debates/debates2025-03-25e conversation_16
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-25)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-25e conversation_16

Ian Sollom:In the light of the recently announced 50% staffing reductions across integrated care boards, has the Secretary of State made any assessment of how those cuts to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB will delay the delivery of essential new primary care services for my rapidly growing constituency, particularly in Northstowe, Cambourne and St Neots, where thousands of constituents are already facing unacceptable difficulties in accessing care? \p Wes Streeting: Despite the significant uplift announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, system financial returns during the planning round suggested an overspend for the coming year of between £5 billion to £6 billion. When I said I would not tolerate overspending in the NHS, I meant it. When I said I would go after unnecessary administrative costs, duplication and bureaucracy, I meant it. That is what this Government are doing to protect frontline services. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: In Saxmundham in my constituency, Dr Havard has led a campaign for 20 years to transform the healthcare centre into a one-stop community healthcare hub. His   practice has already expanded services, transforming health locally. Does the Minister agree that the Saxmundham healthcare hub is an excellent example and model for what this Government are trying to do to transform community healthcare? \p Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that shifting care from hospitals to the community is at the heart of our 10-year plan. I would be happy to meet the doctors leading this pilot to find out more about the excellent work that she describes. \p Christine Jardine: For eight years, I have seen how a young constituent has been able to completely control his previously life-threatening seizures with medicinal cannabis, but at huge cost to his family—a cost that is prohibitive for other people. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can make access to such treatments more affordable, accessible and safe, so that we can help more people? \p Karin Smyth: We recently had a helpful debate in Westminster Hall on this topic. We are doing more research on this issue to ensure that the evidence base is there. I am happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Member. \p Mohammad Yasin: In the ongoing discussion on assisted dying, one point on which we all agree in this House is the urgent need to improve palliative care. I therefore welcome the Government’s recent £100 million commitment to supporting hospices, including those that help my constituents. Can the Minister confirm whether long-term funding for hospices will be a priority in the upcoming 10-year health service plan? \p Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is right that the hospice sector has been provided with the largest capital spend in a generation—£100 million. We are also providing £26 million of revenue funding to children and young people’s hospices. I can confirm that hospices will play a key role in our shift from hospitals to the community, as he set out in his question. \p Victoria Collins: Tragically, Ed was just 24 years old when he decided to take his own life, and that is why the family have joined us today in the Gallery. What urgent action are the Government taking to improve mental healthcare and suicide prevention for young people like Ed? \p Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Member raises an important issue. We are investing in 8,500 more mental health specialists, as well as specialists in every school, and in Young Futures hubs across the country, to ensure that we do whatever we can to prevent these tragedies. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: An early day motion from 2007 noted that women were typically waiting eight years to be diagnosed with endometriosis. Shockingly, nearly 20 years later, that wait has increased to nine years. The Government are right to tackle the appalling waiting lists for surgery, but the one in 10 women who suffer with endometriosis often struggle with years of pain before surgery is even suggested. What plans does the Department have to deal with these delays, and how we can ensure that those working in primary care recognise this debilitating condition earlier? \p Karin Smyth: Those statistics are shocking. Campaigns here and elsewhere have helped to raise awareness of endometriosis. The update to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines will help, as will more appointments, and our commitment to the 18-week target. Training for GPs is now part of the core curriculum, and we expect that to yield good results. NHS England and the Office for National Statistics have look-across to the statistics on diagnostic metric standards. I am happy to update my hon. Friend outside the Chamber, and I know other Members are also interested in how we are delivering on these commitments. \p Gagan Mohindra: My constituents in South West Hertfordshire remain concerned about the significant delay to the redevelopment of Watford general. With the Chancellor already bringing a second emergency Budget before the House tomorrow, and with care homes, hospices and charities facing unsustainable pressure from this Government’s national insurance increases, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that the Labour party truly care about healthcare, rather than scoring political points? \p Wes Streeting: The irony! There is one big difference between what this Government are doing and what the Conservative party did for 14 years, which is that this Government will actually deliver a new Watford general hospital where the Conservative party failed. \p Chris Hinchliff: Do Ministers agree that a logical conclusion of the Darzi report is that the national care service that we are committed to creating must be free at the point of use? As Lord Darzi found, as long as the social care system remains means-tested and the NHS is a universally free service, unmet care needs will continue to put unsustainable pressure on our health services. \p Stephen Kinnock: That is a vital issue. The Casey commission will look at how best to create a fair and affordable adult social care system, and at which structural reforms will be needed where health and social care meet, because reform must always be married with investment. \p Cameron Thomas: General practitioners in my constituency have consistently restructured over 10 years of constant systemic and economic pressures. How will the Minister convince the Treasury to exempt GPs from the increase to national insurance contributions, and show my GPs that he has their back? \p Wes Streeting: It was thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget that we were able to award £889 million for general practice. That is why the Minister for Care was able to get the GP contract agreed for the first time since the pandemic. Opposition Members cannot continue to welcome the investment and oppose the means. They have to spell out where they would cut services or raise taxes instead. \p Euan Stainbank: Last year, my constituent Danielle was diagnosed with POTS—postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. She found herself unable to get out of bed and unable to speak for long periods. She  could not receive care in Scotland. Specialist treatment does not seem to exist for POTS. What more can we do for people like Danielle, and what conversations has the Minister had with counterparts about establishing specialist treatment in Scotland? \p Ashley Dalton: In England, it is the responsibility of local integrated care boards to work with clinicians, service users and patient groups to develop services and care pathways that are convenient and meet the needs of patients with POTS. NICE has published a clinical knowledge summary on the clinical management of blackouts and syncope, which provides advice for UK clinicians on best practice and the assessment and diagnosis of POTS. \p Charlie Dewhirst: I have twice invited Ministers to visit Bridlington district hospital with me to see its much-underutilised potential. In the light of the ongoing challenges faced by coastal and rural health services and the newly announced changes to integrated care boards, may I hope that it will be third time lucky, and extend that invitation once again? \p Wes Streeting: We are delighted to receive the hon. Gentleman’s representations. We will look carefully at the case he makes and will consider visits as diaries allow. \p Tulip Siddiq: Much to my alarm, the North Central London ICB has recommended the closure of the maternity unit at the Royal Free hospital in my constituency. The Secretary of State knows the Royal Free well. Will he meet me to see how I can save my local maternity unit, which looked after me so well when I had gestational diabetes? \p Karin Smyth: These local services are so important for local women, as my hon. Friend has experienced. It is really important that reconfigurations are discussed with local Members of Parliament, representing their constituents. This is obviously a matter for the local ICB, but I am happy to discuss it further with her. \p Daisy Cooper: Following my long-running campaign, I am grateful to the Government for finally updating the outdated Treasury rules that were preventing local health boards from spending more money on keeping city centre GP locations. Will the Government now issue guidance to local health boards and NHS trusts to accelerate the pooling of resources, so that we can get more services out of hospitals and on to our high streets, especially as our high streets need extra footfall right now? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the hon. Member for all the work she has been doing on this issue. She is right: we need more integration of services, and we need to look at where we can share facilities to achieve better care for patients and better value for taxpayers. \p Naseem Shah: The former chair of my local trust, Bradford teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust, Dr Max Mclean, has today secured whistleblowing protection for himself in a landmark victory. Last week marked a year since a non-exec director at the trust was  suspended, and a third non-exec director has put in an ET1 form to the employment tribunal. There appears to be a clear culture of targeting and witch-hunting whistleblowers at Bradford teaching hospitals trust. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s team supporting me, but given these recent developments, will he meet me? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these serious issues. There are issues of concern here, and she clearly describes a concerning situation for the local community. We need to look carefully at what is happening, and the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), would be delighted to meet her. \p Richard Holden: Smile Dental Centre is in one of the least affluent parts of my community in Basildon. It is looking to expand and provide more NHS dental services, but it has come up against a few issues. Will the Minister, or one of his officials, meet me and Smile Dental Centre to see what we can unblock to deliver more dental health services for local people? \p Stephen Kinnock: We are always looking for opportunities to unblock more capacity, and I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. \p Tom Hayes: Coastal constituencies such as mine in Bournemouth East suffer significant health inequalities. What are the Government doing to address them, and will the Minister meet me and coastal Labour MPs to address the issue? \p Ashley Dalton: My hon. Friend is right: coastal communities face unique challenges when it comes to health inequalities. I will shortly attend the all-party group for coastal communities, where I will meet him and colleagues to discuss these issues. \p Charlie Maynard: As the Secretary of State will know, in 2018, this House allocated £40 million of funding in memory of Dame Tessa Jowell, who was killed by a brain tumour. Seven years on, less than half of that money has been spent. The money is doing no  good sitting in a bank, so will the Secretary of State please commit to spending that money within a decade of Dame Tessa’s death? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, as it gives me the chance to pay tribute to the late great Baroness Jowell, as well as to the work taking place in her name through the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. There have been frustrating delays in getting funding out the door for the purpose for which it is intended. Ministers are looking carefully at this issue, and we want to make more progress more quickly, to ensure that families do not receive the same death sentence that our late friend did. \p Lindsay Hoyle: That concludes Question Time. \p Luke Evans: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since 14 January, I have tabled 15 named day written parliamentary questions to the Department of Health and Social Care. Fourteen have received a holding response, meaning that just one was answered on time. To give a simple example, I asked how many times the Minister had met Community Pharmacy England. Four days later, I received a standard holding answer, which stated that

“it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period.”

It then took five days for an answer to come, which stated:

“Ministers meet regularly with external stakeholders on a variety of topics, including, but not limited to, pharmacy.”

May I ask your advice, Mr Speaker? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that named day questions are answered on time? If they continue not to be answered on time, how can I escalate the matter further? \p Lindsay Hoyle: First, I am disappointed that questions are not being answered, but I am not responsible for ministerial answers. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench, including the Secretary of State, have taken on board the importance of replying. Named day questions are called that because they are meant to be answered on the day that is named. I am very disappointed. The Department may be overworked; if that is the case, perhaps we ought to bring in staff from other Departments to ensure that questions are answered on time. I know that the Secretary of State will have immediately made a note to ensure that those questions are answered. \p Chris Philp: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on asylum hotels and illegal immigrants crossing the channel. \p Angela Eagle: As the right hon. Member is aware, the Home Office discharges its statutory duty to provide accommodation and to support destitute asylum seekers through seven asylum accommodation and support services contracts. Those contracts were entered into by the previous Government, commencing in 2019, and are split between three providers: Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd, Serco Ltd, and Mears Ltd.

Significant elements of the behaviour and performance of one of the sub-contractors of Clearsprings Ready Homes fell short of what we would expect from a Government supplier. That is why the Home Office has informed Clearsprings Ready Homes that it must exit the arrangements with a subcontractor in its supply chain, Stay Belvedere Hotels. We will not hesitate to take further action in respect of Clearsprings and its wider supply chain if that proves necessary, and we are conducting a full audit of our supply chain.

We expect the highest standards from those contracted to provide essential services, and this Government will always hold them to account for delivery, performance and value for money. Where there are concerns about how contractors or their subcontractors are discharging their contractual obligations, we will not hesitate to take swift and decisive action.

The Home Office progresses matters relating to these contracts with its providers in commercial confidentiality. I will not give a running commentary, but I assure the House that whatever the position with any of its providers, the Home Office remains focused on maintaining continuity of service and ensuring that our statutory obligation is met at all times, and has contingency plans in this regard. None of that takes away from our commitment to reducing the huge cost of asylum hotels, which remains our priority.

In relation to channel crossings, this Government have put forward a serious, credible plan to restore order to our asylum system, including tougher enforcement powers, ramping up returns to their highest levels for more than half a decade, and a major crackdown on illegal working to end the false promise of jobs, used by gangs to sell spaces on boats. Increased law enforcement action and disruption is already showing some indication of pressure on the business model of the gangs, and we are introducing new powers for law enforcement to use against the vile trade in people smuggling and trafficking. \p Chris Philp: Last summer, the Government were elected on a promise to end the use of asylum hotels. Well, it has now been nine months, so let us see how they are getting on. The use of asylum hotels has gone up by 8,000 since the general election—it has not gone down; it has gone up. Some 38,000 mainly illegal immigrants are now in those hotels, costing hard-working taxpayers around £2 billion a year. It is completely unacceptable that taxpayers are asked to foot a bill that size. The  people living in those hotels broke our laws by coming here from France, which is a manifestly safe country that nobody needs to leave. I have a very simple question for the Minister: when will the Government end the use of asylum hotels?

During the election campaign last summer and subsequently, the Government also promised to “smash the gangs”, but that promise now lies in tatters. In the nine months since the election, 29,162 people—nearly 30,000 people—have illegally crossed the English channel, which is a 31% increase on the same period 12 months before. In fact, 2025 is even worse. Since 1 January, more people have crossed the English channel illegally than in any year in history—this is the worst year. It is 38% worse than the previous worst year, so things are getting worse not better. They have not smashed the gangs, but capitulated to them.

The hon. Lady mentioned returns. Most of those returns do not relate to people who arrived by small boat. In fact, those people being returned who came by small boat amount to only about 4% of small boat arrivals; I do not know how letting 96% of people who arrived by small boat stay here is a deterrent.

At the weekend, we saw briefings—to the press and not to Parliament, Mr Speaker—that the Government are now considering some kind of offshore removal scheme. That sounds vaguely familiar! At last they have realised that some kind of removals deterrent is needed. Will the Minister now apologise for cancelling the Rwanda deterrent before it even started and, as a consequence, losing control of our borders? \p Angela Eagle: I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister. In his last three months as Immigration Minister, nearly 10,000 people crossed the channel in small boats, but he is complaining about half that level of crossings happening in the past three months. Neither will I take any lessons from someone who served in a Government who presided over a situation where, at its height, there were 56,000 people in more than 400 hotels. We are getting a grip on the problem by starting up asylum processing once more, but we inherited a huge backlog. There was a 70% fall in asylum processing in the run-up to the general election, with more than 100,000 people stuck without being processed in the asylum system. We are getting a grip of that, but by definition, the backlog and chaos that the Conservatives left us is taking time. \p Chris Murray: Does the Minister share my astonishment at the shadow Home Secretary’s argument given that the Conservatives wasted tens of millions of pounds on accommodation that could not be used and billions on hotels? The state of the asylum system that we inherited is unbelievable. Will the Minister commit to reforming that seriously dysfunctional system, including scrutinising asylum contracts with the providers when the break clause comes up next year? \p Angela Eagle: We inherited a system in chaos and a series of asylum contracts worth billions of pounds that were 10 years long, with a break clause in 2026, so we are looking seriously at what we can do to get better value for public money in those contracts. The action on Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd is one example of the work we are doing to drive better value in the  contracts that we inherited. We will not tolerate the behaviour of subcontractors or contractors who do not provide good value for money, which is why we have insisted that Clearsprings Ready Homes removes Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd from its supply chain. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to hear the shadow Home Secretary’s greatest hits of Conservative failures from the last Parliament, whether it be cuts to neighbourhood policing or the woeful handling of the asylum system under the previous Government, in which he was a Home Office Minister. Of course the Home Office should ensure that all asylum accommodation providers deliver value for money, safety and security, but tinkering with contracts will not change the fact that asylum hotels are a lose-lose. They eat up taxpayer money and leave local councils and communities to sort out the mess.

To pick dates at random, the share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 83% in the second quarter of 2015 to just 6% towards the end of the last Government’s time in office. When does the Minister think that the processing of applications will speed up so that the backlog will come down, communities such as mine will get the use of their hotels back and those granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our economy? \p Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the shadow Home Secretary sounds like a broken record; we are well used to him running that argument in this place. I also agree that the key to dealing with hotels is to get the system back up and running from the chaos that it was in. I can tell the hon. Lady that asylum processing at first decision has ramped up considerably and we are getting through the backlog we inherited, but there is also a huge backlog by definition in the appeals system, partly caused by the legacy appeal—the dash to end the legacy system ahead of the fantasy Rwanda scheme beginning—which has led to a big backlog in appeals. We are looking to see what we can do about that, because it is important that we get a fast and fair system from end to end, and that includes appeals. \p Paul Foster: Because the previous Government lost complete control of our borders, the Leyland hotel in my constituency of South Ribble was closed down three years ago—yes, three years ago—and used for asylum seekers. There is a chronic undersupply of hotels in South Ribble, Chorley, Preston and central Lancashire. Can Ministers provide any indication at all of when the hotel will cease to be used as an asylum hotel? I am asked that question every single week. \p Angela Eagle: I want to get out of hotels as quickly as is feasible. I will not name particular dates, because that is a pointless thing to do. We have to get through the appeals system and the first asylum processing system so that we can move people through the system much more quickly. We also need to continue our work on ramping up returns, which have seen a huge increase—the highest figures for the last five years—and we intend to continue with that process. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: The media are reporting that the earliest the contract can be broken is September next year. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? What liability does the taxpayer have for a contract ending today that we cannot get out of until September next year? \p Angela Eagle: The right hon. Lady is talking about the prime contractor, which in this case is Clearsprings Ready Homes. As with the other two contractors, the break clauses are with it. We have approval or not of sub-prime contractors. Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd is a sub-prime contractor, and as the Home Office we have withdrawn our approval for it to be in the supply chain. \p Stella Creasy: The shadow Home Secretary has a nerve to come to this House and make that argument when we in the communities saw the damage that the contract he managed did to the public purse. Shall we revisit some of those greatest hits? His contract put councils and Clearsprings against each other, pushing up prices and making it impossible for local communities to help those housed there. He caused absolute chaos.

I have in my hand one of the letters that the hon. Gentleman’s Government were presenting to people who were refugees, giving them less than five days’ notice of where they were being moved, meaning that school places had to be hastily reorganised and children had to be hastily re-clothed because of the decisions he made on public funds. Absolutely no savings were made in the way in which he managed the contracts.

Will my hon. Friend make a commitment and a pledge to all of us who have had to deal with Clearsprings and its chaotic management that when she has the opportunity to renegotiate the contract, or possibly even break it for good, she will put public value for money first and not repeat the chaos of the shadow Home Secretary? \p Angela Eagle: We are doing all that we can with the existing contracts to drive value for money, and we are also looking to pilot some other potential alternatives to supply. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Under the refugee convention, we can automatically deport illegal migrants who come here, but under the European convention on human rights we cannot. I had a probing new clause moved on my behalf in Committee on this subject, and, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to move it again on Report. I know that the Minister cannot answer absolutely now, but will she look at that new clause in a constructive spirit? Surely we can all agree that we do not want criminals entering this country illegally. \p Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with the Father of the House on that subject. We had a small but perfectly formed debate, albeit in his absence, on his new clause, and I look forward to debating it with him on Report of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. \p John Martin McDonnell: I think I still have the largest number of asylum seekers in hotels in the country, with more than 2,000, and I have experience of Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere. It would be really helpful if the new contractual arrangements involved full consultation with some of the organisations working at the frontline of supporting asylum seekers, so that some of the lessons can be learned about past performance to improve future performance. \p Angela Eagle: I am more than happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman to talk about his experience on the ground with respect to both Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd and Clearsprings Ready Homes. \p Tim Farron: I hope I am not the only person here who is utterly depressed by the complete lack of compassion shown by the shadow Home Secretary and the lack of recognition that the people we are talking about have stories of their own and have experienced horrors that we can barely even imagine. Is it not right that we look at this in a more thoughtful way? To reduce cost to the taxpayer and help those who will be successful asylum seekers to integrate, would it not be wise to allow people who are asylum seekers to work after being here for three months? \p Angela Eagle: Those asylum seekers who have not had their claims processed within a year through no fault of their own are allowed access to work. I am unconvinced that allowing access to work earlier would do anything other than create more demand for people to come here. \p Mike Tapp: It is widely accepted across the whole country, including in my constituency, that the Conservatives left us with open borders, with 150,000 people crossing on their watch and the opening of 400 asylum hotels, costing our taxpayers £9 million per day. This Government have already established Border Security Command and have deported 19,000 people; that is record numbers, up 24% from what the Opposition could achieve. We are also bringing in counter-terror powers to take on the smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition need to get behind our Bill, so that those counter-terror powers can empower the National Crime Agency to take out the smuggling gangs? \p Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is correct that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which has been through Committee and is awaiting its Report stage, will create counter-terror-style powers that will help us prevent some of these crossings and disrupt the sophisticated criminal smuggling gangs that were allowed to take hold across the channel, unabated by the Conservative party. It will enable us to tackle this problem at source by working across borders with colleagues in other countries, tackling the people-smuggling routes as well as the gangs. \p James Cleverly: When in opposition, the Labour party talked tough about what it would do when it entered government. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has said, though, small boat arrivals and hotel use are both up, and asylum seekers are being waved through the system just to make the Minister’s numbers look good. This all  reeks of arrogance and complacency, and we are now seeing the real-world impacts; for example, Wethersfield in my constituency has seen the number of asylum seeker users go up. While Labour talked tough before the election, it took things off the statute books before it replaced them with anything else, so when will the Minister actually come to the House with serious proposals to reduce the number of small boat arrivals, which have gone up by over 30% on her Government’s watch? \p Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman says that Wethersfield is now getting more people, but it is still not holding the numbers that his Government planned for it to hold when it was opened, so that is rather an odd argument for him to make. If he was serious about reducing the problems at our borders, I would have thought that he would want to support the counter-terrorism-style powers in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, but it seems that he is not. \p Sally Jameson: Under this Government, illegal workplace raids and arrests are up by a third. While that is welcome, we all know from our high streets and constituencies that there is still a way to go, so can the Minister confirm that we will continue at pace on this trajectory to send a clear message that the UK will not tolerate people abusing the asylum system, or indeed illegal activity in any form? \p Angela Eagle: Yes. Of course, we have to crack down on abuse of our asylum system, but also on the exploitation of vulnerable and desperate people by vicious criminal gangs. \p Pete Wishart: During Committee proceedings on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I said to the Minister that it would only be a matter of time before the Government concocted some sort of Rwanda-style deportation scheme. Even I did not think that it would come so quickly, if weekend press reports are to be believed. Can the Minister say that those reports are totally not true, and will she now rule out ever implementing a third country deportation scheme like the one introduced by the Conservatives? \p Angela Eagle: I am not going to comment on leaks. \p Tony Vaughan: I welcome the decision to close Napier barracks in my constituency, where there have been long-standing concerns about conditions, among other issues. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents, as well as those being held there, that this site will be operated properly until it closes in September? \p Angela Eagle: If my hon. and learned Friend wants to talk to me about any of the details, I would be happy to listen, but of course we want to operate that site properly and appropriately until we hand it back to the Ministry of Defence in September. \p Esther McVey: Given that the Government do not believe in sending illegal immigrants to third countries such as Rwanda, can the Minister explain how they plan to deport people who have destroyed  their documents so that we do not know their country of origin? Or is the solution to keep those people here forever—in hotels, or in one of the 1.5 million homes that Labour plans to build? \p Angela Eagle: Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. I do not know why I am calling you Mr Deputy Speaker today; I have gone back a very long time to when you were, but that was so long ago that I can scarcely remember it. My apologies, Mr Speaker.

