped into office, over 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost. That is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with now. Scotland. Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs and damaging an important national asset.

There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless this government changes course. Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but the words of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth. Today's announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting the Mossmorran to meet with the team. Following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing, their Exxon-mobil chairman explained that two of the keys to success needed. He did not have because of current government policy.

He said we have had windfall taxes. We have had a ban on production losses. I need cheap source of abundant ethane and I do not have them because the North Sea, because of government policy, is declining rapidly. They paid £20 million in CO2 taxes just last year, and that's going to double in the next 4 or 5 years. What is frankly shocking, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that for some inexplicable reason, the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why they were not receiving the same support as Grangemouth.

He said, and I quote, the management were not able to give us a pathway to profitability. Of course they can't, because at every turn this government is putting up hurdles, shutting down the North Sea and taxing them until they burst. Honestly, they just do not get it. This government are not listening. Today's announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain this government is inflicting upon industry in this country. When I visit Mossmorran tomorrow, does the Minister, given this is the second time this government has launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom? Want me to pass on an apology from the government to him? Madam Deputy Speaker today's announcement is welcome, but this government could do so much more.

Scrap the energy profits levy, remove the punitive carbon taxes. We aren't getting an exemption to the EU ETS anyway according to the EU Commission. Incentivise. Don't punish. Madam Deputy Speaker, a Conservative government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years time. Unfortunately, unfortunately, those are three years. I do not think British industry has.
16:53
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Winchester. >> Winchester. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I start by sincerely thanking the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the support for Grangemouth? It really must be the season of goodwill and on this occasion I can assure him he is correct. This is the last ethylene plant now, so we can we can agree on that this time. So he talked about the business environment for the chemicals industry. And I thought I'd set that out reasonably well in the statement, but maybe I didn't.

So I shall, I shall maybe just mention that a bit more. So on energy costs. We already have the energy intensive scheme. And as I mentioned, we've we've increased the level of the supercharger and the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme comes in in 2027 with an additional 25% reduction. He may be interested to know that our electricity costs are already or are already competitive in Europe. They're more competitive than than many countries in Europe, but not France and Germany, which are the benchmark for me.

And so that's why we're introducing the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme on gas after policy costs were already competitive. And of course, these businesses trade internationally and our success in striking international trade deals with the EU, with the US, with India and more with Korea, just this week is giving more market opportunities all of the time. He made the contrast with with Exxon. I'll just reiterate the point that the that here we have in government would always do this. I'm sure you would expect us to do this.

And we're investing in a business with a viable and sustainable future where there is a viable business plan, primarily because the owner of this business has invested in this business over time. And as I said in my statement a few weeks ago on Mossmorran, ExxonMobil had failed to invest in that plant. And that's why they they said themselves there was a £1 billion, £ billion investment gap. He talks about jobs in the clean energy sector. We're creating 40,000 new jobs in Scotland alone and 800,000 jobs across the whole of the country.

And this is a transition that we as a government are actively engaging in and actively managing. He says. A Conservative government would do something different as they did last time. They didn't do anything last time. When Ineos announced in November 20th 23rd November 2023 that they were going to close their refinery. What are the Conservative government do? Well, the conservative Prime Minister at the time said that's a commercial decision. They did nothing about it, nothing at all about it. And and the, the, the that's where the Conservative government were.

So investment look investment here is very important. So I would refer the hon. Gentleman to an article that was published this morning by my noble friend Lord Stockwood, the investment Minister, where he talked very carefully about the international investment environment and the performance of the UK economy and lamented the fact that so many people, so many cassandras, such as the gentleman opposite in this country, are talking the economy down, constantly talking the economy down and frightening investors away. And I think it's about time he recognised the success of our clean energy industries, the success of this government's industrial strategy and stop talking Britain down.
16:56
16:57
16:58
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Sarah Olney. Thank you very. sight of the statement and I welcome the government's announcement that it's stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security, our economic prosperity and a fair transition to clean energy. And today's statement is a step in that direction. We've long been champions of British industry. We're proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives who scrapped our industrial strategy.

But having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this government to support British business, including our chemical sector. High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will support the 7000 most energy intensive firms, but it won't launch until April 2027. So will the government confirm if the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme, and do Ministers acknowledge that the scheme had been in place earlier? This situation might have been avoided. And will the Minister agree? We need a long term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices? And finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which this government is responsible.

And that, of course, is the National Insurance increase. Can the Minister tell the House what is the tax imposed on Grangemouth plant through the National Insurance hike since last year's Budget, and whether it is greater than the £50 million government grant handed to Ineos Minister.
17:00
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do thank her for recognising both the importance of the site and the importance of this this government intervention. She mentions that the £50 million grant and it's I think it needs you need to look at that. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's important that members look at that in the context of the total package, both a grant and a loan and an investment from the from the owner of the business. And as the owner of the business said today, also an agreement in principle for a profit sharing arrangement as well.

And I think that points to the other question she asked, which is about the detail of this industrial strategy. And this is an industrial strategy that is a significant break with the past. It is not about last minute interventions, which is what the previous Conservative government did or didn't do, depending on how the mood took them. It is about a serious partnership and engagement between government and industry in order to ensure that we have a sustainable, sustainable industry in the UK. She asked me the question about energy costs.

I mentioned earlier the relative position of energy costs and of course we are doing more on that. I'm intending to do to do much more on that. And in answer to your question, would it, would it have helped more if this scheme had been in place earlier? And I would just say to her, I mean, clearly it would have helped if there had been a Labour government in place earlier and that would be my advice. Always vote Labour. Bill Esterson Deputy Speaker.
17:01
17:02
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I thank him for the very close attention he gives to this through his chairmanship of of the through his chairmanship of of the Committee of the the of the Energy Committee. And he started his question by mentioning the 500 jobs at Grangemouth, that maybe we've not discussed that enough. And I really do understand how this announcement from government today will bring certainty to those workers at Grangemouth, to their families and to their local community as well.

And it's incredibly important that we we acknowledge that on this point of energy costs. So I mentioned that. So my, my, my benchmark for this is how competitive we are in Europe. So I mentioned our electricity costs, particularly industrial electricity costs are cheaper than some countries in Europe. So Italy, Netherlands and Spain, but more expensive than France and Germany. The British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will take us a good way towards that, and we are already seeing the benefits of our investment in clean energy.

And so I've said, as I've said at this Dispatch Box before, the point from 2030 onwards we'll see some significant reductions, and particularly as we're bringing forward interconnectors now as well, interconnectors that will connect not only the UK with other countries, but also wind farm to wind farm because it is always windy somewhere in the North Sea. And that will also help to reduce capacity and drive down costs as well. So he will see that both our policy measures and our investment in infrastructure.
17:03
17:04
17:05
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
People in. >> People in. >> Falkirk, Grangemouth. And across Forth Valley are delighted to see the decisive action taken by this the decisive action taken by this government today to preserve 500 jobs in our community. This £120 million investment in £150 million deal is Labour's industrial strategy in action. It protects our industrial community and keeps the essential national infrastructure viable. I hope that there is a consensus in this House that this is a welcome, positive step. Just earlier this year, it's worth noting that the head of external affairs for Ineos told the Scottish Affairs Committee that prior to November 2023, announcement of the refinery's closure, that both governments were given the opportunity, the data and access to the data to make an investment decision, and neither government chose to do that.

Both the Tories and the SNP had the opportunity to support workers at Grangemouth in government, but did not lift a finger. Contrast this to this government's approach to the ethylene plant today, acting decisively before it was too late. Our action today and further action has supported new industry with a very welcome announcement last week of Myalgie bringing upwards of 310 or 400 jobs across Scotland, Grangemouth industrial future must move forward now and Labour are providing substantial further resources towards this. So if I could ask the Minister to provide us with greater detail on what guarantees for the long term viability of the ethylene site at Grangemouth they have received from Ineos, and when can Grangemouth expect further funding announcements from the National Wealth Fund £200 million commitment, as well as the additional £14 million secured by Scottish Labour MPs in the Budget last month to get announcements done sooner.
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:09
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:17
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Minister. I very much welcome this question because it gives me an opportunity to talk a bit about risk appetite and investment, which certainly I'm interested in. If other members interested in. If other members aren't, I apologise in advance. So in the National Wealth Fund is doing something special and different, but it's also worth looking at it alongside the other tools the government has British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. And you're right national wealth funds job is to crowd in. So it shouldn't be at the easy end of the investment.

Otherwise it will be. It will be crowding out and it has a target to produce a return on investment. So ultimately the National Wealth Fund needs to take a portfolio approach that delivers, that delivers that return. I know that industrial strategies, in contrast, in this country have suffered by very casual approaches around things like such as picking winners. This sort of language, which is which is really incredibly unhelpful. The point of taking a portfolio approach is that, of course, some businesses will succeed and some will not.

And frankly, if every business the National Wealth fund invested in succeeded, its risk appetite is in the wrong place. Some businesses will fail. We accept that that is absolutely the point of the approach. But as a result of the National Wealth Fund's investment, partnering with industry in the commercial sector, de-risking some of these projects, we will see some big successes to Douglas McAllister.
17:18
17:19
17:20
Graham Leadbitter Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Graham Leadbitter. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the members opposite. Forget what Parliament they're actually in and maybe the field for the Scottish Parliament. Who knows, who Scottish Parliament. Who knows, who knows. This is this is a welcome announcement, though it is a welcome announcement. The Scottish Government has been calling on the UK government for months now to intervene to protect jobs against mossmorran and scale seen in other parts of the UK, and the news will give at least some much needed Christmas cheer to the Grangemouth community at least.

