debates/debates2025-01-15c conversation_20
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-15)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-15c conversation_20

Jack Rankin:Today  marks 467 days in captivity for Avinatan Or, just one of the more than 100 hostages that Hamas still cruelly hold. Avinatan is my age and has his whole life ahead of him. I felt the raw pain of his family when his mum Ditza, a British citizen, shared her story with me as part of the “twin with a hostage” campaign. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that all the hostages are returned, so that Avinatan can be at home where he belongs with Ditza and his girlfriend Noa? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this case. It is appalling that Hamas continue to detain Avinatan and other hostages, including Emily Damari. I know that the hon. Gentleman has spent time with the families—it is nothing short of torture what they are going through. We will do absolutely everything in our power to ensure that we make progress to bring these hostages home—I am sure that I speak for everybody in the House. We will do everything to try to make sure that we get those hostages home. \p Jonathan Brash: My constituent Richard Lee has waited over 43 years for answers about the disappearance of his daughter Katrice from a military base in Germany in 1981. She was just two years old. The Royal Military Police, the Ministry of Defence and successive Governments have failed to get the answers that he deserves, throwing up barrier after barrier to justice. Will the Prime Minister meet Richard and me to finally give this Hartlepool veteran a way forward to uncover the truth about the disappearance of his daughter? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this deeply distressing case. Our thoughts and sympathies are with Richard Lee and his family. The Defence Serious Crime Unit continues to appeal for new evidence in this case, and I will make sure that he has a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss progress. \p Neil Hudson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s emergency contingency response to the recent confirmation of foot and mouth disease in Germany? \p Daniel Zeichner: The whole House will be aware of the concern across rural communities about the potential threat of foot and mouth disease. It is a severe, highly contagious viral disease of livestock that can have a significant economic impact, and a truly devastating effect on farming and rural communities when outbreaks occur, as we know from history.

I assure the House that the UK is currently free of foot and mouth disease, and has been since 2007. But following confirmation on 10 January, foot and mouth disease in the German state of Brandenburg, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken rapid action to protect the UK, including suspending the commercial import of susceptible animals from Germany and restricting personal imports of animal products from across the European Union.

I assure the House that the Government will do whatever it takes to protect our nation’s farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. We have increased risk levels in the UK to medium. Last night, the chief veterinary officer and I spoke directly with the German Federal Minister and his officials. The Government have taken decisive and immediate action. The import of cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany has been stopped to protect farmers and their livelihoods. We will not hesitate to add additional countries to the list if the disease spreads. I can inform the House that this morning the chief veterinary officer has confirmed that while Germany’s surveillance continues to be ongoing, it has not as yet detected any further cases.

Foot and mouth disease guidance is available on gov.uk and livestock farmers are urged to be extra-vigilant and report any suspect disease to the Animal and Plant Health Agency immediately. The UK chief veterinary officer is also urging livestock keepers to remain vigilant to the clinical signs of FMD. I reiterate that there are no cases in the UK currently. I also reassure the House that FMD poses no risk to human or food safety but it is a highly contagious viral disease in cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals. Livestock keepers should therefore be absolutely rigorous about their biosecurity.

The Government are absolutely focused on responding to the animal disease threats we face, protecting animal health and welfare. Upholding high biosecurity standards is paramount for protecting and promoting food production and food safety, both animal and human, and supporting our economy and trade. That is why we have invested a further £200 million in the UK’s main research laboratory testing facilities at Weybridge to bolster protection against animal disease.

While we stand ready to protect our livestock from the threat of foot and mouth and other exotic diseases, we also offer our support to our European neighbours  as they face this threat to their livestock, farming and rural communities. I can assure the House that the Government will be decisive and take the necessary action to protect our farmers from foot and mouth disease. \p Neil Hudson: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I declare a strong personal and professional interest. As a veterinary surgeon I supervised some of the animal culls in the 2001 outbreak, witnessing sights I never want to see again.

The confirmation on 10 January of foot and mouth disease in Germany, with subsequent slaughter and movement restrictions, is sending shockwaves around Europe and the UK. We have requested this urgent question as no statement was provided to the House on Monday or Tuesday. The shadow DEFRA Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is unable to be with us today as she is at the LAMMA show in Birmingham speaking to agricultural manufacturers and farmers.

In 2001, the foot and mouth outbreak resulted in more than 6 million animals being culled and cost £12.8 billion in today’s prices. It devastated the farming community, and farmers want reassurance that action is been taken to protect our borders, their livestock and their livelihoods.

The mental health impacts of foot and mouth cannot be overstated. Can the Minister reassure us that the announced movement restrictions are fully in place for animals and products coming to the UK from the affected area? Will the Government think about extending the ban to personal imports of meat and milk products unless accompanied by veterinary documentation? Can the Minister update us on the work tracing possible movements of products from Germany? What advice is there about movements of people and vehicles from the area in terms of fomite transmission of the virus? And, heaven forbid, if foot and mouth ever enters the United Kingdom, what is the situation regarding vaccine supply and potential deployment?

Finally, I pay tribute to the chief vets and the veterinary and animal officers and scientists and officials at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, who do so much to keep our country biosecure. This foot and mouth disease wake-up call is yet more evidence that the Government must now commit to fully fund the redevelopment of the APHA HQ in Weybridge. I urge the Government from the bottom of my heart to fully fund that redevelopment, to make sure that the burning pyres of slaughtered animals, as well as the economic and mental health devastation of foot and mouth disease, remain resolutely confined to the history books. \p Daniel Zeichner: I fully appreciate the expertise and passion the hon. Gentleman brings to this subject; he knows of what he speaks. I hope I made it clear in my initial reply just how seriously the Government take these issues. I spoke to him earlier this morning ahead of a Delegated Legislation Committee to make it clear that we would work on a cross-party basis to tackle this, should it come to our shores.

I will try to address the hon. Member’s questions, particularly those around vaccination, because that is always raised and is always of concern.

We are absolutely ready in case that is a control that we need to implement. According to the general advice with regard to control measures, if an outbreak were to occur in the UK, vaccination is a control option that would be considered by DEFRA and devolved Administrations at the outset, in addition to culling and immediate movement controls. I can assure the shadow Minister that the UK vaccine bank holds vaccines for a range of foot and mouth disease serotypes. I can also assure him that there is good, close working with the devolved Administrations on this matter and that we are working in harmony.

On the movement of personally carried goods, I remind the shadow Minister that this Government strengthened those controls at the borders. I am confident that we are doing everything possible at the moment to ensure that we are following the right procedures, given the risk assessments that have been carried out. Our sincere hope is obviously that this does not extend beyond the Brandenburg area, but we are absolutely ready to deal with those issues.

On the investment at Weybridge, as I have said, we have committed an initial £200 million. This is a debate we have been having for some time, and I am afraid that we are working with the resources we have now. However, I am confident that we have a very good set of procedures in place to tackle any potential incursion. \p Julie Minns: I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) for his concern and passion on this subject. Like him, I know only too well the devastation that was caused in 2001. Of course, he previously had the privilege of representing a large part of what is now the Carlisle constituency.

Cumbria was the worst affected part of the country in 2001, with 30% of the culled cattle being from Cumbrian farms. Will the Minister elaborate on the steps that are being taken to ensure that our farmers and their livestock are protected ahead—God forbid—of any potential outbreak? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the concern she has rightly shown. As I said at the outset, we are well aware of the concern that people feel. However, they should be reassured that we have very good tracing facilities these days; the technologies have improved. What is particularly important is that we are in close contact with our German colleagues, who are sharing advice regularly. Everything that can be done is being done, but I absolutely recognise people’s concerns. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Tim Farron: I confess that all of us in Westmorland and across rural Britain feel a sense of terror at this news, as we recall the devastation and horror of the 2001 outbreak. I will never forget the looming sense of dread and threat as the disease got closer to our farms, or the dread when the disease was diagnosed and whole herds and flocks were slaughtered by those who had cared for them; nor will I forget the burning fires on the hillsides of the bodies of slaughtered animals, or the deep trauma that affected all our communities, but especially our children. We must do everything to avoid a repeat.

Can the Minister explain why this outbreak was notified on Friday, yet DEFRA issued instructions to prevent imports from the affected areas only yesterday, when countries such as Mexico and South Korea were able to act over the weekend? Does he now acknowledge the urgent need to invest in the APHA and the new laboratory, and undo the delay of the previous Government? Does he accept that the failure of the previous Government—and, so far, of his Government—to sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU increases the risks to biosecurity and to British farmers, and will he act swiftly to put that right? Finally, will he meet urgently the noble Lord Curry, who headed the inquiry after the 2001 outbreak, so that we are ready and have learned all the lessons of previous failures, and so that our farms, rural communities and animal welfare are protected at all costs? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This matter is very important. My area had the first case of foot and mouth detected in that year, so I know all about it. However, we must stick to the times that have been allocated. \p Daniel Zeichner: I am always happy to speak to Lord Curry, who brings huge expertise and knowledge.

I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that there was no delay—essentially, as soon as we were informed, we put the appropriate processes in place, and staff at border control points were issued instructions to hold goods at the border. Everything was done as quickly as possible.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about our relationship with the German Government. I know the German Minister personally, and I spoke to him yesterday. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are getting every co-operation needed from the German Government. \p Lizzi Collinge: In 2001, I lived in north Cumbria and I will never, ever forget the sight of burning livestock in my friends’ fields. Can the Minister assure me that my farmers in Morecambe and Lunesdale, who by and large are livestock farmers, will never have to face that terrible scene again and that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure that foot and mouth does not spread to our country? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and for her account of the effect the disease had on her constituents. The purpose of my response to the question today is to give reassurance to people that we have very, very high quality officials working very, very hard to make sure we do everything we can to prevent such an outbreak happening again. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Alistair Carmichael: As well as noting my own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I should tell the House that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon who is occasionally contracted to provide local veterinary official services to the APHA.