The right hon. Lady should remember that the Rwanda scheme was about deporting people for good, not dealing with their asylum claims. That is not in any way what this Government would ever consider doing, which is why that scheme was cancelled. \p Jo White: The shadow Home Secretary can complain all he wants, but while he was in the Home Office, 75,000 people crossed the channel, with thousands housed in hundreds of hotels across the country. A failed Rwanda scheme and a complete freeze on asylum decision making is the reason that the cost of hotels rose to £9 million a day; everything stopped just to send four volunteers to Rwanda, and the shadow Home Secretary is responsible for the chaos. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only party in this House that voted for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will be the party that sorts this chaos out? \p Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. \p Vikki Slade: We all want to stop the perilous channel crossings that are costing vulnerable people their lives, so what steps are the Government now taking to boost further co-operation with Europol so that we can smash the gangs that are profiting from misfortune? \p Angela Eagle: We have put more resource into Europol to co-operate with European partners across borders. Operationally, we are working across Europe; we have a new agreement with the German Government and an agreement on sanctions and illicit finance with the Italian Government, and the Calais Group has met in London. We are doing a lot of work with source areas and countries such as Vietnam, not only on returns but on countering some of the adverts that tell lies about the kind of lives that await those who get on perilous small boats. We are working with our international colleagues across the piece, both diplomatically and operationally, to try to put pressure on the international criminal gangs and begin to close down this evil trade. \p Joe Powell: Under the Conservative party, the asylum budget ballooned to over £4 billion, taking 28% of our overseas development assistance for in-country refugee costs—mainly hotels—against an OECD average of 13.8%, making us a big outlier internationally. I welcome the commitments to speed up processing and reduce hotel use, but with the aid budget being reduced to 0.3% from 2027, can the Minister reassure me that an ever-increasing chunk of a smaller aid budget will not be spent in-country, instead of on supporting vital poverty alleviation work internationally? \p Angela Eagle: It is clearly important that overseas development moneys are used to try to prevent the flows of people that have been the result of collapses in various countries. We in the Home Office will do all we can to minimise the spend that we currently take from the overseas development aid budget. \p Roger Gale: Mr Speaker, you will know that most of the illegal cross-channel migrants who come to this country come through my constituency, at the processing centre in Manston. As such, I have taken a particular interest in this subject. What I have to say is certainly not going to be popular, either among Conservative Members or among Labour Members, but neither is it going to be populist. The Home Secretary and I—not together—both visited the Calais area recently. We saw there hundreds if not thousands of very determined, very desperate people who are going to risk their lives to cross the channel. The Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme and this Government’s much-vaunted smashing of the gangs will not solve that problem. There is no quick fix, and the only solution will be long term and international. In that context, does the Minister believe that cutting overseas aid is going to do anything other than worsen the problem? \p Angela Eagle: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman raises that issue with the Chancellor. \p Amanda Martin: It beggars belief that the Conservatives have the gall to question the actions we have taken as a Government in clearing up the mess they left behind, because they simply stopped doing anything other than wasting £9 billion of taxpayers’ money. We have returned 19,000 people with no right to be here, we have increased Border Force, and we have increased working with our European allies and our intelligence services, but there is more to do. It was a mess, and people in our country feel let down and a deep mistrust of politicians. That is causing division and rumour mills to develop and fester in our communities. Can the Minister tell me what we are doing as a Government to rebuild public trust and community cohesion? Does she agree that that should start right here in this House? \p Angela Eagle: I believe that people need to think about the language they use and the impressions of human beings they give when they talk about this very emotive issue. It raises huge concern, I know. As a Government, we have certainly got to do all we can to try to reassure people that we can get this system back under control, after finding a chaotic mess when we came into Government. \p Paul Kohler: I recently wrote to the Minister to request the estimated savings the Government expect from the closure of 10 asylum seeker hotels. In response, I was informed that while the Home Office publishes data on the number of people housed in hotels, it does not report on the number of rooms occupied. A hotel accommodating people in shared rooms incurs significantly different costs from one where individuals occupy separate rooms, yet that critical distinction is overlooked. Given that effective policy decisions must be based on clear evidence, will  the Minister commit to publishing room occupancy data to ensure accountability and informed decision making? \p Angela Eagle: I will write to the hon. Gentleman. \p Rachael Maskell: I can assure asylum seekers that they will be treated with kindness and compassion in my human rights city of York. However, tragically, a mother at full term lost her baby at a hotel. Will the Minister give a guarantee that pregnant women will not be moved from hotel to hotel, so that they can have continuity of services and a safe pregnancy? \p Angela Eagle: That certainly should not be happening. If my hon. Friend wants to talk to me about it, I will try to see what happened in that instance. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: A directive from the Treasury reported in The Times appears to suggest that house building by the Government will help with the backlog of asylum seekers staying in hotels. Does the Minister believe that individuals who have arrived in the UK illegally should be given access to social housing ahead of British citizens? \p Angela Eagle: No. \p Chris Webb: Back in 2021, the Conservatives, when in government, told the town of Blackpool that they would use the Metropole hotel as an asylum hotel for three months. They lost control of the borders and drove the asylum system into chaos, and we are still paying the price now, in one of the most deprived communities in the country. Does the Minister agree that we need to close these hotels as soon as possible and give back that prime real estate—especially in coastal communities such as Blackpool—to help the tourism industry thrive? \p Angela Eagle: We do not believe that it is sustainable to keep hotel use indefinitely, and we are working to close hotels. \p Lewis Cocking: Small boat crossings are up 30% since the general election. The number of illegal asylum seekers in the asylum hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne is also up. Illegal asylum seekers are being prioritised for GP appointments and school places, which is outrageous to me and my hard-working constituents. Can the Minister tell the House when she will meet her manifesto commitment of closing the asylum hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne? \p Angela Eagle: Our aim is to close asylum hotels and get out of what we feel is an unsustainable situation as quickly as practicable. \p Alex Sobel: I am sure that the Minister agrees that one of the root causes of this crisis was the last Government’s politically motivated actions, first slowing down and then freezing the processing of asylum applications. I have asylum seekers waiting 10 or more years for a decision. The British public want to see a contribution by asylum seekers to the system, reducing the public burden on  taxpayers, so has the Minister considered lifting the ban on work so that people waiting more than six months for a decision can contribute to our tax system until a decision is made? \p Angela Eagle: Asylum seekers who wait longer than a year are allowed to work, so long as that wait has not been caused by them—that is, a wait through no fault of their own. We have that system now, and I am not considering shortening the length of time that must elapse before work is allowed. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Questions are getting considerably longer. Can we keep them on point? \p Jeremy Corbyn: Like the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I have visited Calais on a number of occasions, and I have met people there who are desperate. They are victims of war, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and sheer poverty and desperation. They do not cross the channel without a reason to do it. What conversations is the Minister having with those in European countries, north Africa and the middle east about the root causes of the huge numbers of people globally who are seeking asylum at the present time? Inhumanity and deportation will not work. \p Angela Eagle: I do not apologise for deporting people who have no right to be here or who have been through the system and are discovered neither to be asylum seekers nor to have any right to stay in the country. I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the desperate situation that people are in. They could claim asylum in the country they are in, and we need to work with our counterparts in the European Union and along all the routes to see what we can do to divert those people who are seeking a better life in our country and see if we can look after them closer to home. \p Steve Yemm: Under this Labour Government, illegal working raids and arrests are up by a third. Does the Minister agree that that sends a clear message that the UK will not and should not tolerate those who abuse our immigration system, and that we will crack down on illegal activity in all its forms? \p Angela Eagle: Yes. Illegal working arrests and visits have increased by 38%. More people have been arrested. More people have been fined. We are seeking to ban those who abuse illegal workers—often underpaying them and treating them like modern slaves—from running companies. The fines are now £60,000 per illegal worker. There is no reason why legitimate small businesses should be undermined by illegal working and illegal practices. \p Lincoln Jopp: Are the Government considering sending failed asylum seekers to overseas return hubs? \p Angela Eagle: I am not going to comment on leaks. \p Tom Hayes: It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Home Secretary shoot himself in the foot, particularly when he brings a sawn-off shotgun to do the job. The Government are getting a grip on the issue of asylum hotels, and the Conservatives should be ashamed. We heard in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee how children were being targeted for organ harvesting and for sexual abuse and were going missing from the system. The Conservatives put Bills on the statute book that they never implemented, and I am pleased that this Government have committed to closing asylum hotels. They have given me the assurance that they will not be adding hotels in Bournemouth.

When the Conservatives on the Bill Committee defined a deterrent, they said it was about detaining and deporting. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives neither detained nor deported, so we should stop calling the Rwanda gimmick a deterrent? \p Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. Between the announcement of the Rwanda scheme and its ending, 85,000 people came across in small boats. \p Richard Foord: Last month we learned that overseas development assistance would be cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income. Some of us assumed that this saving would be found in the closure of so-called asylum hotels, but now we learn that the Government will continue to hire hotels for many years to come despite the broken contract. The Minister says that she wants to minimise the effect on the ODA budget, but how much of it will remain? \p Angela Eagle: I understand that, ahead of the reductions that were announced, 20% is currently spent on housing asylum seekers in this country. Clearly, if we can get the system running faster from start to finish and we can get people through it faster, we can reduce those costs. \p Shaun Davies: This Government inherited a chaotic and broken system and disorder at the border. Under the last Conservative Government, the local community was deprived of a manor house in my constituency because it was used as an asylum hotel. Can the Minister confirm that it is the hard-yards mission of this Government to close those hotels and give them back to their communities? \p Angela Eagle: Yes, that is our aim. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I appreciate that the Minister’s curt responses suggest that she is struggling somewhat with her brief, but does she actually know how many gangs have been smashed? If she does not know, and on the basis of her previous answers to me I suspect that she does not, why does she not know, and if she does know, will she inform the House—unless, of course, the answer is that no gangs have yet been smashed? \p Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his belief in my ability to get on top of my brief.

The National Crime Agency recently arrested three men in the UK who were wanted in Belgium after being convicted of being members of an Afghan organised   crime group. It has arrested a Turkish national suspected of being one of the most significant suppliers of boats and engines to gangs, who was detained in Amsterdam following a joint operation involving the NCA and Belgian and Dutch police. There have been convictions of two men based in south Wales who ran a people-smuggling ring that involved moving thousands of migrants through Iran, Iraq and Syria and across Europe. As a result of a major international operation involving the NCA targeting a Syrian organised crime group considered to be one of Europe’s most significant people-smuggling gangs, at least 20 people were arrested in a series of raids across the continent, including one in the United Kingdom.

That is just what has been happening recently. A great deal more work is going on involving many, many investigations, the fruit of which will be borne—and we will talk about it—when it is delivered. \p John Slinger: I commend the work that the Government have undertaken with European countries and others to smash the criminal smuggler gangs, such as the French deployment of specialist units on the beaches, German raids on small boat warehouses and, indeed, the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in Iraq and in respect of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. Can the Minister confirm that although we will not smash the gangs overnight, the Government remain committed to working with our international partners to secure our borders? \p Angela Eagle: We are doing that work day in, day out. If the Conservatives had not allowed smuggling gangs to take hold across the channel for six years, we would not be experiencing the difficulties that we are experiencing now in dealing with them. [Interruption.] This takes time, there is no simple, easy solution, and chuntering about it from the Opposition Front Bench—which, let us face it, is where the Conservatives belong—will not make any difference. \p Carla Lockhart: In the first nine months of this Government we have witnessed the cruel impact of their decision making on farmers, pensioners and WASPI women—people who have worked all their lives—while taxpayers’ money continues to fund hotel accommodation for economic migrants arriving illegally via the channel. My constituents want to see the Government put British citizens first, rather than prioritising spending on those who are arriving illegally. What can the Minister say to them today? \p Angela Eagle: It is important, in order to deal with the chaos that we inherited, to create a system that is faster, fairer and much easier to get through than the one we inherited. Unless the hon. Lady wants people to be destitute on the streets, we have to look after them while we are processing their asylum claims. Speed is important, as well as ensuring that we do that processing fairly. \p Jonathan Hinder: I thank the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for the work that they are doing to tackle illegal immigration, especially the enforcement against the gangs who put vulnerable lives at risk. My constituents want illegal immigration stopped, and the chaotic huffing and puffing from the Conservatives is one of the reasons they were  booted out on this issue at the general election. It is important to restoring faith in politics that we deliver on it. Does the Minister believe that the existing legal framework on asylum and returns will allow us to do so? \p Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the answer will not be to ignore international law, so we have to ensure that we create a system that is fast and fair and does the job much more effectively than the one we inherited. We are looking into how we can make changes to ensure that that happens. \p Shockat Adam: Everyone agrees that we must have sensible immigration policies, but does the Minister agree that phrases such as “Stop the boats” and “Smash the gangs” are just populist sloganeering that dehumanises the most vulnerable in society and serves as a scapegoat for successive Government shortcomings including the £700 million spent on the useless Rwanda scheme, the billions wasted on personal protective equipment, and the lack of investment in the NHS? That is the reason why people cannot obtain appointments with their GPs, not people arriving on a boat. Does the Minister agree that we must take a holistic approach, including perhaps opening up safe routes and efficient processing, so that when people arrive in this country they can start working from day one? \p Angela Eagle: I do not think that safe routes would stop people trying to get into this country clandestinely. It is important that we can assert control at the border so that we decide who comes into our country, not the people-smuggling gangs. \p Luke Myer: When I speak to my constituents, they accept that the last Government overspent by billions on the  asylum system and it fell to this Government to make the difficult decisions to settle the bill. What they cannot accept is that it is fair for taxpayers to continue to be expected to spend £9 million a day on asylum hotels. That was a mark of shame for the last Government, and it may become one for us unless it is resolved. What steps will the Minister take to speed up processing, increase returns and end the use of hotels for good? \p Angela Eagle: We have restarted asylum processing, and we are looking into what we can do to speed up the appeals backlog that we inherited. We will create a system that is faster, firmer and fairer so that we can get people out of asylum hotels, which are not a sustainable model for the future. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers to the questions that others have posed. There is a clear difference between asylum seekers—those fleeing persecution, those who are threatened—and economic migrants. How can the Government gain control of accommodation for those who are economic migrants to reduce this horrific bill? In my constituency, as in others, people are sleeping on floors in the homes of family members because the Housing Executive that has responsibility back home cannot cope with demand. How will the Minister, and the Government, ensure that families and children are housed, whether they are asylum seekers or British citizens? \p Angela Eagle: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made some announcements recently about the capacity to increase house building in this country in order to deal with some of the pressure on demand. It is important from an asylum seeker point of view that we make the system work end to end much faster so that we can get people through it, deport those who have no right to be here, and integrate those who have been accepted as asylum seekers. \p Victoria Atkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The head of Dover Port Health Authority has told the House that if funding is not secured for the new financial year, food security checks at the border will be stopped. On 6 February I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm that funding. He did not answer, and has not responded to my two written parliamentary questions on the subject. We are now more than two weeks past the deadline for a response and days away from the new financial year, with no answer to the question of whether those important checks at our border will continue. May I please have your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can secure a prompt and accurate response from the Secretary of State before the checks for diseased meats, in particular, are stopped? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am not sure whether the Chair was alerted to that point of order. It is always good to give prior notice on the exact language.

The right hon. Member will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point on the record. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it and will pass on her views. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for arm’s length bodies to be directly accountable to Parliament.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 208). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Luke Murphy: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the inclusion of economic growth as an objective for certain statutory regulators; and for connected purposes.

For too long, our regulatory system has been tangled, inefficient and disconnected from the mission of economic growth and prosperity. Instead of fostering investment, encouraging innovation and delivering good jobs, regulation has too often acted as a brake on progress: too slow, too risk-averse and too unpredictable. The previous Government hid behind regulators, deferring decisions, creating unnecessary bureaucracy and allowing inefficiencies to flourish. Too many businesses today face an overlapping, complex regulatory environment, with too many regulators, too many conflicting duties and too little co-ordination. It is a system that frustrates ambition and slows down investment.

This Government are determined to change that. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the Business Secretary, the Government are committed to smarter regulation: regulation that is pro-growth, pro-innovation and—yes—pro-worker. We recognise that regulation, when designed and implemented well, is not an obstacle but a tool. It is a tool to unlock private investment, tackle systemic risks, protect the environment, and deliver better outcomes for people and communities.

Britain’s businesses, large and small, are ready to drive economic growth, but they can only do so if the regulatory system enables them. There are now more than 100 regulatory bodies, many with overlapping mandates and responsibilities. The 17 key regulators the Prime Minister wrote to in December collectively employ 36,000 staff and spend £5.4 billion a year. That is a significant national investment, but one that too often lacks strategic co-ordination. Instead of working together, many regulators operate in silos duplicating work, slowing decisions, and creating unnecessary costs and confusion for businesses. Their powers and duties have expanded over time, without any overarching framework to keep them aligned. The result is a fragmented, sometimes contradictory system that no longer serves our national economic interest.

A clear example is the Payment Systems Regulator. Firms operating payment systems like Mastercard or Faster Payments were forced to engage with three different regulators just to function in the UK. That meant three sets of rules, three sets of processes and three sets of conversations to deliver just one service. For major firms, it was frustrating. For small or scaling businesses, it was a serious obstacle. That is why the Prime Minister announced its abolition, with its core responsibilities to be folded into the Financial Conduct Authority. This is not about deregulation for deregulation’s sake. It is about smart simplification: removing duplication, reducing cost and creating clearer points of accountability. In short, it is about regulating for growth.

But let us be clear: one example is not enough. The problem is systemic. The entire regulatory landscape needs to be reviewed, streamlined and refocused around a shared mission of economic growth. That is what the Regulators (Growth Objective) Bill would deliver. The  Bill would support the Government’s broader regulating for growth agenda. The Chancellor and the Business Secretary have now published a radical new action plan, backed by businesses, to create a more agile, investment-friendly regulatory environment. As part of that work, the Chancellor secured 60 pledges from regulators that will deliver real, tangible change within the next 12 months. The CBI rightly called it:

“a shift towards more proportionate, outcomes-based regulation.”

This is practical, pro-growth reform: delivering for businesses, supported by businesses. But we must be clear that regulation can be both pro-growth and pro our other priorities, too. Balanced, purposeful regulation can support growth, and support the environment, strengthen public trust and raise living standards.

Take the Government’s new deal for working people. Opposition Members claim that our proposals—to raise the minimum wage and end exploitative zero-hours contracts, introduce day-one rights against unfair dismissal, and expand access to sick pay and parental leave—are somehow misaligned with the Government’s wider approach to regulation. But they fail to recognise that for too long, the UK has operated with a labour market divided between secure, well-paid jobs and a growing share of insecure, low-paid work. The result is a low-wage, low-productivity doom loop. Our new deal for working people is regulation with a purpose, making work more secure, businesses more productive and the economy stronger. These policies are not just good for workers; they are good for business, too.

The Government are not tearing up the regulatory rulebook, but rewriting it for a new era. We can and must learn lessons from home and abroad. Take Japan’s Top Runner programme, a pioneering regulatory approach that sets energy efficiency standards based on the best-performing products on the market, pushing industries to innovate and improve. By combining ambitious targets with industrial flexibility, it has successfully driven technological advancement and economic growth, while also reducing energy consumption. Or take the push by UK financial regulators to require major banks to open up their customer data, with consent, to third parties. That has helped to create a globally leading fintech ecosystem, with investment in UK fintech soaring. The Bill would force us to ask: “How we can repeat those successes in other sectors?” For too long, regulators have been left without that kind of strategic guidance, forced to make politically sensitive decisions in a vacuum. That is not fair on them, and it is not good for the country.

The Bill gives regulators the direction they have been missing. It does not ask them to stop doing their work; it asks them to do it better, together, and with a shared  focus on creating prosperity. Because when regulation drifts, so does the economy. Yet right now, there is no formal mechanism to align regulators with the Government’s growth strategy. The Bill would provide it. It enshrines one simple principle: regulators must not only regulate for risk, they must regulate for growth. That means: every regulator must consider the impact of their decisions on investment, innovation and prosperity; and regulators must work together, ending duplication and aligning around shared national priorities. Growth would become a statutory objective, not an afterthought.

This is not theory; it is delivery. Regulation is not confined to the corridors of Whitehall. Its effects are felt in constituencies across our nation. The Bill is a call to action for the Government to bring forward a full review of regulators’ duties and objectives, with the ambition of creating a simpler, smarter framework fit for the modern economy. Too many of our regulators are operating under a patchwork of outdated or overlapping mandates. The result is duplication, drift and decisions that lack co-ordination or clarity. It is confusing for businesses, inefficient for regulators, and a barrier to growth. That is why today I urge the Government to go further and begin the work of legislating for a core set of statutory duties, including growth, across the regulatory landscape: duties that promote long-term growth and investment, protect consumers and the environment, and embed a culture of speed, clarity and accountability in decision making; and a system where regulators remain independent, but the expectations placed on them are consistent, transparent and aligned with our national priorities.

We will continue to protect what matters: safety, fairness, the environment and public trust. However, we must also deliver on what moves us forward towards innovation, economic renewal and growth. Growth is not a luxury—it is how we raise living standards, improve public services and restore pride in every part of this country.

Let us give regulators a clear foundation. Let us bring forward a new legislative framework that reflects the ambitions of a dynamic, pro-growth Britain. Let us regulate for growth. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Luke Murphy, Mr Luke Charters, Uma Kumaran, Lola McEvoy, Chris Curtis, Sonia Kumar, Gregor Poynton, Kanishka Narayan, Mike Reader, Ms Polly Billington, Rachel Blake and Anneliese Midgley present the Bill.

Luke Murphy accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 207). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Nusrat Ghani: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. If the House agrees to any of those amendments, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. \p James Murray: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motions to disagree with Lords amendments 5B, 8B and 21B. \p James Murray: I welcome the opportunity to consider the new Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. I start by repeating my thanks to Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill. Four new amendments have been made during consideration of the Bill in the other place, which we will seek to address today.

As I reminded hon. Members last week, when we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable, and we have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest of those decisions, but they, along with other measures in the Budget, have enabled us to restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place before us today put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise. Let me be clear again: to support the amendments is to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.

It is with that in mind that I turn to the first group of amendments: Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. These amendments seek to create powers as part of the Bill to exempt certain groups from the changes to employer national insurance rates and threshold in the future, including exemptions for care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care and those providing hospice care. It also includes powers to exempt businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees from the changes to the employer national insurance threshold. \p Gregory Stafford: I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I just want to understand very clearly why the Government think that the NHS, under the banner of NHS England, should—rightly, in my opinion—be exempt from national insurance contributions, but that other parts of the NHS, such as GP surgeries, dentists and hospice care, should not. \p James Murray: As I set out during consideration of Lords amendments last week, and, indeed, at pretty much every other stage of consideration of the Bill, the response to the changes in employer national insurance contributions that we are undertaking as a Government is in line with what the hon. Gentleman’s Government did with the health and social care levy in the previous Parliament—namely providing direct support for public employers, meaning central Government, local government and public corporations. That is the standard way in which support for employer national insurance contribution changes is responded to.

As I have set out, the revenue raised from the measures in the Bill will play a critical role in repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly, any future changes that would exempt certain groups from paying national insurance would have cost implications, which, as I have made clear, would necessitate higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. It is for that reason that I ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. \p Roger Gale: The Commons’ disagreement to Lords amendment 1, debated last week, states that the amendment

“interferes with the public revenue, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason.”

Does the Minister not think that those we represent would—just perhaps—prefer to see their taxed income generously donated via spending on children’s hospices, rather than spent on an idiotic deal to spend millions of pounds on the Chagos islands? \p James Murray: The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of hospices during last week’s debate on amendments from the other place. As I made clear at the time, although hospices do not receive support to meet the changes in employer national insurance contributions, we greatly value the work they do. I pointed to the wider support that the Government are giving the hospice sector—namely, the £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care, and the £26 million revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to people giving to hospices, which are established as charities. Of course, the Government provide support for charities, including hospices, through the tax regime, which is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.

Lords amendment 21B would require the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of the Bill. As we have discussed previously, the Government have already published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note published by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That note sets out that, as a result of measures in the Bill, around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance contributions liability decrease, and around 940,000 employers will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government  and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments. However, we will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand why we are not supporting these amendments from the other place. The measures in the Bill will play a crucial role in fixing the public finances and getting public services back on their feet. The amendments require information that has already been provided, do not recognise other policies the Government have in place or, most seriously, seek to undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with these amendments, and urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support the Government on that disagreement. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Gareth Davies: I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to support Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B. It feels like only last week that we were all here, but it is clear that our colleagues in the other place feel as strongly as the Opposition do about these amendments, as they have returned them to us with a similar aim once again.

Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B seek to address two of the most serious consequences of the Bill that should concern and unite us all: that a rise in secondary class 1 national insurance could lead to a significant reduction in health and social care services, including our hospices, hitting the most vulnerable in our society; and could represent a complete hammer blow to the future aspirations and very survival of small businesses throughout the country.

We all know that the Chancellor has an addiction to creating fiscal black holes. First she used a fictional black hole, discredited by the Office for Budget Responsibility, as an excuse for her manifesto-breaking tax rises. This has led to more black holes, only this time they are very real because they are being felt out there in the real economy. The Bill before us today will create black holes in the finances of hospices, GP practices, farms, fruit shops, butchers, bakeries and businesses of all shapes and sizes, but especially the very smallest. \p Sammy Wilson: Does the shadow Minister find it puzzling that the NHS will be exempt from these changes, yet the many services on which people depend for their health—dental services, social care and so on—will be hit by this rise in national insurance contributions? [Interruption.] No services will remain unaffected, so people will not experience the healthcare that they require. \p Gareth Davies: It is rare that questions come with a musical accompaniment, but the right hon. Gentleman’s mobile ringtone made for a great effect. None the less, his point is the right one, which is that, whether it was intended or not, the rationale for the Bill is to “protect”—in the Government’s words—public services. I could say “bolster” public services if I were being generous. The fact is that the Government are taxing public services on which we all rely and he is absolutely right to emphasise that.

Lords amendments 1B and 5B seek to provide the power to exempt from both prongs of attack of the Chancellor’s jobs tax: care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists, NHS-commissioned pharmacists, and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices. And it is hospices specifically that I want to speak more about today.

Hospices are there at what, for many, will be the hardest moments of their lives. They provide vital physical and emotional support to individuals who are coming towards the final chapter of their lives and for their loved ones. In short, hospices are there to look after us at our most difficult time. So, whether through funding, charitable donations or legislation, they deserve our utmost support to continue in this task.

However, as I set out in Committee, this disastrous jobs tax will cost hospices up to £30 million next year alone. Hospice UK has repeatedly warned this Government that the Bill risks a reduction in hospice services, which will lead only to even greater pressure on NHS palliative care services.

Of the more than 200 hospices across our country, around 40 provide care for children. These are children who are living with terminal illness, many of whom have an all-too-limited time left in this world. The organisation Together for Short Lives estimates that the Labour Government’s decision to raise national insurance will add almost £5 million to the annual cost of providing care for seriously ill children and their families. Let us be clear: this will mean that every children’s hospice in England alone will need to spend an average of £140,000 more just to maintain services for the children in their care, after paying the additional tax that this Bill will impose. The Government cannot seriously be demanding that staff and volunteers at charitable children’s hospices—the very people who already give their heart and soul to look after sick and dying children—fundraise their share of £5 million next year alone just to keep their lights on and their doors open.

At Treasury questions on 21 January, the Chancellor stated, in response to an excellent question from my Lincolnshire colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that the settlement for hospices announced by the Health and Social Care Secretary just before Christmas includes money to specifically “compensate” hospices for the national insurance increase. That is not correct, and I am pleased that at least this Minister has tried to acknowledge that point. \p Edward Leigh: When I visited staff at the much-loved St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln, which provides excellent palliative care, they told me that they are losing £300,000 a year. In the debates on assisted dying, we all agree that we want more palliative care. I just cannot understand the logic of what the Government are doing. I make one last appeal to them not to load this extra cost on to hospices. \p Gareth Davies: My right hon. Friend has raised that matter at every single opportunity that he has been afforded, and he is right to stand up not just for St Barnabas, but for all hospices. However, I have to say that St Barnabas holds a particular place in the hearts of people in Lincolnshire. I know, as a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament, that it has been around for 40 years, employs 300 staff and treats more than 12,000 people across our county every single year. The fact that it is going to be  hit with a cost worth hundreds of thousands of pounds for no good reason is unacceptable. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House for raising that point so consistently. I hope that the Government will listen to him.

The settlement announced does not compensate St Barnabas, or any hospice, for the damage that the Government are doing, not least because we know that much of this money cannot be spent on facing down the additional running costs that this tax hike will bring. There is £100 million of capital funding, which has been set aside for buildings and equipment. Although that funding is welcome, it will not fill the national insurance blackhole that the Chancellor has created for the hospice sector, and she should not suggest otherwise. Today the Government have a chance to exempt hospices and other key areas of our health and social care sector from this tax hike, by accepting Lords amendments 1B and 5B.

In addition, Lords amendment 8B seeks to provide the power to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance. The Chancellor has spoken a lot about growth, but growth has been consistently downgraded since she took office. Something that we, as Conservatives, know, and that she, as a socialist, does not know, is that that is because economic growth cannot come from the Floor of the House of Commons; it comes from the factory floors and bustling high street shop floors in each of our constituencies. It comes not from state-created quangos such as GB Energy, but from individuals who had an idea, stuck it out, made it work and saw it through. It comes from people in this country who, by seeking a better life through enterprise, create the jobs and services that make our country strong.

Those small businesses are being hammered, but not just by the national insurance hike. In less than a year they have already seen: business rates relief cut from 75% to 40%; aspiration penalised with changes to business property relief; and crippling new red tape through the Employment Rights Bill, adding a staggering £5 billion in additional costs. This is a potent and damaging combination of costs that many fear will mark the end. Lords amendment 8B gives the Government another chance today to change their approach, to throw our smallest businesses a lifeline—a chance of survival.

Finally, while our smallest businesses require specific attention, I made it clear last week that, sadly, this Bill does not discriminate. It will hit business groups of all types, across all sectors, in all parts of our country—from charities to cafés, from pharmacies to children’s nurseries and special educational needs and disabilities transport. We must understand the impact the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21B requires the Chancellor to carry out a review of the impact of the Bill on a range of sectors of our economy within six months of its passing into law. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Tomorrow the Chancellor will come to this House to launch her latest attempt to reverse as much as possible of the damage of her Hallowe’en Budget of horrors. Despite the hopes and dreams of business owners across  the country, we can be sure that her emergency Budget will not include scrapping this awful Bill. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to work to protect and support the most vulnerable in our society, and to take decisions that drive growth, backing the people out there who make it happen. They are the people who will be hit hardest by the Bill. The Government must change course. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B. Even before the Budget, there were rumours that the Government were thinking of introducing a hike to national insurance contributions. We Liberal Democrats issued a stark warning to the Government. We challenged them at Prime Minister’s questions and in questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that if they went ahead and introduced these changes, social care providers up and down the land would be hit incredibly hard. The Government cannot say that they were not warned. We warned them, even before they made the announcement.

In the many long debates that we have had in the Chamber since the Budget, we have consistently made the case that health and care providers should be exempted from this change. The Government say that they want to make the national health service a neighbourhood health service; we heard this just an hour ago from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. They also say that they want to take services out of hospitals and on to the high street, but this tax hammers the very providers of the neighbourhood community services on which the NHS relies. It is GPs, dentists, pharmacists, hospices and care providers who hold up our community care, and prop up our NHS, so that it does not fall over.

Government Ministers have said on many occasions that they have increased funding to social care, but the additional funding announced in the Budget is dwarfed by the rise in national insurance contributions. As other Members have highlighted, the Government have said that they have given more funding to hospices, but that funding is for capital projects. There is no point having another hospice building or hospice bed if there are no staff to look after the people lying in them. We know that we have to fix the front door to the NHS—our GPs and dentists—but we have to fix the back door to our NHS too, which is social care.

On hospices, there is nowhere else for the people in them to go. People look for support from hospices so that they can die in dignity, with independence, in a setting of their choice, surrounded by their loved ones—not in the sterile environment of a hospital ward or, worse, a busy corridor or ambulance parked outside. We need our GPs, dentists, hospices, pharmacists and care providers to survive and thrive if we are to end the crisis in our NHS.

The Lords in their wisdom have not sent back an amendment that simply asks for an exemption. They have put in a very clever tweak that asks that the Government to adopt a Henry VIII power. That is not something the Liberal Democrats would normally support, but on this occasion it would give Ministers the power to choose if and when they want to exempt health and care providers from the rise. That way, when we get this  enormous growth booming in our economy—when we see the success that we all hope to see—a Minister could choose to exempt health and care providers and give them the cash injection that they need. I urge the Government to support this measure.

Amendment 8B provides a power to exempt small businesses from the changes. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and of growth. They are the very organisations that prop up our high streets. They are the glue that hold our communities together. The Government have raised the employment allowance for microbusinesses, but they have not put other provisions in place to support small businesses. While our small businesses can be the engine of growth, they are screaming out about the number of obligations being put on them, with the NICs changes, business rates bills going up and the new obligations under the Employment Rights Bill. It is all happening at once, and they say that they are overwhelmed. I support amendment 8B, which would give the Government the power to exempt small businesses.

I am also in favour of Lords amendment 21B on an impact assessment. As Ministers remind us, there is a tax and spend announcement coming, but looking at the impact of the provisions, this is less about tax and spend and more about the overwhelming impact on small businesses, which are really struggling right now. Many of them still have covid loans, and many are struggling with access to finance. Many owners are remortgaging their homes to prop up a new business. This change has come out of the blue. Small businesses have not been able to plan ahead for it, and many of them are fearful about what will happen. I fear that if the measures go ahead, in a matter of days, we will start to see shop fronts boarded up on high streets up and down the land. \p Nusrat Ghani: I was going to call Sir Roger Gale, but he is no longer bobbing—ah, I call him now. \p Roger Gale: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I naively assumed that, having already been called twice today, I had to take my place in the pecking order.

I want to come back briefly to hospices. This is a very serious issue, and I do not think that the Minister or the Government understand the deleterious effect of the change on care for some of the sickest people in the land, both in adult hospices and children’s hospices. I have listened very carefully—twice now—to the Minister’s response about giving this and giving that, but they are giving with one hand and taking away more with the other. The net result will be a reduction in staff. This is a straightforward tax on jobs.

Without dedicated, caring staff, who do jobs that frankly most of us would not begin to know how to do, the health service will not function. There are children living in and being serviced by Demelza House, Shooting Star and all the other children’s hospices. The Pilgrims Hospices in Thanet and Canterbury will not be able to afford to recruit and or pay the staff that they need.

Hospice care is an integral part of the health service. The point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others that hospice care is part of the health service and should be treated as part of the NHS. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position, “Where are all the Labour Members?” The answer is  that they will be in the Lobby, voting against these measures, but they are not here listening to the debate. It saddens me to have to say it, but in this instance, their absence speaks volumes. Quite simply, they do not care. \p Dave Doogan: The Lords amendments seek to address a clear, present and insurmountable financial challenge for significant elements of health and social care delivery in all our communities. The Government say, in the most spurious and disingenuous way, as though they did not understand their role in the health service, that social care providers, GPs, dentists and pharmacies are contractors. How they are dealt with by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is irrelevant. It is the role that they fulfil in our society and in the delivery of health and social care services that is at stake. These are not contractors that can go and develop new markets somewhere else. Their market is exclusively within the NHS and health and social care up and down these islands. Many properly commercial businesses will not manage to pivot their way out of this attack from Labour—and GP practices, pharmacies, care providers, nurseries and hospices certainly will not.

I want to mention hospices. When Macmillan Cancer Support speaks, no matter what colour our rosette, we should listen. It has highlighted clearly what the measures mean for end-of-life care. There have been 15 years of chaos in the United Kingdom, most of it economic; there has been the lost decade of Brexit, and its catastrophic effect on the UK’s economy and the material welfare of people up and down these islands. I ask: who can we blame? Who is culpable? Who has their fingerprints all over it? Not terminally ill children in hospices, who will, as a result of the Bill, suffer as a result of the debilitating effect on the care with which they are provided. The Minister and his Government could do a simple thing: give hospices a derogation from the grasping hand of the Bill, and protect children in the worst imaginable circumstances.

From the outset, the Government’s fiscal misadventure has been met with opprobrium from all manner of sections of the economy and society, but they have held firm. I pay tribute to the Minister; he fronts up here every time with a smile, and does his best to defend what he has to. That is his job, and I do not judge him for that, but the bottom line is that the Government have yielded, not to children in hospitals, or to people trying to deliver social care and free up hospital beds by preventing delayed discharge, but to the bankers by restoring their bonuses, and to the non-doms who want all the benefits of living in this country but do not want to pay for it. That speaks volumes about what a Labour Government in this day and age are all about. \p Sammy Wilson: I hope that I can have this intervention without a musical interlude. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having my phone switched on. Will the hon. Member accept that not only are services likely to be affected, as he has outlined, but the Government’s aim of raising additional revenue will be affected as well? As he pointed out, they have given in to the bankers and non-doms because of the fear of losing revenue. Anecdotally, we know that many businesses, whether those supporting the national health service or other small businesses, will cut back on the number of staff that they employ because they cannot afford them, and that will lead to a loss of national insurance and tax  contributions. It could be an own goal for the Government if they cause pain to businesses but do not get any revenue from it. \p Dave Doogan: I agree entirely. This is a £24 billion fiscal drag that is intended to create growth. Work that one out if you can, because it is beyond my ken. The Government will not make derogations for key elements of health and social care, because the benefit of the £24 billion drag on the economy that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out is, after compensation, already down £10 billion. If they compensate the people who they definitely should, such as GPs, pharmacies, care providers and hospices, that would take it down to somewhere around £7 billion or £8 billion. What type of Chancellor and Treasury orthodoxy says, “We place a £24 billion burden on the economy in exchange for an £8 billion return for the Treasury”? It is absolutely catastrophic. It is misadventure writ large, and it has Labour as its logo. \p Daisy Cooper: The hon. Member highlighted the comments by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said that the £24 billion is, in fact, only £10 billion once behaviour change is accounted for. If the Government were to agree to the exemption that we seek, the figure could be only £8 billion. Does he agree that there are much fairer ways of raising that revenue, such as by putting a digital services tax on the big online media giants and gaming companies? \p Dave Doogan: The hon. Member raises two excellent examples of what could be done to raise the funding that the Government need in a just way. Let us not forget that Labour knew fine what it was walking into when it won the election. We told it, as did the Liberal Democrats and the media—the Tories were a bit quiet on the issue, right enough—that there would be an £18 billion black hole if it stuck to Tory tax and spending policy. This is on Labour. The hon. Member mentioned two examples of excellent and just ways to raise funding.

Similarly, the Government could apply Scottish income tax thresholds to the whole of the UK, giving most people a pay rise and raising £16 billion into the bargain. They could raise £40 billion from a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million. There are a range of other measures that they could take, such as raising £30 billion by rejoining the single market—not very many people in here talk about that.

The Government persist in their tendentious references to additional funding, all of which is capital and none of which can soften the blow of the measures contained in the Bill. They do not want to support, in particular, Lords amendment 21B, because they would rather continue to cloak the effect that the Bill will have on care services and contractor elements of the national health service up and down these islands, and the effect that it will have on the real economy, which Labour is a stranger to. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am just flummoxed by the Government’s approach to the Bill. Clause 1 raises employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. Almost more damagingly, clause 2  reduces the threshold at which they start paying it from £9,100 to just £5,000. The Government know how damaging this measure is for healthcare. We can see that because they have taken action to exempt the NHS from it. That will cost billions of pounds, because healthcare providers cannot just diversify as other sections of the economy might be able to. They cannot raise prices. A general practitioner’s customer is the state, and prices are fixed by the Treasury. As a result, the Government know exactly what the impact of this proposal will be on hospices. We have already heard that without an exemption, they will face an additional £30 million of costs every year as a result of these changes.

When the Bill was first announced, I assumed that there had been an oversight by the Treasury and that it would be addressed as the Bill progressed. But both last week and this week, the Lords have moved to fix what was originally considered to be perhaps an oversight. Today’s decision to seek to reverse Lords amendments 1B and 5B in particular demonstrates beyond doubt that it is not an oversight but a deliberate decision taken by Labour to penalise hospices for the care of the dying, and to do what with that money? We may be in the obscene position in a few weeks’ time of funding for state-assisted dying being raised by taxing palliative care. This is absolute madness. If Members wanted any other reason why they should not support the Government, that is an overwhelming one.

I make one last reference to the emptiness of the Government Benches. There are now two Labour Members sitting there who are not required to be—[Interruption.] I take it back, there is only one. That indicates to me that Labour Members do not want to be associated with the Bill. They will scurry through the Lobby later, but they are not brave enough to stand up and defend the decision of their Government. \p Gregory Stafford: You do not need any convincing of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but were you to, the Lords amendments demonstrate why we need a House of Lords. They are the ones standing up and delivering the amendments that this Government are trying to wriggle out of this afternoon. Amendments 1B and 5B, which the Government are trying to derogate from, are essential for our care services. The financial strain that the Government’s national insurance contributions will put on the care sector is astronomical—some predictions are of around £2.4 billion on social care alone. Ultimately, that will lead to reductions in services and, unfortunately, closures, especially in the hospice sector.

The Minister has repeated what he and other Ministers have said on many occasions: they are giving a certain amount of money to the hospice sector, but as Opposition colleagues have stated, that is capital spending. What they desperately need is revenue spending to cover the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions. \p Dave Doogan: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Government patently do not understand whole-system cost, which is a key element of fiscal policy? When care providers—whether hospices, in-home care providers or social providers—fall over as a result of these measures, as they will, those costs will get picked up by the rest of the system, and that will have a net cost to the Treasury. \p Gregory Stafford: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has been made by Opposition Members on numerous occasions. It does not surprise me that Labour Members do not understand the economy. I did hope that they would understand the care sector, which has been telling them time and again that this national insurance increase will hit it disproportionately and cause it to reduce and, indeed, close services.

I think of Phyllis Tuckwell hospice in the centre of Farnham in my constituency, which is fortunately going through a multimillion pound rebuild as we speak, but when it reopens, it will be hit by these national insurance contributions and will have to make decisions about what services it can provide to my constituency and the surrounding areas of Surrey and northern Hampshire. Likewise, on Friday I will see Shooting Star children’s hospice, which is a fabulous children’s hospice that I have visited on a number of occasions. What is galling to me is that I see photographs of Labour Members turning up to Shooting Star and similar hospices, putting their arms around people and saying what a wonderful job they are doing, but later today they will walk through the Division Lobby to take money away from them. What hypocrisy.

We already know that there are workforce challenges in the care sector, and especially in the hospice sector, so why on earth are the Government targeting those sectors for raising national insurance contributions? As Opposition Members have mentioned, this is not an abstract cost that will hit some sort of nebulous business; this is a cost that will hit patients and, in the hospice sector, those who are dying, because care will be taken from them. It is a tax on community care. It is a tax on dying. The Labour Government should be ashamed that they are bringing this in. \p Roger Gale: We have rightly concentrated a great deal on children’s hospices, and I still hope that at the 11th hour the Government, as a socialist Government, may have some compassion and give some ground. But the other area, which we have not touched on enough, is the independent care providers who are providing services in people’s homes. They will not be able to employ the people that they need—they cannot do so now—even if they can get them. That inevitably means that those cared for will end up in hospital, at still greater cost to the health service. \p Gregory Stafford: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, echoing one made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). That is correct: there will inevitably be a net cost to the Exchequer because of this policy. He is right that home care has not been touched on but will be affected. Home care companies in my constituency will not be able to expand their staff, which is vital to meeting people’s needs.

Pharmacies, which we have not touched on a lot, are in the same position. A few weeks back, I visited Badgerswood pharmacy in Headley in my constituency, and I was told that the measure will hit it hard and cause a real problem in service delivery for my constituents.

This measure will not only have a massive effect on those businesses—GPs, pharmacies, the hospice sector and the home care sector—on the economy, because there will be a net cost, and on patients, who will not receive the services in the wider NHS family that they  deserve, but it runs entirely contrary to the Government’s stated policy of wanting to bring healthcare close to home and close to the community. Although they are exempting acute hospital care, which takes place away from the community, they are taxing the bit that they say they want to expand. It is totally illogical, even on the Government’s own policy. I hope that the Government have an 11th hour change of heart, either today or at the emergency Budget tomorrow, because it is vital that we support these sectors.

We see with Lords amendment 21B that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as it were. If the Government were so convinced that their policy was the right, just, fair and proper one, they would allow a review to go ahead so that we could see its impact. The fact that Government Members will be walking through the Division Lobby to hide this policy from the British people tells us all that we need to know: they know that this policy does not stand up to scrutiny, and they are running from it. \p James Murray: With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by Opposition Members.

Although I feel that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), will not support us on the Bill, I none the less recognise that she seems to support the extra funding that we put into public services in terms of GPs, dentists, hospices commissioned by the NHS and so on. Although she will not agree with the difficult decision that we have taken to raise that funding, I got the impression that she supports our spending on those public services.

I turn to the official Opposition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), claimed that very small businesses will feel the greatest impact from the changes in the Bill. I can only conclude, therefore, that he has not read the Bill, because he would have seen that we are doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, with the result that the very smallest businesses will not pay any national insurance contributions at all when they are employing up to four people earning the national living wage.

More widely, the shadow Minister and many of his Opposition colleagues refuse to take any responsibility whatever for the state of the public finances or the public services after 14 years of the Conservative party being in control. They also resisted the opportunity to acknowledge that the approach we are taking in government to compensate the public sector for changes in employer national insurance contributions is the same one that the previous Government took with the health and social care levy. That came up time and again, and even when the shadow Minister was intervened on, he missed the opportunity to acknowledge that our approach is the same one that he and his colleagues took in government.

The amendments from the other place would require information that has already been provided. Either they do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, or—most seriously—they would undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. Let me be clear: to support the amendments that create exemptions is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. I therefore ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 190.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 1B disagreed to.

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 19 March).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5B.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 192.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 5B disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8B.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 194.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 8B disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 21B.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 196.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 21B disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B;

That James Murray, Christian Wakeford, Alistair Strathern, Chris Vince, Joe Morris, Gareth Davies and Will Forster be members of the Committee;

That James Murray be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Anna Turley.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 25 November 2024 (Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Anna Turley.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Nusrat Ghani: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1 to 12, and 14 to 17. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. \p Jim McMahon: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 19, and Government motions to disagree. \p Jim McMahon: First, I am grateful to Members of both the Commons and the Lords who have so diligently scrutinised the Bill throughout its passage. Before I address the amendments tabled by the Lords, allow me to remind the House of why we introduced the Bill in the first place. This Government have committed to transforming the business rates system, and the Bill is a first step on that important journey. We want to achieve a sustainable system that is fit for the current economic landscape, and where business growth is supported and ratepayers pay their fair share. I thank the noble Lord Khan of Burnley for taking the Bill through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach. I also thank officers of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and my private office for all their work on the Bill.

The Government oppose all the amendments before us today and I will provide further explanation as to why. At the Budget, the Government explained that we wanted to introduce new lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from April 2026 to address the uncertainty of the temporary, stopgap support provided by the annual RHL relief. Business rates represent a stable source of revenue for local government, meaning that this permanent tax cut must be sustainably funded. That is why the Government also announced our intention to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. This Bill makes provision to enable the introduction of those new multipliers, so this is the first step towards delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is sustainable, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century. \p Kevin Hollinrake: On a point of detail, the Minister says the Bill is a “first step”, so will there be further reforms, following these reforms, to the rest of the business rates system to meet his manifesto commitment to replace the current business rates system completely? \p Jim McMahon: I am not going to pre-empt any further decisions on this, other than to say that this represents an important and significant step forward. As a constituency MP, he, like me, will have heard from many small businesses—retailers, hospitality providers or leisure providers—who appreciated the support during covid, but were very clear that there was a cliff edge and that that support was coming to an end. The previous Government did not provide any certainty about what followed, so the Bill ends that uncertainty and hardwires in a permanent relief system to ensure those important businesses that are the foundation of our communities and our economy are supported through the tax system. \p Kevin Hollinrake: The Minister has already said, as he has in previous speeches, that this is a “first step”, but now he says it is a “permanent” measure. I agree with him that business wants certainty, so it is important that businesses understand: is this now a permanent position that will not be changed, or a first step? \p Jim McMahon: The answer is that it is both, as I will go on to explain in more detail. It is an important first step, and the relief that is provided, funded through the higher rate properties, will be hard-baked into the system, notwithstanding any future support that may well follow, which we are not pre-empting today.

Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12 would remove qualifying healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier, and Lords amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 would do the same in relating to anchor stores. Considering the challenging fiscal environment, it is vital that this permanent tax cut is funded sustainably. The Government have been clear that they will do that by applying the higher multiplier to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. That accounts for less than 1% of all properties and is the fairest approach. The impact on healthcare properties is limited. As set out in the other place, of the 16,780 properties at or above the £500,000 threshold based on the current rating list and rounded to 10, only 350 are in the health sub-sector. Of those, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres.

At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review. The Government are considering the full range of departmental priorities and pressures as part of the spending review, and that includes any impact of the higher multiplier on public sector properties, such as schools and hospitals. I urge the House to disagree with those amendments.

We recognise the importance of anchor stores, and we are doing a great deal to support the high street in this Bill and elsewhere. While the largest anchor stores may be caught by the higher multiplier, they are often part of large retail chains that will have a number of properties with rateable values below £500,000. Those businesses will, therefore, benefit overall from the lower multipliers. \p Suella Braverman: I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. In Fareham and Waterlooville, we have some fantastic pubs, including the Golden Lion in Fareham, the Chairmakers in Denmead and the Heroes in Waterlooville. Many pubs are hubs of our community and make a valid contribution to the local economy, but they have   been trading under challenging circumstances and have been asking for a cut in business rates. What will be the effects of the Minister’s position today? \p Jim McMahon: The Bill provides a cash saving for exactly the types of business that the right hon. Member talks about. We all understand the importance of pubs to our towns, villages and estates, not just as businesses in the economy but as places for the community to convene, to meet and to build relationships and networks. That is exactly why the measures are being brought in, and in a permanent way, because pubs needs certainty. They know the rising costs of supplies, carbon dioxide and energy have put significant pressure on pub operations, and these measures provide long-term stability that bakes in the support the Government can offer into the system.

Many pubs will be free houses and they will be independent. However, a number of pubs will be part of a brewery chain with managers in place. The measures take away the cash cap of £110,000 per business, allowing, for the first time, multiple operators to benefit. That will benefit pub chains, as well as high street stores, such as Home Bargains, Boots and other retailers. Those businesses draw in footfall, which then supports independent retailers as well. The proposals are rounded and provide long-term stability that is properly funded in a responsible way. On that basis, the Government oppose the Lords amendments as laid out.

Lord’s amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 are concerned with bringing manufacturing properties into scope of the lower multiplier. If we widen the scope of the lower multipliers in that way, it will dilute the support available to RHL properties or jeopardise the ability of the Government to sustainably fund the lower multipliers. We need to be clear that this is not a wide-ranging offer, but targeted deliberately at supporting our communities, high streets and town centres. That is why the Bill focuses on RHL support. The Government are supporting the manufacturing sector through other means. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the amendments.

Lord’s amendments 13 and 16 require the Government to undertake a review of how the provisions to introduce new multipliers may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to the £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier. The review would need to be put before Parliament three months prior to 1 April 2026 in order for clauses 1 to 4 of this Bill to come into effect. These amendments probe around the way the multipliers in the business rates system currently operate. Those hereditaments on the standard multiplier, or in the future on the higher multipliers, pay rates on that multiplier calculated on all of their rateable value, and not just the rateable value above the threshold. That, of course, generates cliff edges in the rates bills for hereditaments as they move between thresholds, and we acknowledge the presence of those cliff edges—it is a matter of fact.

At the autumn Budget, the Treasury launched a discussion with business on the “Transforming Business Rates” paper. This specifically highlights these cliff edges in the system and considers whether they may act as a disincentive to expand, so I can assure the House that we are already looking at the precise issue identified in the amendment. Reforms are being taken forward through the transforming business rates work and will be phased in over the course of the Parliament. Therefore, we believe Lords amendments 13 and 16 are unnecessary.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to commence a review that examines the merits of creating, within three months of Royal Assent, a separate use class and associated multiplier within the non-domestic ratings for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses in England that do not have a material presence on high streets. The noble Lord Thurlow, who put forward the amendment, made it clear that this use class would apply only to business rates. As he explained in the other place, the key task is to identify those warehouses, as distinct from warehouses used by, say, high street retailers—warehouses that may otherwise look the same.

The Lords amendment would bring together the Government and professional bodies working on business rates to identify those warehouses. We are already exploring that objective through an existing project. The digitalising business rates project will allow us to match property-level data with business-level data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to improve the way in which we target business rates, and to identify property and businesses in the way that the Lords amendment envisages. \p Christopher Vince: I did not intend to intervene, but I was looking through the amendments, and I see that a lot of them focus on exemptions from the business rates. Does the Minister agree that the way to look at supporting businesses in, for example, the manufacturing industry is through other means, not through changing the business rates? \p Jim McMahon: We welcome scrutiny through amendments and the insight that the other place can provide, just as we welcomed scrutiny in the evidence sessions and Committee sittings; it adds value. We need to be honest: it is natural for Members to want to widen the scope of legislation during its passage, and to include more. In Government, we have to deal with the art of the possible, which means balancing a number of competing interests, not least the impact on taxpayers in the round. The Bill is targeted at those who need it the most—communities and local economies—and it is fully funded to ensure that it is sustainable. We cannot draw the legislation so wide that it does not stand the test of time and does not cover its own cost. That would not be responsible, and certainly would not be sustainable.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to implement the recommendations of the review. Given that we do not know what those recommendations would be, I trust the House will understand that we cannot accept an amendment to accept them blindly in advance.

Finally, Lords amendment 15 and consequential Lords amendments 17 to 19 would strike from the Bill the clause that removes charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. We are unable to accept these Lords amendments. This Government made a manifesto commitment to raise school standards for every child, break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. Achieving our ambition involves meeting our commitment to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools; the approach and design of this  policy has been carefully considered in the light of that. The measures are necessary in order to raise the revenue to deliver on the Government’s commitment to education and young people, and to improve the state sector, where—let us be clear—90% of children are educated. This Government are prepared to take the tough but necessary decisions to deliver on those bold commitments, so, as with all the other amendments brought here from the other place, I cannot accept these Lords amendments. I hope that the rest of the House follows suit. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Lords amendments. We shall not agree, and I will explain why. I thank the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill; in particular, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Baroness Scott for their scrutiny and amendments.

The legislation comes at a critical time for businesses. The partial withdrawal of retail hospitality and leisure relief—a policy choice by this Government—is hitting businesses hard. The average pub is more than £5,000 worse off as a result of the Minister’s choices. That, together with the Government’s trash-talking of the economy, the £25 billion annual tax rise for businesses by means of the rise in employers’ national insurance, and the prospect of the job-destroying Employment Rights Bill, has led directly to a massive reduction in business confidence. According to the Institute of Directors, business confidence, which stood at a high of plus 5 in July last year, has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65. \p Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. What is his advice to the many businesses in Fareham and Waterlooville who have told me—I have lost count of them—that they do not know whether they will survive the next few years, particularly because of the rise in national insurance contributions from employers, the Employment Rights Bill and the anti-business rhetoric? Hiring is down, prices are up and many businesses in Fareham and Waterlooville are beginning to wonder whether it is all worth it. \p Kevin Hollinrake: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. These are difficult times. As she knows, I was in business for 30 years, and we go through some difficult times. Many people think that business is easy, but it is not, particularly at times like this, when confidence, including consumer confidence, has gone so low. It means that people are not coming through the door. My advice to businesses is to batten down the hatches and get through this where they can, but inevitably the consequence of these choices will be less employment, lower salary increases and higher prices in shops, public houses and other places. That is the consequence of the choices that this Government have made. The real-world effect of this historic drop in confidence is a 20-year high in business closures. Over 220,000 businesses closed their doors in the last three months of 2024.

When considering the Lords amendments, it is important to remember that the Labour party promised to abolish business rates—another broken promise. The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, talks about the art  of the possible; what he is saying is that a promise that he and his colleagues made to the electorate in the run-up to the election has been broken. In its manifesto, Labour promised to

“replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.

That is not what the Bill does, so that is also a broken promise. The reason I challenged the Minister a couple of times during his remarks is that I do not understand how the Bill can be both a first step and a permanent change. That makes no sense, and if I were one of the business people for whose rude health we are all responsible, I would like to know exactly what the Government have planned beyond these changes. That is not clear.

I turn first to Lords amendment 14, which would require the Secretary of State to review

“the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets”—

in other words, online giants. It is worth noting that the rates regime proposed by this Bill will mean that only around 10% of businesses paying the higher rate will be the warehouses of online giants. In reality, shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise as a result of the higher multiplier. We would support a rates regime that would genuinely level the playing field between online retailers and the high street, but this Bill does not deliver that. We therefore support amendment 14’s requirement that the Secretary of State conduct a review on introducing a higher multiplier for fulfilment warehouses. Such a multiplier would mean that important anchor stores for high streets would not be punished.

That brings me to Lords amendments 1, 5, 8 and 11. We all know from our constituencies how important anchor stores, such as supermarkets and department stores, are for attracting footfall and supporting local economies. When people come into the town centre to use an anchor store, they might stop for lunch in a local café or pop into an independent business. Key anchor stores in the Secretary of State’s constituency will be hit by this Bill: Sainsbury’s in Ashton-under-Lyne has a rateable value of £1.24 million, while Marks and Spencer next door has a rateable value of £770,000. These decisions have real-world effects on companies that are not online giants.

We have seen the impact on our communities when anchor stores leave a town. For many anchor stores, being dragged into the higher multiplier by this Bill could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; those shops have already been hit by the jobs tax, and will be tied up with even more red tape through the Employment Rights Bill. In fact, the British Retail Consortium has warned the Government that

“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”

That contrasts with my party’s proud record of supporting businesses, including small businesses, on the high street by cutting business rates, as well as providing billions of pounds of support throughout the pandemic.

While we are talking about high street businesses, can I once again push the Minister on a very important point—the retention of small business rate relief? Many businesses’ livelihoods depend on that relief, so will he  say at the Dispatch Box that it will be continued? I have not had clarity, and clearly I will not get clarity today. Is that relief also on the chopping block, maybe at the Chancellor’s emergency Budget tomorrow? Let us see what that brings; we may get clearer answers then. Tomorrow’s last-gasp attempt to go for growth comes after GDP falling by 0.1% in January. That was largely attributed to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output.

That brings me briefly to Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10. They would make manufacturing hereditaments eligible for the lower multipliers when it comes to local ratings lists. That comes at a particularly important time for our manufacturing sector, which is a crucial part of our economy, whether we are talking about automotive manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing or precision engineering. As we boost capital defence expenditure, it is important that we have a strong and resilient manufacturing base that can supply our brave armed forces. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the impact of the new rates system on manufacturing, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s responses on this issue.

Turning to Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12, given that the Government are raising taxes to invest in the NHS, it seems perverse for them to levy higher business rates on the hospitals and GP practices that provide the services that so many of our constituents rely on. It is just weeks since the Government shamefully voted to impose a jobs tax on hospices, pharmacies and GP practices—another double whammy. Labour is giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Before we get to the real sting in the tail of this Bill, I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 13 and 16. Like Members of the other House, we have concerns about the cliff edge that the Bill will create in the business rates system, which the Minister referred to. A business crossing the £500,000 threshold, even by £1, could see a near 20% increase in rates payable. For instance, a business with a hereditament of £495,000 invested in their property—just enough to push them over the threshold—would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of this Bill. The legislation will stifle investment and growth even further.

Finally, Labour’s education tax—the spiteful and ideologically driven decision to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities—sits alongside the utterly wrong-headed policy of charging VAT on private school fees. Regardless of people’s views on private schools, it is the view of the Opposition that we should never tax education. We are already seeing the gates of independent schools being locked indefinitely. That pushes more children into state education, increases class sizes and puts more pressure on the public purse, and on councils trying to find placements for students with education, health and care plans. Lords amendment 17 would retain rates relief for private schools in England, sparing them part of a cumulative burden that would otherwise send many of them beyond the brink.

It is not just education that is affected. Since the introduction of this Bill, we have learned that the Government will also levy business rates on nursery schools and sports facilities used by the general public if they are on the site of a private school. That regressive decision will jack up the cost of swimming lessons, and  the costs for Sunday league clubs and cadet units. During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. That is a record that this Government seem determined to trash. Years down the line, Government Members will regret having voted for this Bill as they walk down the high street, passing boarded-up shops, school gates locked shut and a local that called last orders for the final time years ago. I urge the Government to consider and agree to the amendments from the Lords to safeguard businesses, schools and communities across the country from more business-damaging and job-destroying tax hikes. \p Mark Sewards: The Bill is necessary to support our high streets. It strikes a fairer balance between small businesses and large, and I am pleased to have contributed during most stages of its progress. I rise to address some of the amendments put forward by the other place, which would reduce the effectiveness of the Bill.

Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 seek to exempt anchor stores from the higher multipliers, thus reducing the revenue raised by the Bill overall. By reducing that revenue, the amendments reduce the support available to smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, when providing that support is the entire purpose of this legislation.

I also fear that the definition of an anchor store could create problems for our high streets and town centres. During the debate in the other place it was said that the Treasury could decide what constituted an anchor store, but it was also admitted that it would be a difficult term to define. It is not uncommon, and not untrue, to say that several shops in a high street can indeed lay claim to that title, and I foresee difficulties in this regard if the amendment is passed.

It is also true that anchor stores are often the largest stores in town, usually part of a big chain, supermarkets being an obvious example. The effect of this amendment would be to exempt those larger businesses from the higher multiplier, again reducing the support available to smaller businesses. The entire purpose of the Bill is to support our smaller retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, paid for by that higher multiplier on larger businesses. Unlike the Opposition, we like to ensure that our numbers add up. \p Kevin Hollinrake: What would the hon. Gentleman say to businesses that are trying to make their numbers add up? In its manifesto and previously, the promise—the commitment—of the Labour party was to level the playing field between online giants and small businesses, but, as the hon. Gentleman can see, that is not what is happening here. Many different premises, including manufacturers and large bricks-and-mortar retailers, are being hit by these increases. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those businesses, given that while there is currently no sign of any increase in their rates, that is exactly what they will see as a result of the Bill? \p Mark Sewards: The Bill is designed specifically to revive our high streets. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because his party was in government at the time, that  our high streets were struggling and suffocating, and it is incumbent on this new Government to revive them. That is why it is so important for us to pass the Bill today. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) chirps from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] I mean “chunters”. I think it important to recognise that the Government are supporting manufacturing too. There are other mechanisms for doing that, but the Bill we are pursuing today, and passing today, is all about supporting our high streets, and I am very proud to support it.

Queen Street is in Morley, in the centre of my constituency. You are welcome to visit it any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a lot on offer, almost of all of which comes directly from small businesses. The Lords amendments to which I have referred do not prioritise them; nor do they prioritise the smaller parades of shops in Farnley, Drighlington, Gildersome and Wortley, and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Ardsley, Tingley, Robin Hood and Lofthouse. That is why I cannot support them. I back the businesses in Morley high street, along with all the other small businesses that I represent.

Lords amendments 15,17,18 and 19 would, in effect, reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument about private schools at the general election, in the House, in Bill Committees and again today, but as a former maths teacher at a state school in Leeds, I am more than happy to cover old ground to reinforce my own argument. The proposed amendments seek to remove an integral part of the Bill that generates the revenue that we need to support our plans in government. I will make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children who attend state schools. We all—and I include everyone in the House—want children to have the best opportunities in life, with the highest-quality teaching and schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide well-funded, excellent state school places for all students, whether their parents choose to take advantage of that or not.

On the Labour Benches, as we have proven over recent months, we are prepared to take the action necessary to ensure that all children can access through the state the education they deserve. The £70 million raised by the measure in the Bill, alongside the other revenue-raising measures we have taken in the Budget, will result and do result in a real-terms increase in per pupil funding for the 94% who attend our state schools. I am very proud to support that. We will never make any apologies for properly funding state schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments.

To conclude, I am pleased to support the Bill in its current, unamended form. I will support our high streets. It will give confidence to small businesses and it will give state schools the funding they desperately need. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.

Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.

A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.

As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.

Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from  £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.

The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault. \p Mark Sewards: Does the hon. Lady not accept that this Government won an election on the basis of a promise that we would introduce VAT on private school fees, so it is incumbent on us to deliver that manifesto pledge? \p Munira Wilson: I am very grateful for that intervention, because I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party won the election with less than 34% of the vote. I cannot remember what the turnout was, but— \p Luke Taylor: 60%. \p Munira Wilson: My hon. Friend tells me it was 60%. I cannot do the maths quickly enough—clearly, I need to do maths to 18— \p Luke Taylor: One in five voters—one in seven adults. \p Munira Wilson: There we go—basically, not many voters voted for Labour’s manifesto. I will happily let the hon. Gentleman continue to plough that furrow, because I have had that argument made to me before—for instance, in the petitions debate on VAT on private school fees just last week. \p Mark Sewards: I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The simple fact is that we have the electoral system we have, and it is incumbent on whomever wins a majority to deliver their manifesto pledges to govern the country. She may take issue with the electoral system, but it is the one that we have, and we must deliver our manifesto pledges. \p Munira Wilson: I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions was not in his party’s manifesto, nor was a cut to the winter fuel allowance, nor was the farmers tax, yet these are all things Labour is implementing. \p Mark Sewards: rose— \p Munira Wilson: Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier.

Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. \p Suella Braverman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she is saying on private schools, and I agree with everything she has said on that point. Does she agree that as well as the damaging effects on children who go to private schools, this will affect children in state schools? In Hampshire, thousands of young pupils attend independent schools, but the state schools are running at nearly 100% capacity. This measure is going to push hundreds, if not thousands, of children into state schools, which are already full, thereby harming and undermining the education of all children. Is that not unforgivable? \p Munira Wilson: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I am aware, from talking to colleagues, that there are real pressures on school places in different parts of the country. Clearly, that is where we will see a negative impact. In my own constituency and, indeed, across London, we are struggling with secondary school places, although rolls are falling in primary schools, which will feed into the secondary sector. These pressures of children leaving the private sector to go into the state sector are different in different parts of the country.

Taken together, the removal of the business rates exemptions for schools that are charities and the levying of VAT on schools will perversely serve only to make independent schools more elitist and less accessible to many families up and down the country, which seems to be at odds with what this Labour Government purport to stand for. I am perplexed as to why Ministers are so keen to push through these measures. Just last week, they marched their Labour MPs through the No Lobby when the Liberal Democrats sought to impose a profit cap on the shameless profiteering of private equity-run special schools, which are bankrupting our local authorities. Many vulnerable children are missing out on the support that they need because of the behaviour of some of these companies, yet the Labour Government will not take action on them. They are, none the less, happy to tax parents and take away rates relief from those schools operating as charities.

Before I come to a close, let me address the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). He said how all of this money raised from business rates exemptions and VAT on private schools would help fund the state sector. May I gently point out to him that it was his Education  Secretary, who, before Christmas, wrote to the School Teachers’ Review Body essentially to say that teachers should be given a pay rise that is higher than the extra funding that our state schools will receive in the coming financial year—and that has been confirmed by data released by the Education Department this week.

As a result, many state schools across the country, which are already feeling the pinch, will have a shortfall in funds. Schools in my constituency already run Amazon wish lists for things such as glue sticks, whiteboard markers and tissue boxes. They are relying on Parent Teacher Associations to buy new furniture. Our state schools are already struggling, but the money that the hon. Member says will be raised will not go to them; they will not be funded sufficiently. Therefore, this nirvana of state schools that he claims we will have simply does not exist. \p Mark Sewards: The hon. Member has been very generous with her time. On the points that she made about funds for state schools and about the other difficult decisions that this Government have had to make, does she not accept that when we came to power, we found an economy that had been absolutely ruined by the Conservative party? We found every Department in reserves and a £22 billion black hole that had to be filled, because we are the party of economic responsibility. \p Munira Wilson: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are in fact debating Lords amendment 1 and the Government motion to disagree. \p Munira Wilson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now.

Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children.

Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 183.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Jim McMahon.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 117.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(Jim McMahon.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.—(Jim McMahon.)

A Division was called. \p Caroline Nokes: Division off.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 4 accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 12 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 13.—(Jim McMahon.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 13 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 14.—(Jim McMahon.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 14 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.—(Jim McMahon.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 15 disagreed to.

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F.)

Lords amendments 16 to 19 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1 to 19;

That Jim McMahon, Kate Dearden, Navendu Mishra, Mark Ferguson, Steve Yemm, Kevin Hollinrake and Bobby Dean be members of the Committee;

That Jim McMahon be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Great British Energy Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5 September 2024 (Great British Energy Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Caroline Nokes: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 2 and 11. If either of Lords amendments 2 or 11 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. \p Michael Shanks: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 12. \p Michael Shanks: I am pleased that the Great British Energy Bill has returned to this House. I would like to thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important legislation. I extend my thanks in particular to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place.

Twelve amendments were made there, which I will seek to address today. Before I turn to them, I remind the House that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to set up Great British Energy, and that is exactly what the Bill does. Since the Bill was last in this House, we have appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and announced Dan McGrail as interim CEO, based in Aberdeen, so that Great British Energy can quickly get the expertise needed to help the company develop. I was delighted to convene the first meeting of Great British Energy’s board of directors last week in Aberdeen.

We are determined to get Great British Energy delivering for the British people as soon as possible. It has already made some incredibly exciting announcements on initial projects, including a partnership with the Crown Estate, and most recently announcements on solar for schools and hospitals across England, with funding also for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to GBE making further investment decisions on projects this year, driving forward our clean power mission and creating thousands of jobs across the country in the process.

Lords amendment 2 would prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to Great British Energy if credible evidence of modern slavery was found in its supply chains. There has understandably been significant interest in this amendment from Members in the other place and on both sides of this House. We recognise that concerns have been raised widely on this issue, and I am seeking to approach it in a collaborative and open way with hon. Members.

I will also address amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, as our approach to this amendment is similar. I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for amendment (a). I have been grateful for her engagement with me ahead of the Bill returning to this House. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years on this important issue. Her amendment would amend Lords amendment 2 made in the other place by creating a cross-ministerial taskforce to which Great British Energy would need to prove that its supply chains were free of forced labour.

I want the House to be in no doubt that this Government are absolutely committed to confronting and tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains. As set out by my colleague Lord Hunt in the other place, Great British Energy has a range of tools to tackle modern slavery in its supply chains. GBE will prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement when it meets the thresholds set out under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That will outline the steps it is taking to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not present in its supply chains or any part of its business.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, GBE can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or that have it anywhere in their supply chain. I commit here that GBE will utilise the debarment list to ensure that suppliers with unethical supply chains cannot participate in procurement or be awarded contracts by GBE. \p Iain Duncan Smith: That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. To do that, proceedings have to be able to be taken against the company that is involved in the slavery. A British company involved in agency is not involved in the slavery. It would have to get the Chinese Government to prosecute the Chinese company to make sure that they got a prosecution here. That is never going to happen. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his many years of work on this issue. I will come to some of the detail in addition to this measure, but it is important to say that the debarment list, which was part of the Act passed by the Conservative Government, has been in force since February and will be populated in due course. We will use that list as the basis of challenging the decisions that Great British Energy can make not to take contracts with those on that list. I will look in more detail at the specific points that he raised, and I will come to some of that later in my speech.