And the workers at Ineos MP. The Scottish Government announced £8.5 million investment last week at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in Mialgae, jointly with the UK government and Celtic Renewables, and that will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long term industrial future that the site is achievable. We will continue to do all that we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has. However, the announcement the announcement today does not help the situation for those whose jobs are already lost at the neighbouring refinery.

And while there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the situation that is requiring the support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and, and and the use of EPL that is making just transition a near impossibility?
17:21
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will he mentions the refinery, but as I as I said earlier, Ineos made as I as I said earlier, Ineos made the final decision to close the refinery in November 2023 after having provided data over a period of years to the Conservative of years to the Conservative government in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood. And they said and did nothing. He talks about the scale of investment and I'm really surprised, to be honest, that he hasn't he hasn't, you know, raised this even more firmly.

We're talking about a complete package of investment in Grangemouth here announced by this government, approaching half £1 billion, £100 million in the summer, £200 million in the national wealth fund, £14.5 million in the Budget and £150 million in this package to anyone's nearest rounding error. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nothing shy of half £1 billion for Grangemouth. I would have thought the SNP would at least have acknowledged that. Katrina Murray.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Katrina Murray. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I pay tribute to all of the Ministers across all the Ministers across all the departments who have worked together to get this over, to get this over the line, and also a this over the line, and also a tribute to to my hon. Friend from Falkirk for not giving up on this Falkirk for not giving up on this and making sure that Grangemouth matters to all of us. We all have constituents who who live or work, who work in the, in the, the complex, who work in the supply chain and the real investment and being able to talk about new,
17:22
17:23
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mean, my hon. Friend spoke very powerfully there Friend spoke very powerfully there about how Grangemouth matters to the local area. I can say to her I was chairing a round table of the chemicals industry at the Wilton cluster in Teesside, and for those of us like me who have worked in industry or work in the chemicals industry, now Grangemouth matters to all of us in the whole of the United Kingdom and and the support of the workers and the families there in Grangemouth makes a big difference to all of our lives.

She mentions jobs, and I've talked about the jobs that have been created in Scotland and around the whole of the country, in the clean energy sector, and I saw this for myself last week when I attended a clean energy jobs fair at the Port of Tyne, where I spoke to apprentices excited about the new job opportunities that this government is creating. And the one thing that they know, because they heard it from me and they've heard it from themselves, is that reform are coming for their jobs, and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know that firmly, and they should certainly take that into account when they're voting. Members will have seen that. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members will have seen that. We do want to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish this around half past. So please do help each

**** Possible New Speaker ****

half past. So please do help each other out by short questions and short answers. Chris Murray. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I strongly welcome this announcement today? That will not only be important for the workers in Grangemouth, but for the wider
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:26
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
17:29
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:33
17:33
17:34
17:35
Jessica Toale Portrait Jessica Toale MP (Bournemouth West, Labour)
-
-
Toale. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to access to this House today. Unison arranged a House today. Unison arranged a lobby day for migrant care workers to meet their members of Parliament to discuss concerns around care worker visas, exploitation and support for the sector. Those attending came from across the country, including my Bournemouth country, including my Bournemouth West constituency, but some as far as the Scottish Highlands and Northern Ireland. I was shocked to learn that this event was learn that this event was originally intended to take place on the parliamentary estate in either Westminster Hall or the Committee Rooms, giving some of the hardest working and lowest paid workers in our country a valuable opportunity to visit and engage in this place of democracy.

Many of these workers took time off at an incredibly busy time arranging cover to attend. However, however, they were informed late on Tuesday evening that they were no longer be permitted to use the facilities in the house and instead moved to a venue off the estate, meaning the majority were not able to visit Parliament at all. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd be grateful for your guidance on how such decisions are made, how members can raise concerns with the House authorities, and whether you would be willing to join me in apologising to these key workers and ensure that they would be able to visit this House and meet members properly at a future date.
17:36
17:37
17:37
Natasha Irons Portrait Natasha Irons MP (Croydon East, Labour)
-
-
rule motion Natasha Irons. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision for the about the delivery of youth services by local authorities, including services under section 507 B of the Education Act 1996, to require local authorities to specify groups of young people to receive particular services for the purposes of personal and social development of people in those groups. To make provision about the inclusion of youth services in arrangements for the inspection of children's services and social care services.

To make provision about targets for delivery of youth work and measurement of delivery against those targets. To require local authorities to consult users and prospective users of youth services about the provision of those services and connected purposes. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, as outlined by this government's National Youth Strategy, every young person deserves a safe place to go, a trusted adult to turn to, and the opportunity to develop skills, confidence and a sense of belonging. For generations, youth services have provided exactly that.

They have offered support beyond the school gates. Stability when home life is difficult and early help long before problems escalate to crisis. Yet today, too many young people are growing up without access to those services. The duty on councils to provide youth services already exists in law. Section 507 of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to secure sufficient leisure time activities for young people. However, the law does not define what sufficient means. There are no clear expectations, no common standards, and no effective way to assess whether the duty is being met in practice.

This lack of clarity has left youth services vulnerable when councils are forced to balance competing statutory pressures, and as a result, funding for youth services has been cut by 1.2 billion since 2010. Over the same period, the number of council run youth centres has fallen by more than half, and what remains is not only smaller in scale but increasingly uneven in reach, with spending on youth services ranging from around £1 per young person in some areas and over £130 in others.

This inconsistency is the predictable outcome of a statutory framework that is vague, weakly enforced and too easily sidelined. This matters because youth services do not exist in isolation. When they are absent, pressure pressures do not disappear, they simply resurface elsewhere. And in England today, 1 in 5 children and young people are now have a probable mental health disorder. Incidents of youth violence remain high, with 3000 knife crime offences last year involving children. The ONS now reports that 16 to 24 year olds are now the loneliest group in our society, and last years Good Childhood report states that the UK's children and young people are now the most unhappiest in Europe.

I have seen first hand the impact that a lack of statutory protection and the defunding of youth services can have on a community, because in Croydon, which is London's youngest borough, we have lost our council run youth engagement team. This team of youth workers provided a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. The lack of statutory protection meant that this vital service was cut without proper consultation with key partners like the local police, the NHS or even by consulting widely with Croydon young people.

And whilst Croydon's voluntary sector is doing all it can to step up and step in where the council has stepped back without sufficient benchmarks, there is little our community can do to ensure Croydon's youth services are delivered consistently across the borough and in a way that reflects local need. The purpose of this bill is to address that structural weakness. It starts with a simple premise that if Parliament places a duty on local authorities that should that duty should have been meaningful, be clear and be held.

Local authorities to account. Youth services should not be left to chance, and young people should not be left waiting for support that never comes. At present, statutory guidance sets out broad principles but avoids firm expectations. It does not define minimum levels of provision, workforce capacity or accessibility. Over time, this lack of clarity has hollowed out provision and widened regional disparities. The bill proposes benchmarks around three core areas. Firstly, workforce capability capacity work. Youth work. Youth work is a skilled profession built on relationships, trust and safeguarding.

The bill therefore sets expectations around access to qualified youth workers, recognising the importance of professional expertise alongside volunteers and community organisations. These are not about imposing a one size fits all model or micromanaging local delivery. They are about setting a clear national floor by which provision should not fall, while leaving local authorities free to design services that reflect local need. Secondly, targets and benchmarks for delivery. These could include per head per head funding model the distance by which young people must travel to access services, or ensuring there are enough safe spaces for young people in each area.

These benchmarks bring transparency and comparability to spending decisions and make it easier for councillors, inspectors and local residents to see whether youth services are being properly resourced because without a clear sense of what adequate investment looks like, youth services will always struggle to compete with other statutory responsibilities. Thirdly, ensuring young people are consulted so that these services reflect local needs and their priorities. Youth services work best when young people help shape them and this bill seeks to embed consultation, participation and domestic democratic involvement of young people in the design of their services.

The good news, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this has been done before. In the early 2000, national guidance set out clear expectations on leadership, workforce and inspection. While those arrangements have fallen away since, they demonstrate that it is both possible and appropriate for government to define what sufficiency looks like. The bill also recognises the reality of modern delivery. Local authorities increasingly work in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. That partnership working will be made stronger if it is underpinned by coordination, data and accountability, by strengthening reporting requirements and linking youth services into existing inspection and outcome frameworks.

The bill aims to support improvement rather than impose punishment. The aim of this bill is to make youth services a core part of the local safety net, not an optional extra that disappears when finances are tight. This is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you services sit at the point where opportunity meets provision and prevention. Around 85% of young young person's waking hours are spent outside of the classroom. What happens during this time shapes their wellbeing, their confidence, and their future. And the evidence is clear that investment in youth services pays off.

Research by UK Youth and Frontier Economics shows that every pound invested in youth work delivers between £3.20 and £6.40 in social value through improved wellbeing, reduction in crime and better long term outcomes. So this is not just a moral investment in our nation's future. It is a practical one too. It is in this context that we must wholeheartedly welcome this government's national youth strategy. The political focus it gives to our young people, and the extra £500 million of investment that comes with it.

The strategy rightly recognises the importance of youth work and the need to look again at statutory frameworks that underpin them. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, a commitment to explore and review, whilst important, does not in itself restore provision on the ground. Young people who are growing up today cannot wait years for clarity to emerge. This bill takes the government's stated ambitions and gives them the practical effect that they need. It replaces ambiguity, ambiguity with clarity, aspiration with benchmarks and guidance with accountability.