I, too, remember the events of 2001 and I remember, having just been elected, the debates we had in this House. We said that we must always learn the lessons and never forget, but in truth, frankly, we have. The  extent to which we are exposed today is something for which responsibility is shared across the parties. The state of the APHA headquarters in Weybridge is a disgrace and it is now an urgent disgrace. Hopefully, this is a bullet that we will dodge, but if we do, we know there is also the risk of African swine fever, bluetongue and avian influenza all coming. Is this the point where, across the House, we can all agree on the importance of biosecurity and the importance of funding it? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his point. I think we all know how important biosecurity is, and that is why the Government committed a further £200 million for that very important facility in Weybridge. \p Richard Quigley: Will the Minister confirm what mitigation funding has been made available for farms that may be affected? Will he commit to look urgently at the provision of an abattoir on the Isle of Wight, because we do not currently have one? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for his question—good try. At the moment, we are talking about an outbreak in Germany. Should there be—obviously, we are doing everything we can to prevent it—an outbreak in the UK, we will come back with further proposals, but at the moment we are working hard to make sure that that does not happen. \p Simon Hoare: Could the Minister confirm, given the seriousness of the issues, that when in doubt the precautionary principle will come to the fore, there will be urgency and the proper decisions will be taken? He mentioned working with the devolved Administrations. Given the shared land border on the island of Ireland and the trade there, can he confirm what conversations he has had or may be planning to have with the Government in Dublin? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will, of course, take every precaution and apply the precautionary principle. We treat Northern Ireland in the same way as the other devolved Administrations. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) will be having conversations later today. \p Alison Hume: I welcome the urgent question, as the news is a worry to farmers in my constituency. Is the Minister able to share with the House more details about the funding available from his Department to help prevent new animal diseases? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for her point and her concern. We have an extensive set of facilities and agencies who are tasked with protecting our country on these issues. I have every confidence in the chief veterinary officer and her officials in the APHA, subject to the issues that have been raised around long-term funding. We have good protections in place and people should have confidence in them. \p Ben Spencer: Yet again, we rely on the fantastic people at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is based in New Haw in my constituency, despite its slightly confusing name.  Will the Minister join me in thanking the people who work there, and does he agree that it urgently needs investment to improve the facilities? I do not think he has visited the APHA. Will he join me on a tour as soon as we can arrange it to see for himself the state it is in and what improvements are urgently needed? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am always grateful for invitations from hon. Members and feel that I am permanently on tour, but the hon. Gentleman is right that I have not yet had the opportunity to visit, although the Secretary of State has. Last week, when I was at a conference in York, very senior officials from the APHA gave me a very detailed briefing on the work they do. I share in the thanks to those people who play a huge role in keeping our country safe. \p Louise Jones: As a child, I distinctly remember the creeping fear on my family’s farms as foot and mouth moved ever closer. I realised that even as a child, and I feel sick just thinking that we could ever go back there. Many farmers in my constituency have repeatedly raised their concerns over infectious diseases entering the UK. Please can the Minister assure me, and them, that we are doing everything to take this very seriously, and that we have contingency plans in place? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting on the awful experiences of 20 years ago. I assure her that we have excellent people, to whom I have just referred, who are working extremely hard to minimise the risk of any further outbreak. We are doing everything we can to prevent that from happening. \p Carla Lockhart: Does the Minister not agree that it is preposterous that Northern Ireland has been excluded from the UK ban on imports from Germany because of the outbreak of foot and mouth? Does he agree that that is the tip of the iceberg in respect of the impact the Windsor framework and the protocol continue to have on our agrifood industry in Northern Ireland? Since he thinks—and rightly so—that it is essential to protect GB farms from potentially devastating impacts, why does he believe that Northern Ireland farms are not as important? \p Daniel Zeichner: Northern Ireland farms are just as important. In Northern Ireland, the controls will apply to meat and live animals moving from a 3 km protection zone and a 10 km surveillance zone surrounding the affected premises in Germany. Those products cannot be moved to Northern Ireland. \p Sally Jameson: Will the Minister outline what measures are being taken to ensure that no animals infected in the outbreak in Germany end up in this country? \p Daniel Zeichner: This is an unusual outbreak, in a sense. It is a very small herd of 20 water buffalo. What is unknown to the German authorities at the moment is how they got infected in the first place. Extensive work is going on in Germany to try to understand that. The difference from 20 years ago is that we now have much better science to be able to trace where it may have come from. Extensive work is going on across Europe, because  it is a threat to the entire continent. I can assure my hon. Friend that every avenue is being explored to try to make sure that we understand how this has happened and that it goes no further. \p Sarah Dyke: As a farmer’s daughter, I fully remember the sickening impact of the last foot and mouth outbreaks across Somerset and Dorset, particularly on farmers’ mental health. The culling restrictions resulted in 73% of farmers experiencing depression and anxiety following the last outbreak. Now, almost one half of the farming community are already experiencing anxiety. What plans do the Government have to support farmers who may be impacted by this disease or any other biosecurity risk? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know she takes these issues very seriously and we have discussed them before. Let me be clear: this is an outbreak in Germany at the moment. We are doing everything we can to ensure it does not extend into our country. Of course people are concerned and worried. Should it develop further, which we are absolutely determined to make sure does not happen, then we will look at further measures to help and support people, but we are not at that stage. \p Claire Hughes: I thank the Minister for his responses. It is very reassuring that the seriousness of the situation is felt across the House and across the country. He talked about working with the devolved Administrations. Will he say more about how he will work with the Welsh Government in particular to address this issue? \p Daniel Zeichner: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have an extremely close relationship with the Welsh Government. The Rural Affairs Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, and I speak frequently—indeed, we spoke to each other only a few days ago, at the Oxford farming conference—and we are in regular contact to discuss issues such as these. In anything that we do, we will be working together on an “entire United Kingdom” basis. \p John Cooper: With some of the most productive grassland in the UK, Dumfries and Galloway is not worried but terrified by this outbreak. I am reassured to know that we are doing what we can, but it is a very difficult problem to solve. Can the Minister reassure me that the Republic of Ireland will not be the unlocked back door through which this dread disease returns to this country? \p Daniel Zeichner: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s appreciation of the complexities that we face, but it is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we stop this, and we are all co-operating closely. The veterinary officials have a very good network, and they are working closely together. No one wants this to extend further. \p James Naish: As the son of a farmer, I remember only too well waking up in the early morning and going downstairs to listen to Radio 4 in silence with my family as we heard about more and more animals being culled during the crisis in the early  2000s. What steps are being taken to engage the National Farmers Union and other trade bodies to prepare for any outbreak here in the UK? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for his concern and his recollections. Yesterday we held a roundtable to discuss the threat posed by bluetongue, and we are in constant dialogue with all those who have direct interests and expertise. We will be working in lockstep. \p Robin Swann: In his initial answer, the Minister talked about protecting the UK and spoke about our nation’s farmers. He also advised farmers to consult gov.uk, which gives advice to Scottish, English and Welsh farmers but not to Northern Ireland farmers. May I ask him why he has abandoned them, given that the last outbreak, in 2001, cost the Northern Ireland economy £24.2 million? One small region in Germany cannot export to Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that there should be a complete ban on the import of German products to Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom? \p Daniel Zeichner: We stand with farmers throughout the United Kingdom. The circumstances are slightly different, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, which is why we have to provide appropriate advice, but we are working in tandem and lockstep with colleagues across Europe to beat this horrible disease. \p Luke Charters: It is the critical work of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge, which I visited recently, that will prevent foot and mouth from reaching our shores. The £200 million for the agency that the Government have announced is welcome, but will my hon. Friend commit himself to reviewing its funding, particularly in the event of multiple concurrent diseases? \p Daniel Zeichner: We constantly keep under review the resources that are available to enable us to tackle all these issues. On the basis of a number of questions today, I shall be happy to visit Weybridge at the earliest opportunity. \p Mark Pritchard: Unfortunately, as the Minister will know, foot and mouth disease looms large in the memories of many Shropshire farmers. Talking of visits—this is a genuine point—I wonder whether the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, would consider visiting Harper Adams University in my constituency, which, as he will also know, is the top agricultural university in Europe. I mention that because it has veterinary experts with specific expertise in this disease and others.

As we heard from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), more than 6 million pigs, cattle and sheep were lost in 2001 and 2007. The Minister mentioned biodiversity. Can he update the House on illegal meat imports and checks at the border, and the implementation of the border target operating model? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation; I shall add him to my list. The border checks involve a complicated set of issues, but one of the Brexit  benefits, if you like, is the existence of those checks, and I am satisfied that they are providing a level of security that should give people confidence. As I said in an earlier answer, we have strengthened the controls on personal imports. It is always a challenge to protect any area, but we are in a better position than colleagues in mainland Europe. \p Danny Chambers: It is good to see cross-party support for increased investment in Weybridge, which has long been needed, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned biosecurity, and we know that a great deal of illegally imported meat is coming through our ports. That is a huge biosecurity risk, and an even greater risk if there is foot and mouth on the continent. As well as investing in Weybridge and improving those facilities, can we look at how we can resource the port authorities properly to catch all this illegally imported meat? \p Daniel Zeichner: That is an important point. We will try to do all that we can to ensure that illegal imports are intercepted and stopped. I am delighted to observe the outbreak of cross-party consensus on the need for more investment, and I hope there will also be an outbreak of consensus on how to fund it. \p David Mundell: My constituency was one of the most significantly impacted by the 2001 outbreak. Virtually every hoofed animal in Dumfriesshire was slaughtered, and the smoke from the pyre hung over the Annan valley in particular for days. A large part of the market in livestock in my constituency comes from Longtown market, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), which was a source of the previous outbreak. Will the Minister ensure that we work closely with the Scottish Government, given that there is a significant amount of cross-border movement of animals that needs to be properly identified and regulated? \p Daniel Zeichner: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with passion and paints a vivid picture of that dismal period, which, sadly, I remember well. I can give him an absolute assurance that—as he will know from his time in government—the veterinary officers work very closely together, particularly on an official level. This is an entirely shared endeavour, and we will do everything we can to ensure that that there is the close co-operation that is needed. \p Ann Davies: I am a dairy farmer, and the devastating outbreak of foot and mouth more than 20 years ago was on my doorstep. We were lucky, as a family farm, but sadly others within my farming community in Wales were not. The outbreak was also a food security issue, as it was understood to have derived from food waste fed to pigs. What lessons have the UK Government learnt from that outbreak to enable them to secure our food chains better and keep our livestock and food supplies safe? \p Daniel Zeichner: I recognise the hurt that the hon. Lady recollects from that dreadful time. A great deal of work was done in the light of those events, and lessons have been learnt; for instance, technology has changed  and improved. I will not go into all those lessons, which are probably worthy of a longer debate, but it is important for us to act on them, because we do not want a repeat of what happened in 2001. \p John Lamont: Like many other Members, I clearly remember the events of 2001, not least because all the cattle and sheep on our family farm—my father’s farm in Berwickshire—were slaughtered. The emotional trauma will stay with farming communities for many years to come. I am reassured that this Government are engaging with the Scottish Government, but is the Minister also speaking to NFU Scotland and to local authorities, to ensure that they are able to support farming communities in the best way possible? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman has spoken with passion and conviction about that dreadful time, and I fully respect that. We were notified of the outbreak on Friday; today is Wednesday. Of course we are ready to move to the next stage should it be necessary, but at this point the key priority must be ensuring that we keep the disease out of our country, and that is where the attention is currently focused. In the dismal eventuality that we have to move to measures within our country, we will of course work very closely with everyone who needs to be involved. \p Rachel Gilmour: I am sure that my farmers, like me, will be hugely grateful to know that the ban will operate with cross-party support; our farmers are more important than party politics. Back in 2001, I was the Liberal Democrat candidate for the Totnes constituency. The amount of communication with farmers before the outbreak was the only thing that made it easier for them to understand what was going on, because one could not go on a farm once it had started. May I encourage the Minister to communicate with farmers as much as he can during this very difficult time? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her recollections of that time. I reiterate that we are trying to ensure that foot and mouth disease does not arrive on our shores. Should that happen, we will move to another phase. We are not at that point yet, and it is important to reassure people that we have excellent measures and excellent people in place. They are working very hard to ensure that we do not get to that point. \p Harriet Cross: I welcome the Government’s efforts in bringing us up to speed today, but also in imposing the import ban. I recognise that the ban applies to products from Germany, but does it capture products that may originate there but for which the point of import is outside Germany? What steps are the Government taking to proactively increase spot testing or screening across the country, so that we can get ahead of any possible outbreak? \p Daniel Zeichner: We are applying all the rules that we can to ensure that we exclude German products at the moment, but there is quite a complex set of supply chains within the European Union. The key priority is live animals. There is nothing fortuitous about bluetongue, but there have been restrictions on movements for some  time, so we are probably better protected than we might have been. We cannot say for sure that nothing will move across the continent and come into the country, which is why it is very important that people are vigilant. Should foot and mouth disease cross the channel, speed will be of the essence to ensure that we shut it down. However, from talking to the chief vet and her officials and my conversations with German colleagues, I am confident that everything that can be done is being done. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady. \p Caroline Voaden: I am sure that nobody in Devon will forget the horror of 2001, when half the farms in the county were affected by foot and mouth. Does the situation in Germany provide an impetus for the Minister to move forward with securing a veterinary deal with the European Union? \p Daniel Zeichner: We do not need any extra impetus; the Government have committed to get a better deal. What I can say to the hon. Lady is that the relationship with our German colleagues is excellent at the moment, and they are giving us the full co-operation that we need. \p Charlie Dewhirst: The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Germany is a timely reminder of the livestock diseases that threaten the UK every day. The Minister has said that he will take every precaution available to him, so will he use this opportunity to permanently ban all personal imports of meat, and to ensure that both the public health authorities and Border Force are resourced to tackle illegal meat importation? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman and I spoke frequently when he was in his previous role and I was in opposition, and he knows of what he speaks. We have strong measures in place. We strengthened them a few months ago, and I am confident that they are at the right level at the moment. Of course, there is always a case for further investment, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support any measures that we bring forward. \p Jim Allister: Does the Minister accept that the reason why he cannot provide national protection for Northern Ireland is that this House has surrendered the right to make such regulations? They cannot even be made in Stormont, because only a foreign Parliament is now entitled to make them. Therefore, we in Northern Ireland do not have the same protections for our farmers and their livelihoods that are afforded elsewhere. The ban is restricted to products coming from the affected areas in Germany. Given that context, will we see the absurdity that we have seen in response to bluetongue, whereby cattle and livestock from mainland Europe can transit through GB to Northern Ireland and, indeed, anywhere in the island of Ireland, despite the ban? Is that same loophole going to apply in this case? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for continuing our dialogue on this issue. I do not recognise that loophole, and I can assure him that Northern Ireland will be fully protected, because that is what we are determined to do. \p David Chadwick: Farmers in my constituency are very concerned by this news, as Powys was one of the hardest-hit regions in the 2001 outbreak and the trauma remains for the 2,000 livestock farmers affected. Can the Minister provide us with some further details on the conversations that he has had with the Welsh Government, and will he confirm that the Welsh Government will commit to working with local authorities? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the hon. Gentleman not just for his question, but for the concern he expressed about his constituents, who suffered so grievously. The detailed conversations on these issues are conducted between the veterinary officers, who have a very close network. However, any political decisions that need to be made will be made by Ministers, and I have a very close relationship with Minister Irranca-Davies. If further action is needed, we will work together to stop any further incursions. \p Helen Morgan: In Shropshire, dairy and other livestock farmers have been having a torrid time recently, and they will have read this news with a sense of dread. I am also an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on food security, and we recently heard some eye-watering evidence from the border authorities at Dover about illegal meat imports and the threat that they pose to UK biosecurity. Can the Minister explain to the House what assessment he has made of the problems with that process, and what he intends to do to ensure that diseases such as foot and mouth do not arrive in the UK? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the hon. Lady for expressing her concern. I reiterate the point I made earlier about the border controls that we have in place. I am afraid this has been a long-running issue, but we have much stronger border controls in place than we would have done in previous times. We are working hard with the port health authorities to make sure that we crack down on illegal imports of meat. \p Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union. Indeed, I live on a farm on the Ards peninsula, where dairy farming and sheepmen surround me, and the impact on them would be great. For that reason, I want to ask the Minister a question. I can well remember the piles of dead animals and the traumatised farmers, who were all concerned, as they always are, about their animals—that was over 20 years ago, in 2001. The lessons were hard and well learned. Three other Northern Ireland MPs have asked similar questions, and I am the fourth. We need to clarify for farmers, my neighbours in Northern Ireland and all those who farm that there will be zero tolerance of products from Germany. Will the Minister confirm that a full, UK-wide report, including on Northern Ireland, will come to this House before any ban is lifted? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion on these issues. I can absolutely assure him that the measures in place to protect farmers in Northern Ireland are strong and will be good enough to make sure that we can protect people properly. Clearly, there is a slightly different set of arrangements in Northern Ireland, as he will be well aware. We have to respect  that, but we are getting absolute and total co-operation from our German colleagues. There will be no meat coming from affected parts of Germany to Northern Ireland. \p David Simmonds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on plans for local government reorganisation. \p Jim McMahon: The English devolution White Paper sets out how this Government plan to deliver on our manifesto pledge to transfer power out of Westminster through devolution and to fix the foundations of local government. This Government’s long-term vision is for simpler structures, making it clearer for residents who they should look to on local issues, with more strategic decisions to unlock growth and to deliver better services for local communities.