In addition, GBE will use the modern slavery assessment tool to assess its supply base for modern slavery risks. We expect Great British Energy to take a leading role in ensuring that any companies in which it invests can demonstrate their own assessment of their supply chains for exposure to forced labour. I assure the House that with these tools, GBE will tackle modern slavery head-on. Where there is credible evidence of involvement anywhere in supply chains, GBE will ensure that it does everything in its power to combat the scourge of modern slavery and to pull up the standards expected of the wider UK energy sector in the process. \p Josh Babarinde: My constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff is a Holocaust survivor. She knows what slave labour looks like, and she has written to the Prime Minister to urge that our energy transition does not repeat so many of the atrocities that she has seen. She is awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister. Will the Minister nudge No. 10 to ensure that she gets the response that she needs and deserves on her own behalf and that of victims of modern slavery across the world? \p Michael Shanks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I saw that powerful letter, which was widely reported in the press. I am not sure that nudging No. 10 is quite within my gift, but I will certainly raise the issue for a response. The wider point raised is absolutely right. I recognise the need not just in the energy sector but across our economy to ensure that we remove any risk of forced labour in supply chains. We all share that commitment across the House. We need a number of different measures to make that happen. I am determined that Great British Energy will a leader in the sector on doing that, particularly within the energy space.

Returning to the focus that Great British Energy will have at the highest levels of its work, I can commit today that it will appoint a senior individual in the organisation to lead on ethical supply chains and modern slavery. Further, the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which the Secretary of State will issue to GBE once it receives Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that GBE proactively works to deliver on these commitments and, in doing so, becomes a sector leader in this space, as we would expect from any company owned by the British public.

To further demonstrate our commitment across Government, we will write to all FTSE 100 companies outlining our expectations on responsible businesses to ensure that these issues, especially forced labour and supply chains, are being effectively identified and addressed. Given the importance of tackling modern slavery, it is crucial that businesses play their part to tackle that abhorrent crime. We cannot do this without their support, so it is an important step across Government. \p Richard Holden: The Minister is explaining what the Government are doing, but they are not doing what Members of this House and of the other place want—not just asking people to do stuff but leading. That is what this amendment does: it would allow the UK to really show its leadership on behalf of the British public. This will be a huge public company. Why will the Minister not just commit to that further step today? \p Michael Shanks: Let me come to that point, because the specific reason that we disagree with their lordships on this amendment is that it would not actually do what the hon. Gentleman says. It would force the Government to cease all GBE’s activities, rather than give it the scope to address any of the issues that we are raising today directly within the framework that we have outlined. As I said, we as a Government are wholly committed to doing this. Great British Energy will be committed to ensuring that the highest standards are maintained. The amendment would cease the funding immediately, which would not give GB Energy the scope to actually invest in the appropriate supply chains and to tackle those issues directly. \p Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister accept that many people listening to this will see it as evading rather than addressing the issue? We can have the Procurement Act, the taskforce and the letters to all the major companies, but the fact remains that most companies will seek financial assistance for the kinds of projects that they wish to do. If credible evidence is discovered that supply chains have been contaminated by slavery, the easy way of stopping purchases from suppliers who act in that way will be to say, “You’re not getting any support.” \p Michael Shanks: I do not disagree with that at all, and that is possible. Nothing forces Great British Energy, or any other company, to take investment from any individual or company. They can choose not to do so for a whole variety of reasons, and if one of those reasons is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, I would fully expect them not to invest in those companies. That is exactly what we are talking about today. The point is that that conversation must be broader than one just about Great British Energy. It is about wider supply chains and companies right across the economy, and that is what we are hoping to tackle.

In parallel, although the energy sector is particularly important to me, I want to work across Government to outline a comprehensive plan to tackle modern slavery, which is a question right across the economy. Rather than dealing with the problem on a company-by-company basis, we must look to do so more broadly. To drive forward that work, I confirm that in the coming weeks I will convene cross-departmental ministerial meetings involving the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and my Department to discuss how we can accelerate work across Government on this really important issue. \p Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and the consideration that he is giving to this issue. Will he look at a reverse burden of proof so that, instead of proving an exclusion, it is switched to show no association with modern slavery? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to that briefly in a moment.

All of this work builds on the implementation of the new procurement regime, which focuses on ensuring fair and open competition and treating suppliers equally, as well as the work that we are doing on the relaunched solar taskforce—it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government—to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative solar supply chains that are free from forced labour.

We recognise that the landscape has shifted since the Modern Slavery Act came into effect, which is why yesterday the Home Office published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains that provides comprehensive and practical advice for businesses on how to tackle forced labour in their supply chains. Great British Energy will, of course, follow any new measures on modern slavery to which it is subjected, just as any responsible public or private body should. I hope that the new steps I have outlined will reassure the House that Departments across Government will continue to work intensively on this issue.

Before I move on, I will reflect briefly on amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), which would require the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define “credible evidence” in Lords amendment 2. While I thank him for the amendment, we have to resist it as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s role was established to encourage good practice rather than to look specifically into supply chains of individual companies. The amendment would place a significant lawmaking function on the commissioner, which the role was not designed for, and is currently not within the commissioner’s powers. The amendment would also have wider implications for how evidence of modern slavery is assessed and could create unnecessary legal uncertainty and precedent.

I turn to the remaining amendments. The Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendments 3 to 12 following positive discussions with peers in the other place. Lords amendment 1 puts community energy on the face of the Bill. The Government had a manifesto commitment to deliver a step change in community energy across the UK. We set up GBE to deliver our local power plan: it is at the heart of our plans for GBE. However, we recognise that during the Bill’s passage, it was highlighted that the role of community energy should be made explicit in the Bill. As my colleagues in the other place said, the Government have accepted that, and it is right that that is now in the Bill. \p Martin Rhodes: I very much welcome the amendment. Does the Minister agree that community energy is important not just for jobs and investment but for engaging communities with the transition to a new energy system? Does he recognise the need for the Government to support those initiatives with funding going forward? \p Michael Shanks: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Community energy is incredibly important to give communities a stake in their energy future and to deliver the social and economic benefits that go with it. Just last week we announced a significant amount of funding through GBE for community energy projects across England, and funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to spend on similar projects, including community energy projects in their own areas. \p Dave Doogan: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: I will give way briefly, but then I will have to make a bit of progress. \p Dave Doogan: Can the Minister advise the House on the level of recurrence to that funding? Will it be year-on-year funding? Will he also give us an indication—maybe not precisely, but broadly—what that funding stream will be year on year under GB Energy? \p Michael Shanks: It will not be recurring in the same methodology. GBE does not yet exist, so we carried out the initial set of investments in a particular way. Going forward, those projects will be on the basis of the individual investment propositions put forward. Individual projects in Scotland or in other parts of the UK will therefore apply for funding, they will be considered  alongside other investments and those investments will be made. However, we will not deliver funding on a population share on that basis going forward. Of course, funding is already going to the Scottish Government, with a significant increase in the budget this year to fund, for example, the community and renewable energy scheme and the community energy work, which are going on in Scotland already.

Briefly, Lords amendment 3 came in recognition of concerns raised about the length of time GBE could operate without strategic priorities. We have agreed to an amendment that would prepare a set of strategic priorities within six months, although I will say to the House, as I did in Committee, that we intend to move far faster than that. Lords amendments 4 to 10 were brought about following positive engagement with the devolved Governments and we are committed to collaboration on a UK-wide basis. The amendments, which relate to clause 5, moved from consulting with devolved Governments to consent in relation to devolved competencies. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for engaging so productively and for the Parliaments’ legislative consent motions on the Bill.

Lords amendment 11 introduces an independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Finally, Lords amendment 12 ensures that Great British Energy will keep the impact of its activities on sustainable development under review. I know that was a concern raised by a number of Members in relation to how we conserve nature and biodiversity while advancing clean power. I therefore hope the House will join me in welcoming that addition.

I look forward to this debate—albeit short—and I urge the House to support the Government’s position on the amendments. \p Andrew Bowie: This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do.

We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country?

Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic  of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven.

In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power.

It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter.

I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [Interruption.] They complain, but it is true.

What will those MPs say to their constituents—to their voters? How will they explain this vote in the week that we mark 10 years since the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Indeed, how will they explain it to themselves? We are proud to have introduced that Act 10 years ago. It was a landmark piece of legislation. However, it is right that we recognise now that the protections against the use of public money in supply chains with exposure to the use of modern slave labour need to be more robust. They are voting against this incredibly sensible amendment that seeks to protect some of the most oppressed people in the world, and to ensure that our net zero objectives, whatever one’s view of them, will not be built on the back of slave labour, or on the backs of the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang and elsewhere. The vast majority of solar panels are exposed to Xinjiang silicon, where manufacturers have been found to have links to Uyghur forced labour.

Therefore, what we are seeing today is not simply the offshoring of our emissions, although we are, and it is not just about the offshoring of our energy security, although that is also true. Today we are seeing the offshoring of the Labour party’s moral compass, and we all know why: because clean power by 2030 demands it. The fact is that the Government will not achieve that target that they signed up to without the help of China  and without importing this green revolution from coal-powered factories thousands of miles away. They are pursuing a made-in-China energy transition built on the back of slave labour and powered by Chinese coal.

It is quite ironic that the Minister is willing to stomach the higher carbon emissions associated with importing liquefied natural gas from abroad. The emissions are four times higher than those from drilling at home. The Government want to import solar panels manufactured using coal power and tainted by human rights abuses, rather than giving our domestic supply chains the time to grow. It is an irony that is not lost on us, and neither will it be lost on the country. This is, I am afraid, the pyrrhic victory of ideology over sense, and of zealotry over the national interest. It is bad for Britain, it is bad for bill payers and it really is quite bad for the climate. \p Lewis Cocking: Does my hon. Friend agree that building more of that infrastructure here in the United Kingdom would be good for British jobs and for our energy security, just as issuing new oil and gas licences in Scotland would be, as that would allow us to produce more of our energy here at home and make us safer from volatile energy markets abroad? \p Andrew Bowie: My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely. It is purely the imposition on this country of arbitrary, needless targets, such as clean power by 2030, to generate headlines and get the Secretary of State’s name up in lights that is requiring us to become more reliant on the People’s Republic of China for the goods, technology and equipment to develop the solar farms, nearly all of which will be tainted by slave labour in some way, given the reliance on slave labour in part of that country for that infrastructure and technology. So of course I agree with him, and of course it would be much better if we were issuing new licences and continuing to support our own domestic oil and gas industry. That is something that we have debated time and again, and I am sure we will come back to this House to debate it again in the future.

Great British Energy is not great, it is not British and it will not generate any energy. Public funds should not be—must not be—funding imports tainted by modern slavery and slave labour. British taxpayers deserve better: a domestic supply chain that creates jobs at home rather than funding abuses abroad. That is why we support Lords amendment 2, and I urge Labour Members to do the right thing today and vote for it as well. \p Sarah Champion: I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two Houses. Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery.

Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs  in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels.

On Report, I was hugely grateful for the Energy Secretary’s commitment to me:

“We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains”—[Official Report, 29 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 775.]

But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Box that have failed to materialise.

The Bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the Government have committed to capitalising GB Energy with over £8.3 billion. If companies want to benefit from taxpayers’ money, they must be able to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour. I have tabled amendment (a) to that effect, as it would place the burden of proof on businesses.

Cross-Government working is the only way to end the stagnation in our response to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action, including by placing rogue companies on the Procurement Act’s debarment list to ban them from winning other public contracts. The public deserve a guarantee that their money will not be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote a Business and Trade Minister, “no company should have abuses in their supply chains”, so I admire Ministers’ resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in their areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE, my amendment offers a simple, cost-effective method to achieve that. I am glad that the Minister agrees, but for clarity, let me repeat what I believe he has committed to and push him a little further.

Primarily, will the Minister confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy’s strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced labour in any part of their supply chains, and that that needs to be mapped down to raw materials? I am glad that there will be a cross-ministerial working group to work across Departments to tackle slavery in supply chains—that is exactly what needs to happen—and a commitment to leverage the Procurement Act’s debarment list where there is evidence of bidders or suppliers with unethical supply chains. Let us remember that the Act includes discretionary grounds that do not require a conviction. Of course, all of that requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability.

Finally, I have one more ask: will the Minister prioritise buying British to boost our economy and avoid the risk of reliance on slave-made renewables from international sources? Of course, the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewables, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for slave-made goods.

Based on the Minister’s word, and having sought those clarifications, I will not press my amendment. I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy’s future procurement, and I thank the Minister for that. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: Alongside community groups across the country, including Power for People and Community Energy England, I am pleased to welcome the inclusion of community energy and benefits in the Bill through Lords amendment 1. It was possible after all, and I congratulate the Government on taking this step. We Liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that in this House and the other place, but there has been a lot of cross-party working to achieve it, and I am delighted that its inclusion is now enshrined in law. This is a victory for community voices, giving them a real stake in the energy transition through full or partial ownership of local power. Communities like mine in South Cambridgeshire, where many are off grid and struggling with volatile oil prices, want to generate and sell their own green energy locally. It is absurd that that is not possible. \p Sarah Dyke: There are five community energy schemes in my constituency, and they all contribute to local energy supplies. An increase in community energy projects would boost the local economy, as my hon. Friend says, create jobs and reduce energy costs, especially in rural areas. Does she agree that we must go further and create long-term plans to support this type of initiative? \p Pippa Heylings: I completely agree. The Great British Energy Bill gives a statutory steer that helps us have those long-term plans.

The clean energy transition has to be done with communities, not to communities. I commend the Government for committing an additional £5 million to the community energy fund, bringing certainty at least to its short-term future.

Lords amendment 1 also addresses community benefits, which are critical for taking people with us on this pathway to the energy transition. If communities are to host energy infrastructure, whether for onshore wind or large-scale solar farms, those benefits have to go beyond token gestures such as roofs for scout huts or some apprenticeships. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. This means that a controversial large-scale solar project in my constituency, such as the Kingsway solar farm, could provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it has to be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.

Lords amendment 12 is also a vital addition to the Bill, requiring GB Energy to keep its impact on sustainable development under review. Credit is due to Baroness Hayman, who fought tirelessly in the other House to ensure that sustainability is embedded in our energy transition through that amendment. We welcome the assurances we have received that in the updated framework agreement, not only will the local economies of coastal communities be taken into consideration, but there will be an explicit climate and nature duty for GB Energy. GB Energy has to consider economic, environmental and social needs, ensuring that future generations can meet their needs.

I would have liked to discuss amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and amendment (b), in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), both to  Lords amendment 2. Modern slavery is a barbaric practice that should have been eradicated long ago. We look to the promise of our green energy transformation, but it cannot take place at the cost of human rights abuses across the world.

Research from Sheffield Hallam University has directly linked China’s labour transfer programme to the global solar panel supply chain. China produces 40% of the world’s polysilicon and 80% of its solar panels, and right now, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subjected to state detention and forced labour. It is incomprehensible that the Government are seeking to vote down an amendment that would withdraw GB Energy investment from supply chains tainted by forced labour. GB Energy has to set the standard, not muddle along.

There is nothing sufficiently robust in the Bill to ensure that there is no forced labour in this supply chain. The solar taskforce does not have the mandate to ensure that. As we have heard, the Procurement Act 2023 cannot address the issue. This should be an issue not just for the energy sector. The health sector has shown leadership by addressing the matter in the Health and Care Act 2022. The Great British Energy Bill is a key piece of legislation, and measures on forced labour should be part of it. \p Luke Taylor: This is not just about the practicalities of the need to include these measures. Is it not essential that we show the public that the measures we are promoting to achieve net zero—a cause for which there is overwhelming public support, notwithstanding some parties’ attitudes to our need to get there and when—are not tainted by human rights abuses? \p Pippa Heylings: I completely agree. That is why the Liberal Democrats will continue to call for restrictions on trade with regions where abuses take place, including Xinjiang, and advocate for Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Uyghur persecution. This is about more than Britain. It is about playing our part conscientiously in a global movement to see all human rights abuses stopped. \p Alex Sobel: I rise to speak in support of my amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, in my capacity as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on forced labour in UK supply chains. Lords amendment 2, tabled in the Lords by our Chair, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and passed there, seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to any company designated “Great British Energy” when there is “credible evidence” of modern slavery in its supply chains. My amendment takes into account some of the arguments made by the Government in the Lords, and seeks to refine the Lords amendment by providing a mechanism for determining “credible evidence”. My amendment empowers the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define what constitutes “credible evidence” of supply chain slavery. It is crafted so as to allow the Bill to be as business friendly as possible, while ensuring that it still has teeth. The commissioner is backing this initiative.

I welcome the Bill. I support the creation of Great British Energy and the Government’s commitment to achieving our net zero ambitions and clean power by 2030, but we must have the highest ethical standards for our solar industry. The British public do not want our net zero future to be built on slave labour. In its report, “Sourcing solar energy without Uyghur forced labour”, Unison stated that all polysilicon manufacturers in the Uyghur region have participated in forced labour transfer programmes, and/or are supplied by raw materials manufacturers that have done so. Multiple UK public sector bodies have been found to procure solar materials from companies sourcing polysilicon from the region. As the UK’s solar capacity is set to double, concerns are mounting that councils and other public service bodies will get locked into long-term contracts with unethical suppliers. We must ensure that our solar supply chain is free from Uyghur slave labour.

A report by the China Strategic Risks Institute estimates that if Beijing were to restrict solar exports, it would cost the UK economy £4.4 billion, raise household energy bills by £155, and stall our path to net zero. It would leave our ability to meet climate goals and protect British consumers at the mercy of decisions made in China. We need only look at the raising of tariffs around the world, including on China, to understand the risks of relying solely on China for polysilicon and solar panels. If GB Energy becomes reliant solely on solar panels from China, we will not just be complicit in human rights abuses, but will create an enormous point of strategic vulnerability in our energy system. That would give the Chinese state a lever of influence over our critical infrastructure, and undermine our sovereignty.

Professor Laura Murphy, who until January this year was senior policy adviser to the United States Department of Homeland Security on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and is perhaps the world’s leading expert on Xinjiang supply chains, stated:

“From a human rights and climate perspective, the alternative of basing our green energy future on Xinjiang coal’s high carbon emissions and on the forced labour of oppressed communities is a higher and longer-term price to pay.”

If we allow GB Energy to contract with companies that profit from modern slavery, we directly undermine fair competition. No British worker can compete with a system that relies on forced labour. In our manifesto, we pledged secure, well-paid green jobs. My amendment seeks to ensure that British workers are not undercut by Chinese renewables companies that profit from modern slavery, and that GB Energy promotes not only the development of the UK’s renewable sector, but improved human rights conditions for all workers at each point in the supply chain.

It is true that the United States’s legislation has nudged companies to diversify their supply chains, and there is a gradual move away from suppliers using forced labour in the United States. A number of companies have been sanctioned under the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act for using forced labour. The solar taskforce, while a welcome step, is not empowered to assess modern slavery risks in procurement, and neither is it equipped with the anti-slavery expertise necessary to mitigate those risks. The taskforce’s work is coming to a conclusion, so will the Minister outline the steps that will follow that work to ensure a solid mechanism that excludes forced labour products from the solar supply chain?

As my hon. Friend the Minister has stated,

“no UK company should have forced labour in its supply chains”,

and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero reaffirmed that position. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade gave an “absolute assurance” that “no modern slavery” would be permitted in supply chains affecting UK goods. The amendment simply ensures that those commitments are enforced. Sadly, the current statutory position has not been sufficient to prevent slave-made renewables from entering the UK. More must be done, and the amendment is a modest and business-friendly way to incentivise cleaner supply chains. The Bill presents an opportunity to use the Government’s purchasing power to nudge business in the right direction. This week marks 10 years since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 became law. Once a leader in the fight against modern slavery, we are now in danger of falling behind the US, as I have outlined, and the EU. The amendment presents a credible mechanism for ensuring a clean energy future.

As the Minister outlined, this is just one way of ensuring that we remove forced labour from our supply chains. He raised the prospect of using the Procurement Act 2023, and I welcome what he said, but the Act requires a supplier to be convicted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, or of an offence in their country relating to forced labour. The nature of forced labour in China means that it is disguised, so those conditions would not be met. Will the welcome cross-departmental working group, which the Minister announced in his opening statement, look at the Procurement Act and ensure that it is fit for purpose? Will the group look at the way that the United States has used a rebuttal presumption for goods from Xinjiang, or at another similar mechanism? As a matter of urgency, will the Minister and his group ensure that we have the powers and expertise to prevent forced labour in our solar panel supply chains? Will he work with trades unions, non-governmental organisations and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commission on this?

Will the Minister meet me and Professor Laura Murphy, who works on this issue at Sheffield Hallam University, as a matter of urgency to explore the detail of how we can ensure a robust system, like the one that she helped to implement in the United States—a robust system not just for GB Energy, but for the whole solar industry? I agree with the Minister that this is not just an issue for GB Energy, but for the whole industry. Will the Minister work with me to get a workable debarment list, so that we can ensure that GB Energy is acting on modern slavery? Will he give a commitment that GB Energy’s operating framework is committed to tackling forced labour? If I get these assurances from the Minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment and work with the Government’s cross-departmental working group and others to ensure that we can take the scandal of forced labour out of our solar supply chain. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to be called at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Others will want to speak, so I will be as brief as I possibly can.

As I said earlier, the Minister is incorrect in believing that the Procurement Act gives any protection at all against modern slavery in the supply chain. That is a fact of life that we have known for ages. I was one of those who brought the Modern Slavery Act into being  10 years ago, but at that time we did not understand how bad the situation was in China. Over 90% of polysilicon is made in China, and we know for a fact that 97% of all the solar arrays being sold here contain polysilicon from Xinjiang, which will have been made by slave labour. There is no dispute at all about that.

The question facing the Government is not—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister could listen. The question facing the Government is not whether they think that modern slavery is good—I do not for one moment accuse them of thinking that. What has gone missing, and what Lord Alton’s amendment focuses on, is recognition that there is no requirement on the Government to deal with slavery in the supply chain, and no way for them to do that. As has been said, America has turned the burden of proof upside down and said, “We assume you have slave labour in your product. You must prove to us that you do not.” That is the only way to deal with this. The Americans then sanction offending companies, but under our legislation, the Government do not have such measures available to them.

The Procurement Act does not even do a whisper of that, because it needs a prosecution to have been mounted under the Modern Slavery Act, and that cannot happen because a company that is an agent for a Chinese-made solar array will not be prosecuted. Under the present laws, only the Chinese company that makes the solar array can be prosecuted. That means that no prosecution will take place; no company in China will be prosecuted by the Chinese Government, because the Chinese Government are the ones who set up this ghastly process. Why? Because it makes their arrays cheaper than anybody else’s in the world. That is how they have pretty much wiped out all other array production in the world. Let us ask ourselves: where will we get our arrays from? The answer is that we cannot get them anywhere else, but if we had to, we would have to pay a lot of money. I understand that there is probably a debate going on in Government about whether we go down that road, which would make arrays awfully expensive.

In conclusion, the Government know the facts. I support amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2; I support the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who brought it forward for the right reasons; and I support the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) brought forward her amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. The Government must act. If we do not act, make forced labour illegal and punish the companies involved in it, directly or as agents, then we will be guilty of increasing slavery in China—that is what tonight’s debate is about.

I am sorry that the Government will get rid of this Lords amendment. They could have done a deal to enhance it or whatever, but now they will have to commit to coming forward with legislation to increase and improve the Act that they already have, which will take another debate. I say to the Government: for goodness’ sake. By the way, I had this issue with my own party when we were in government, and I voted against it; I voted with the Labour party to put this provision in the Health and Care Act 2022. We did that together.