It strengthens an existing duty rather than creating a new one, and it builds on mechanisms that are already in place. This is not about dictating a single model of provision. It is about setting a fair, transparent baseline so that no young, so that no young person is left without support simply because of where they live. It is about giving local authorities the framework they need to prioritise youth services, and to work effectively with the voluntary and community partners. And it is about ending the often patchwork postcode lottery of provision that young people currently face.

The Youth Services Bill offers a practical and proportionate way to achieve that. It strengthens the statutory duty, provides clarity where there is currently confusion and helps to ensure that youth services are treated as a core part of our commitment to the next generation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And for those reasons, I commend it to the House. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Doctor. Lauren Sullivan Josh Dean Jim Dickson. Shaukat Ahmed. Dean Jim Dickson. Shaukat Ahmed. Adam Jogee Shockat Adam Vikki Slade Sharon Hodgson Abtisam Mohamed Gareth Snell Afzal Khan Rachael Maskell Kim Johnson. And myself. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Natasha Irons. Youth Services bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Youth Services bill. Second Reading. What day? Friday the 16th of January.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 16th of January, 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. National insurance contributions,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National insurance contributions, Employer Pensions Contributions Bill, Second Reading.
17:48
17:48
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
yesterday's Finance Bill. There are just three. There are just three clauses for the Chuntering members clauses for the Chuntering members opposite to enjoy focusing on amending the Social Security amending the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and they do so to create a power to apply National Insurance contributions on salary sacrifice. contributions on salary sacrifice. Pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. I will focus year from April 2029. I will focus my remarks on three areas. First, why government action in this space was inevitable.

Second, the case for the pragmatic, balanced approach we propose to take. And third, how this fits with wider questions, crucial questions about pension savings that this House rightly focuses on. Madam, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. Jim Shannon. Thank you. Mr. Very, very quickly, the I've been contacted by quickly, the I've been contacted by the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland. FSB. They have told me the concerns with the National insurance contributions, National insurance contributions, but not just that utility prices are up some 52.7%. Labour costs are are up some 52.7%. Labour costs are up 51.5% and taxes are up 47.2%. How can the Minister and this government expect small businesses to actually survive with that level

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of increase? I ask that respectfully to the Minister. Minister. I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I'll come on to the exact points he's raising. The main answer to the question he raises, obviously, that we're introducing obviously, that we're introducing this change with a very long implementation period not coming in until 2029 to give everybody, businesses and others time to businesses and others time to adjust. And businesses have welcomed that across the board. But I'll come on to that. I'll come on I'll come on to that. I'll come on to that shortly, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is always important to keep the effectiveness and the value for money of tax reliefs under review.

After all, their cost is estimated to be over £500 billion a year. As I said, that is always true, but it's especially true when we see their costs explode. That is why we acted in the Budget to reform employee ownership trusts, capital gains tax relief, because its costs were set to reach more than 20 times more than it's intended, was intended as introduction. And it's what we see happening in the case of pension, salary sacrifice, it is its cost is on course to almost treble between 2017 and the end of this decade.

That would take it to £8 billion a year. For some context, that is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. I'll repeat that again. The cost of salary, pension, salary sacrifice was due to rise to the same as the equivalent of our spending in real terms on the Royal Air Force, the growth has been fastest amongst higher earners, with additional ratepayers tripling their pension salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. And while those on the higher salaries are most likely to take part, many others are unable to do so at all.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The of course. Thank him for. Giving way. I understand the justification for making changes to justification for making changes to salary sacrifice arrangements. He mentioned that higher earners. I wonder if you could explain a bit more about the breakdown between more about the breakdown between those who were benefiting under the current system as a as a percentage of the whole. I don't know whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the whole. I don't know whether he has that data with him. Minister Bell. I think my hon. Friend, for that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my hon. Friend, for that, I'll come on to some statistics that might give him some elements of those questions. So while those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. So I'll offer some of those. And this goes to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member. So the majority I'll make some progress and then give way further. But the majority of employers of course, do not offer salary sacrifice at all, including many small businesses.

Secondly, workers on the National living wage of excluded entirely and so are the 4.4 million self-employed across the UK. So on grounds of cost and fairness, it is near impossible to defend the status quo now. It is, of course, a major part of the job of the opposition to oppose some things that the government is doing, and I don't want to prejudge the remarks the hon. Member will offer shortly, but I'm confident we'll hear some opposition, maybe a word

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or two on this today. But the truth I'll give way. I'm really grateful to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful to him. Arguing for more money for the Royal Air Force. I hope very much his defence colleagues are his defence colleagues are listening to Treasury in particular, but we were told a little over a year ago that we had wiped the year ago that we had wiped the slate clean and the government wasn't going to be coming back to demand more money to fill various non-existent black holes and things. So what has actually changed over the past several months? That means he's now coming back to levy this very large sum of money.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank the Member for his question. I think I've already answered it, which is to say it's answered it, which is to say it's important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of this tax relief is growing very fast indeed. So we is growing very fast indeed. So we have reviewed this tax relief, and we think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to. But as I was saying, come on to. But as I was saying, I'm confidently looking forward.

I'm going to make a bit of progress. Then I, of course, will give way to Then I, of course, will give way to the hon. Member. The truth is, the reform was inevitable and conservative members, although they're not saying it now, know this is true because it's what they themselves said in government in the 2015 summer Budget. They said salary sacrifice arrangements are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising. The government will actively monitor. I will come on, I'll come on to what the last government wanted to do in the pension space in a second.

I'm glad the hon. Member is so keen to hear he's setting me up nicely for what is coming in a second. The the the Summer Budget 2015 went on to say this government will actively monitor the growth of these schemes and their effect on tax receipts. Just the argument I've given to the hon. Member just now. Now that monitoring led a year later to the then Chancellor, Baron Hammond of Runnymede, announcing benefiting kind restrictions, not pensions benefiting time restrictions. But he told this House the majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary and pay much lower tax.

That is unfair. He was right then and the same argument holds today. Now, former conservative Ministers should certainly agree because when in government they were planning on pensions to the point made by the hon. Member on pensions, exactly the kind of change we are now introducing by way of proof, in 2023, they commissioned research on restricting salary sacrifice, arrangements for pensions, for pensions, exactly the same measure they are now opposing today. And what was the proposed cap on pension salary sacrifice in that report? £2,000 a year, exactly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

same cap they are opposing today. Of course. I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He seems Minister for giving way. He seems to have co-opted the Royal Air Force into his argument, and the amount of money that's spent on it. amount of money that's spent on it. Is the Minister aware that absent the defence investment plan, which the defence investment plan, which was promised in the autumn and the House rises tomorrow, we have no idea about the size and shape and the cost of the Royal Air Force,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the government is late with its homework. Minister. Well, I thank the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the hon. Member for his question, as I always do. He always makes interesting points. But my larger point would be if the But my larger point would be if the party opposite refuses to support any increases in taxation ever, then the increases in spending that I think is a matter of cross-party support for the Ministry of Defence, as the hon. Member mentioned earlier, can't be funded and can't earlier, can't be funded and can't happen the now, the now. It is also the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that almost every tax expert in the country has noted the need for change and in most cases they've called for pension salary sacrifice to be ended entirely.

We are, however, taking a more pragmatic approach, recognising that change will affect many employers and employees. Our balanced approach has two key parts. First time, as I was saying to the hon. Member just now, nothing will change overnight. We're providing over three years notice of the reforms implementation. What did the previous government provide to employers? One year's notice of their reforms to salary sacrifice? This will give everybody involved time to prepare, time to prepare and adjust something widely welcomed by firms and business groups.

Employers and payroll providers have already been working with HMRC to ensure this change operates in the most effective way. That process will continue as we approach implementation. The second key design choice is the cap of £2,000. This cap protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring the system remains fiscally sustainable. The cap means the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected, and it means almost all 95% of those earning 30,000 or less who work disproportionately for small businesses will be entirely unaffected then, and 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a pragmatic and fair approach as well as the fiscally responsible one. Now some and I'm sure will hear this, will claim that salary sacrifice arrangements drive aggregate levels of pension savings. This is simply wrong. After all, salary sacrifice arrangements existed through the 2000 and into the early 20 tens. And what happened to pension savings during that period? Not rises, but big falls in private sector participation in pension savings. The existence of salary sacrifice did nothing to prevent a situation whereby 2012 only 1 in 3 private sector workers were saving into a pension.

What made a difference wasn't complicated. National insurance reliefs available to some employees. It was automatic enrolment, the groundwork for which was laid under the last Labour government and continued by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. It is that that reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving, and means over 22 million workers are now saving each month. We can also see that contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not in line with the growth of salary sacrifice. Pension salary sacrifice relief has doubled between 2019 and 2023.

Has this been associated with a surge in average pension contribution levels? No. They have remained entirely stable as a proportion of pay because all the evidence indicates it is largely automatic enrolment, which drives changes in pension savings. And this shouldn't surprise anybody because the same research commissioned by the party opposite I mentioned earlier pointed in the same direction. It found that the majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions.

More importantly, for any member of the public. Listen. Listening. It is important for all of us through this debate to be clear that pension saving will remain highly tax advantaged after these changes. I've seen some deeply misleading comments in the media and otherwise talking about wider changes to pension tax relief and saying people won't be saving as much as they previously were. The public should be clear. We are spending now over £70 billion per year on pension tax relief, and that will be entirely unaffected by these changes, and employer contributions will continue to be the most tax advantaged part of the pension tax system, being made entirely National Insurance contribution free.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are necessary changes. They are changes. Everyone who has thought about this subject knew would be needed. And they are changes being implemented in a pragmatic and balanced way. They are also consistent with the longer term approach to reforming the pension system that is now in train. There is cross-party agreement that the work of the Pensions Commission is important as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. We all know too many people are under saving now. Many commentators have called for higher minimum saving rates within automatic enrolment, including some of the frontbench opposite.