On 16 December 2024, I wrote to all councils in the remaining two-tier areas and neighbouring small unitaries to set out plans for a joint programme of devolution coupled with local government reorganisation. We acknowledge that for some areas the timing of elections affects their planning for devolution, particularly alongside reorganisation. To help to manage these demands, we will consider requests to postpone local elections, as has been the case in previous rounds. Where local elections are postponed, we will work with local areas to move elections to a new shadow unitary council as soon as possible. This is a very high bar, and rightly so.

The deadline for such requests was Friday 10 January. Today, my Department has published a list of all county and unitary councils who have made requests, including those who want to delay elections from 2025 to 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, this is the list of requests; it is not the final list that will be approved. We will consider these requests carefully and postpone elections only where there is a clear commitment to delivering both reorganisation and devolution to the ambitious timetable set out. While not all areas listed will go forward to be part of the devolution priority programme, we are grateful for the local leadership shown in submitting these requests, and a decision will be made in due course as soon as possible.

We welcome the large number of areas that have come forward seeking to join the devolution priority programme, reflecting our own ambition for greater coverage across England. This Labour Government were elected on a manifesto to push power out of Westminster and to relight the fires of our regions, and I am delighted that local leaders across England are sharing that ambition. \p David Simmonds: Although it was not a manifesto commitment, the Government published their agenda for reorganising council structures in England before Christmas, and we support our local government colleagues who are clearly required to respond to that call from Government. With local elections scheduled to take place in May this year and councils already incurring significant costs arranging polling stations and electoral canvassing, and preparing to receive nominations and issue postal ballots, it is not surprising that many councils have acceded to the Government’s expectation of a delay in these polls. After all, why incur millions in costs to local council tax payers for electing people to councils that are to be abolished shortly afterwards?

However, there remains significant uncertainty about where and if those elections will be delayed. With deadlines looming for key points in the organisation of those elections, that uncertainty risks some wasted costs for council tax payers, so we on the Conservative Benches have a series of questions. We know that many of those councils are Conservative-run, and with Conservative councils charging on average £80 less per household than Labour ones and £21 less on average than Lib Dem ones, voters will want to understand the impact of the Government’s reorganisation on their council tax and on their back pocket.

May I ask the Minister, first, what assessment has he made of the Boundary Commission’s capacity to undertake the necessary reviews to ensure equal distribution of electors across the new local authorities? Can he give an indication to the House of when he will make decisions, so that local authorities will know whether they are preparing to organise elections and are willing to incur those costs or not? We know that a number of other announcements are in train, particularly the indication from the Deputy Prime Minister that areas currently setting a low level of council tax will be punished through revisions to the funding formula, so when can local authorities expect to know what impact such revisions to the funding formula will have? I look forward to informative answers from the Minister. \p Jim McMahon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions, and I am genuinely grateful for the spirit of consensus around the broader issue. I accept that there may be differences of opinion on pace, but we do not shy away from our ambition to see devolution experienced by the whole of England. I give a degree of credit to the previous Government for building out devolution in the north of England and the midlands, but surely we have to demonstrate that this project is not reserved for the north of England and the midlands. This is a project for the whole of England, and we are on with that.

Our determination to ensure that we deal with these structural changes early in the Parliament is clear, but that is shared by local government. It is important to say that although of course we will set the timetable and provide support on both the devolution priority programme and local reorganisation, it is for local areas to self-organise and to agree to be part of the programme. We are not mandating this; we are not forcing it. All the requests that we have had since Friday have been from areas who share our ambition.

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is sensible to take the approach that, if reorganisation is a genuine proposal—and the bar has to be high for that test—it is nonsense to have elections to bodies that simply will not exist. It is far better that we move at pace and create the new unitary councils and then hold elections at the earliest opportunity.

I am not going to get into the subject of council tax, partly because it is outside the scope of the hon. Gentleman’s urgent question. Also, he was slightly mischievous in the way that he framed his remarks. On the point about capacity, however, it might be helpful if I lay out what the process will be. Local areas will make the request. We will issue statutory invitations at the end of the month, and areas will need to self-organise. It is not for the Boundary Commission or the Government to lay  down which plans come forward. It is for local areas to submit proposals to us, and at that point the Government will decide on the right proposals among what could be a number of options that come forward from local areas. Again, it will be for local areas to self-organise and make those proposals to us. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the shadow Minister for securing this important question; he has highlighted some key issues.

Sadly, we know that our councils are at breaking point. The Select Committee’s first major inquiry is to look at local government finances, and we look forward to engaging with the Minister on it. It was reported that local authorities in England were facing £77.5 billion-worth of debt by the end of last year. Much of that is debt to central Government or from borrowing. Sadly, because of that, vital frontline services such as housing and social care are at breaking point. Residents cannot afford to be caught up in buck-passing or discussions about accountability if this reorganisation goes through, so can the Minister assure the House that residents will still have the same level of power and scrutiny over vital services during the reorganisations? \p Jim McMahon: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions. What I hear from residents and even from councillors in two-tier areas is that, more often than not, local residents have no idea which council to go to in order to get the answers they need on local services. Reorganisation will provide efficiency savings in organisational costs that can be directed towards frontline services, which we believe are the priority for taxpayers. There should not simply be the cost, in many cases, of such services existing. We also believe that it is right, from a democratic accountability point of view, that residents have a clearer line of sight on which body to hold to account for local decisions.

On the point about local government finance, which we absolutely understand and accept, we have worked hard and I would say we have been relatively successful on rebalancing the funding crisis in local government. We have done that by providing £5 billion of new money, taking the total allocation to £69 billion. We cannot undo 14 years of damage in six months—it has been damaging over the 14 years—but we are now bridging to that multi-year settlement where we can really begin to repair the foundations. I think we have made progress on that. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Vikki Slade: There is no doubt that local government needs significant reform, and Lib Dems are passionate about putting power into the hands of local communities, but we are concerned that rather than producing true devolution, these plans will end up as a top-down diktat from Whitehall. MPs and district councillors from areas including Devon, Surrey and the midlands have told me that submissions appear to have been  made without their district councils being involved or consulted, and without the opportunity to undertake consultation with residents and businesses. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they engage meaningfully with every level of councils?

Councils such as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, which I used to lead, face Hobson’s choice. Tonight, councillors will be voting on whether to join proposals to their east or their west, neither of which reflect their urban needs or their distinct character. Or do they sit it out and hope for the best? What plans do the Government have to ensure that residents will have the democratic ability to decide on the right devolution plan for them? Can the Minister confirm, given that these plans will take more than a year to implement, that all the elections due in May 2025 will go ahead? \p Jim McMahon: I do not want to disregard the good work of district councils in this conversation about reorganisation, and about redirecting money to operational costs on the frontline, so that taxpayers get better value for money and see the benefit in their local public services. I pay tribute to council officials, frontline workers and councillors, whether they are in unitaries, counties or districts, for their work. I just set out the view that the best way to achieve efficiency is by having more streamlined local government structures that enable money to go to the frontline.

On whether district councils will have a voice in the process, it is a fact that we have received requests for reorganisation, and statutory invitations go out at the end of the month, but it would be usual for the Government to be faced with a number of options for what those new boundaries might look like. The county might have a view about how many councils should be included in the reorganisation, and I suspect that districts might have a very different view.

It would be quite usual for a number of different proposals to come forward for a county. It is for the Government to try to strike a balance that takes into consideration identity, efficiency and having an anchor to the area that makes sense. We genuinely want this to be a collaborative process, so that we get the right outcome for local people. \p Paul Foster: As the Minister is aware, I was a district council leader in Lancashire until 5 July, when I got the Avanti train down to Westminster. As I have said for many years, the challenge we face is that the two-tier system does not work. It confuses our residents. The Local Government Association’s map of the different structures of local government in England is a mishmash, and it does not work. West Lancashire and South Ribble borough councils have put forward detailed proposals for local government reorganisation to the Minister, but the Conservative-run county council has not. My concern is that some elections will be cancelled and some will not. On the priority programme, will the Minister please consider enforcing the cancellation of all elections in places where he is moving forward quickly with reorganisation? \p Jim McMahon: When my hon. Friend said he got the Avanti train down on 5 July, I think the Chamber was half expecting him to say that he had only just arrived, but he has been here for some time.

I know there are different views in Lancashire on what a good outcome looks like, and there are certainly different views on what a good process looks like, but I think there is a shared view that the time has come for devolution in Lancashire. When people look to Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, and see that Cumbria and Cheshire are organising to be part of the next stage, of course they want to be part of that. Lancashire is unique, in that we were already in discussions with it about its timetable and process. The level 2 agreement that is in place of course comes with investment, funding and other powers. Lancashire has agreed that by autumn, it will submit proposals to the Government that reconcile its organisational status; it will also bring forward a plan to move forward with a mayoral combined authority. Lancashire took the view that given that the timetable was already in place, it did not need to request that the election be cancelled.

To be clear, we absolutely see Lancashire as part of our priority work. It is critical. The prize for the north of England is completing the work on Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, so that the whole north of England has mayoral devolution. That will be game-changing. \p Lewis Cocking: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In the devolution White Paper, the Government set half a million people as the appropriate size for these new councils. Can the Minister therefore rule out creating big super-councils that represent more than a million people? Will he meet me to discuss devolution and local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire? \p Jim McMahon: It is important that the Government set out the framework. We were very directive in the White Paper about our view on reorganisation and devolution. In every conversation we had with the LGA, the County Councils Network, the District Councils Network and others, we heard that the worst outcome would be the White Paper speaking to an issue without going close to clarifying what outcome we want. The response to the priority programme has been reflective of that clear direction.