I hope nobody thinks that I am being party political, because I am not. I am sanctioned by the Chinese Government because we raised this issue originally. I say to them that I and many in this House will not stop until the Government face up to one thing and one  thing only: not one life through modern slavery is worth a lower cost on a solar array. That should be the epitaph of the ridiculous position that the Government are in. \p James Naish: As an energy industry professional before entering this place, I am very pleased to see that Great British Energy is making impressive strides. It has secured a landmark partnership with the Crown Estate, and we have seen it commit to more and more solar power, which is much welcomed by my constituents. We have also seen investment in carbon capture and storage clusters in Teesside and Merseyside, bringing thousands of jobs to those areas.

More broadly, I welcome the Government’s move to lift the ban on onshore wind in England and to promote funding in newer, emerging industries, including hydrogen and fusion energy. I also look forward to the Government announcing the winner of the small modular reactor contract at some point over the coming weeks, when I hope that the Government will also place a sizeable order.

As we advance towards a future of clean, secure, home-grown energy, we must ensure that that future is built on principles of justice and respect for human rights. I will therefore speak to Lords amendment 2. Since being elected last year as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, I have been contacted by constituents voicing their concerns about what is happening in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China. In 2021, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC delivered the Uyghur tribunal’s judgment here in London deeming that the Chinese Government’s policies amounted to

“a deliberate, systematic and concerted policy”

to bring about

“long-term reduction of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations”.

I am afraid that forced labour is being used as a key instrument in this campaign of oppression.

More than 1 million Uyghurs have been detained in re-education camps, and many are transferred to work in factories, mines and fields under barbaric conditions. As has been mentioned, some of those factories produce polysilicon, which is a critical component in 95% of the world’s solar panels. On that basis, it is estimated that around 40% of the UK solar industry may be at risk of sourcing materials tainted by this state-sponsored forced labour. That is why I believe this House has a responsibility to ask hard questions, as these Lords amendments have done. If we are to stand as a country that champions both human rights and climate action, we must ensure that our clean energy future is not built on the backs of exploited peoples.

The choices we make on legislation such as this on who receives British taxpayers’ money and what standards we demand in procurement are not abstract: they are ultimately a measure of whether we are willing to trade convenience for complicity. It is therefore right that we always examine how supply chains operate. It is right that we consider how credible evidence of forced labour should be defined and who is best placed to determine that. It is right that we reflect on whether our current legal frameworks are sufficient.

As has been mentioned, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was groundbreaking at the time, but it lacks the teeth to tackle the forced labour taking place in Xinjiang. In that context, we should note the steps taken across the Atlantic. In June, it will be three years since the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act took effect in the United States, and I believe similar resolve is needed here in the United Kingdom. We should expedite updating and strengthening our modern slavery legislation in the light of Great British Energy’s ambitious plans. The Uyghur people, and others facing slavery around the world, deserve to know that Britain will not turn a blind eye. We cannot end all injustice, but we can ensure that our laws, procurement policies and public financing do not sustain atrocities. I therefore implore the Government to listen to Members on the Labour and Opposition Benches today. I thank the Minister for the significant steps he has already outlined, and ask him to reassure us once more that the relevant steps will be taken to prevent Great British Energy from in any way contributing to promoting or sustaining known atrocities. \p Harriet Cross: I appreciate that a number of Members still want to speak, so I will keep my comments short. The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendment 2 shows the absolutism of their net zero and energy policies. The amendment is not only sensible but morally correct, and in voting against it, the Government are signalling that their ambition to reach net zero trumps everything else. Can that really be correct? If we cannot support those who are suffering from modern slavery, what are we doing? Is the rush to net zero really worth that?

Net zero is intended to prevent people on this planet from going down a route towards a planet that is not inhabitable—that is what we have been sold. What are we saving the planet for, if not to enable people to work in a safe, secure way? We cannot sacrifice that; we cannot condone forced labour by selling our morals to China in order to rush towards net zero. The Uyghur Muslims in China do not have a safe, secure place to work. They are oppressed, and by not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are supporting that oppression. We have rightly condemned slavery in the past. The Government have rightly condemned past slavery, but they are now happy to condone forced labour in China.

It is an unbelievable situation that we find ourselves in, but we are getting used to this sort of behaviour from the Government. We have seen the heartless policies that they have implemented since they came to power, whether that is the family farm tax, the tax on jobs that is putting people out of work, or taxing children’s hospices, which the Government have voted for this afternoon. By not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are effectively saying that they are happy to turn a blind eye to modern slavery across the world. That is something that Conservative Members cannot possibly support. Until July last year, those in the Labour party were happy to promote their morals, but it seems that those morals were left in front of the last door they knocked on in July. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: With the leave of the House, I call the Minister. \p Michael Shanks: With the leave of the House, I will sum up the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, although it has been short, on a number of the amendments but perhaps most importantly on forced labour and modern slavery in our economy. I want to reflect on some of the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but let me start by saying that I hear the very strong views that have been expressed on this issue. It is right that Governments of whatever party constantly challenge themselves to go further in tackling these issues, because—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it—even one person being affected by forced labour is an absolute disgrace. We should collectively tackle that issue using whatever means we can.

As such, I want to reiterate clearly that contrary to some of the contributions we have heard from Conservative Members, Lords amendment 2 is about amending the Great British Energy Bill, not about the Government’s wider commitment to tackling modern slavery. It can be repeated as often as Conservative Members like, but it is simply disingenuous to come to this place and suggest that the Labour party has suddenly decided not to care about this issue. I really do take issue with that. \p Gavin Williamson: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for a lot of the debate, but I will give way to him. \p Gavin Williamson: I think the Minister would accept that Lords amendment 2 is a very modest proposal that could make a significant difference to people’s lives and outcomes in China. There is talk of Labour buying off its Back Benchers by saying that further legislation is coming down the line—is that in six months’ time, a year’s time, or two years’ time? When is it going to come? \p Michael Shanks: First, the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about the issue that he has only just turned up to the debate. Secondly, he was a senior member of the Government for 14 years. If this was an issue that he cared about so much, why are we here debating it now? The truth is that the previous Government could have tackled this issue in a much clearer way. I will not follow him on that point.

As I said clearly in opening the debate, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here for, there should no modern slavery anywhere in our economy or our supply chains. To deliver, we must work across Government and across the economy, because it is not just about the investments that Great British Energy makes. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Michael Shanks: I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and then I need to finish. \p Marie Rimmer: The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not work in this area. To do anything, two  criteria must be met, and they are only advisory. In the World Health Organisation, we had to prove that organ harvesting was not an “ethical organ transplant system”, and we cannot get to the supply chains, which are state-invented, state-imposed and disguised. I urge the Minister to give a commitment that he will listen to the argument in these two amendments. \p Michael Shanks: I understand the argument that my hon. Friend is making, but the issues she rightly highlights, as other Members have, go much wider than Great British Energy, which the Bill sets up as a publicly owned energy company. Those issues are about the wider economy and investment across our supply chains. \p Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: I need to close. I am sorry.

In part, we are setting up Great British Energy because we want to deliver home-grown supply chains and an industrial strategy, in spite of the Conservative party having completely failed to deliver that for 14 years—in fact, it had a complete ignorance of how to build supply chains. Had it delivered on some of the supply chains in this country, we might not have to import so much. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can shout all they want; they know that they failed on this matter, and we are picking up the pieces.

For those Members who were in the debate, I want to respond to the points raised, in particular in the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). On her point about how widespread the problem of forced labour is, that underlines why a piecemeal approach, legislating on individual companies here and there, is not the right one. We need to work across Government to tackle the problem throughout the economy. She asked for clarity on some of the points made. She is right to reiterate the point that I intend to pull together Ministers from across Government, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and my Department, to look at how we can collectively tackle the issue. There will be a designated leader within Great British Energy to drive this work forward. We will utilise the debarment list.

More broadly, we fully expect Great British Energy to do everything in its power under the relevant guidance and legislation to remove any instances of forced labour from supply chains. GBE must not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour.

This is an important debate on a Bill that was in our manifesto. It delivers the first new national publicly-owned energy generation company in 75 years. It is backed by the British public, and it will deliver jobs and investment all over the country. It will deliver the deployment of clean power. We will tackle the supply chains to ensure that jobs come to this country and that we tackle the scourge of modern slavery, not just through GBE but across the economy. That is our commitment. I urge Members to support the Government’s position. In the 15 seconds I have left, I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am willing to work with Members across the House to tackle this fundamental issue, which is of extreme importance across the Government.

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Lords Amendment 1 agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Michael Shanks.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 3 to 12 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 11.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 2;

That Michael Shanks, Anna Turley, Chris McDonald, Luke Myer, Luke Murphy, Andrew Bowie and Susan Murray be members of the Committee;

That Michael Shanks be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 14 October 2024 (Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Dan Jarvis: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 13. \p Dan Jarvis: The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—has returned to this House in good shape. Only a small number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government, all of which we shall consider this evening.

The Government have been particularly grateful for the collaborative approach to scrutinising the Bill across both Houses, and I hope that this will continue this evening, as we take the final steps to passing this important piece of legislation.

I shall begin by speaking to Lords amendments 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These amendments, brought by the Government in the other place, make minor and technical changes to further clarify the conditions for qualifying premises and qualifying events. Specifically, these amendments clarify the intention that premises and events are not in scope where attendance is in a personal or private capacity—for example, a wedding attended by relations and friends, or an office party attended by employees and customers. These are private events, not publicly accessible, and the amendments make it even clearer that they should be out of scope. These amendments do not alter the intended policy or the scope of the Bill. They are technical changes to provide further clarity on who will be within scope of this legislation.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Baroness Suttie on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This amendment places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under clause 27. As my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint made clear in the other place, the Government are happy to accept this amendment. We are acutely aware of the importance of the guidance that will accompany this Bill and it is vital that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and the information needed to ensure that they can plan, prepare for, and, ultimately, implement the requirements. It is also essential that the guidance is informed by proper consideration and engagement. This had always been the Government’s intention and we are content to enshrine the principle of appropriate consultation in statute by virtue of this amendment.

I turn finally to Lords amendments 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, which were brought by the Government in light of the clear cross-party support to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill

Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 9 consolidate into clause 32 the powers previously found in clauses 5 and 6, which allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend the description of public protection procedures or measures.

Amendments 7 and 8 place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy. These conditions are also added to the powers in clause 32 that enable the Secretary of State to alter the qualifying thresholds for standard duty premises, enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. These conditions limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds—or to add new procedures or measures—to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection.

Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted or amended—only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not necessary for public protection. Additionally, Lords amendment 8 will require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in clause 32, including those I have just described.

The Government consider that this approach provides an extra level of assurance if future Secretaries of State are considering using these powers. It strikes the right balance between ensuring the Bill can be kept up to date, while providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.

I am grateful to those in the other place for their considered scrutiny of these measures and for continuing the collaborative approach that has flowed through the passage of the Bill. I particularly want to thank Lord Anderson of Ipswich for his constructive challenge, and I am pleased that he felt able to add his name to the Government amendments. I am sure this House agrees that the amendments provide further safeguards and ensure that if and when the powers are used, they are used appropriately and with sufficient consultation.

Before I conclude, I will take this opportunity to recognise the extraordinary campaigning efforts by Figen Murray, without which we would not be here today, and I will have more to say about Figen later. She has always been very clear that the Martyn’s law campaign was a team effort, so I want to take the opportunity this evening to recognise the contribution of the whole campaign team, including Brendan, Nick, Nathan and Stuart. With that, I very much hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support all of the amendments before us today. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Katie Lam: On 22 May 2017, Islamist extremist Salman Abedi carried out a sickening attack on the Manchester arena following a concert. This barbaric act of terrorism killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others, many of them children. It was the deadliest act of terrorism in this country since the 7/7 bombings in 2005. What was taken from the victims and those who love them can never be given back. That of course includes Figen Murray, whose determination and fortitude we honour this afternoon and whose son Martyn Hett we remember, along with all the others who were killed or injured on that horrible day.

This Bill, inherited from the previous Government, is an attempt to address an insufficiency in our anti-terror framework by ensuring that our public spaces and public events are better prepared for any future attacks.  This is a noble goal and one that colleagues on both sides of the House undoubtedly support. When the Bill was last in this place, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), spoke of the concern we all share to get the balance right. Our safeguards against potential future terror attacks must be robust but also proportionate and pragmatic. He spoke of the spirit of support, co-operation and openness in which we suggested small amendments to the Bill, and I believe amendments were tabled in the other place in that same spirit.

We particularly welcome the change from invitations to tickets and the clarity that provides on private events being out of scope of this legislation. We are sorry not to see more of those amendments in this place for debate. I urge the Minister, who I know is very conscious of the different pressures and the need for balance, to keep the thresholds under review, which clause 32 provides for, and to continue to assess the impact of this legislation on community institutions. We continue to have concerns that in its current form the legislation risks adding to the already enormous burden of regulation and paperwork that small hospitality and community venues such as pubs, churches and village halls must navigate on a daily basis, so we welcome amendment 8 on consultation.

It is right that people of this country should be able to go about their daily lives and go to events in the knowledge that they are safe. It is also right that we take action to ensure that horrific attacks like the one carried out in Manchester in May 2017 do not happen again. As we pursue this noble goal, we should remain aware of and sensitive to the potential negative impacts of our good intentions. Small venues across the country are already struggling, and we must be cautious about adding to that burden, but we are happy to support the Lords amendments today. \p Tim Roca: My contribution will be brief. I start by thanking the Minister and Lord Hanson in the other place for their hard work with others on bringing the Bill to fruition. I also thank them for the kindness and courtesy they have shown my constituents Figen Murray and her husband Stuart. I echo what the Minister said earlier in paying tribute to them and the whole campaign team who have worked so hard on this. They have asked me to place on the record their view that the other place did a good job in its scrutiny of the Bill; it was cross-party and collaborative, and the considered amendments from the other place will strengthen the Bill. For my part, I am glad that the thresholds were not further watered down, and I understand that it is important to keep them under review. This is a good Bill, and it will be a good law. It will have a deterrent effect and a protective effect, and it will save lives. \p Lisa Smart: It is a pleasure to return to the Chamber to consider the Bill. Over recent months, it has been scrutinised in detail at the other end of this building, and I thank colleagues in the House of Lords for their collaborative work. The changes brought forward are sensible and proportionate, and they reflect the broad cross-party consensus behind the aims of this legislation.

A number of the changes were technical in nature but crucial for clarity. They address several concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading about the scope of qualifying events under the Bill. The Lords amended  it to make it clear that private events—weddings, office parties or similar—sit outside its scope. That helps to ensure that the law is designed for public-facing venues without overreaching into personal or private spaces.

In addition, several important changes were made to strengthen the safeguards around delegated powers. The amendments consolidate into a single clause the key power of the Secretary of State to amend the public protection procedures that must be in place in each tier. They also require the Secretary of State to meet a high bar of necessity to make changes to qualifying thresholds for protective measures, and to consult relevant parties before exercising these powers. These are welcome changes that introduce further transparency and ensure that the Bill’s implementation is balanced and accountable.

Another key area of discussion throughout the Bill’s passage has been the need for clear and accessible guidance. On Second Reading, I and others cautioned that venue operators would struggle to comply with the law without adequate support. I am therefore pleased that the Minister in the Lords gave a firm commitment, repeated by the Minister today, that guidance will be published well in advance of the changes coming into force, and that there will be a period of engagement to ensure that it is robust and practical. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Suttie for her tireless work on this point and for her amendment, which helped secure this assurance. Her contributions in the Lords have strengthened the Bill considerably.

It is impossible to consider this legislation without remembering why we are here. Martyn’s law was born from an unimaginable tragedy—the terrorist attack at Manchester Arena in 2017. As the MP for Hazel Grove in Greater Manchester, I witnessed at first hand the resilience and the unity that followed the arena attack. I remember joining my community in Romiley Precinct when residents came together in quiet solidarity the evening after. It was an act of remembrance, but also a statement that terrorism will never define us, and that we will not be divided by it.

Among the 22 lives taken that night was Martyn Hett, a 29-year-old from Stockport. His mother Figen Murray has shown extraordinary resolve in the years since the attack. Her campaign for Martyn’s law has been defined by compassion, determination and a belief that no other family should ever experience what hers has had to endure. Today we are seeing the fruits of her dedication. The Bill is a testament to her courage and unrelenting hope that something good could emerge from the darkest of circumstances. Thanks to Figen’s advocacy, this country will be better prepared to keep people safe in our public spaces.

I welcome the Bill and the amendments before us today. Martyn’s law will not bring back those who were taken from us, but it will save lives. In doing so, it will stand as a lasting tribute to Martyn, Figen and the people of Greater Manchester. The Liberal Democrats are proud to support it. \p Jim Shannon: First of all, I thank the hon. and gallant Minister. We all look to him for his guidance and support, which is much appreciated by us as individuals on behalf of our constituents. Let me put on record my thanks to all the police forces  across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its work to keep us safe. Without them we could not operate here, nor could we have protection for our constituents, who we are duty bound to represent in this House. I will not delay the House too long, but I wish to ask two questions in relation to the Bill, which are both relate specifically to Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will bear with me for a couple of minutes as I illustrate them.

I have spoken on the Bill several times, and I have always sought to ensure parity of conditions throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Lords amendments to clauses 32 to 35 in particular seek to remove the UK-wide imposition of polygraph licence conditions for terrorist offenders. Will the Minister confirm that their removal will not leave the PSNI in Northern Ireland without the means to watch and assess terrorists as closely as can be done on the mainland and that existing legislation referred to in the amendments is capable of securing protection?

Secondly, it is imperative that police forces have access to transfer of prisoners. Lords amendment 76 has been designed to ensure that provisions could continue to apply to restricted transfers between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the purposes of determining release. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are convinced that there can be seamless transfers between all nations in this great United Kingdom when necessary? If the Minister does not have access to those answers immediately, I am happy for him to come back to me on that, if that is helpful. I would appreciate the answers. \p Judith Cummins: Those questions may not fall within the scope of the debate. With the leave of the House, I call the Minister. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), for the constructive way in which she has approached the debate. I assure her that the Government completely understand that we need to strike a balance, and I hope that she will acknowledge that we have been at pains to consult extensively and work across the House. I am happy to discuss these matters with her further.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) not just for his contribution this evening but for his support of his very special constituent. I am also grateful to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and join her in thanking Baroness Suttie for the important contribution she made in the other place.

I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions in terms of both quantity and quality. In fact, I was thinking about him just the other day because I had the privilege of visiting his part of the world, which is a part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that I hold in the highest regard. I hold him in that high regard as well. He raised some important points, and I am grateful to him for saying that he would be happy for me to write to him about them. To ensure that we address them properly, I will do so. I guarantee that he will get a very good response.

The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud to say that the Government have delivered it, and done so early in the Session. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events, and the cross-party approach to passing the Bill and getting it right will demonstrate to the public that nothing matters more than security; it is the foundation on which everything else rests. I very much hope that this will continue and that the House will support the amendments.

I take the opportunity again to thank all of those who have aided in the passage of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank Lord Hanson of Flint, my colleague in the other place, whose long experience and sound judgment have been much appreciated. I also thank the excellent team at the Home Office. I am grateful for all their hard work, support and dedication. They have been particularly impressive throughout the Bill’s passage—they have always gone above and beyond—and I am grateful for their service.

I want to restate the Government’s thanks to the intelligence agencies and all those who serve in law enforcement who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. This is the most vital work, which they do every day, and we as a country owe them a debt of gratitude.

Finally, there is someone, above all, who we must pay tribute to and that is Figen Murray. Her campaign has been nothing short of extraordinary. To have lost her son, Martyn Hett, in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017 and to have yet still found the strength to drive the campaign forward is both inspiring and phenomenal. I know that all Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to Figen. She previously said,

“It’s time to get this done.”

I am very proud to say that this Government have done just that.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p Justin Madders: I beg to move,

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

The purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage rate and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2025. The regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 4 February and approved by the other place on 17 March.

The Government are committed to making work pay. The plan to make work pay will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back for far too long. Earlier this month, the House approved passage of the landmark Employment Rights Bill, which will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country and deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Some aspects of the Bill and accompanying legislation and guidance will not come into effect for some time as the Government continue to engage  with stakeholders, businesses and trade unions on its implementation. When we took office last year, however, we committed to taking immediate action where we could, and on the minimum wage we have done so.

One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was the creation of the national minimum wage, which eliminated the extreme low pay that was blighting our country. We are proud to say that one of the first actions taken by this Labour Government within a month of last year’s general election was to overhaul the remit to the Low Pay Commission. For the first time, the remit now explicitly includes the cost of living as one of the key factors to be considered when making national living wage recommendations. We have begun the journey towards creating a genuine living wage, as well as extending that to all workers aged over 18 by moving towards a single adult rate.

Before turning to the precise details of the regulations, I want to extend my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. The commissioners and their officials have worked diligently and efficiently, particularly after the updates to the remit were made, and we were pleased to accept all their recommendations. That is testament to their social partnership model and expert analysis and engagement, which ensure that the Government can deliver on their ambitious agenda, but without adversely impacting on businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.

Turning to the detail of the regulations, which, after parliamentary approval, will take effect on 1 April, the national living wage rate, which currently applies to workers aged 21 and over, will increase from £11.44 to £12.21. That represents a rise of 77p or 6.7%, which is well above all measures and projections of inflation, therefore delivering real terms pay increases to an estimated 3 million workers.

We will also be delivering large increases to the other national minimum wage rates. The 18 to 20-year-old rate will increase by £1.40 from £8.60 an hour to £10 an hour. That is a record 16.3% increase for that age group. It means that a full-time worker on the 18-to-20 minimum wage rate will see their gross annual earnings increased  by around £2,500 a year—a well-earned pay rise and a significant step towards parity with the headline rate. The national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will be equal to 82% of the national living wage in 2025, compared with 75% in 2024.

The minimum wage rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18 years old will increase from £6.40 to £7.55 an hour—a large rise of £1.15 or 18%. The same rise will apply to the apprenticeship minimum wage rate, which applies to apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. Finally, the accommodation offset rate, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase by 6.7%, or 67p, to £10.66.

I draw Members’ attention to the comprehensive impact assessment, which the Department published alongside this legislation. As they may have noted, the impact assessment, which includes an equalities assessment, has received a green fit-for-purpose rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. As I have touched on, we estimate that the increases to the minimum wage rates will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers, while an additional 4 million could benefit from the positive spill-over effects. The minimum wage has greatly reduced pay inequality in the UK, with the share of low-paid jobs in hourly terms estimated at 3.4% in 2024. That is a record low, and down from 21.9% in 1999.

But the work does not stop there, as we continue to build towards a genuine living wage and the extension of eligibility to workers aged between 18 and 20 by ending the discriminatory age bands. To that end, we will publish in due course a fresh remit to the Low Pay Commission, asking it to recommend minimum wage rates to apply from next April. As part of this, the Low Pay Commission will consult about the appropriate trajectory towards the single adult rate as we ensure that this is delivered without adverse impacts on youth employment as well as participation in training and education. Like the previous Labour Government, with their creation of the minimum wage over a quarter of a century ago, this Labour Government will be proud to leave a profound legacy for workers’ rights, because we are making work pay and we are proud to make more progress on this by supporting this instrument today. I commend the regulations to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriett Baldwin: I rise to say that we will not oppose the increases to the national minimum wage or the national living wage—the national living wage being something that my party introduced to make work pay. We celebrate the fact that progress was made in ending low pay, and the Minister cited that from the Dispatch Box this evening. But it is also our duty, as His Majesty’s official Opposition, to scrutinise the Government on all matters, so I have several questions for the Minister this evening.