The commission is crunching the numbers and talking to employers, trade unions and the pensions industry. We should not prejudge their work. So here I would simply note that higher savings rates means pension tax relief costs rising further. Combine that with the reality that if pension salary sacrifice remained unreformed, the end point could be all employee contributions being funnelled through this route. That implies costs at least doubling again to well over £15 billion a year, which means £15 billion in higher taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services.

That is the logical conclusion from those opposing today's bill. Then we come to the real problem of some groups disproportionately under saving that. Again, members on both sides of this House have raised rightly in debates on pensions in recent months. The Pension Commission are focussed on groups we know are most exposed, exposed, including low earners, some ethnic minorities, women and the self-employed. This is a real challenge for our pension system. But the data is entirely clear that today's salary sacrifice is not the answer.

That is true. Whichever group you look at, let's take them in turn. The self-employed are a top concern, with only 1 in 5 saving into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from pension salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but it is higher earners that are most likely to be using salary sacrifice. And many more women are under saving for retirement. But it is many more men who use pension salary sacrifice. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are fair and balanced reforms.

They protect ordinary workers. They give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. Opposing them is not cost free. The savings from this measure are equivalent to over 250,000 knee and hip operations every year. The truth is, they are inevitable and that is why at least one party opposite was planning to introduce them. So I would just gently suggest to some members that they can, of course, take the easy route of opposing this change today.

But the truth is, they will be doing so with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because many know this change needed to come one day, and I suspect not one of the parties opposite will promise to undo it in the years ahead. But we will see. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Budget delivered badly needed tax reforms, ducked for too long by previous Chancellors pragmatic reform in front of us today, or ensuring that everyone driving on the roads contributes to their upkeep. These reforms are what it takes to keep cutting waiting lists, cutting, borrowing and cutting energy bills.

And I commend them. And this bill to the House.
18:02
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the bill be >> The question is that the bill be now read a second time, Shadow Minister Mark Garnier. >> Yeah. >> Well, thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I have to say, it is a joy to yet again be locking horns with the pensions Minister on horns with the pensions Minister on a topic that is important to us all, saving for retirement. And I think it is important to note that there are many things that we agree on. We all acknowledge there is there is an impending issue with pension adequacy when 50% of savers are projected to miss a retirement income target set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, we agree there is a problem that needs dealing with.

Second, we all acknowledge that UK pension funds are not investing into the UK equity market to the extent that we would all want, although I would caveat that with a fundamental disagreement. We want to understand the problem on this side. He wants to tell fund managers what they should and shouldn't be doing in terms of where their investment goes, but we also agree with the noble aim of delivering growth in the UK economy, even if the government are making a little bit of a mess of it in delivering that aim.

Growth slowing, inflation up, unemployment up. But hopefully they're going to get the hang of it in due course. But that is why the Chancellor's Budget is disappointing if you're a pensioner. She has flown kites about the tax free lump sum. She's frozen the personal allowance threshold. She's forced millions of pensioners to start paying income tax. These are her choices. If you're a saver. She has reduced the cash Isa limit to £12,000 to scrap the lifetime of for new investors, which has increased tax on dividends and savings by two percentage points.

Her choices. And if you're a hard working person, this government has reduced real household disposable income, has pulled millions more people into paying the higher rate of income tax, created perverse incentives that, for some, make them better off on benefits. These are her choices. So it is no wonder that this Budget has been dubbed the smorgasbord of misery. And it has now got to the stage where our economy has never been taxed so much, and it will get worse when coming into office.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the tax take was 36.4% of GDP by the time they leave office. In four years time, it's going to be 38.2%. And it's sometimes worth looking at examples of how this is levied. For example, a basic rate taxpayer earning £100 will pay 20% tax, but they will also pay 12% National Insurance and actual tax rate of 32%. Add to that their employer's contribution and for a headline basic rate taxpayer on up to £50,000 for each £100 they earn, the taxman takes £47.

For a higher rate taxpayer, the marginal rate goes to 57%. The tax band takes more than the actual employee. So given this hit to payrolls both at the employee and the employer level, it is no wonder that saving into a pension through salary sacrifice has become popular. Even the government thinks it's a brilliant idea using it for 10% of government employees. It is no wonder, therefore, that people use incentives like salary sacrifice to make the most of their money to do the right thing, to save a little bit more, to take responsibility for their futures, and to not rely on the state in their retirement.

And it's no surprise, then, that 7.7 million people take advantage of this. So here we are with something that is popular, that incentivises the right behaviour, that the government says, no, we don't like it. The government's proposals that we are discussing today is a tax on 3.3 million people and 290,000 employers, those in the highest level of play. And how much are they being asked to contribute? How much are we going to whack savers? £4.8 billion Madam Deputy Speaker. That's right.

If you do the right thing, if you work and save, this government will come after you. But Madam Deputy Speaker the OBR gets this. They realise, unlike apparently the government, that this will change behaviour. And so the tax take drops to 2.6 billion in the second year because people will change their behaviour. Even the government loses out on this. The government's contradictions are legion. The financial inclusion strategy was published recently when it said very clearly our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported, to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.

A brilliant idea. Thumbs up from the Pensions Minister. And even after that very clear message, the government has reduced the cash Isa limited, scrapped lifetime ISAs for new investors, introduced dividend tax by 2%, and the icing on the cake is a £4.8 billion tax on pension savers by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way to his point about changing behaviour. We've already seen reports that two out of five people are less likely to save if the salary sacrifice scheme goes. We've already seen a reduction in contributions because of the cost of living crisis, and we just moving the pain somewhere else. We're going to end up with less

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're going to end up with less people able to support themselves in an old age, and it will be back on the state again. Absolutely. The point. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. The point. The government is really keen on getting people to save for their future. It's really good and incentivise them, and then does everything it can to try to stop them doing it. And the hon. Member is absolutely right. We're just going to kick another problem down the road. And by the way, when the when the when the Minister talks about the fact that that these are, these are hip replacements and all the rest of it, it's savers money. It's just you're taxing them less anyway, the even after I say the very clear message, the government, as I said, at the same time, the government looks to improve pensions adequacy and they will take at the same time as the government looks to improve.

They're going to be taking 4.8 billion from savers and employers. They identify a problem, say they will work to make it better and then make it worse. Surely when they were writing this Budget and I know the pensions Minister has been a significant pen holder in this process, they must have seen the extraordinary contradictions in their proposals. So you would expect me to bang on about this? I'm an opposition Minister and that's what my job is. But let's listen to the verdict from a few experts about the policy we're debating today.

Let's have a listen. Pensions UK I quote, any change to salary sacrifice will inject uncertainty into a system that needs long term trust, not sudden shocks. Introducing a cap would weaken incentive to save when we are facing a generation retiring with inadequate retirement savings, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, I quote a cap will make it more complex for employers to offer a simple and flexible solution for retirement savings. The Institute of Financial Equity Actuaries. The decision to impose a 2000 limit will undermine current efforts to improve retirement outcomes for individuals.

In doing so, the act of savings into a pension will now be more expensive, more complex, and less attractive to both employers and employees. Evelyn Partners restricting the sensible tax benefit that makes private sector saving more attractive adds insult to injury and a two tier system. PwC in a bid to bolster the public purse, the Budget risk reducing employees take home pay while placing pressure on businesses through rising employment costs. Hargreaves Lansdown reduced restricting salary sacrifice on pensions contribution can cause long term damage to people's retirement prospects.

We could see employers becoming less likely to increase pension contributions beyond auto enrolment minimums. The Society of Pension Professionals. It goes on and on. Is this rousing endorsement by the industry something that the government is proud of? It's absurd. So when I was visiting the Minister last week, he'll remember it well about this an oral questions. He proudly held up the report that was commissioned under the previous government. Indeed our report, but was published in May this year.

It's a weighty tome, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even its title is pretty dry. Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions. And he proudly told us this document underscored the rationale for Ow because it's important. Important. So the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, after reading it, Madam Deputy Speaker, what the report actually concludes is, and I quote all the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research, which includes the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively by those interviewed.

The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees, and disincentivize pension savings. The report he's using tells him not to do it. The report report. Also, the report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pension is used by employers, in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension. The report states that extra benefits include savings for employees so they have more to spend on essentials tackling the cost of living crisis savings for employers, which they could then invest back into their business and staff, and incentives for recruitment and retention.

These, Madam Deputy Speaker, are all good things. This is the stuff of delivering growth. It's the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. So why would this government want to take it away? The conclusion it came to was that of the three options for change that were being proposed, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. The least terrible option, that is. He talks about it being a secret plan. It's a published document. What is he talking about? It's the most it's the most extraordinary thing.

It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A problem. He calls he refers to it in, in terms which none of us recognise terms which none of us recognise here, but he has brought it in. He's brought it in. This is the He's brought it in. This is the point. He's the Minister. Chuffed. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least? Worst choice for everyone is here is the truth. It was a Chancellor's choice to introduce this policy and they are the ones who are implementing it.

They're the ones who are in government. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, let's get to the to the measures and the impact of this bill. And to be fair, it's a very even bill. There is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle income earners, typically someone in their 30s, they earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where this attack on savings starts. Right at that point in life when you really should be doing your very best for your future retirement, this perfectly this perfect target market for the government's savings ambitions.