We were up front in saying that, for efficiency, new unitary authorities should have a population of around 500,000, but we also made it clear that if the reorganisation went hand in hand with devolution, a degree of flexibility would be needed to make sure we balanced strategic oversight of the combined or strategic authority with the local identity and sense of belonging that people need. I also make it clear that it does not matter whether we are talking about councils going through reorganisation, or about existing councils and metropolitan authorities, be they in London or the north of England. Wherever they are, we expect councils to organise their neighbourhoods and communities, local public services and democratic engagement so that people feel more power in the place where they live. \p Daniel Francis: My residents in Crayford, in the London borough of Bexley, have their services provided by one council, but in many cases, residents on the same road have their services provided by two councils—by Kent county council and Dartford borough council—which causes  confusion, as the Minister said. Does he agree that the changes introduced in the English devolution Bill will make local government more effective and save money for those taxpayers? \p Jim McMahon: That is exactly what this is about. This is the most ambitious reorganisation in England for at least 50 years, maybe longer. We need to avoid the sense that this is just rearranging the local government deckchairs. It is not about that. The devolution White Paper is ambitious, and that ambition is about wresting power from Westminster and Parliament and putting it in the hands of communities up and down the country. For far too long, power has been held in a very narrow way by a handful of people, at the exclusion of millions of people in this country. Frankly, people have had enough, so we have to find a different route. \p Kit Malthouse: I am fortunate to work with two local authorities, Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Test Valley borough council, which, after many decades of careful stewardship, are debt-free and have significant assets on their balance sheets, to the benefit of their residents. What will the Minister do in this local government reorganisation to protect that legacy? Would it not be profoundly unfair if those many years of careful stewardship were wiped out by amalgamation with more profligate neighbouring councils? \p Jim McMahon: It is not my intention to set one council against another. When areas begin to look at what new unitary boundaries might look like, they will need a view on identity, scale and achieving efficiency, and, ultimately, what construct will deliver good public services, be it adult social care, children’s services or those neighbourhood services that, in many places, have been eroded to the point where people wonder if they exist at all.

We have to rebuild from the ground up. This process, regardless of a council’s debt or financial status, is part of that rebuilding. Let us be honest: nobody in this Chamber, or in this Government, can put a number or this. We do not know what the outcome will be. If this is genuinely about local areas self-organising and presenting to Government their view of what a good outcome would be, we need to be open about that. \p Alice Macdonald: Local government reorganisation and full devolution is long overdue, and I believe it will bring many benefits to Norfolk and Norwich. In Norwich North, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said, one council might collect the bins on one side of the street, and another collects them on the other side. Building on the questions from Opposition Members, can the Minister reassure us that cities like Norwich will have a strong voice in this process, and will have their voices heard on the key economic drivers? \p Jim McMahon: That is a very important point, and I pay tribute to MPs in Suffolk and Norfolk for the work that they have done in making the case for greater devolution of powers. I also pay tribute to county and district councils for the cross-party political leadership  that they have shown in pursuit of devolution. Members will know that the original agreement for both Norfolk and Suffolk was not one to which the Government could agree, for a number of reasons that have been identified. However, the commitment from leaders in the area to finding a way through is appreciated and valued, and we will honour that in the next steps.

We absolutely believe that in large parts of the country—I see it in Exeter, Lincoln, Ipswich and Norwich—we have important economic anchors in cities that previously have not had a seat at the devolution table because they have been district councils. We have to deal with that as we go forward. \p Lee Dillon: Will the Minister update the House on the capacity in his Department to manage these reorganisations? He spoke about the deadline having passed, and having received expressions of interest. How many can his Department manage at any one time? What will be the determining factor in which ones are chosen to progress now? \p Jim McMahon: The Department stands ready to support local areas, both on devolution and on local government reorganisation, and will make sure that there is a genuine partnership when it comes to ensuring that capacity. We will not just rely on local areas to find it; we will work together on that.

We will have to present the information the hon. Member refers to on another date, not today. Until we know what the final programme is, we will not know what is required to deliver it. There is no arbitrary upper limit. Nevertheless, we need to be realistic that there is a high bar on devolution and reorganisation, and we can only allow forward plans that have a credible proposal for devolution. If plans are less developed when it comes to devolution, then even if other parts of them are compelling, and do things that we would want to see come about, politically, I am afraid that cannot stand. They have to be credible plans that ultimately lead to fulfilling the ambition for devolution, and that will be the priority. \p Jennifer Craft: The historical bankruptcy in Thurrock, from which my constituents are still suffering, is symptomatic of a system of local government that is letting people down badly. Devolution and reorganisation represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capitalise on growing opportunities in Essex, deliver better value and improve services. Does the Minister agree that reorganisation is the right step, and this is the right time? It will allow us to move on from the broken system and deliver more power and opportunities to communities in places such as Thurrock. \p Jim McMahon: My hon. Friend will know that there are particular issues in Thurrock, relating to historical decisions taken in that local authority. We believe that efficiencies can be garnered through reorganisation, and that if we redirect money to neighbourhood services that people can see and feel, their satisfaction with local government and local public services will increase. We also accept, though, that some systemic problems are not addressed by reorganisation alone; in the end, the multi-year settlement and the funding reforms that are taking place will have to be the foundation for that. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The people of Gloucestershire are expecting elections this May to their county council. If that is not to happen, will the Minister tell us precisely when the date will be decided, for all the reasons so excellently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)? \p Jim McMahon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Clarity is important for areas; they need to know whether they will go ahead with elections so that they can organise. We seek to give clarity by the end of the month, so in a couple of weeks at most. \p Andy MacNae: I associate myself with the excellent remarks of my Lancashire colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), and I thank the Minister for recognising the massive opportunity that reorganisation and devolution presents for Lancashire. It has been held back for many years by our inability to come together and move forward. Given that we now have an ongoing devolution process, and genuine proposals for reorganisation that are supported by a majority of councils across the county and by MPs, and given the significant costs of holding local elections—£3 million in the case of Lancashire, which could fill an awful lot of potholes—it feels like Lancashire county council’s refusal to put forward a proposal to cancel the upcoming May elections is about self-interest and short-term political imperatives being put ahead of the needs of residents. Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable, to say the least, that the request has not come forward, and that we should not hold those elections, but put the needs of residents first? \p Jim McMahon: I will be careful. When we came into government six months ago, I was clear that we needed to reset the relationship between central and local government. For many years in opposition, I observed Governments parading around instances of councils that were in disagreement in a very public way, and I thought that undermined the system as a whole. While it might not always be possible, where there are differences of views, they should probably be aired in private and not in Parliament, from a ministerial point of view.

Even though there are differences in Lancashire about pace, potentially, and about what a good outcome might be, there is at least agreement that devolution is the right thing for the county, and that having the same powers as Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region could be game changing for Lancashire’s economy and local jobs. When I say “local jobs”, I mean skilled, decent work that gives people pride of place; that is absolutely central to this Government. Let us focus on agreement, and put some of the disagreements to one side. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s local perspective entirely. \p Karen Bradley: I am pleased to see that Staffordshire is not on the list and that we will have our county elections this May. The Minister will know, however, that my constituents do not want to be subsumed into greater Stoke-on-Trent. Will he give them some reassurance—any at all—that they will have the choice and can say no if they do not want to be part of greater Stoke-on-Trent? \p Jim McMahon: I quite like Stoke-on-Trent; I am not sure what the local disputes are there. Maybe that is something not to go into. Focusing instead on process, that change would require consultation, and every area that has had a devolution agreement and eventually a mayoral election has had that consultation take place. There was some recent polling that said that the public were more likely to be supportive of the mayoral model of government if they had a mayor already in place, because they could see the benefit. In the end, how we reconcile the situation England will require compromise in some places. I say that because England is unique, it is diverse and, from an identity point of view, there is much that different areas have in common but there are some contradictions too. It is our job, through the course of building this out, to work at a local level to try and find the right solutions. That commitment is firm. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. The House will see that we have a lot of Members to try and get in, and I need to finish this urgent question by 2.15 pm. Will the Minister and other Members keep that in mind when answering and asking questions? \p Louise Jones: The reason I am in this place and my absolute priority is to ensure that we deliver good public services to the people of North East Derbyshire, through well-run government with representatives who are invested in their local community and held to account. Will the Minister assure me that any discussions over reorganisation will include local boroughs and districts, and that any agreement reached will make sure that we reflect both those priorities? \p Jim McMahon: The request can come in for reorganisation, but the Government’s role from the point at which we start the statutory invitation process becomes quasi-judicial. We therefore need to make sure we steer well clear of defining what outcome we want because we are, in effect, neutral in that process. It is our job to receive proposals as they come forward, and it could well be that the county and district councils put forward entirely different proposals. It is our job to make sure we consider both on an equal basis. \p Will Forster: As the Minister knows, the former administration at Woking borough council racked up debts of £2.1 billion. That money will never be fully repaid to the Government, but surrounding local authorities are anxious that as part of reorganisation they might have to share that debt. Will the Minister confirm how the Government will handle debt in Woking, Surrey and elsewhere as part of the reorganisation? Also, will he agree to write off Woking’s unsustainable debts to ensure that reorganisation happens sensibly? \p Jim McMahon: Agreeing to write off £2 billion of debt at the Dispatch Box would be quite career-limiting, I would say. I can say, however, that the scale of the financial challenge in some areas is absolutely understood and we will work to try and find a solution. We are not yet at the point of announcing that, however. \p Jonathan Brash: In Hartlepool, 75% of every penny spent by the council is spent on social care. That is contributing to a burden on council taxpayers in Hartlepool that is far too high. Does the  Minister agree that in the wider local government reorganisation, consideration needs to be given to regional collaboration on social care or, indeed, removing social care from local government altogether to ease the burden on council tax payers? \p Jim McMahon: My hon. Friend will be aware that Dame Louise Casey is conducting a broader review of adult social care for reasons that are well understood by the House. On whether the matter should or should not sit with local government, I will say that where local government really excels is in being local and rooted in the community, in being the deliverer of a public service and in being able to organise at a place level. That does make a difference, and we should not underestimate the impact when done well. We need to make sure that social services are adequately funded for the work they have to do to provide a good level of service for local people. \p Richard Holden: Across Basildon and Billericay, my residents are concerned about the idea of two years of delay while massive reorganisation goes on locally. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the local plan for 27,000 new houses across the area, which has just been consulted on, will not suddenly be rushed through by a local council that will not exist in future, with residents having to live with the consequences for years to come? \p Jim McMahon: I would say that, given our housing crisis, 27,000 new homes seems like good news to me, and we need to see more of that. Councils need to operate in a business as usual way, making sure that they get their business done. The worst outcome would be for councils going through a reorganisation to press pause on important items of business. That would be a complete absence of leadership. \p Alex Mayer: One effect of creating more strategic authorities appears to be the splitting of transport and highways powers in more areas. Will the Minister provide assurances that this will not slow down the delivery of capital projects that are necessary to achieve economic growth? \p Jim McMahon: No, that is certainly right. Our ambition is for acceleration, not for lagging behind, and we will make sure that no schemes are delayed as a result of reorganisation. \p Bradley Thomas: The Minister has quite rightly pointed out that residents across the country expect councillors to take a more strategic approach to deliver better services. My residents across Bromsgrove and its villages share that ambition. However, the biggest elephant in the room is the role of adult social care in the local government sector. Can the Minister outline to the House what decisions and what conversations are taking place across Government to address this so that future new councils, post reform, get off on the very best foot to improve their areas? \p Jim McMahon: I feel that we have gone a long way to doing that, although we do accept that this is a bridging position to get us to the multi-year settlement. None the  less, £3.7 billion of new money for adult social care in the settlement is a commitment laid out in pounds and pence in the way that local government has been asking for. We accept that there is a long way to go, and that councils need more support, but the Government are absolutely committed to rebuilding the foundations of local government and putting it on an even keel. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for his statement. Many of us across the House will have campaigned in district elections, as I have in Harlow. The No.1 thing that comes up on the doorstep in district elections is potholes, even though they are not the responsibility of district councils. Does the Minister agree that this English devolution Bill will not just simplify local government but be more cost-effective and bring more value back to the taxpayer? \p Jim McMahon: My hon. Friend makes a very good case for reorganisation, and I agree with him. \p Martin Vickers: As the Minister will know, in Lincolnshire, where there are two unitaries as well as the county council, the three top-tier authorities have agreed on a package to go unitary. There are complications, because there is a ward boundary review going on in north-east Lincolnshire at the moment. Would the Minister consider cancelling that, as it seems a complete waste of resources? In the county council area, which covers roughly two thirds of the county, a mayoral election is taking place, and a new combined authority is being established this May. Given that, does he agree that it is important that elections go ahead to give the county a new mandate for what lies ahead? \p Jim McMahon: From our perspective, we cannot allow the cancellation—or postponement, I would say—of elections to be driven by any political views. We are clear that this is an administrative process and it is about whether areas satisfy criteria that meet our devolution priority programme. Where areas are already in the programme because they have mayoral elections this year, it would be reasonable of me to say that we would need to see where the benefit is of elections being cancelled, given that devolution is taking place. But as I have said, we have only just received the proposals. We are taking time to review them, and we will make sure that is done in a fair way. \p Sean Woodcock: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving district councillor for 13 years.