In particular, I want to highlight the fact that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done—for which I also thank it—was done before the Hallowe’en  Budget of broken promises last October. After the increases to the national living and minimum wages in the Budget—but also measures such as the increase to national insurance—the Unison assistant general secretary Jon Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said that

“as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rate in the NHS, universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches.”

So my first question is: what will the Government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles?

The second question relates to the national minimum wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 going up by nearly 18%. On 1 April this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5,000 per year. This means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for 13 or more hours a week. Because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or reducing the hours that they give to them. That risk, of course, is faced not solely by those in work, but by those seeking to get into work. What assessment has the Minister made since the Hallowe’en Budget of the impact of the increase on young people’s ability to access jobs? What will the Government do to ensure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase?

The increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As usual, it looks like they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs. It looks that way not just to us; according to the Government’s own impact assessment, SMEs will face 56% of the cost of the increase despite representing only 37% of the share of employment. That is another cost increase on smaller businesses, which already have to pay for this Government’s national insurance jobs tax, for the hike in business rates, and for the impact of the measures from the Employment Rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector are most likely to pay the minimum wage.

I remind the House that the Government’s own impact assessment states that they expect the policies covered within the Bill to impose a direct cost on businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that, on average, those costs will be greater for those smaller businesses and microbusinesses. Will the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full time on the previous national living wage because of the other changes introduced by his Government?

The Government have created a challenging business environment. They recognised that themselves when they stated in their impact assessment that

“there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs”.

Around 42.7% and 36.8% of microbusinesses and small businesses respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024. We support the principle of fair pay for workers and making work pay. However, having listened to businesses, we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences.

It is easy for those in Whitehall to squiggle their pen, but all those measures combined have real-life consequences for businesses across the country. The national insurance jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill are piling additional costs on to businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy.

In summary, have the Government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses that are happening at the same time? I fear that tomorrow’s emergency Budget will be another wakeup call. \p Yuan Yang: We have heard how the rise in the national minimum wage will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers. For the first time in history, the minimum wage in this country is being linked to the true cost of living, beginning the journey of making it a genuine living wage. We can take from history a wealth of economic evidence on the positive impacts of minimum wages, which shows they lead to overall rises in pay with no significant impact on employment.

Although I take on board the questions of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and I appreciate her contributions as a fellow Treasury Committee member, studies have shown time and again that while similar concerns echoed throughout the ’80s and ’90s, the overall outcome of increasing the minimum wage is simply that: an increase in pay with no significant impact on employment. \p Mark Ferguson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the concerns shared by the Conservatives are the same  as those raised at the time of the introduction of the minimum wage? \p Yuan Yang: Yes, that is the case. We have heard such concerns raised throughout history, yet when we look at econometric evidence that looks in hindsight at the actual impact on the economy, we see that there is no discernible impact.

I will whizz through a few different studies. In the United States there is David Card and Alan Krueger’s study, based on the 1992 increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California’s minimum wage and the federal minimum wage increase the following year. In the European Union there is Tomas Kucera’s 2017 study from 18 countries. In the UK there is Christian van Stolk’s 2017 study. We can go on and on about the evidence, but we can see from the trends that, although these concerns have been raised over time, the outcome is increases in the minimum wage, which is what we are seeking to ensure. \p Jayne Kirkham: Does my hon. Friend agree that these uplifts are a huge boost for equality, because they benefit women, younger and older workers, workers with disabilities and those from minority ethnic backgrounds more than others? \p Yuan Yang: I absolutely agree. As the Women’s Budget Group has shown, the measures on the minimum wage in the Employment Rights Bill will disproportionately benefit female workers, who are likely to be paid less than men.

These studies on the minimum wage use econometric methods to confirm what many of us can see in our communities at first hand: that too many people have too long been due a pay rise, and when we make the lowest paid better off, that spending goes back into our high streets and local economies. I would like to see even more studies done, producing better data. That must start with improvements to the labour force survey, which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and I have discussed on the Treasury Committee, as many organisations have flagged that data as an area of concern.

Today I want to focus on one particular group of low-paid workers who are very significant for me and my constituency of Earley and Woodley: young people. There are around 13,000 undergraduates at the University of Reading, which sits in my constituency, who will be better off because of this new law that raises the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to £10 an hour. It will mean a record wage boost for that age group, who will see their gross annual earnings rise by £2,500, and for apprentices, too, who are the skilled workers of tomorrow.

I support the Government’s youth guarantee, to ensure that all young people are in education, employment or training. The King’s Trust has found that one in 10 young people outside of education, employment or training have turned down a job because they could not afford the costs associated with it—for example, travel, clothing or childcare. For many young people, a barrier to employment is that it does not pay well enough for them. \p Gareth Snell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I was concerned by what I think I heard the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) say about the rate at which the living wage is paid to young people, almost advocating for a reduction in that rate because of the impact it would have on business. Does my hon. Friend agree that is a rather regressive view, given that what young people need is the ability to pay their bills, live a life they enjoy and build a home for themselves in the future? \p Yuan Yang: I very much agree with that sentiment. Young people are the future, and to ensure they get off to the best possible start in life, they need work that pays and enables them to live in stability, not concerned about paying the bills from day to day or month to month.

Most young people nowadays have to do a mixture of work and education or training to make ends meet. More than half of full-time students were working long hours in paid jobs in 2024, which is a significant rise from 2021, during the pandemic, when two thirds had no term-time employment. That has been driven by the escalating cost of living for young people, and especially rises in rent.

I want to quote a constituent of mine called Poppy, who is 20 years old and studies at the University of Reading. She says:

“Working part-time was never optional but rather a necessity... With my wages being so low…I found myself working 20-25 hours a week—leading me to miss some lectures and seminars throughout the month”.

I want to ensure that young people such as Poppy are able to study without worrying about how they are going to pay their bills. We also know that young people  are less unionised, which means they have less bargaining power and less ability to fight against unfair terms or ask for pay rises, so it is even more important that we support them by raising the minimum wage.

In conclusion, it is essential that we make work pay, for the sake of our high streets, our living standards and our future—our young people. Poppy said:

“I personally cannot wait for the new minimum wage increase in April as it means I should be able to reduce my hours at work, giving me more time to focus on my studies”.

For people like Poppy, in my constituency and across the UK, the new deal for working people is transformational, and I am very glad to support today’s motion. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Gibson: Let me begin by thanking the Government for laying this important statutory instrument. The Liberal Democrats welcome this uplift in the minimum wage. We all have constituents who we know are struggling to make ends meet. Nobody should be in a position where they cannot pay their bills despite being in employment. I am particularly pleased that apprentices and those under 18 will benefit from increased pay under this instrument. In a few weeks’ time, I will join Wilshire College students and businesses across my constituency at a careers fair, and this will be an important piece of legislation to share with them.

My constituency is rural, and many of the people I represent are elderly and depend on the social care system to stay independent. Unfortunately, they are struggling to get the care they need and deserve, in part because care workers are not being paid properly. If we paid care staff more, we might encourage more people into that hugely understaffed sector. In south-west England alone there are 13,000 vacant jobs, and in a rural constituency such as mine, where public transport is expensive and unreliable, care staff are not compensated for their travel time, and they often end up bringing home less than the minimum wage. While I share the official Opposition’s concern about small businesses, of which my constituency has a huge number, it is important that low-paid workers earn enough to live, especially our young people and women.

If the Government were to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal for a carer’s minimum wage, which would see carers receive £2 more per hour than the current minimum wage, a staggering 850,000 care workers across the UK would benefit from that increase in pay, and over 80% of them would be women. We understand that the carer’s minimum wage is not a silver bullet, but it is serious proposal that could make a big difference to patients and families across the country. Although the Liberal Democrats support increasing the minimum wage, it is a shame that this statutory instrument does not go further and give weight to that proposal. \p Liz Twist: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Unison trade union.

When the national minimum wage came into force on 1 April 1999, I was working as a trade union official in Unison’s northern region, representing many low-paid members of staff who were working in social care and other sectors in the north-east, and with colleagues in the TUC, who in many cases were on even lower wages. That fantastic achievement came after 30 years of fighting in the face of huge opposition at the time from the Conservative party, but after 26 years of the national minimum wage, I think we can say that the argument has been definitively won—so much so that there are Members of this House who have never known a time without a statutory minimum wage.

On 10 April 1999, I was proud to don a high-vis vest and join my trade union colleagues and Members on a march across the Tyne bridge from Gateshead to Newcastle. That was part of the campaign for a living wage to celebrate the introduction of the national minimum wage, and to argue for it to be improved. We were led by the then general secretary of Unison, Rodney Bickerstaffe, and I well remember a photograph in our local newspapers as we prepared for the march, with an AA sign directing traffic that said, “Campaign for a living wage—long delays expected.” Well, we have continued to campaign for a living wage since that time.

I am so glad to speak here today, with a Labour Government again in power, making real progress towards a real living wage. The changes we are making with this legislation will mean a direct, real-terms pay increase for over 3 million workers. That includes steps towards a single adult rate, with a record increase in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds, amounting to £2,500 per year, as well as directions to the Low Pay Commission to look at the cost of living in its future decisions.

Back in 1999, when the national minimum wage was first introduced, it made such a difference to so many people in the north-east. Similarly, I know that the legislation we are passing today will make a huge difference to my constituents.

Let me be clear that my ambition is for good, well-paid jobs for people in the north-east. My constituents and people in our region deserve decent pay and secure work, and I will continue to work towards that. Meanwhile, for those on minimum wage, this legislation will mean more money in their pay packets, which is a real Labour achievement. Taken with our Employment Rights Bill, that means there will be a real shift for working people across the country and in my region. \p Chris Law: Increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage will always be supported by Scottish National party Members. Indeed, we have been pushing for the UK Government to adopt the real living wage for those of all ages since 2011. Disappointingly, we have to continue to do so, as the Labour party has failed to take the opportunity to do that, now that it is in government.

While we support the changes that are being introduced today, the SNP’s position is clear: we want the real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of meeting the actual costs of living, and not just for those who are 21 and over. The Resolution Foundation has the real living wage set at £12.60, whereas this regulation increases  the national living wage for workers aged 21 or over from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be.

Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, the national living wage is 18% lower, at £10 per hour. Given that the Minister today said that there would be a consultation looking at the cost of living, can he tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? Do 18-year-olds get a special rate on their electricity bills, or on petrol for their car? Do supermarkets give them an 18% discount? \p Jayne Kirkham: On that point, will the hon. Member give way? \p Chris Law: I will not, as I would like to make this point very clear, because it is important. The answer to my questions is obviously no. While I welcome the Minister’s comment that the national living wage may be looked at next year, and may be increased so that there is parity for everybody, we are not there yet. I would like the Government to go further, and I look forward to hearing more about how they will consult on doing so next year.

It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP Government have taken proactive steps to ensure that the real living wage is implemented wherever we have control, particularly in our public sector. The Scottish Government have paid all staff within their pay scheme, including NHS staff, the real living wage since 2011—that is 14 years ago. Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of accredited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish Government are also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid the living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers, and they are working to ensure that all staff in private nurseries delivering our childcare pledge are paid the real living wage, too.

The Labour Government should demonstrate similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay. In their manifesto, they pledged to make changes in line with the real living wage, and to take into account the cost of living, but they have failed, at least today, to do so. They were voted in with a mantra of change, and it is in their power to legislate for the introduction of the real living wage for all, but so far, they have chosen not to. They must go further and adopt the living wage for people irrespective of their age, as the SNP has called on successive Governments to do for the past 14 years. \p Sally Jameson: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my trade union membership.

I welcome today’s move by the Government to bring a record pay boost of around £1,400 to over 3 million workers. The measures will also mean a record wage boost for 18 to 20-year-olds, who will see their gross annual full-time earnings rise by £2,500. For apprentices, the skilled workers of tomorrow, there will be a boost of 18%, so that they can learn their trade with better financial security. Why is all of that important? Because when I visit food banks in my constituency in Doncaster, I have been saddened to learn that some of the people  accessing those services are in work, yet still cannot make ends meet. For too long in this country, work has not paid, but with this legislation, that will change.

We hear a lot about the tough choices that this Government have had to make after the 14 years of Conservative Government, whether because of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget, which left mortgages soaring; the neglect of our prisons, which were allowed to fill up to the point of collapse; or the lack of investment in our NHS. This Labour Government have taken a number of very difficult decisions to get our country back on track, but I can tell hon. Members that it has not been a tough choice to give millions of workers a pay rise. It has not been a tough choice to ensure that our apprentices have better financial security—in fact, it is a choice that I am proud to make; it shows that this Government value workers across the country and value the working contribution of young adults from the age of 18. This measure, along with our landmark Employment Rights Bill, will mean that it will once again pay to work in this country, and secure employment will be the foundation of the British economy, which will be strong going forward. \p Richard Foord: The increase in the national minimum wage in the next fortnight is very welcome. Nobody in work in this wealthy country of ours should be struggling to make ends meet. While that uplift is a step in the right direction, it does not address the challenges that we face in social care, both nationally and in Devon, the area that I know best. Devon has 28,000 filled social care positions, but 2,000 positions remain unfilled, and I am very concerned about that shortage in the workforce. It partly explains why people are going without care, and why our hospitals are struggling to discharge patients. \p Deirdre Costigan: I take the hon. Member’s point about the social care sector. Does he therefore welcome Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which includes a negotiating framework for our social care staff, to ensure that they are properly paid and can progress in their jobs? \p Richard Foord: I think a negotiating framework might be helpful, but a lot will depend on the negotiations. It would be far better if the Government looked at the minimum wage, sector by sector, and identified social care as a special case.

The turnover rate for social care staff in Devon is 27%. That is not only higher than the national average, but roughly double the figure for other sectors. That is why I want a separate, higher minimum wage for social care. A striking 16% of social care workers cited low pay as the primary reason why they left the job. Many of them are simply not paid enough for the skilled, difficult and vital work they do, and many are earning more by moving into jobs such as stacking supermarket shelves—important though that is—than by doing the vital work of social care. In a rural county such as Devon, people have to travel long distances between  the people for whom they care, which sometimes  means that their real income is less than the national  minimum wage.

We in Devon are looking at a shortage of social care beds. Devon county council projects that by 2027, Devon will face a shortfall of 270 care home beds for older people with complex needs. Looking further ahead, the situation gets worse. By 2033, in Honiton, the unmet need will be 72 care beds; in Cullompton, the need will be 79 care beds. In Seaton and Ottery St Mary, an additional 40 care beds will be required by then.

The shortage of facilities in mid and east Devon makes it plain that even more care workers will be required to meet the growing demand for social care. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of a carers’ minimum wage, £2 per hour more than the minimum wage. Of course, that funding cannot come from thin air. According to Skills for Care, increasing pay by between £1 and £2 per hour above the national minimum wage for care workers could save up to £947 million from reduced hospital admissions, but there would need to be some funding up front to make that happen. I suggest that the remaining funding comes from an additional tax on the gambling industry, which, according to Public Health England, costs the UK economy about £1.4 billion annually due to the financial, physical and mental impacts of problem gambling and the resulting crime and loss of productivity.

According to the Gambling Commission, 300,000 adults and 40,000 children in the UK suffer from problem gambling. It is not an industry that we should be incentivising through low taxation. Doubling the remote gaming duty is recommended by the Social Market Foundation. That would not only address the harms of problem gambling, but be a fairer way of funding that £2 per hour increase above the national minimum wage for social care workers.

It is time that the Government acted to ensure that those who profit from gambling contribute more to the public good. Increasing pay for the lowest-paid social care workers is a simple, effective step to attract and retain staff, and ensure that people in our communities receive the care that they require. I support the national minimum wage increases, but we must go further and pay our social care staff more, recognising their vital role in looking after the elderly and vulnerable. \p Alan Strickland: I strongly welcome the proposed increases to minimum wage rates, which will help people of all ages across all communities in our country. There is a particularly welcome boost for apprentices, who are the future of our economy. Those increases will make a real difference to people in my constituency and across our great nation, for three reasons.

First, as colleagues have said, we must make work pay; that is vital for the health of our economy. It is crucial that we ensure that those who contribute to our economic growth, deliver services in our communities, and manufacture the goods that we need are fairly rewarded, but for too long, that has not been the case in my constituency, or in other areas. Between 2014 and 2022, salary growth in County Durham was among the lowest in the United Kingdom, increasing at less than half the rate of the growth in regions such as London. To tackle these issues, we need to drive economic growth in regions  like mine, but we also need clear action to ensure that those on the lowest wages see the growth in their pay that they deserve.

Secondly, it is crucial that we tackle the cost of living crisis. In the two and a half years I spent campaigning as a Labour candidate before being elected to this House, the cost of living crisis was raised with me time and again. Family after family has been hit by rising bills but flatlining pay. That issue affected my local residents particularly acutely, because median weekly pay for those in full-time work in my constituency is £150 less a week than the UK average—that is £600 a month less to pay the bills and make ends meet. That is why it is so vital that this time, the Government have taken the cost of living into account when setting minimum wage levels.

Thirdly, we must support growth. If we are to grow our economy, routes into work—including apprenticeships, entry-level jobs and other routes into starting a career—must be attractive. A key part of that is having pay levels that reward those going into work and incentivise participation in the labour market. For young people in my constituency, getting a job with decent pay has too often meant moving away from the town they grew up in. That is another reason why this direct action to tackle low pay is so important. As the representative of a constituency with a significant history of manufacturing, including modern manufacturing, such as in the fantastic Hitachi trains factory, I particularly welcome the wage increase for 18 to 20-year-olds, and for those on apprenticeships. It will ensure that young people going into work, who are the future of our country’s manufacturing sector, are paid properly, and that a secure future is possible locally.

I came into politics to make a genuine difference to the people of my home town of Newton Aycliffe, the wider constituency, and our country. Increasing the minimum wage is one way to do that, putting more money into the pockets of 3 million of our citizens. That is the difference a Labour Government make. \p Rosie Wrighting: This Government have made a solid commitment to make work pay and put more money into working people’s pockets. In my constituency, we have a large number of distribution jobs, and as a result of this Government’s actions, people in Kettering on the minimum wage will have more money in their pockets to last them through to the end of the month.

Having spent my career in business, I know how important it is for businesses to have a productive, motivated workforce with minimal turnover. That benefits not only businesses but workers. In Kettering, it means that people earning a decent wage will spend their money supporting our local economy. It is shameful that the Conservative party let this country get to a place where people who work full time are queuing at food banks to feed their family. The uplift in the national minimum wage is a huge part of the national renewal that Labour has promised this country, and will mean a pay increase for 3 million people in Kettering and across the UK.

Young people in my constituency deserve a minimum wage that reflects the work they do. I speak to many 18 to 20-year-olds in Kettering who face the same financial pressures as adults older than them. One of  the best things about my job is visiting many schools and colleges across my constituency, where young people talk to me about their plans for their future. This uplift will mean a wage boost of 18% for apprenticeships in Kettering, so that we can incentivise young people to see apprenticeships as a financially viable option and start to fill the skills gaps that businesses across the UK face after 14 difficult years under the Conservatives.

The last Labour Government brought in the national minimum wage, and it is this Labour Government who will secure Britain’s future and make work pay. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I start by declaring an interest as a proud member of the GMB and Unison unions. This is a debate about four numbers: 3 million, £1,400, £2,500 and 10 million. Three million is the number of people who will benefit from the fantastic measures being announced today; £1,400 is how much they will benefit—a real life-changing amount—while £2,500 is how much someone aged 18 to 20 years old will benefit from these changes and 10 million is the number of people whose lives will see a transformative impact from our Employment Rights Bill. All of that is being achieved by a Labour Government, with our plan for change delivering security for working people, but so much of it is opposed by the Conservatives.

On a day when we are debating giving a pay rise to 3 million people, it is striking and speaks volumes that the Opposition Benches are completely empty. That is the difference between the Government and the Conservatives. That pay rise is the difference that a Labour Government make.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) just tried slightly to rewrite history, but I am old enough to remember the pre-minimum wage era and who brought it to an end: a Labour Government. The introduction of the national minimum wage was a radical and transformative step, and it was opposed every step of the way by the Conservatives. When Labour included a policy for a minimum wage in our 1992 manifesto, Michael Howard claimed that it would destroy up to 2 million jobs. When we brought it to this place as legislation in 1998, the Conservatives fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way.

The Conservatives’ concerns turned out to be totally unfounded. It was a pointless opposition to measures that increased the wages of more than a million workers immediately in the UK, as the evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) pointed out. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor at the time, now better known for his railway journeys, eventually ended Tory opposition to the minimum wage, saying:

“The minimum wage has caused less damage to employment than we feared.”

How different the picture looks today. We have a Leader of the Opposition who recently said that the minimum wage was “overburdening” business and that maternity pay was “excessive”. In an article for ConservativeHome, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that our measures to boost employment rights and make work pay would have a negative effect on business,

“especially in lower-wage sectors like hospitality and retail”.

Perhaps the shadow Chancellor does not realise that the entire point of these measures is to bring these workers—in particular, young workers—out of low pay, to improve retention, to keep people in work and to boost our economy. The low-wage, low-growth economy that the Conservatives presided over for 14 years brought with it stagnation and a growing number of people who either left employment or never entered it in the first place. Given that, we all know where we stand.

I will wrap up by saying that this measure represents a choice. Our choice is to increase the minimum wage and put money back in the pockets of working people. It is a choice to put people first. It will help thousands of people in Hendon and millions of people across this country, and it is a choice I am proud to support. \p Deirdre Costigan: May I begin by declaring an interest as a member and former employee of Unison? I know that its young members will welcome the unprecedented rise in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. As we have already heard, it will add £2,500 a year to their gross salaries.

This is a record change, and it will make a huge difference for young constituents of mine. Moreover, the Labour Government have made it clear that this is only the start of a journey. We are working towards increasing the youth rate so that we eventually have a single adult rate. Equal pay for equal work has long been a belief of the Labour party, and it is right that that also extends to younger people, but I am delighted that this Labour Government will also deliver for disabled and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers, and that we have embarked on a consultation on the introduction of mandatory pay gap reporting in respect of those workers.

The change in the youth rate, in particular, goes hand in hand with our youth guarantee and our plan to create pathways to good-quality employment for those under 22 with health conditions, whom the last Government left on the scrapheap with no help at all. Labour will ensure not only that those young people are helped to find jobs, but that those jobs are decently paid. We will make work a better choice than benefits for young people.

As I said earlier, the decision that we are making today is the beginning of a journey. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), said that the Conservatives would not vote against the motion, although I must say that in her speech she gave a very good impression of someone who was against it. In my view, if the Conservatives do not agree with it they should vote against it, and should tell us how much they think young people are worth. They should tell us whether we should pay them £10 an hour. They should tell us whether £12.21 is the minimum wage that they would pay. They should let us know by how much they would cut people’s wages. In contrast, the Labour Government are proud to be putting money back into 3 million working people’s pockets—money that they will spend with local businesses and in local high streets. After 14 years of failure from the Conservatives, Labour is making work pay. \p Justin Madders: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will begin by addressing the  many contributions that were made to what I think was, overall, a very positive debate. I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrats, and also welcome the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) to the Chamber: it is good to see her back in her place. She made some important points about the social care sector. We know that the abuse of travel time reimbursement is a huge issue. The Low Pay Commission is keen to look into it, and I am sure that once the fair work agency is up and running, it will focus on it as well.

The hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), also talked about the importance of that sector. Our impact assessment has established that about one in five social care workers will receive a direct pay rise as a result of the increases announced today. As would be expected, before making its recommendations the Low Commission has consulted widely with, among others, representatives of social care workers. We believe that they have been undervalued for far too long, which is why we are introducing the first ever fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. While I appreciate the hon. Member’s wish for a separate rate for care workers, we think we are taking the right measures to recognise and value them. The operation of different rates brings a range of challenges relating to enforcement and to clarity for employers, which we think is important.