But it doesn't stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million people, 3.3 million savers will be affected. That's 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people that work hard, who the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes on. Middle income employees will be affected more than higher earners under the bill, according to the Financial Times, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that pay will pay the same amount of National Insurance contribution as an employee on £80,000.

If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, and this means an employee who earns £50,000 will pay the same amount in National Insurance contribution as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The government keeps telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit the very people we should be encouraging to save more. But the bill will also potentially hit low earners.

Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add this to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom. Because the accounting of this looks at regular payments, not one offs. I'm slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the the government has got a rather bad cough. I hope he gets better. This will this will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects. And finally it hits employers. In the last Budget, the government absolutely hammered business.

They increased employer National insurance contributions to 15%. And at the same time, they also reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured. They were reassured, Madam Deputy Speaker, by the Chancellor's promise that she wouldn't come back for more. And here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses. So let's look at what the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. So according to the government's own impact assessment, this will hit 290,000 employers. And as was highlighted by a business in the 2025 report, if salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be an additional cost of 600 and £700,000 per annum to the company in National Insurance.

And while they aren't abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice or rather the pairing, is clearly created a. Anyway, so there's going to be a cost. So this is money, but this is money. This is money that is going to be taken away from business costs. This is going to be. He's chuntering from a sedentary position. He's he's obviously proud of what he's doing to the pensions industry. So furthermore, it's going to create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system there is little administrative issues.

The only thing they have to have to bear in mind is ensuring their employee doesn't fall below the national living wage. And that's it. So what does the government do? Go for the most complicated option that this report considered. And this was something that was explicitly stated by those involved in research as the Pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said, we'd have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job. And at a time when the National Audit Office estimates the annual cost on business to just comply with this government's tax system, tax system is £15.4 billion.

This government feels it is right to put more costs on them. And I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor's pledge to cut red tape by a quarter? I think I will probably move on a little bit if I can go to my conclusion in order to save people. But to conclude, to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and and wrap up their Christmas stockings, and particularly the pensions Minister who's who's, unlike the Christmas Grinch, is taking a lot of money away from me.

Anyway. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to encourage them more to save for their retirement. I know the Minister would agree with this, so I hope he hears the genuine concerns I've raised on behalf of a lot of people, many, many people and businesses and are very worried about this. And he needs to take this away and he needs to think carefully about it. Fundamentally, though, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business.

Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives like salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that if you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out. It is the wrong policy to pursue and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we will definitely vote against it tonight. Yeah. So next I'm going to call Jim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So next I'm going to call Jim Dickson and then Steve Darling for the Liberal Democrats. And the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Liberal Democrats. And the knife will fall at 7:00 Jim Dickson. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor's Budget at the end of November enables this government to deliver the priorities we set out deliver the priorities we set out clearly in our manifesto last year, and I'd like to pay tribute to the work that the Chancellor and the Ministers on the front bench tonight and across the Treasury team have done in order to ensure that we are able to do that. As the Minister has said, this is a very straightforward bill. It means that
18:18
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
from April 2029, there'll be limits to NICs relief that higher earners to NICs relief that higher earners can take advantage of through salary sacrifice, but importantly, it protects lower earners with a £2,000 threshold. It's always a challenge for any government to challenge for any government to find the right balance in its policies, and this change, I believe, ensures fairness in a believe, ensures fairness in a system where we could otherwise have seen the costs. As has already been said of salary sacrifice schemes triple between 2017 and the end of the decade, undermining vital public service and investment priorities.

The armed services has been mentioned. We could just as easily talk about the NHS and education, our prison system and a vast number of other public services which everyone in this House would want to see properly funded. The greatest burden in this change, therefore, is being borne by those with the broadest shoulders. It's right that we've kept our manifesto pledges on tax, and it should only be in the most challenging circumstances that we step back from these commitments. And this change has enabled us to do that.

It is good to see the government getting on with delivering the change we promised. With inflation coming down, we hope with a sixth cut in interest rates coming soon, with gilt prices moving in the right direction and with growth forecast to rise next year, I haven't had a chance to since the Budget. As a member of the Select Committee to speak in this chamber, I just wanted if, with the indulgence of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to welcome the lifting of the two child benefit cap, it was clear from the evidence we heard at the Treasury Select Committee that this change will transform thousands of young lives across the country, including older.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will make exactly the same point that I made yesterday. Yesterday's debate was about the Finance Bill. This is on the Finance Bill. This is on the National Insurance contributions Employer pensions contributions bill. It's not on the two child cap. It's not on spending commitments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not on spending commitments. Jim Dickson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. And I will for your guidance. And I will conclude simply by saying that when the Chancellor appeared before our the Chancellor appeared before our committee last week, she was clear that this was a Budget of necessary and fair choices, of which the bill we're discussing today is one on tax, so that we can deliver on the public's priorities for rebuilt public services and fair growth.

And this change enables us to do this here. Darling.
18:20
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And we quite what we're seeing here And we quite what we're seeing here today is the tune remaining the same from the Budget, but perhaps same from the Budget, but perhaps the words changing a little and therefore we're seeing the fact therefore we're seeing the fact that we that the there is short term gain for the tax man, a long term pain for the taxpayer, and particularly those who are wishing to save for their pensions.

And the Minister was right to highlight how we need to be driving more people to save for their pensions, in fact, that we are seeing about 12 million people falling short. And when we look at Scottish Widows, they they've shared a report in the not too distant past where up to 40% of people are set not to have a comfortable retirement. And that is set to be going into reverse over the last couple of years, the Association of British Insurers also highlight the fact that we are seeing people less likely to invest in their pensions if these proposals go forward.

Actually, 40% of people less likely to invest. So there is this double whammy of of impact on those wishing to save. And I would ask the government to reflect on this, these impacts that it will have. And then the Federation of Small Businesses also suggest that a number of small businesses do use this mechanism as a way of actually enhancing enhancing their offer to employees to actually retain them. And there is the suggestion that there will be higher national insurance costs for some of their members if when this is withdrawn, and one only has to reflect on what businesses have had to suffer with the Ukraine war, higher costs around their energy bills, we've had the National Insurance hike that kicked in April of this year, that has put a cold hand around the heart of our businesses, and then, of course, we have business rates that are set to go up significantly over the next few years.

So it is a parlous state that we have with our economy. And as liberal Democrats, we really want to see a jump start to our economy. And we have some clear proposals that I will not go over again in fear of getting in the bad books of the Deputy Speaker. That would be the the way forward as far as we're concerned. So we do not want to see our economy going into reverse gear for this. So we would call on the government to reflect again on these proposals.

Thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker and it strikes me that it shouldn't be particularly controversial that a particularly controversial that a government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement. They should be encouraging people to take responsibility for their future, and they should be encouraging people to feel secure in later life. And therefore, whilst we are dealing with what is whilst we are dealing with what is a a very short bill which appears purely procedural in its nature,
18:24
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
purely procedural in its nature, the practical consequences of it are much more profound because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction. Beneath this layer of technical language lies a much more troubling choice. It's a choice to tax aspiration. It's a choice to penalise prudence, and it's a choice to chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security. In later years. Now, the government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected.

But that is not how it will feel to the majority in the real world. 1 in 5, approximately 20% rely on salary sacrifice. These are people who are doing the right thing. They are choosing long term security over short term consumption. But under this bill, to save means to pay more. This is not positive pension reform. It's a stealth national insurance rise, and it's dressed up in the cloak of technicality at a time when businesses are already struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, this bill quietly imposes yet another burden upon them.

And I remind the government benches that fairness cuts both ways. It's not fair to tell people to save for their future, and then tax them more for doing so. It's not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it's not fair to build long term public finances on short term revenue grants. There's also a moral component to this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this will disproportionately affect women. Many women return for maternity leave and often then increase their contributions to cover for that career.

Break these proposals the I'll finish the point, if I may. These proposals, as drafted, will result in those who plan

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibly being incumbent with higher additional National Insurance charges. I'll give way to the Minister. I'm reluctant to intervene, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm reluctant to intervene, but I just on two points. He's just raised the hon. Members, just raised them. So men are much more raised them. So men are much more likely to be using salary sacrifice than women. So the last point, I'll offer him a chance to reconsider the point he just said about them the point he just said about them being disproportionately affected. And then it is also he, before that said that this meant that people were being encouraged to save, but were being encouraged to save, but then would be penalised if they did so.

Just given that there are members of the public listening who will make choices about their savings, I just invite him to remind everyone that it is still very tax advantaged to save into their pension, and all members on all sides of this House should be encouraging people to save for their pension, which the tax system will continue to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the Minister for his intervention. He's right. People should be putting into their pensions and we should be pensions and we should be encouraging them to do so. We shouldn't be putting forward legislation that that legislation that that disincentivizes that in respect, in respect of women. It is a fact that respect of women. It is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks. And therefore, by virtue of that, they are they may want to that, they are they may want to make up their contributions.

This legislation, this legislation will disadvantage those individuals. The salary sacrifice scheme has now become the bedrock of the modern pension system in our workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employers national insurance contributions, and it allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step as a consequence of this piece of legislation. My fear is that many employers may scale back those contributions. They may cut other benefits associated with work, or they may even discontinue schemes entirely.