I broadly welcome the thrust of this document. My question is on a matter that the Minister has already referred to—areas that are serviced by a number of different local authorities, which mine is. I have a county council, two district councils, any number of parish councils, and Banbury town council—Labour-run for the first time ever. In those areas, there will be a wide variety of views as to what a local government reorganisation should look like, because different communities have different views. Can the Minister assure me that the fast-tracking and the speed of this process, which I acknowledge the reason for, will not lead to rushed proposals that do not take into account what communities actually feel and look like? \p Jim McMahon: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that. Let me just say that in 2019, 11 district council elections were cancelled to allow reorganisations to take place, and so were seven in 2020. In 2021, the elections of three county councils and three district councils were cancelled to allow reorganisation. I say that because we cannot allow people to think that this is, in any sense, something new that has come out of nowhere. This is the day-to-day business of reorganisation done in the right place, in the right way, with full public consultation. \p Rupert Lowe: Given the abject failure of devolution in both Scotland and Wales and the fact that the Americans fought a war of independence on the slogan “No taxation without representation”, my constituents of Great Yarmouth would like an answer to two questions. First, why should they continue to pay their council tax beyond May, when they will not be represented by elected people? And secondly, by what name do they call these unelected councillors after May? \p Jim McMahon: We need to be clear that the members who will discharge the functions of the council and the executive have been elected. The idea that they are not elected is not accurate, and we need to be careful about the language that we use. I believe—I am sure the hon. Member believes—that most councillors are good public servants and go into local government for the right reasons to represent their community, and we should not be targeting them unnecessarily. To be clear, they were elected, and we might take the view that, if they meet the criteria, their period of office should be extended to allow election to a new shadow unitary authority. On that basis, I hope that local people will support it. \p Steve Race: I thank the Minister for the level of engagement that he has given both me and my colleagues on this process since the English devolution White Paper was published. He will know that I have a high level of enthusiasm for local communities being given the ability to take more control of services in their area. Does he agree that devolution and reorganisation offers cities such as Exeter, Lincoln and elsewhere—the key economic drivers of this country—the opportunity to grow and invest sustainably in partnership with strategic authorities? Can he shed a bit more light on the process when a county council and a district council potentially disagree on the way forward? \p Jim McMahon: It is quite usual for a county council and a district council to disagree on the way forward. From a Government point of view, we will consider proposals on an equal basis wherever they have come from—from a county council, a district council or a unitary authority that might change its boundaries. It is important that that is clear, because we want to make sure that, in the end, it is the right deal for local people, it is the right deal for taxpayers and it delivers good public services. \p Alison Bennett: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

How will the Minister avoid a fire sale of district and borough council assets once they are merged with county councils, which are crippled by the soaring cost of adult social care? Does he therefore agree with me that 2028 is too late? \p Jim McMahon: We can only go as fast as the process allows. We can start the process early, and we have done that. We can give clarity early, and we are doing that. What we cannot do is to shortcut a legal process that requires adequate consultation, the development of proposals and a transfer of workforce and assets to a new unitary council. That must be done in the right way, which takes time. We absolutely understand the point about local community assets, which is why community asset protection and the community right to buy are so central to our agenda going forward. \p Adam Jogee: The Minister will recall, I hope, the concerns that I outlined the last time he was before the House. Efficiencies, as he put it, and improved services are of course important, but so too are local identities and existing communities. With that in mind—I have asked him this before—how will we ensure that local identities are protected? Will he meet me to discuss the impact that these proposals might have on the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme? \p Jim McMahon: The point that my hon. Friend makes about balancing identity is as much about culture and approach as it is about where boundaries for councils are drawn. Sometimes, the identity of a council will match closely with the identity of a place, but often it does not. In urban, rural or coastal areas, many communities are far more nuanced or localised, and there can be some quite tense local neighbourhood disputes as a result. Any reorganisation has to respect the historic locally felt identity of every part of the new area, not just the area in which its headquarters might be based or that its council might be named after, and holding firm on that has to be part of the approach. \p James Wild: The Government’s timetable is wholly inadequate. Given that the previous deal that Norfolk negotiated was scrapped without any consultation, how will the public be consulted on any changes going forward, and does the Minister accept that a minimum population of half a million may not be appropriate in rural areas, to avoid councils being very remote from the people they serve? \p Jim McMahon: We tackled that head on in the White Paper, which said that, for efficiency, the minimum population will be 500,000, but was clear in the same paragraph that—this is where devolution goes hand in hand with reorganisation—there needs to be some flexibility for the reasons that the hon. Member set out. That is our firm commitment. \p Mike Martin: Kent county council has opted to go on the priority programme and cancel elections this May; I guess turkeys do not vote for Christmas. The timetable going forward is a little confused. We will have mayorals in 2027, unitaries in 2028, and then it stands up later on. Could the Minister give some more detail on that? If the process is stretched  out like that, Conservative Kent county councillors will be in power for seven years. Judging by my inbox, the people of Kent are absolutely appalled by that. I would be grateful for more details. \p Jim McMahon: From the Government’s point of view, acting in a legal, quasi-judicial way, we have to take such decisions on the value of the evidence and the proposals. It is not our job to get involved in the politics of whether the Liberal Democrats want to see the back of the Tories but the Tories want to avoid an election, or vice versa. It is our job to play with a straight bat, and look at the benefits of the proposals. Kent has applied, but we are going through the process of screening applications to ensure that they are realistic proposals for devolution and LGR that hold together. If they meet those criteria, we will support them. If they do not, we will not. \p Mark Francois: Despite what senior county councillors are telling Ministers, there is absolutely no clamour in Essex for devolution—quite the reverse. Nor do the public support the Government’s proposal to cancel the local elections; that is anti-democratic. If the Government do press ahead, why do we not take the opportunity to have a county-wide referendum in Essex to see whether the public—the council tax payers—really support this? They can vote for massive change or to remain as they are. If there is such a referendum—I never thought these words would pass my lips—I will gladly vote remain. \p Jim McMahon: I think the right hon. Member is getting at the fact that there will be a range of views on this issue, but it is the Government’s job to give direction, and we believe that efficiencies can be drawn out. When asked, I think local people would say that they would much rather that local neighbourhood services are maintained and grown, rather than bear the overhead costs of organisations that exist for the sake of it. It is for the consultation, and the proposals, to draw out the best outcome in the process. \p Caroline Voaden: I welcome the theory of simplifying local government, but I am concerned about the pace at which the Government are trying to move. Devon has a very complicated landscape, with Labour-run cities, a Conservative-run county and many Liberal Democrat districts. Conflicting proposals have already been submitted to the Government by the districts and the county, so can the Minister explain how the Government will adjudicate between those conflicting proposals and decide which one will come out on top? \p Jim McMahon: We will see what comes forward from local areas. In some areas, there may well be a general consensus on the number of unitary authorities, but varying views on the boundary lines. In other areas, we can perhaps expect there to be entire disagreement on both the number of councils that should follow from the proposals and the boundaries that would be drawn as a result. At this stage, all we can say is let us see what comes forward. We will try to make the right decision by balancing identity, efficiency and the relationship to devolution going forward. \p Neil O'Brien: We already knew that the Government wanted to abolish our local district and borough councils in Leicestershire without consulting local people. We now know that the proposal will involve a significant expansion of the boundaries of the city of Leicester—something demanded by the Mayor of Leicester that would lead to significantly higher council tax for my residents. Within days, thousands of local people have signed a petition started by me and other local MPs who are against the proposal, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who cannot be here today. My local districts and boroughs are against it, so will the Government at least agree to hold a local referendum in Leicestershire before imposing this proposal from London that local people do not want? \p Jim McMahon: A theme is developing of campaigning for elections to bodies that some wish will not exist in the future—that sounds familiar—and for referendums being the answer to some of this. It is about local leaders showing leadership. I understand completely that there are different views, but I am impressed by the leadership being shown by Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and others, because local leaders believe in their place and want the best outcome for it. I will leave the local politics to them. It is our job to ensure that we assess the proposals that come forward on a fair basis. \p Monica Harding: My constituents are well served by the fiscal stewardship of their district council of Elmbridge, and are rightly concerned that they will be forced to take on the debt of neighbouring councils such as Woking. Equally, they are looking forward to the May elections, and kicking Conservative Surrey out. Does the Minister not agree that leaders taking devolution forward should have a democratic mandate, and will he reassure my constituents that any unitary moves will be paused until the question of debt is sorted out? \p Jim McMahon: We certainly accept, particularly in the case of Woking, where the debt is significant, standing at over £2 billion, that the question of debt has to be addressed through the process, but it is for the process to address it. We cannot say up front how we will treat debt in different areas, because every area is different. I do not think that any Member would expect us to do that. \p Joe Robertson: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Residents of the Isle of Wight are expecting full elections this May. The no-overall-control unitary authority has asked the Government to be part of a priority devolution deal with Hampshire, but not local authority reorganisation, which is not on the table. We are not being asked to do that because we are already a unitary. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that there is no good reason to delay elections when the Isle of Wight council’s future and viability is not under discussion? That is an accepted point. Why should a democracy have to have elections when the council will continue? \p Jim McMahon: I think that is a fair point, and I will take it away. \p Sarah Dyke: Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire are working together collaboratively on the Heart of Wessex devolution deal and hope to be on the devolution priority programme, but there is still some uncertainty over what decision Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole will make. Can the Minister confirm that the decision to include the Wessex proposal will not be held back, depending on the BCP decision? \p Jim McMahon: We have to stick to the principles of the White Paper, because that informs the legislation that will come later this year. We are very clear in the criteria that we will not, and cannot, agree to any devolution proposals that create orphans that cannot be resolved. We expect that local leaders will come together and do what is right, given the geography of their place, to deliver devolution as soon as possible. \p Max Wilkinson: Cheltenham has had a voice since Victoria was on the throne, and we need to be reassured by the Minister that we will retain that voice as part of any devolution and local government reorganisation. Otherwise, power will simply be taken away from my community and given either to Gloucester or as far away as Bristol, with a new regional mayor. Can the Minister reassure me that localism will be part of his agenda too? \p Jim McMahon: The hon. Member makes a fair point. We are clear in the White Paper that we want to see devolution rolled out at an ambitious pace. We are doing that, and are pleased with the responses that we have had. We want to see local government reorganisation because we believe that efficiencies can be drawn out and reinvested back into frontline services that people see, feel and value. We also accept that that cannot be at the cost of local people feeling connected and empowered in the places where they live. Local empowerment and powers for the local community are central to the White Paper, and to our agenda going forward. \p Tom Gordon: My constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough recently underwent local government reorganisation. As part of that, the North Yorkshire (Structural Changes) Order 2022 granted five years to develop a new North Yorkshire council-wide local plan. Work on local district plans halted to prioritise that new plan, which has now been compromised by the introduction of new housing targets under the national planning policy framework.