There were, I have to say, a number of excellent speeches from the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) made the positive economic case and referred to the wealth of evidence in support of increases in the minimum wage. On the Labour Benches, we passionately believe that increased protections at work and increases in the minimum wage are good not just for individuals but for the wider economy. She mentioned the many young people in her constituency who will benefit from the moves to parity for the 18 to 20 age band with the adult rate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) has great knowledge and experience in this area. She said that this is the beginning of the journey. That is right. We recognise that it will take time to achieve our ambitions for the Low Pay Commission for the people in this country, but it is a journey we are determined to finish.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) took us back into the depths of history. I must declare that I am one of those who can remember what it was like before the minimum wage. When I tell my children how much I used to earn in my first jobs, they cannot believe it. But it was true: that is what the world was like before the minimum wage. She also reminded us of the doom-laden warnings we got from the Conservative Opposition at the time. We heard a small echo of that tonight, but I think history has proved that those warnings were wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about the issues with in-work poverty, which is one of the key things that we must change in this country. For too long, people have not had work pay for them. Earnings have not kept up with the cost of living and that is one of the reasons why the Low Pay Commission’s remit has changed. \p Mark Sewards: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Low Pay Commission previously said that about 300,000 people are not being paid the minimum wage despite being on it—they are being underpaid. Will he update the House on the Government’s progress to ensure that all people on the minimum wage are paid the minimum wage? \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend makes a very important point that those rights are only as good as the ability of the Government to enforce them. As we know, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a very effective system to deliver on the minimum wage and we will shortly be releasing our latest round of naming and shaming of those employers who have not done the right thing. We hope that the fair work agency, when it is established, will be even more effective at delivering fairness across the country and ensuring that everyone gets the minimum wage they deserve. We know there are particular sectors where there are acute challenges.

I turn to the points made by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), about the bills and costs of an 18-year-old being the same as those for an adult. That is something I absolutely understand. It is why we changed the Low Pay Commission’s remit to ensure that we eventually get parity for that age group on the full adult rate. It is also why we have changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission to move towards a real living wage for all adults. We understand that that is such an important thing for us to deliver on. He may feel that we are not quite there yet, and we must ensure we take evidence as we go along from businesses on how it impacts on particular sectors and particular parts of society, but 18 to 20-year-olds are getting a £2,500 pay rise this year as a result of the regulations. That is something I am sure he will welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) raised very well the regional impacts of the wage increase in his part of the world. It is the case that the regulations will mean 140,000 workers in the north-east, or 14.5% of the total workforce in that region, will benefit from the increase. We should all be absolutely delighted about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) also raised in-work poverty. That is why the remit is being changed. We want to ensure that in-work poverty is consigned to the history books.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) set out in stark terms the figures associated with the regulations. I may mention them again at some point before I finish. They are the bold numbers that will go directly into people’s pockets and that we can show as tangible proof of a Labour Government delivering for working people.

My hon. Friend also raised the matter of the empty Opposition Benches. I do not want to equate that with meaning that the Conservatives do not support these increases, as I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), said that they did. I do put her on notice, though, that her party leader has been less than full in her support for the minimum wage, so I hope that the shadow Minister’s support for today’s measures has not damaged her career prospects. It may well be that there is another leader in a few months anyway, and that things will be  looking up. We do hope that the Conservatives continue to support the minimum wage as we move forward and that they do not change tack now that they have entered opposition.

However, the shadow Minister did raise a number of important questions, which I will now try to address. She raised the impact on public sector workers. Of course, pay for most frontline workers is set through pay review body processes, which do take account of national living wage increases as part of their processes. We do not believe that many public sector workers will be directly affected by this change, but it is something the Departments will take into account when they set their budgets.

The shadow Minister also asked about the cumulative impact of the changes. The impact assessment does show that this year’s upratings will represent a 0.14% increase in the UK-wide wage bill, which I think is incredibly good value for what we are delivering into people’s pockets. Of course, the total impact of the Employment Rights Bill is, at most, 0.4% of the total wage bill.

The hon. Lady raised questions about burdens on SMEs. The Low Pay Commission does take into account the impact on business as part of its operations. It looks at the competitiveness of individual businesses, the labour market and the wider economy, drawing on extensive labour market pay analysis and stakeholder evidence when recommending rates, and we would expect the commission to do exactly the same next year. Small businesses have, of course, had support from this Government. We have increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half of employers will gain or see no change from this measure. We have also extended business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about the impact of the measures on young people. The youth guarantee will ensure that every young person has access to education or training to help them to find a job, and we are transforming the apprenticeship levy to ensure that young people get the opportunities they deserve.

The shadow Minister raised concerns about the overall labour market. I would just make the point that payroll employment is actually higher now than it was this time last year, and the latest labour force survey last week showed record numbers of people in work. Perhaps the negative headlines that we have been seeing are not actually the reality of the situation. I like to deal with facts, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the facts are that these regulations will put more money into the pockets of workers around the country—around 200,000 workers in Scotland, 160,000 workers in Northern Ireland and 150,000 workers in Wales. This will make a real difference to people: £1,400 for a full-time worker and £2,500 for someone on the 18-to-20 rate.

This is truly a worthwhile exercise, and we thank the Low Pay Commission for its work, as well as HMRC, which enforces on behalf of the Department, and ACAS, which offers impartial advice and expertise to ensure that workplace disputes can be resolved and workers’ rights can be upheld. This is a meaningful change being delivered by this Government that delivers a powerful message: this Government, and indeed this Parliament, are committed to making work pay. These real-terms increases to the minimum wage will end insecurity at work. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 4 February, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p Judith Cummins: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 11 and 12 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant document: 246th Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure; Church Funds Investment Measure, HC 771.]

That the Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure (HC 773), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.

That the Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Marsha de Cordova.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £129 million to BioNTech UK Limited to support their planned expansion of Research and Development and Artificial Intelligence activities in the UK over the next 10 years.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p Tim Farron: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,247 of my constituents who call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urgently give the go-ahead to plans to dual the A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner. They declare that this would bring

“huge benefits to the north West region, reducing congestion and providing a big boost to the North economy; further note that it will limit the number of serious and fatal accidents which tragically are a regular occurrence on this road.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to give the green light to plans to dual the A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner, which would reduce congestion, boost the economy, and save lives.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale, Declares that giving the go-ahead to plans to dual the A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner would bring huge benefits to the north West region, reducing congestion and providing a big boost to the North economy; further notes that it will limit the number of serious and fatal accidents which tragically are a regular occurrence on this road.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to give the green light to plans to dual the A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner, which would reduce congestion, boost the economy, and save lives.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003054] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.) \p Rachel Gilmour: I am delighted to secure my first Adjournment debate, and for it to be about veterinary products in waterways, specifically neonicotinoids such as fipronil and imidacloprid. From now on, for your sake and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be referring to these neonicotinoids as neonics.

I have been extremely keen to secure a debate on this matter for some time now, having had it raised with me before the general election by a constituent, Ueli Zellweger, who is a vet. It is high time that we gave this topic the scrutiny that it so desperately needs.

We are a nation of pet lovers. It is estimated that there are around 25 million cats and dogs in the UK. I speak as a doting dog and cat owner myself and I know that our furry friends are an integral part of millions of British families. And so when fleas and ticks come biting, bringing discomfort and annoyance to our beloved pets, we of course want to act swiftly and efficiently to alleviate their suffering.

Flea treatment products containing fipronil and imidacloprid are seen as a highly convenient and effective way of dealing with the problems caused by fleas and ticks. In the UK, Imperial College London claims that fipronil is an ingredient in 396 different pet anti-flea and tick treatments, with imidacloprid authorised in some 138 veterinary products. However, this convenience comes at a cost to our waterways and associated ecosystems. Popular though these products are, safe they are not. These two ingredients are extremely toxic. They are very powerful killers indeed and the picture is not pretty. In fact, so powerful are these chemicals that just one drop of fipronil has the potency to wipe out 30,000 bees as well as causing serious neurological damage and hampering the mobility of thousands upon thousands more.

As well as this, according to extensive research conducted by Imperial College London, one monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough imidacloprid to kill a staggering 25 million bees. The decline in pollinator populations, which in part can be attributed to the use of imidacloprid, threatens agricultural productivity and has very serious long-term implications for our national food security. This is not simply a mere triviality to be neglected.

Authorities have recognised the toxicity levels and the hideous harm that these chemicals can cause on the natural world. Since 2017, fipronil has been banned in agricultural use, and imidacloprid has been banned since 2018. But given the unregulated nature of these chemicals in relation to flea products, we are allowing these products into our environment through the back door, and our aquatic and nearby ecosystems are paying the price.

There is not just one route for these neonics to enter our British waterways. It is important to be aware of all the various pathways towards this pollution. The most obvious, and most direct, is simply the contact of pets with water bodies themselves. If a dog goes swimming in a river after receiving their course of treatment, the product is then introduced into the waterways, allowing  it to enter our rivers, lakes and streams and go wherever the water takes it, wreaking havoc as it travels. Dissemination can also occur because of rainwater run-off, with residual product washing off from treated animals into drainage systems and ending up in our waterways. Equally, the washing of pet bedding and even pet owners’ hands are thought to be common ways in which these dangerous products enter our waterways.

There are some less direct pathways that still pose a problem—and at this point I must apologise to those currently eating their supper. These products are generally harmless to our dogs and cats, but they can be absorbed by our four-legged friends. Once absorbed, the products can be excreted, and even when responsible owners clean up after their pets—something that is not universal, unfortunately—the traces of fipronil and imidacloprid left behind can still prove incredibly damaging once washed into our waterways.

Studies have revealed that imidacloprid is one of the most frequently detected pesticides in dogs’ urine, but the level is still comparatively low, with the National Office of Animal Health finding that only around 11% of topically applied fipronil is systematically absorbed. The shedding of treated hair or skin can also lead to a pathway being created.

Once these products are in our waterways, not only are they utterly deadly for the thousands of native aquatic organisms in the UK, but they are highly toxic to sea and freshwater fish. Even at low concentrations, fipronil can be disruptive to aquatic life cycles. River sample data gathered by the UK Environment Agency over the course of a two-year period between 2016 and 2018 from 20 different waterways in England discovered fipronil residue in 98% of freshwater samples and traces of imidacloprid in 66% of all samples.

Beyond the effect on our waterways, other studies have found fipronil to be incredibly toxic to birds. It brings me no joy to report that this is not just an aquatic problem. Indeed, through a process of collecting 103 different bird nests, researchers found that every single one without exception contained fipronil, and an overwhelming majority had significant remnants of imidacloprid.

The truth is that the decline in aquatic insects that emanates from the flowing of these products in our waterways affects fish populations, who rely on these insects as a primary food source. This in turn impacts bird species that prey on fish, producing a dangerous snowball effect that reverberates throughout the ecosystem. This deterioration of biodiversity greatly diminishes the overall resilience of our ecosystems, exposing a vulnerability to factors of climate change and invasive species.

One of the most troubling aspects of the likes of fipronil and imidacloprid is their persistence in the environment. The chemicals disintegrate slowly and can remain in soils and waterways for extensive periods of time. In the case of imidacloprid, scientists say that the residual effect lasts in soil for months, sometimes even years, and the breakdown product of these chemicals is understood to be even more toxic than the parent compound. \p Jayne Kirkham: Does the hon. Member agree that some pet owners may not be aware of how bad this issue is, and so packaging, usage guidance and point-of-sale advice for pet treatments should give some warning of the danger that the product could affect aquatic life if it ever entered watercourses? \p Rachel Gilmour: I am coming on to that later, but the hon. Member is absolutely right.

It is also important to note that the economic costs of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals are substantial. \p Jim Shannon: Would the hon. Lady give way? \p Rachel Gilmour: With pleasure—and happy birthday. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this issue forward. She is right to outline the problems with fipronil and what it can do to our water, but there are many other things that can affect water. Northern Ireland Water goes around all the farms providing a free service collecting herbicides, weed killer, sheep dip, insecticide sprays, rodenticides, fungicide sprays, veterinary medicines and empty containers. Take all those things out of the country and away from the waterways and we can make our water cleaner. This issue is not just about the specific chemicals that the hon. Lady mentions; there are many other things that need to be removed as well. Does she agree with that? \p Rachel Gilmour: I thank the hon. Member for his interesting intervention. I agree, and I will talk about farmers in particular in a moment.

It is also important to note that the economic cost of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals is substantial. Water bills are set to rise precipitously this year, causing pain to the average consumer. In Tiverton and Minehead, rises of 20% and 32% have been announced by the two water companies that supply us. Purifying contaminated waterways and restoring the ecosystems blighted by those chemicals requires significant financial resources, placing a burden on communities and straining local government purses. How much of that financial impact is reflected in these bill rises? Are consumers facing price rises in their water bills because we are not effectively regulating problem products such as neonics?

We know that there is an issue with our water quality—the issues at Dunster beach and Blue Anchor in my constituency spring to mind. That is why the Government passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—and why my party leader fell into Windermere several times during the general election campaign to raise awareness. When will we clean up our act and put in place the firmest restrictions on these polluting water companies? When will we look at what we can do to stop other pollutants from getting anywhere near our waterways in the first place? I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether this cost has been factored into the Government’s thinking on this issue, and whether there could be some answers to the questions I have posed.

On a broader note, I will touch on how we can help our farmers and those in our rural communities with these environmental challenges. Our waterways make up a key part of our natural biodiversity, but each part relies on the other. That makes the recent decision to axe the sustainable farming incentive scheme all the more worrying and damaging to our rural communities. If there is not the money for sustainable farming, agricultural practices will naturally follow economic sense, if not the careful environmental custodianship on which our farmers pride themselves.

Farmers are suffering at the hands of this Government, and with them so suffers our environment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House that her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are doing everything they can to support our farmers as they balance the agricultural and environmental needs of the land? Will she also ensure that due consideration is given to the restoration of the SFI scheme, so that we can keep making progress on our environmental goals, hand in hand with farmers, and not be distracted from the harms of damaging products such as the neonics that I have been talking about by losing our much needed local and rural allies?

I am aware that this speech has been slightly doom and gloom, but I will now turn to what we can do as an alternative. Research has shown that the likes of coconut oil, citronella oil, good old lavender and eucalyptus provide good natural and, most importantly, non-toxic alternatives for flea and tick repellents. The market is awash with collars for cats and dogs infused with these essential oils, which are both practical and natural. There has been very little emphasis on these solutions. We should be doing much more to promote the benefits of these chemical-free remedies.

As seen in recent developments in Switzerland, where the Government are carrying out water testing, there is a clear need for environmental impact assessments of the use of fipronil and imidacloprid. These should be launched as a matter of urgency, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this point. We Liberal Democrats have called for any emergency authorisations of neonics to be revoked, and for the introduction of tighter restrictions on their use. I invite the Minister to comment on the state of play and whether there is a serious appetite in the Government to address this issue.

It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said, these products are advertised widely and sold ubiquitously. I am not blind to the fact that these products have brought undeniable benefits in pest control, but their unintended consequences serve as a stark reminder of the need for sustainable and nature-friendly practices. I genuinely believe that there is a desire to do more to regulate these highly toxic chemicals. Lawmakers were right to impose a blanket ban on fipronil and imidacloprid in agricultural settings in 2017 and 2018. The will should be there to ensure that these products cannot be allowed to continue damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Further regulation is the only way forward to remove harmful contaminants and arrest the degradation of aquatic fauna in this country’s waterways.

The Government also need to go further and faster in regulating our waterways and the water companies damaging them overall. The Water (Special Measures) Act is a good first step, but the Government can and must do more. Ofwat is failing in its duties. The time has come for a new clean water authority to replace it as we up our game in protecting our precious waterways. I see no reason why reforms designed to keep neonics out of our waterways cannot come hand in hand with our push to keep sewage and other contaminants and pollutants out of our waterways.

In the short term, for neonics, restrictions should be placed on the trade of fipronil and imidacloprid, with the only exception to their continued use coming under strict conditions of prescription only by veterinary medical professionals and for a limited time period. We know that Amazon and the over-the-counter market in pet stores can lead to the propagation of those products in our natural environment, so restrictions would make some sense.

When the time allows, a ban for all other usage should certainly be in the Government’s scope. It is clear that decisive action must be taken on this matter. Could the Minister shed some light on whether the Government would be willing to assess the potential merits of moving in that direction? From all that I have seen, that appears the prudent—and perhaps only—direction to take. \p Emma Hardy: It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing the debate, and I especially congratulate her on her first Adjournment debate in the House. I am sure that it will be the first of many—and probably the first of many regarding water, so we might get used to seeing each other on such evenings.

Obviously, we cannot miss the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his birthday. I am sure that I speak for the entire House when I say that I hope he has had a wonderful day. An Adjournment debate would not be the same without him, so I thank him for joining us, even on his birthday.

I know that the Government have carried out monitoring in the Tiverton and Minehead area to deliver programmes such as updating the water framework directive status, natural capital ecosystems assessment and catchment sensitive farming. As hon. Members know, the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is essential for supporting our ecosystems, providing clean water and producing our food. Our beautiful rivers, lakes, seas and beaches are a source of pride for our communities, and we want to restore them to that end.

I totally agree that we are a nation of pet lovers. Again, I have to mention my three wonderful cats— I never miss the opportunity to mention them—who are Meglatron, Lily and Serena. Serena was given that name because she is such a beautifully serene lady, and Meglatron because he is a crazy little boy we have running around the house all the time. The hon. Lady is quite right, and I am sure that the concerns about fleas and ticks are felt by many pet owners up and down the country.

On our wider neonics work, on 21 March—just four days ago—we released the national action plan on pesticides. It has three objectives: to encourage the take-up of integrated pest management; to establish a timeline and targets for the reduction of the use of pesticides; and to strengthen compliance, to ensure safety and better environmental outcomes. Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the NAP, which we published just last Friday—we put out the written ministerial statement   on Monday—had been waiting over a decade under the previous Government? We managed to get it out in eight months. I am quite proud of that.

On our wider work on neonics, before Christmas we made a written ministerial statement talking about how we wanted to ensure a complete ban in the use of the emergency authorisation. The hon. Lady will know that I declined this year’s emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser pesticides. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling some of the concerns that are widely held.

The quality of our water is, of course, essential for supporting ecosystems, providing clean drinking water and producing our food. Maintaining healthy and clean water sources is vital to achieving the Government’s mission for sustainable economic growth, but the public are also concerned about chemicals used for the treatment and prevention of fleas and ticks for pets in UK waterways. The Government are committed to understanding the impacts of veterinary medicines entering our environment.

Speaking more widely about water quality, the flawed water system that the Government inherited is still discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. The situation is not just an environmental failure; it is also a public health crisis, demanding our immediate and decisive action to rectify decades of neglect and mismanagement. We need a systematic approach to tackling issues that impact the whole of the drainage and waste water systems, stopping the unnecessary pressure from rainwater and sewage misuse entering the system to the point at which it is discharged into the environment.

As mentioned, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 gained Royal Assent on 24 February 2025, boosting the power of water sector regulators to tackle pollution. That major legislation delivers on this Government’s promise to clean up the water sector and is the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water industry regulators in a decade. The Act will give regulators new powers to take tougher and faster action to crack down on water companies damaging the environment and failing their customers. However, we do not just want to give that—oh no, we want to do so much more.

Further legislation aimed at fundamentally transforming how our entire water system operates will be guided by the findings of the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is currently conducting the largest review of the industry since privatisation. I also mention the wonderful start to the day I had today, because earlier this morning, at 9 o’clock, I met Sir Steve Redgrave and lots of young rowers from the University of Reading to discuss how we can improve our water quality for the rivers and lakes that we all love. It was a pleasure to have a cup of coffee with him very early this morning and talk about our shared ambition to clean up our rivers.

Having spoken about the importance of water quality, I will turn in detail to the topic of veterinary medicines in waterways. The Government recognise the presence of parasiticides—I nearly got away with that—in the wider environment as a significant concern, and we are actively gathering evidence on that complex, multifactorial issue. All veterinary medicines undergo a rigorous scientific assessment before approval. As the regulator for veterinary medicines, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate balances the benefits of veterinary medicine for animal health  and welfare, as well as human health protection, against the associated risk, which obviously includes environmental risks. Medicines are only ever authorised if the benefit outweighs the risk. The VMD follows internationally recognised guidelines for assessing the environmental risks of veterinary medicines for all animals, including pets.

Fleas and ticks can lead to, as mentioned, discomfort and distress in pets. Those parasites can host microbes that cause disease in pets and potentially in pet owners who encounter the fleas and ticks. Topical flea treatments play a crucial role in protecting both animal and human health from fleas, ticks and disease. It is therefore essential that we take a balanced approach to the benefits of such treatments and their potential environmental impact when considering the issue.

While there is evidence of the presence of fipronil and imidacloprid in fresh waters, it is well established that, as insecticides, these substances are inherently toxic to invertebrates and we do not understand the effects that current levels are having at a population and ecosystem level. We are, however, committed to understanding the potential impacts of veterinary medicines entering the environment. The VMD has led on the formation of a cross-Government group on pharmaceuticals in the environment to develop a co-ordinated strategy to reduce the impact of the substances in the environment. The group includes key governmental bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and representatives from the devolved Governments. While the VMD is prioritising the development of an evidence base, working to resolve the issue will require involvement by all key stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry and veterinary professionals.

The work does not come without challenge and stakeholders remain divided on the way forward. Some advocate for the benefits of year-round parasiticide use for humans and animal health, others emphasise the need for more cautious use, while some push for a complete ban. Any decision to limit use must be carefully weighed against the benefits to ensure a balanced approach, as restrictions could impact animal welfare, animal health and even public health. Also, there is still a critical evidence gap in understanding the full impact of those options on both animal and human health, as well as on the environment, and that must be explored further before any regulatory action is taken. \p Tessa Munt: rose— \p Jayne Kirkham: rose— \p Emma Hardy: I will give way to the hon. Lady on the Liberal Democrat Bench and then to my hon. Friend. \p Tessa Munt: Could the Minister just clarify whether that group will consider the benefits of using natural remedies, or a combination of natural remedies, and of ensuring that people are fully aware of the benefits of that, and that that will be in some way quantified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned during her speech. \p Emma Hardy: Yes, we are going to look at all the evidence on the available options. As I say, there is a difference of opinion over the best way forward; people have different views on that. It is my job, as we are a responsible Government, to look at all the evidence and try to find a balanced way forward, so that will be included as part of the evidence base. \p Jayne Kirkham: Is there a rough timeline for that group to come back with a report? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is always very dedicated to DEFRA-related issues, and it is always nice to see her here. I will check to see whether I can give her a more detailed decision on timing—if I cannot do so in this meeting, I will ensure that I let her know afterwards.

As I said, the VMD is developing the evidence base and has commissioned scientific research to investigate how these substances reach rivers and streams. It is working closely with stakeholders to collect data and address the issue. It is supporting calls for a review of the internationally agreed environmental risk assessment standards. The VMD and the Environment Agency are working closely together to understand the risks posed by these chemicals and to respond appropriately.

To further address this issue, the group on pharmaceuticals in the environment has developed a road map for reducing levels of two veterinary substances   in UK surface waters. The priority for this road map is to raise awareness and improve pet owner education on risks and appropriate use—I know that point has come up here. Once finalised, that road map would be available to all stakeholders. As unresearched policies can fail badly, any changes we implement must be evidence based and measurable to achieve success.

This Government will not turn the other way or continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry and will drive long-term transformative change. We remain dedicated to addressing the environmental impact of veterinary medicines, and will continue working with relevant stakeholders to find solutions that protect both animal health and the environment. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead on securing the debate. The public want clean water and we are determined to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.