So if we want a country that values responsibility, if we want a country that rewards work, and we want a country where people take long term plans about their economic security, then this bill, I'm afraid, takes us in entirely the wrong direction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Graham Leadbitter. Okay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, businesses are still Speaker. Well, businesses are still reeling from last year's National Insurance increase. This Labour government is set to increase tax government is set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice, pension contribution schemes for workers with this bill. So the workers with this bill. So the Labour Party said previously in the 2024 manifesto on page 79, they stated our system of state, private and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement.
18:28
Graham Leadbitter Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. It gets even more ridiculous when the same manifesto also stated on page 21 Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National insurance. This is exactly what this bill does. Recent CBI survey data showed that 3 in 4 employers will have to 3 in 4 employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in this bill, as the CBI has said, attacks on doing the right, this attacks on doing the right thing, going on to state that ultimately this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension savings rates.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not just the CBI that have voiced alarm at this bill. The Association of British Insurers stated that capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a shortsighted tax grab, which will lower pension saving and undermine people's retirement security. The Minister referred in his introduction to anyone who has thought about this, coming to the same conclusion. He may not wish to refer to the CBI and Abi coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it. It is not even clear that the measures will raise money that the Chancellor expects.

A former pensions Minister from the coalition has said he expects it to raise a fraction of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade the measure. In addition, in addition to the likelihood of restructuring payments, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that they expect employers to simply pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be working people who will ultimately pay for this short term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement.

As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in this bill, is deeply unfair to savers. For businesses, this move will land them with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium sized employers who are still absorbing the increased costs from last year's Budget. Is this muddled policy really, really from a government that stood on a pledge of growing the economy? It is yet again another Budget and another rise in national insurance by Labour.

There are numerous unanswered questions here, but top of the list include what assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would this decrease be? And can Labour seriously make a commitment in this chamber to not increase the National Insurance in next year's Budget, given the rises in both their budgets since coming into power? Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is deeply flawed and will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be supported by the SNP today. Yeah, yeah yeah. Well. And if there are any further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And if there are any further backbench contributions, shadow Minister Richard Fuller. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's well for a bill that proposes to raise bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount. This has been a remarkably brief debate, but I remarkably brief debate, but I would just like to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West
18:31
Richard Fuller Portrait Richard Fuller MP (North Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
and Shirley, who quite correctly said that this is yet another measure by this government that is anti aspiration. And the hon. Member for Moray, West, Nairn and Member for Moray, West, Nairn and Strathspey, who made it clear that this is yet another example of this is yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto not to raise taxes on working people, to raise taxes on working people, and asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister, in his reply, will address as this measure is due to come in force in three years time, what assessment has the government taken about behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount that's in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis? Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the final economic bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons.

But it is another bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The bill is a bad measure. It is an anti savings measure. It is an attack on prudence. So of course the Conservative Party will oppose it. But this final bill at the end of this full on year of Labour government leaves me with one fundamental question why does this Labour government hate the private sector so much? If you're a family farmer, this Labour government will snatch it away from your children when you die.

If you believe in private education, this Labour government will put up a barrier at the school gate and if you save for your retirement, labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why does this Labour government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing? This bill makes a mockery of the government's own pension commission, set up in July this year when it wrote, put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025, undermining a central measure of societal progress.

Back in June, the government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now they are adding to the problem. And I have a question about the numbers. It's interesting, isn't it, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this measure is scored by the OBR in that is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029/30 at 4.845 billion, falling the following year to 2.585 billion. Now, 2029/30 is an important year because that's when the Chancellor says she's put in all this headroom.

How interesting. I wonder, Minister, do you agree with the observation? Does he agree? And, Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the Minister agrees? Thank you, I do apologise. You're quite good at that. Does the Minister agree with with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world's biggest advisors on pensions, when he said, quote, while earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2930, the year that counts for the Chancellor's fiscal rule.

1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain, which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief. So can I ask, the Minister, is that number of £4.845 billion the full amount? Is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be? Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions.

We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector there is the greater certainty given by a defined benefit scheme. But in the public sector there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings on average. According to research by the Taxpayers Alliance.

But in the private sector, the average contribution is only 8%. So why is the government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? So this pension, this bill actively exacerbates these differences. And by the way, it does nothing, nothing to tackle the unfunded 1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, again, which will fall on taxpayers. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is yet another example of the lack of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

private sector experience on the front bench. Yes. This government is the least

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This government is the least business aware government in our country's history. They are taxing country's history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. Now, while they can rely on their cushy, gold plated public sector pensions, private sector workers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are worse off. Before I call the Minister, I just want to put it on record that just want to put it on record that the behaviour I have seen from both frontbenchers this evening has been about the worst I have ever about the worst I have ever witnessed. The debate should take place across the Dispatch Box, not from a sedentary position. Minister Tomlinson. No, no, not. He started

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tomlinson. No, no, not. He started it. This is not a classroom, Minister Tomlinson. Thank you.
18:38
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, for bringing the front benches on both sides to heel at just the right time. Before I am about to make the closing remarks today. It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to close this Second Reading debate. And I thank all members on both sides of the House for their contribution. I thank my right hon. My my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for his contribution and his brief foray. And it was brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, into broader points around the Budget as well, which which I did appreciate and I will try and minimise in my closing remarks, the Shadow Minister raised a few points, and while he's whispering over there, I will just confirm to him that the costing provided by the OBR does account for the dynamic effects of this policy.

The costing itself has been certified by the OBR, and the reason why this change does not come in for a number of years is because it will give businesses time to plan, which we think is an important thing to do when we are making significant changes to the pension system. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an important, if small, bill and is an important debate debate to have, even though it has felt somewhat rushed after coming after many final week statements and questions that have come today.

But it has given me a bit more time to prepare some remarks, which I've hastily cut down from the 30 minutes I was planning. Oh shame. And we'll see if we can. We will, we will, we will, we will, we will see if we can make faster progress than than that for all concerned. But in the, in the in the extra time I had this afternoon, I thought that since this will be the last time the House will divide before Christmas, I would attempt to shoehorn my closing remarks into a Christmas theme.

So I present. So I present very briefly the 12 numbers of Christmas, the Salary Sacrifice Edition, and I will start with 12 words from Baron Hammond of Runnymede on how some employees are, in his words, able to sacrifice salary and pay much lower tax. This is unfair. The whips can count and can count that as 12 words. I can see. Very good. It is clear that even ten years ago the Conservative Party were aware of issues with salary sacrifice schemes.

They knew that we must ensure that significant tax reliefs totalling £75 billion a year are properly targeted. That is why we are capping pension salary sacrifice contributions at £2,000. Madam Deputy Speaker, and let's be clear, we are not removing pension tax relief, just the ability for unlimited relief via salary sacrifice, which many people can't access in any case. Which brings me on to my number 11. Those earning 11, 12 or £13 an hour earning at the national minimum wage or the National Living Wage.

Madam Deputy Speaker can't make use of salary sacrifice schemes because if they sacrificed their salary, they would be paid less than the minimum. It's the richest who benefit the most from this. Ten are. I will happily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to my hon. Friend. It's Christmas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've been. Here the whole time. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I. Ask the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ask the. Minister talks about about the impact of this on on different earners. The previous Minister earners. The previous Minister mentioned that only 1 in 5 self-employed people are actually get a pension. And I think actually quite another quote, another quote about the amount of low earners. Can you reflect on that. And actually that's what we need to is get more people signing up for a pension. 4.4. 4 million of the self-employed are also not able to save into salary sacrifice schemes, and it is right that we make the scheme fairer for all.

Let me continue to run through my numbers. So 1010 million people have signed up to a pension since auto enrolment, which has limited the need for salary sacrifice. There are over 900 tax reliefs, and this is one of a number that we are reducing to raise revenue fairly at this Budget without intervention. This salary sacrifice would have cost 8 billion a year by the end of the decade. Instead, we will now raise £7 billion from this change over the course of the scorecard.

The change will affect those on higher earnings. More. Madam Deputy Speaker 60. That's 60% of the contributions come from the top fifth of employees and just 5% of those earning less than £30,000 will be affected. And we will give businesses time and we will give businesses time to plan. This isn't coming in for for I we should make progress. This isn't coming in for four or a bit less calendar years. Stepping back, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my final three numbers, let me briefly set out how some of the long term decisions this government is taking are paying off.

Inflation figures today show that it's fallen to nearly 3%, with wages up more in this government than in the first decade under the Conservatives and in the last two budgets. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has made the right decisions for the good of the British people. We've focussed on improving public services because we know that we were elected to put them right. We focussed on getting living standards up because we were elected to end decline and we focussed on making the right decisions.

Madam Deputy Speaker, for the long term, because we were elected to put the short term chaos of years gone by to bed. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude the final number, no partridge in a pear tree, but nine. But my number one, this fantastic country. We are all here to represent and improve this one great country of ours, a land, Madam Deputy Speaker, full of hope and wonder, particularly at this time of year, the families and friends looking forward to seeing each other over the coming weeks of neighbours who look out for one another, and communities that can come together at Christmas, which we all want to get to in good time of people.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that work hard and want the state and the economy to work for them in return. This country of ours, which I know honourable and right hon. Members across both sides of this House, care about deeply. Even if we do disagree on much, it deserves our best. And although this bill may only be small and only have a few clauses, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is part of a bigger story of a government that loves this country and its people and wants the best for it of a government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is making the right decisions for the national interest and a government that is working every day to help everyday Brits get a fairer deal in every way that we can. And on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
18:45
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that the bill be >> The question is that the bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. are of that opinion, say aye. Is Is that Is that the Is that the bill Is that the bill be Is that the bill be now Is that the bill be now read Is that the bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. of the contrary. No, no, but tellers for the ayes are Imogen Walker and Lilian Greenwood the tellers for the noes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I have I have no I have no idea I have no idea what. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 312. The noes to the left 165.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

165. Yeah. Okay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Okay. The ayes to the right were 312. The noes to the left 165. So the The noes to the left 165. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. Program. Motion to be moved formerly. The question is as on the Order Paper, As many as are of that opinion, say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number four on Energy Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as are of that opinion, say aye. of the contrary. opinion, say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Petition Tom Gordon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Petition Tom Gordon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to present this petition, a petition on behalf of Kathy Allday. Alongside it, there
18:59
None Portrait Petitions
-

Kathy Allday. Alongside it, there are over 2300 online signatures to calling to save Knaresborough Castle, which is in a poor state of repair and is vital to our town's history and the thriving tourism industry we have. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to encourage North Yorkshire Council, which is responsible for Knaresborough Castle maintenance, to work with the Duchy of Lancaster to prioritise the maintenance of the castle, its estate and create a comprehensive restoration plan, and securing a dedicated funding stream to help preserve the integrity of the castle and its history.