Will councils undergoing new rounds of local government reorganisation receive transitional arrangements, or will they fall into the same trap as Harrogate and Knaresborough and North Yorkshire, where speculative planning applications will see endless concreting over the green belt and issues with getting housing where we actually need it, rather than where we want it? Will the Minister meet me to discuss the legacy issues of that local government reorganisation, and outline what lessons have been learned from previous reorganisations? \p Jim McMahon: The hon. Member is conflating two separate issues. One is the process of reorganisation, and his area of Harrogate has been through that process,  including the postponement of elections to facilitate it. On housing development, if he wants to stop speculative development and to have control of what is built in local communities in Harrogate, the best way to achieve that is to have a plan in place where developers can be held to account. \p Martin Wrigley: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Talking of localism, district councils provided a useful amount of local accountability. How will the Minister ensure that local accountability continues when the regional identity may be different? May I also ask about the future of towns and parishes, which are not mentioned at all, and neither are national park authorities? How will those be empowered to have more local responsibility? \p Jim McMahon: The White Paper was directive on this issue. I can only assume the hon. Gentleman has not read it, or he got bored and gave up halfway through—I will leave him to answer that. Over quite a long period of time, councillors have been relegated to the back benches if they are not in the cabinet, and we do not believe that is right going forward. We want local councillors to be frontline councillors, community conveyors, leading in their local communities and getting things done. However we marshal the system—regardless of the size of the council, where it is, whether it is a unitary council in a met area or a reorganised council in a shire county—localism has to be at its heart. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to this urgent question. He is outlining a clear policy and strategy for the way forward, and we welcome that. The papers today are full of calls for debt cancellations for English councils, which do not provide much relief to those councils that have sought to stretch moneys and resources to make ends meet, rather than ramping up debt with vanity projects. How can the Minister ensure that reorganisation assists councils to prioritise people over policy? \p Jim McMahon: I thought I was going to get a request to reorganise Newtownards—I have got enough on my plate with England! The point the hon. Gentleman makes about the treatment of debt is important, and we understand there are pressures. In most places, the treatment of accrued debt is manageable within the geography, but we accept there are outliers—Woking and Thurrock have been mentioned—where the debt that has been built up is significant and that we need to take a view on that. We are not at that stage yet until we see what proposal will be developed further. \p Steffan Aquarone: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is a strong case for devolution in Norfolk. However, can the Minister confirm that holding elections in May does not prevent devolution for Norfolk, and would he agree that Norfolk’s voters should be allowed to have their say on who is taking forward our devolution negotiations? \p Jim McMahon: We need to separate out that the devolution priority programme is one stream and the local government reorganisation programme is another.  We are trying to bring those streams alongside each other, recognising that they are to a degree separate processes, so that at key points in the decision-making process, they come together to ensure transparency and clarity and so people know what timetable we are working to. I accept to a point that they can be decoupled, but the two are linked. If we are going to reorganise and move towards mayoral combined authorities, we have to bring them in line to ensure that it is a programme that makes sense in the round. \p Alex Brewer: People in North East Hampshire have told me loud and clear that they want their democratic right to vote in May. Given that councillors up for re-election were elected in May 2021, does the Minister think they still have a mandate to make decisions for their local communities? \p Jim McMahon: If we decide to postpone the elections based on a credible plan that moves devolution and reorganisation along, the councillors who have their terms extended are legitimate and have the powers and rights of any other councillor. As I have said, we need to be careful that we do not undermine the democratic process by trying to portray councillors who believe in their communities and who by and large are doing a good job, regardless of party politics, as somehow not there by right. They have been elected; it just so happens that in some places their term will be extended by a short period. \p Al Pinkerton: Residents in Surrey Heath face the prospect of cancelled elections, forced unitarisation and then forced amalgamation into a new western Surrey unitary authority, if the leader of Surrey county council gets his way. That western unitary authority would inherit £5 billion of debt. I am sure the Minister will agree that in seeking a new sense of identity for west surrey, a shared sense of bankruptcy was not what we were looking for, but that is the prospect we face. What would the Minister say to my residents, who played no part in accumulating that debt but who may in the future play a part in paying it off? \p Jim McMahon: We have covered the hon. Member’s point about debt. Perhaps he has scars from coalitions of the past, but I suggest that now is a time to come together and put party interests to one side. \p Wes Streeting: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on winter pressures.

I start by saying that my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the nurse who was stabbed in a horrific attack at Royal Oldham hospital on Saturday. Nurses are the backbone of our NHS. They should be able to care for their patients without fear of abuse or violence. As she goes through treatment for her injuries, we pray for her speedy and full recovery and that she will be left to recover in peace.

I want to thank our NHS and social care staff for their remarkable effort, stamina and care in the most challenging of circumstances. Over the past few weeks, I have seen at first hand that staff are doing their level best in hospitals and care homes across our country—in the south-west, Essex, London, South Yorkshire and the north-west. Even when patients are left waiting far longer than they should be, and in conditions they should never be made to endure, they are still at pains to stress that the staff are doing their best.

I said on day one in this job that I would never gloss over problems in the health service and I would not pretend that everything is going well when it is not. The experience of patients this winter is unacceptable. I visited one A&E department over Christmas where I was told on the way in that I was lucky as I had come on a quiet day. Yet, as I walked through the hospital, I saw patients on trolleys lining the corridors where they were being treated, without the dignity or safety they should expect as a minimum. I saw frail elderly people on beds in the emergency department, many with dementia, crying out in pain and confusion because, ultimately, they were in the wrong place for their care needs. That was supposedly a good day.

The King’s Fund has said:

“The NHS is facing a toxic cocktail of pressures this winter”,

and it is right. Fourteen years of under-investment and a lack of effective reform have combined with a tidal wave of rising pressures. This has been the busiest year on record for our ambulance and accident and emergency services. We have had severe cold snaps, with temperatures as low as minus 15° in some parts of England. There are 5,100 patients in hospital beds with flu—more than three times the number at this point last year. Alongside the impact on patients, the rise in respiratory infections saw 53,000 NHS staff forced off work sick in the first week of the year. The result has been patients let down by ambulances that do not arrive on time, A&E departments that leave them waiting 12 hours or more, and the continued normalisation of corridor care. This is not the level of care staff want for their patients, and it is not the level of care this Government will ever accept for patients.

I said coming into this winter that 14 years of failure cannot be turned around in six months. It will take time to fix our broken NHS. Since July, we have done everything we can to prepare the NHS for winter. Following four months of silence from the previous Government, I called the British Medical Association on day one, met it in week one, and within three weeks negotiated a deal to end the junior doctors’ strike with a new deal for  resident doctors. For the first winter in three years, staff are on the frontline, not the picket line. The Chancellor made immediate in-year investment in the NHS to fill the black hole we inherited and prevent us from having to cut back on services.

We have introduced the respiratory syncytial virus vaccine, and more than a million people and counting are protected against that virus. In total, 29 million vaccines have been delivered for flu, covid-19 and RSV, and more patients are protected against flu than at this stage last winter. If anyone is yet to get themselves vaccinated, it is not too late to protect themselves, their family and the NHS. They can check if they are eligible and book through their local GP or pharmacy.

We are working hand in hand with NHS England and care leaders, and I continue to meet regularly with senior leaders in social care, NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency. We have an excellent national operations centre running seven days a week. Its data allows us to zoom in—not just on individual hospitals but on individual patient waiting times—to respond in real time to spikes in pressures, and to manage threats as they emerge. The NHS is now using critical incidents proactively to focus minds and get the system responding to de-escalate and steer back to safer waters. I am happy to report that there is currently one live critical incident, down from 24 last week.

However, I do not pretend that that is good enough. It will take time to get back to the standards that patients deserve, but it can be done. That will require a big shift in the focus of healthcare—out of the hospital and into the community—to free up beds for emergency patients and to prevent people from having to call an ambulance or go to A&E in the first place. That is the reform agenda that the Government are enacting.

In recent weeks, we have announced steps to begin rebuilding general practice, and immediate and long-term action in social care. When we came into office, we inherited a situation in which qualified GPs could not get a job, while patients could not get a GP. That is why, within weeks, I found just shy of £100 million to recruit 1,000 more GPs by April. We have recruited hundreds of GPs to the frontline already, and we will recruit hundreds more in the months to come. We have announced an extra £889 million in funding for general practice, which is the biggest funding uplift in years, alongside a package of reforms to bust bureaucracy, slash unnecessary targets and give GPs more time to spend with their patients—our first step towards bringing back the family doctor.

Ten days ago, I visited a care home in Carlisle that was offering intermediate step-down care for NHS hospitals. It was able to give patients en suite bathroom facilities in care homes, with rehab, all at half the price it was costing the taxpayer to keep patients in a hospital bed up the road. That is better for patients and less expensive for taxpayers. Yet there are 12,000 patients in hospital beds today who do not need to be there but cannot be discharged because appropriate care is not available. That is why the Government are making up to £3.7 billion of extra funding available for local authorities that provide social care. It is why we are delivering an extra 7,800 home adaptations through the disabled facilities grant this year and next year. It is why we have delivered the biggest increase in carer’s allowance since the 1970s,  worth an extra £2,300 to family carers. It is why are introducing fair-pay agreements to tackle the 131,000 vacancies in social care. And it is why we have appointed Baroness Louise Casey to help build a national consensus on the long-term solutions for social care.

From visiting emergency departments, monitoring the performance of the NHS over this winter and noting the variation in performance across the country, I know that we can clearly get our ambulance and A&E services working better. Before the spring, we will set out the lessons learned from this winter and the improvements that we will put in place ahead of next winter.

Finally, let me be clear on corridor care, which became normalised in NHS hospitals under the previous Government: I will never accept or tolerate patients being treated in corridors. It is unsafe, undignified and a cruel consequence of 14 years of failure on the NHS, and I am determined to consign it to the history books. I cannot and will not promise that patients will not be treated in corridors next year. It will take time to undo the damage that has been done to our NHS, but that is this Government’s ambition.

Annual winter pressures should not automatically lead to an annual winter crisis—indeed, there were no annual winter crises by the end of the previous Labour Government. That is why this Government are investing an extra £26 billion in our health and care services, and undertaking the fundamental reform that both services need. That will take time, but we will deliver an NHS and a national care service that provide people with care where and when they need it. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Edward Argar: As ever, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. May I join him in saying that our thoughts are with the nurse in Oldham who was so viciously attacked? Like him, we wish her a full and speedy recovery. May I also echo his words of gratitude to NHS and social care staff for all they do to help and support patients and our constituents?

We last heard from Ministers on winter pressures just before Christmas. Yet, as the Secretary of State has set out, the situation has continued to grow more severe. We have all heard about those pressures in the media and from patients, constituents and staff. Indeed, I will take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who I know has been on the frontline and has, I suspect, seen those pressures—the unacceptably long waits in A&Es for ambulances, and corridor care and its impact on patients—at first hand. When someone calls an ambulance, they need to know that it will come, but it cannot if it is sitting in a hospital car park. At my local hospital in Leicester, for example, over 36% of ambulances handing over had a one hour-plus wait, and I am sure that that is replicated around the country.

The Secretary of State highlights that the number of patients in hospital with flu is triple what it was a year ago, yet it appears that the rate of flu vaccine uptake for over-65s, at-risk groups and healthcare workers is lower  than last year. He wants more people to be vaccinated, and I share that view, but will he set out in more detail what he is doing to further drive vaccine rates and ensure that vaccines are available for all those who need and want them?

As the Secretary of State said, more than two dozen hospitals declared critical incidents last week. Although I welcome the fact that the vast bulk of those incidents have been stood down, will he set out what support and additional resource is being offered not only to hospitals that have reached the point of declaring critical incidents, but to others that continue to face pressures?

Last year, the Government provided additional funding for hospitals and social care to boost capacity and, vitally, the number of beds in hospitals, as well as to tackle delayed discharges. Will the Secretary of State set out in more detail what he is doing in a similar vein? Will he update the House on how many people currently in acute settings are fit for discharge but have not been discharged for a variety of reasons?

The Secretary of State mentioned pay, and said that he had negotiated a deal. I say gently to him that what he did was not negotiation but capitulation to an inflation-busting pay rise.