Happy Christmas Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Knaresborough Castle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just. Petition Tim Roca. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I begin by offering my deepest can I begin by offering my deepest sympathy to the family of Ethan McLeod, who died tragically in a car accident yesterday. He was a brilliant footballer and an brilliant footballer and an inspiration to young people across Macclesfield. I'm proud to present a petition to the House signed by a petition to the House signed by 7200 residents on paper, complemented by a further 11,714 online, totalling nearly 19,000 people, who expressed their clear opposition to this proposal of you.

I wholeheartedly share. Residents and local councils are united in concern about the loss of green belt and agricultural land, the strain on already stretched roads, schools and services, and the impact on local wildlife and the rural character of our communities. I want to thank the volunteers who work tirelessly to raise awareness, collect signatures and make their voices heard. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to abandon the proposal for a new town abandon the proposal for a new town

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition proposed new town Petition proposed new town in Adlington, Cheshire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I beg to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Doctor Andrew

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Murrison. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
19:02
19:02
Andrew Murrison Portrait Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
He was blown seven feet across the garden, waking up on a patch of garden, waking up on a patch of scorched grass with catastrophic injuries found by his customer. He injuries found by his customer. He was airlifted to Bristol in 12 minutes and placed in a coma. He woke up surrounded by his woke up surrounded by his distraught family. He was very lucky to survive, but he was left lucky to survive, but he was left with life changing injuries. He has lost his left arm below the elbow, several toes and a great deal of leg leg musculature.

He has undergone over 20 sets of surgical intervention, suffered severe burns all over his body and can walk or stand only with the utmost difficulty. And now he is losing his sight. As a delayed effect of the electrocution. Jason is just 34 years old with three small children. He had started his own business that was growing and providing for his young family. He's a real doer, but his injuries are such that it is going to be extremely difficult for him to work again.

What happened was this 33,000V leapt without physical contact, about two metres from an overhead power cable to Jason's telescopic, water fed cleaning pole. The Health and Safety Executive made enquiries, of course, but concluded there was no breach of regulations that warranted investigation. Indeed, an HSE spokesperson told the BBC that the overhead power lines involved in this incident met national safety standards in the UK. We tolerate high tension power cables at a slung surprisingly close to commercial and residential buildings, but it wasn't the overhead power lines that felled Jason.

It was the cleaning pole. As Jason said to his father, John, shortly before he was taken to theatre to have his forearm amputated. I don't understand, dad. I bought an insulated pole. It should not have mattered that he was close to a power line, because the pole should have been fully insulated, but it wasn't. Jason was using a telescopic pole that could extend and retract. The handle section at the bottom was insulated. The extended section was not. He was electrocuted when he reached up to retract the extended section.

Before Jason came to see me. I have to say I knew very little about window cleaning. As he and John recounted the story, I assumed it was the water from the Waterford pole that was the culprit. Since tap water, being impure, conducts electricity perfectly. Well. Jason, his dad put me right. Window cleaners, including Jason that day, use pure water, what is often called zero water. This kind of water has been filtered to remove all or nearly all dissolved solids, so that it leaves no water marks on windows after cleaning.

Ordinary tap water does not have that property. At that moment, I realised why my own attempts at window cleaning at home invariably left the glass looking worse. The crucial point is this pure water is non-conductive, so the water in Jason's pole was not the culprit. What caused this accident was inadequate insulation in a tool designed to be used at height, even in proximity to overhead power lines. This is not a new unforeseeable risk. The first water fed poles developed in the United States in 1950s were made entirely of aluminium.

When window cleaners started to be electrocuted, the manufacturers simply slapped on some warning labels. At that time, the greatest hazard to window cleaners in Britain was falling off ladders. But when pole technology crossed the pond in the 1990s, its safety issues came with it. One British manufacturer, Craig Maldon, head of Ionic Systems in Swindon, whose expertise I have drawn on extensively recognised that danger. Early. He sought out non-conductive materials, developing composite glass fibre and carbon fibre poles. He prioritised insulation in the handle and worked with the HSE to introduce training and guidance.

As the industry moved away from ladders and towards working from terra firma. But critically, Madam Deputy Speaker, this was voluntary, not required. There was and remains no mandatory British standard governing the electrical insulation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of telescopic cleaning poles. Delighted Jim Shannon. Can I commend the hon. Member for South Wales West for bringing for South Wales West for bringing this forward? I was just sitting here and I was just thinking to myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, years myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, years ago, I lived in a farm years ago, farmers weren't aware of the telescopic of their hydraulic lifts telescopic of their hydraulic lifts and touching cables. They weren't aware of falling off are the warnings of falling off roofs.

And warnings of falling off roofs. And there was a campaign started to ensure that farmers took more care of themselves and made sure they they followed a a health and safety regulation. The hon. Gentleman and I think of his constituent and my sympathies and my concerns and my thoughts are with him. And as he deals with the life that he's now having to deal with, does the hon. Gentleman feel the campaign is necessary now for those who were involved in the workplace safety and Waterford poles and window cleaning industry, same as it was for the farmers many years ago, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

did they? Farms are very safety conscious. The hon. Gentleman is quite,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman is quite, quite right and occupations that are not predictable are particularly dangerous. So agriculture is clearly one, construction would be another and construction would be another and window cleaning plainly is another one. And of course in the window cleaning industry, as its cleaning industry, as its association will say, is a particular issue, because very often people are essentially start ups. They're very often one man bands, usually men. Madam Deputy Speaker, they don't necessarily have training.

They're probably not aware, which is why it's so important to make the changes that I'm suggesting we make so that we engineer out the problem so that people are not exposed to the hazards that I have described and which, sadly, Jason has fallen victim to. The omission of any recognition of the issue in British standards really matters more now than it ever has, because the polls I have described are no longer specialist equipment. They're used everywhere. They used on residential streets below overhead cables.

They're used near rail infrastructure, they're used in airports, they're used in hospitals, schools and industrial sites. They use not just for window cleaning, but increasingly for solar panel cleaning, gutter clearing, roof treatment, camera inspections and building maintenance. They are available online, relatively inexpensively, and they're available for use by amateurs and DIYers, and they are increasingly imported cheaply from overseas, especially China. Meeting no enforceable UK electrical safety standards at all. In 2011, a British standard was published that could have changed everything, and that's BS.

8020. This standard governs insulating hand tools used near live electrical conductors up to 1000V. It requires rigorous construction standards. It requires testing at 10,000V, providing a 10 to 1 safety margin. It mandates clear marking and verification. As an example, it covers narrow bladed shovels that might be used close to where underground cables could be. They are the ones that builders, merchants or DIY shop with plastic or yellow orange sections in the shaft or handle. Typically, some pole manufacturers chose to apply British Standard 80 over 20 to the handle section of their poles.

Since 2017, at least one supplier has done so as a matter of course. Ionic Systems in Swindon, Wiltshire. But here lies a problem BS 8020 is not mandatory for cleaning poles, and it does not require insulation of the section immediately above the handle. That is why Jason Knight was injured. Madam Deputy Speaker. The UK remained free of fatal water fed pole electrocutions until 2022. Then in that single year, two window cleaners were killed whilst working at residential properties.

In 2024, Jason was very lucky to survive. Window cleaners now account for a significant proportion of overhead power line electrocutions. Yet unlike agriculture, construction or scaffolding, there is no targeted awareness campaign, no mandatory training requirement and no enforced equipment standards for this trade. And that's why I brought this matter to the house. The Federation of Window Cleaners, the Health and Safety Executive, the British Standards Institute and representatives of the energy networks have begun discussions on what to do.

Some suppliers have engaged constructively. Others have refused entirely. The manufacturer of the pole, the manufacturer of the pole Jason was using when he was electrocuted, claims its products are tested to 5000V, without reference to any recognised standard. That figure is arbitrary. It is meaningless without methodology, certification or context. A pole tested informally to 5000V may be vastly less less safe than one certified to British Standard 8020 to 1000V, but actually good for 10,000V, with a 10 to 1 safety margin.

Yet to a sole trader or DIYer choosing equipment online, the higher number sounds, the more reassuring. That is exactly why British standards exist. That is exactly why we need one for telescopic water fed poles. Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is not about banning water fed poles. They have made the industry safer because they have reduced the need to use ladders and to work at height. Nor is it about blaming workers, many of whom are sole traders, operating on tight margins with or without access to formal training or industry bodies.

This debate is about designing danger out of tools in the first place, not just warning people to be careful while continuing to sell suboptimal equipment. The remedy is simple, proportionate, cheap and immediately available. First, British Standard 80 over 20 should be amended or extended to cover telescopic cleaning poles explicitly, and to require that both the handle and the first telescopic section above it meet the insulation standard and are marked accordingly. That single change would ensure that an operator's hands remain on verifiably insulated material throughout normal raising, lowering, and operation of the pole.

It would create a safe clearance of 3 to 4m in most real world situations. Second, compliance with this standard should be mandatory, whether through regulation conditions attached to limited liability insurance or procurement requirements imposed by major building occupiers. It is worth admitting that products would become about 70g heavier and very slightly less rigid, but that is completely tolerable. On the flip side, glass fibre insulation is in fact cheaper than the carbon fibre it would replace, and pleased to say that the British Standards Institute, after a bit of encouragement, has seen the merit of the case.

Its director general, Scott Steadman, kindly wrote to me earlier this month to say that he is working up proposals that will determine if there will be an amendment to the relevant British standards. Drawing from the guidance published by the British Window Cleaning Association. However, I remain concerned that the right British standard is amended. BS 8020 is an equipment based British standard. It appears to me to be the more appropriate target rather than the Bsi's current suggestion, which is BS 8213, a British standard which deals largely with safe systems of work.

And it could be, of course, that both standards need to be amended. Nevertheless, Mr. Steadman's news is most welcome, as is his assurance that a draft of the proposed changes will be published for public consultation in accordance with his institute's normal practice. Madam Deputy Speaker. Britain has led the world in industrial safety by setting clear, enforceable standards. Given British manufacturers global exports, a UK standard in this could well become an international benchmark. Saving lives, saving limbs, saving livelihoods across the world.

Jason Knight, his father John and Craig Maldon are not campaigners by choice. They have been become campaigners because they don't want what happened to Jason to happen to others. And I pay tribute to them today. We cannot accept a system in which warning labels are seen as a substitute for a simple engineering solution that removes risk at source. I feel sure that the Minister will agree with all this, and I hope he will use his good offices to encourage the BSI and the HSE to bring forward the changes I have outlined as quickly as possible.
19:17
19:17
19:17
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
and the House that we have an effective regulatory framework in place to secure the health, safety place to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of those who work in window cleaning. But let me also offer my sympathies to the hon. offer my sympathies to the hon. Member's constituent who suffered those life changing injuries that he described while cleaning windows he described while cleaning windows at a regular customer's home last year. I do hope he's receiving the support that he he needs.

Health and safety in window cleaning is covered by a number of regulations. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The Work at Height Regulations 2005. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Section six of the Health and Safety at Work Act also places duties on the manufacturers of articles for use at work, including ensuring the equipment is designed and constructed so that it is, so far as reasonably practicable, safe when being set up and used.

Doing adequate research and testing to prove the safety of the equipment, and providing users with adequate information so they can use the equipment safely under the Health and Safety at Work Act and the associated regulations, all employers undertaking window cleaning are required to identify risks to their workers and to the public from those activities, and to take action to manage those risks. Those who are self-employed, which, as he said, is most of this industry, are subject to these duties only where their activities place others at risk.

Where self-employed window cleaners are not subject to the regulations, they nevertheless obviously should look after their own health and safety. They should check work locations for hazards such as overhead, power lines, and or use safe equipment. One way of doing that is to carry out a fit for purpose assessment of the risks. The areas of focus in the legislation are the areas that self-employed people should give particular attention to when considering how to work safely. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 cover one of the most significant risks to people cleaning windows.

Because the vast majority of window cleaning obviously takes place above ground level, working at height is always high risk. Whenever somebody leaves the ground to carry out an activity up a ladder, on a platform, in a cradle, there is potential for harm, most likely from a fall. And the HSE's recently published Health and Safety at Work statistics reported that falls from a height continues to be the the biggest type of fatal workplace accident, accounting for over a quarter of fatal injuries to people at work in 20 2425 over the last five years, falls from height have caused 28% of all deaths at work, contact with electricity or electrical discharge accounts for 5%, so a significant but a good deal.

Smaller proportion HSC records include for the last five years, eight incidents involving falls from height, in which window cleaning was the main activity in five of those resulted in fatal injuries. So the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the use of polls has made this activity safer. Employers and self-employed people can eliminate the risk of a fall by removing the need to work at height. And here's the advantage of water fed polls for cleaning windows. Polls can be designed to reach up to 25m in height, be made from a variety of lightweight materials, and he mentioned a number of them, depending on the material and weight of the poll, they can cause sometimes back and shoulder injuries through continued use.

There's often a balance between weight reach and cost prices, starting around £100 for a very basic Budget, short reach poll can be over £700 for high reach ones, mid-range around £200. Now I can't comment on the efficacy efficacy of these polls for cleaning, but there obviously are safety benefits from using polls from the stable footing of a ground level position. And certainly the view of that health and safety executive is that they are safer than ladders. But there are risks.

And using a poll to carry out an activity at elevation in the presence of overhead power lines does carry the risk of electric shock, as the tragic experience that we've heard about underlines. If there are overhead power lines close to a property, then the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 would require a risk assessment to be carried out. If there is a danger of electrocution. HSE advice is not to carry out the work on that part of the building, or to find another method that reduces the risk, particularly one that doesn't involve water fed poles.

Other risks associated with water fed poles, and often window cleaning in general, do include musculoskeletal injury from the handling of the pole slips or trips, injury from falling poles, and spread of Legionella from water systems as well. It is a legal duty under health and safety law for employers to identify and manage all those risks, and in doing so, protect their workers and the public from harm. As I've said, those who are self-employed are subject to those duties only where their activities place others at risk.

But it's nevertheless a good idea to observe them. I understand that in the tragic accident we've heard about, as the hon. Member has said, the power line was compliant with statutory clearance distances and those set out in industry guidance. But that the pole manufacturer's guidance was to avoid touching overhead power lines, including having a warning marked on the pole itself. I think from the account the hon. Gentleman has given our understanding, is the pole did not, and this instance touch the overhead cable, but got quite close to it without without touching it.

So enforcement of the duties in law is carried out by HSE and by local authorities who have powers to inspect workplaces, to investigate accident accidents and to take action to address non-compliance up to and including prosecution. To help employers comply with these duties, the Health and Safety Executive produces general guidance on a range of topics relevant to window cleaning, such as manual handling, control of hazardous substances, and slips and trips. In addition, guidance specific to working safely when cleaning windows is available from the window cleaning industry itself.

This includes two pieces of guidance for the safe use of water fed poles. Produced in collaboration with the Health and Safety Executive, and guidance on the use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines. Produced in collaboration with the Energy Networks Association. The latter is called safe use of window cleaning Equipment near overhead power lines, and it's jointly branded with the Energy Networks Association and the Federation of Window Cleaners. I just wanted to read part of what it says.

I appreciate this is no comfort to the hon. Member's constituent, but it may be helpful to others. Just to quote from it, it says, be aware of the dangers of working near or underneath overhead power lines. Always assume they are live and beware that electricity can jump gaps. Plan ahead and note the location of overhead power lines. Consider your position at ground and the extent of your equipment, i.e. telescopic devices, and ensure that when extended, it will not encroach or breach the exclusion zone as a minimum generally remain five metres away.

To be safe. If you're in doubt about whether the lines in question or are power or telephone. This is a very common mistake. Always assume that they are power lines and that they're live and it goes on. It is not normally practical for electricity companies to shroud high voltage conductors, and even when low voltage conductors are shrouded, the shrouding is not designed to protect against contact contact by tools or equipment. Again, it says keep your distance. If unsure, always contact your local electric network operators, so that's available on the website of the Federation of Window Cleaners.

In the specific case of a 33 kilovolt line, as the hon. Member has told us, was the case here, the Energy Networks Association advises a clearance distance to be maintained of three metres. I should perhaps also point out the federation provides a training course on using water fed poles and portable ladders, approved by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. It's a one day course costing £175 plus VAT per person for members. The hon. Member has referred to the product introduced by Ionic Systems of Swindon.

Now, I know that ionic systems, I think in pursuing the case that the hon. Member has set out this evening, met with the relevant BSI committee, which is P.L. stroke 78, on the 22nd of July this year to discuss including Waterford poles in the standard BS 8020 tools for live working, and the idea was to include fully insulated, water fed poles to avoid an accident like that which befell Jason. Right? And as he said, the the system uses de-ionized water which won't conduct electricity.

The the committee concluded that this standard on tools for live working is just not suitable for water fed cleaning, because it's intended to cover tools used by people who've been trained in, working on or near live electric conductors in the electrical industry, industry training is generally 3 to 4 years to become competent to work on live conductors, and the committee's view was that a water fed pole is not a tool for live working. Window cleaners should not be encouraged to carry out live working nearer a live electrical cable, and on that basis, the experts on the committee and the British Standard Institute rejected the application.

Now, I note from what the hon. Member has told us, that the BSI is looking at the idea of perhaps making a change to another standard. The BSI is independent of government. It makes its its own decisions. So I'll certainly follow with interest the outcome of the work which he has referred to. I should just also perhaps make the point that British standards are not routinely made mandatory. If they're followed, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with the law.

But as the standards are set independently, legislating for them to be mandatory would risk falling behind technical advancements. I think there are consumer uses where there is a some mandation, but in an instance like the one we've been talking about this evening, the BSI standards are not generally made, made, made mandatory. That may be something the hon. Gentleman wants to perhaps correspond with me about. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the government does continue to take the health and safety of people cleaning windows very seriously.

We've heard of this evening of serious accidents, in some cases fatal accidents which can befall people who are engaged in this work. I do hope I've been able to reassure the hon. Member and the House that we've got a regulatory regime and framework in place, which are sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of those workers, as we must. But I'll certainly follow with with great interest the developments that he's indicated to the House, the thinking that's underway at the moment, and see where that gets us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to in the the coming months. The question is this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House do now adjourn As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page