None of these pressures comes as a surprise to me or to the Secretary of State. He was open and candid, as he often is, in acknowledging that there would be a winter crisis this year. NHS England directors were warning that they did not have the resources needed to surge capacity or increase social care packages now, which the Conservative Government provided in previous years. The royal colleges said that nothing had been done to mitigate a winter crisis, and NHS organisations said that they needed more support to prevent ambulance delays, overcrowded A&Es and people being stuck in hospital beds because of a lack of community and social care. He knows—we have spoken about it before—the importance of flow from ambulance to A&E, and from A&E to a bed or to discharge. What extra steps is he taking to increase the number of care packages now rather than in the future, and will he consider allowing community hospitals, such as mine in Melton Mowbray, to play a greater role in providing care to local communities in order to ease pressure on acute settings?

Those concerns were all raised in September and October. My predecessor as shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), asked about them, yet the Secretary of State failed to provide an update to the House until Ministers came to the House just before Christmas. Indeed, I recently asked a named day question about when the Secretary of State started chairing his weekly winter preparedness meetings. Despite, one hopes, a quick look at his diary giving the answer, I received a holding answer. I only got the correct answer after that holding answer had been sent to me, stating that it was in December. Can he say on which date in December the first of those meetings was held?

Before Christmas, I and the Conservatives called for a winter-specific bed increase plan. We still have not had one. Will the Secretary of State set out what he is doing to increase the number of beds and the amount of capacity now?

While the Secretary of State talks the talk, he has not done the work ahead of this winter. Will he now reassure patients and staff that he will urgently boost capacity, resources and support to ensure our constituents get the care they need when they need it? \p Wes Streeting: Where to begin, Madam Deputy Speaker? The shadow Health Secretary does a really good line in diagnosing the problem as if these are somehow new facts to him, or to the country. In fact, one does not have to be a Minister of long service in this House, or indeed a Member of long service, to remember that only a short matter of months ago, the shadow Secretary of State was a Minister in the Department. Time and again, he asks questions about the state of the crisis and the challenge in the NHS without showing a shred of responsibility for that crisis, which he played a part in creating.

It is not just the shadow Secretary of State but every one of his predecessors who had a hand in creating the situation that Lord Darzi spelled out: underinvestment and botched reform. It is the situation we see today, with pretty much every part of our health and care services—be it primary care, community care, mental health services, secondary care or social care—under extraordinary and historic pressures. It is all very well criticising from the Opposition Benches, but the shadow Secretary of State demonstrates the same pattern of behaviour as his predecessor: acting like the arsonist criticising the fire brigade for not doing enough, quickly enough, to put out the fire they started. It is truly shameful.

I turn to the questions raised by the shadow Secretary of State. On delayed discharges, in December—the latest data we have—12,000 on average per day were medically fit for discharge but unable to be discharged. Bed numbers are broadly the same as they were this time last year: 102,546, versus 102,226 under the previous Government. That actually says something about what we have experienced in our weekly updates: the work that is taking place between health and social care services to improve the flow of patients is having some effect when we take into account our ability to flex bed numbers up and down against the backdrop of higher occupancy from flu, the added challenge of norovirus, and the other seasonal conditions that we see at this time of year.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about vaccination uptake. As I said in my statement, there have been more flu vaccinations this year than there were last year, but he raised the important issue of vaccination rates among NHS staff. Those rates are lower than we would like or expect, and we have to do some work with staff to understand why that is the case and how we can encourage further uptake. As I said, if staff are suffering with flu having not been vaccinated, not only is that a really unpleasant experience for them, it is an unpleasant experience for their colleagues if staff are off sick, and indeed for patients who are waiting longer.

On critical incidents, the shadow Secretary of State asked about the support that is being provided to NHS organisations. NHS England regional teams are working closely with integrated care boards to ensure appropriate responses are in place to address and mitigate the issues identified within each declared critical incident, all of which will have variations. We have also seen NHS  England—rightly, in my view—using the critical incident tool proactively to ensure we can provide wider system support to emergency departments that are under particular pressure.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about additional funding for winter. When I was shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, I was very clear about my cynicism regarding the pattern of behaviour we saw from our predecessors. Year after year, they would arrive in the middle of winter—often after the winter peak—with a gimmicky package of last-minute funding that delivered too little, too late without making any real difference on the frontline, all to give the impression that they were doing something to mitigate the crisis in the NHS, in which they played a serious part. I said that we would not do that, and we are not doing it. As soon as we came into office, looked at the books and saw the black hole, the Chancellor released additional funding for the NHS in-year to ensure that it had the resources it needed not to cut back. Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor, the NHS has received more than £2 billion more in-year than it would have received if the Conservatives had remained in power, so we do not need any lectures on funding. Indeed, they continue to oppose the £26 billion we provided for the NHS.

Finally, the shadow Secretary of State accuses us of capitulation to frontline doctors who were out on strike because of the way they were treated by our Conservative predecessors. I just say to resident doctors who are following these proceedings, and to patients who can see the state of the NHS today and wish it were better, that we are now left in no doubt. Had the country kept the Conservatives in power, doctors would have been on the picket lines instead of the frontlines this winter; taxpayers would have continued to pay a heavy price for failure; and patients would continue to pay the price through delayed, rearranged or cancelled operations, appointments and procedures. It is proof positive that even after it was booted out of office, the Conservative party has not listened, has not learned, and is not fit to govern. \p Rosena Allin-Khan: For years, like many in this House, I have seen a regular stream of local people in my surgeries and inbox who have been waiting far too long for NHS treatment. What shocks me the most, though, is when I see the same local people turn up in A&E when I am doing my shifts, having deteriorated and in even worse pain than before. Locally, there are 66,000 cases of people who have had to wait over 18 weeks for treatment, so does my colleague the Secretary of State agree that we need an urgent and emergency care plan to deliver much-needed year-on-year improvements? \p Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank her for the work she has been doing this winter on the NHS frontline, providing support to her colleagues at her local hospital—literally rolling her sleeves up and looking after people. She is absolutely right that we need an urgent and emergency care plan to make sure we see continued year-on-year improvements. I can reassure my hon. Friend that that plan is already being written; we are learning the lessons from this winter in order to apply them next winter. As I should have said to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar),  I took the same approach when I was shadow Secretary of State: the very first meetings I held on winter planning were ahead of the general election in access talks with the Department. The first briefing I received on winter preparation was on my first day in office. Throughout the past six months heading into winter, I continued to talk to staff in the Department, NHS England and social care leaders to ensure that we were as well prepared for this winter as we could be. Right now, we are learning the lessons to prepare for next winter. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Morgan: I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State regarding the abhorrent attack in Oldham.

The pressure on our hospitals this winter brutally demonstrates the scale of action needed after years of Conservative neglect of the NHS. Across England last month, 71% of A&E patients were seen within four hours, but that statistic varies wildly depending on where one happens to live. At Shrewsbury and Telford emergency departments last month, ambulances had to wait an average of over two hours to hand over their patients. Just 50% of patients were seen within four hours, and nearly 1,500 patients were left stuck on a trolley for more than 12 hours.

Statistics like these often fail to have much impact now, because we have heard them so regularly—particularly since winter crises have become normalised—but it is very important that we consider who is behind them. It is patients such as my constituent Emma, who having been diagnosed with sepsis spent 48 hours in a fit-to-sit area and then 12 hours on a trolley in an X-ray corridor before finally being admitted, alongside a horrifying delay in the medication required to deal with her life-threatening condition. Yet we often have to wait weeks for data that fully explains what is happening in our hospitals, and no official data is collected about the number of critical incidents. This leaves patients potentially ill-informed, and it makes scrutiny and support in this place, in particular, difficult to provide.

Will the Secretary of State commit to introducing faster and more detailed reporting about the live state of play in our emergency departments, including the number of critical incidents and the temporary escalation spaces, and give a timeline for reporting that information? Will he publish information that shows the impact that delays are having—for example, by looking at the number of deaths in emergency departments—and will he act on the long-term Liberal Democrat request to publish localised data on ambulance delays so that support is provided in areas, such as Shropshire, where it is most needed? \p Wes Streeting: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her usual constructive contribution to proceedings. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of variation in performance across different parts of the country. It is not acceptable, and one thing we will be doing as a Government is to ensure that, as well as creating a rising tide that lifts all ships, we raise the floor in performance so that we see far less unwarranted and unwanted regional variation. She talked about the Shrewsbury and Telford trust, which has had a number  of challenges over many years. We have seen some signs of improvement as recently as this week, and we continue to support local leaders as they strive to improve the performance of their system overall.

The hon. Member raises some good and interesting questions about the frequency with which we publish data. It is right that we ensure that data is properly validated so that accurate data is put into the public domain, even as NHS England’s control room monitors live reporting into the centre. I will take into account what she said about her requests both for more live data—collected and published data—about critical incidents and for more localised data in individual trusts, including ambulance services, to monitor variations in response times within a region. Although the points she has raised are interesting, I add the caveat that we would not want to burden the system with more reporting requirements if that causes a distraction from improvement. I tend to lean towards more transparency in data and reporting, however, and I will take into account the representations she has made as we put together our urgent and emergency care plan. \p Melanie Ward: At the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy, paramedics have had to establish a makeshift ward outside as ambulances queue up outside A&E. The number of people presenting in December 2024 was roughly the same as in December 2019, but there has been an increase of almost 300% in those waiting over four hours at A&E. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a dreadful indictment of 18 years of SNP rule in Scotland, and that the SNP Government must use some of the additional £4.9 billion from the UK Labour Budget to get a grip? My constituents deserve so much better than this. \p Wes Streeting: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The conditions she describes at her local hospital are truly shocking. As I have said, and this is often quoted by the SNP, all roads lead to Westminster, and I am happy to report that up that road from Westminster to Holyrood lies a record uplift in funding for the Scottish Government. They have no excuses for inaction. They need to grip the crisis in the NHS in Scotland, as we are here. The difference, as my hon. Friend states, is that they have a record of 18 years that they cannot defend, and I hope people will consider that record very carefully when they decide who should govern in Scotland at the next set of Scottish elections. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. \p Layla Moran: May I press the Secretary of State on that data point? It is not just the Liberal Democrats making these representations; the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, HealthWatch, the British Medical Association, Age UK and many others also want the data. This matters, because the situation causes moral injury to staff and compromises patient safety—and the problem is not just corridor care; it encroaches on to other wards. Will the Secretary of State commit to releasing that data before the NHS England board meeting on  4 February? In addition, what assessment has he made of the impact of this winter on less urgent care, and on elective waiting lists? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions. I cannot give her a commitment to publish those statistics ahead of the next NHS England board, but I can give her an undertaking to go away and look carefully at the rhythm and pace at which we publish performance data, to make sure that we are being as transparent as we can, as fast as we can. That, I think, should be the principle that underpins our approach to the publication of data. She is right to talk about wider system pressures as a result of what we see in emergency departments. We will wait to review the performance of the NHS overall until we exit winter. I think we have seen some effective protection of elective activity throughout this winter, but that will of course vary from provider to provider.

The hon. Member mentioned a whole number of organisations calling for more data transparency. I, too, welcome the very public representations that we have heard from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and others about the need to tackle corridor care. Let me assure her and all those who have made representations that we are absolutely determined to turn this situation around, and not just improve the performance of urgent and emergency care, but get a better system working. Ultimately, it is through ensuring better patient flows, and ensuring that people get the right care in the right place at the right time, that we will finally get this country out of the cycle, created by our Conservative predecessors, of winter crises. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Members will be aware that we have pressure on time today, so I will finish this statement at around 3.15 pm. \p Rachael Maskell: Triaging patients into virtual wards will not only protect the front door of the NHS, but be far better for patients. What is the Secretary of State doing to hold integrated care boards to account and ensure that they are putting money into primary care, as opposed to where everyone always looks, which is secondary care? \p Wes Streeting: That is an excellent question from my hon. Friend. This Government have been walking the talk on primary care since we came into office. There was an immediate release of funding, within weeks, for 1,000 GPs, who are to be employed on the frontline by this April, and an £889 million uplift in funding for general practice that we announced prior to Christmas. I think that care in the home and care closer to home will be how we not only get the NHS back on its feet, but make sure it is fit for the future. That shift from hospital to community is one of the three big shifts that will lie at the heart of our 10-year plan for the national health service. \p Joe Robertson: The Secretary of State referred to social care in his update on winter pressures, and he is of course right that social care has an important role to play in taking pressure off hospitals. However, surely he can understand the frustration that the sector and those in receipt of social care feel about  his pushing the issue into a three-year review, which Sir Andrew Dilnot says is an inappropriately long time. Why will it take so long? Please can he put pressure on the review? I am sure that Baroness Casey is well capable of doing it in a shorter time. \p Wes Streeting: I am happy to report that people will not have to wait three years for action on social care. In fact, we have seen lots of it in the last six months. We have had the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s; the legislation for fair pay agreements in the Employment Rights Bill, brought in within the first 100 days of this Government; the uplift in funding provided by the Chancellor through her Budget; and the expansion of the disabled facilities grant. There will be more for us to do this year, including reform to make the better care fund more effective. Baroness Casey’s first report will in fact be next year. It will set out the action required on social care throughout this Parliament. I hope that reassures people right across the House and, more importantly, right across the country that social care is a priority for this Government. We will seek to do better than our predecessors of all parties—I have made this point before—because we have to tackle this generational challenge facing our country. \p Deirdre Costigan: I was shocked when a young man came to my last constituency surgery to ask me as his MP to help him get a GP appointment. Morning after morning, he had spent hours queuing on the phone, and he was desperate. If my constituents cannot see a GP, they end up in A&E instead. How is the Secretary of State continuing to work to undo the Conservatives’ abject failure to fix the GP crisis, which is fuelling winter pressure on hospitals? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenge caused by the Conservatives’ failure on general practice, which has placed pressure not just on stretched GPs, of whom there were thousands fewer when the Conservatives left office than in 2015, but on other parts of the system. That is not just worse for patients—it is certainly not a pleasant experience at the moment to be sat waiting in A&E for treatment—but more expensive for the taxpayer, because while it costs £40 for a doctor’s appointment, it can cost £400 for accident and emergency attendance. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government: things are worse for patients and more expensive for taxpayers. That is the rotten legacy that we are seeking to overturn. \p Greg Smith: Last week, the UK Health Security Agency warned of elderly people suffering from heart attacks, strokes and chest infections as a result of the recent severe cold weather. Is the Secretary of State any closer to admitting that taking away the winter fuel payment from some of our most vulnerable pensioners was not just cruel, but life threatening? \p Wes Streeting: It is irresponsible, as well as inaccurate, to suggest that the Government have taken winter fuel payments away from vulnerable pensioners. In fact, it is thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor that winter fuel payments were protected for the poorest pensioners. They continue to be worth £200 to eligible households, or £300 to eligible households in which there is someone aged 80 or over. We also continue to  stand behind vulnerable households by delivering the £150 warm home discount for low-income households and providing £742 million to enable the extension of the household support fund. Of course, over 12 million pensioners will see their basic or new state pension increase by 4.1%, thanks to the Government’s commitment to the triple lock.

This is a running theme from Conservative Members. They seem to welcome the investment in health and social care that the Government are providing at the same time as opposing it. They cannot have it both ways. If they do not support the decisions taken by the Chancellor, they have to admit that had the Conservatives remained in power, this winter, they would have been cutting the health and social care services that pensioners really rely on. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: May I ask Members to keep their questions and answers sharp, please? \p Sharon Hodgson: Under the last Conservative Government, strikes cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and 1.5 million appointments were cancelled, so may I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for making it his day one priority to sort that out? He called the junior doctors and found a deal within three weeks, ending the strikes. All of us across the House thank him for sorting that out. For the first winter in three years, staff will be on the frontline, not the picket line, as the Secretary of State so rightly said. Does he agree that that is just one example of what Labour Governments do in office? We always have a laser focus on making the NHS better, unlike the Conservatives, who seem to have a laser focus on making it fail. \p Wes Streeting: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The way that Conservative Members continue to behave should send a message to every resident doctor, and indeed every member of health and social care staff, in the country. Every single one of them will know that thanks to the decision the country took back in July, we have a Government who are committed to the NHS and social care. Had the Conservatives remained in power, we would be going even deeper into the already deep hole that they left the country in. We must never go back there again. \p Andrew George: I accept that the Government are clearly not the architect of the current unacceptable state of affairs. However, may I encourage the Secretary of State to reflect again on our exchange at the Health and Social Care Committee just a month ago, when he resisted the recommendation of the president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that we invest in more beds to accommodate additional admissions to hospital? That would ease a return to normality, reduce the need for corridor care, and ease the pressures in emergency departments. \p Wes Streeting: Throughout the winter, NHS providers have continued to flex bed capacity to meet demand. The important thing is that our approach to investment and reform delivers the system-wide improvements that help us to break out of the annual cycle of winter crises.  There has been criticism of the Government’s focus on elective recovery—for example, people have asked if that is at the expense of urgent and emergency care—but I will not allow a status quo to settle in which the NHS is in effect reduced to a blue-light, emergency service. The Government will improve urgent and emergency care, elective recovery, primary care, community services and social care, because that is what we need to meet the health and care needs of people in this century, and that is what we will deliver. \p Peter Prinsley: Winter pressures have caused the cancellation of thousands of operations, including many of my own lists. Does the Secretary of State agree that the opening of the dedicated Clare Marx surgical centre in Colchester, serving patients in Essex and Suffolk, is an extremely welcome development? \p Wes Streeting: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the expertise and experience that he brings to the House. We absolutely need to ensure that we are innovating in our service provision, and are shifting the centre of gravity out of hospitals and towards care and treatment closer to home—indeed, in people’s homes. As we have set out in recent weeks, since the investment announced in the Budget and particularly in the elective reform plan, this Government will continue to innovate, in order to provide services that deliver not only great value for the taxpayer but, even more importantly, great outcomes for patients. \p Nick Timothy: Research shows that ambulance response times in Haverhill in my constituency are twice those in Cambridge. We would like a new, co-located and purpose-built blue-light facility; the police and the ambulance service could use it to serve the town effectively, and it would hopefully save money. May I invite a Minister from the Department to come to Haverhill to meet me, the East of England ambulance service, Suffolk police and local councillors to discuss those plans? \p Wes Streeting: I confirm that we are absolutely up for looking at co-location of different public services, to deliver both better integration and co-operation between different services—particularly the blue-light services that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and better value for taxpayers. I will ensure that one of my ministerial colleagues makes contact with him. \p Preet Kaur Gill: The Health Secretary will know that University Hospitals Birmingham in my constituency recently declared a critical incident, which I am pleased has now been stepped down. Does he share my view that shifting the focus of healthcare from hospital to community as we rebuild our NHS would have a consequential impact on the number of people in hospitals, which are under immense pressure? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I, through her, thank health and care staff in her city for the work they are doing to get the people of Birmingham through this particularly challenging winter? What we really need to do to make our health and care  system more effective and more sustainable is shift the centre of gravity out of hospital and into the community. We need better and faster access to diagnostics and treatment, as well as a bigger focus on prevention—primary prevention to keep us all healthy and active, and secondary prevention so that fewer people need to call on health services, and particularly emergency departments, which are stretched at this time of year. \p Sarah Olney: I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about vaccine roll-out, particularly of the RSV vaccine. I am even more pleased that my constituents in Richmond Park are diligent in taking up all vaccines, but they have been puzzled to find that the RSV vaccine is limited to those between 75 and 79 years of age. What plans are there are to extend the roll-out to those aged 80 and above? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question and for showing off her constituents’ uptake—that is exactly what we want. Perhaps ahead of next winter, we should launch a parliamentary competition: who can boost uptake most in their constituencies? We will think about the prize.

More seriously, I am always glad when the pressure is to expand access to vaccines—that is exactly the sort of pressure that we want. We follow advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We will review the experience this winter, and the JCVI will review evidence and data this winter and make recommendations, which we will take into account. \p Alistair Strathern: The dire state that the last Government left the NHS in was all too apparent, tragically, to many of my constituents who needed it last winter. My 85-year-old constituent admitted with breathing difficulties had to wait over 30 hours in a chair because there were no beds available, and they were far from alone in that indignity and prolonged suffering. They should not have to tolerate it, and I certainly will not as their MP. I welcome this Government’s action and leadership on ending the doctors’ strike and investing in more appointments, but what more will the Secretary of State do to ensure that, next winter, many more of my constituents are not suffering from the same challenges? \p Wes Streeting: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the spirit of his question. That is exactly how this Government are approaching planning for next winter. I want year-on-year improvement in NHS performance, particularly our response to winter pressures. Of course, there are seasonal variations in infectious diseases, inclement weather and all sorts of other pressures that can impact on NHS services, but the system should be resilient enough to withstand pressures in any given winter. It will take time to get back there, but that is why the Government are already planning for next winter, learning from experience—what has worked well and what has not—so that we can continue to deliver for the people of this country and improve the national health service and social care services. \p Joshua Reynolds: One thing we could do to improve the situation in Maidenhead is to reopen the walk-in urgent care centre at St Mark’s hospital so that we can keep people out of the big  hospitals and A&E and, as the Secretary of State said, help people get care closer to home. Will he meet me to discuss how we can work together to get the walk-in urgent care centre at St Mark’s back open? \p Wes Streeting: I welcome the hon. Member’s question, and I agree with the thrust of his question that we need healthcare to shift from hospital into the community, with care closer to, and in, people’s homes. The configuration of services locally is a matter for local NHS leaders. I encourage him in the first instance to be in touch with his local integrated care board. If he gets a particularly unsatisfactory or unreasonable answer, he should feel free to raise it with Ministers. \p Kevin McKenna: I associate myself with the comments about the nursing colleague who was so brutally attacked in Oldham. I am thinking of her and her team at this time.

I have been thinking back to when I was starting out as a junior nurse. We faced the same problem—it was just after Labour had taken over from a Conservative Government, and the backwash of winter crises caused by that failed Government was very similar in the first few years. Improving staff pay and the NHS plan made a difference. What else has my right hon. Gentleman learned from the successes of his forebears about tackling this winter crisis now and tackling such crises in future? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend brings expertise and experience to the House, and I am particularly grateful for his support and concern for the colleagues of the nurse who was so brutally attacked in Oldham, because I know that they will be acutely affected. In fact, the NHS workforce right across the country will have felt the shiver down the spine that I felt when I read about that horrific case.

My hon. Friend is right that I am fortunate to be able to call on every single one of my Labour predecessors, from Alan Milburn to Andy Burnham, to ask for their advice, experience and insight. As our great late friend John Prescott said, we need

“traditional values in a modern setting”.

I am bringing that modernising tradition to our approach to investment and reform, because the combination of both delivers results. That is how the last Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. \p Lisa Smart: The Secretary of State will know that Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove has a repairs backlog reported to be £130 million. That means that local teams at Stepping Hill are under even more pressure to tackle the winter crisis. His colleague the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), wrote to me and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), in October to agree that she was deeply concerned about the condition of healthcare infrastructure at the hospital. Following the Budget, when should we expect clarity on funding per hospital so that my constituents and Stepping Hill patients get the hospital that they deserve? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising those concerns on the Floor of the House. Thanks to the decisions that the Chancellor took in the Budget, the Department has an additional £26 billion  available for investment in our health and social care services, including estates. I cannot promise to fix the backlog that has built up over the past 14 years in a single budget year, but I can confirm that we will publish our mandate for NHS England and, following that, planning guidance and financial allocations, very shortly. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Under the Tories’ watch, our NHS became in danger of normalising failure, with patients treated in corridors, horrendous A&E waits and hospitals at risk of being gridlocked as they struggle to discharge patients. Will the Secretary of State continue to be up front and open about the challenges, and ensure that the NHS recovers year on year under his watch? \p Wes Streeting: When I was sitting on the Opposition Benches at the tail end of the last Parliament, I saw my predecessor at this Dispatch Box telling us all the wonderful things that she thought the Government were doing and achieving. It was like hearing about a completely different national health service and social care system in another country. I arrived in July and was honest on day one that the NHS is broken but not beaten, and that these are crises of historic proportions that we will never sweep under the carpet, nor will we hide problems to spare political blushes. In the coming months and years, I will continue to be honest about where we have not yet fixed problems, and clear about the action that we are taking to get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future and to build a national care service worthy of the name. \p Richard Tice: I think we all share the Secretary of State’s aspiration to move healthcare out of hospitals and into the community. However, the two GP surgeries that I visited in Skegness just before Christmas are concerned that the impact of the national insurance increases on their staffing budgets will be around £100,000 per surgery, which will force them to reduce staffing capacity and, therefore, appointment capacity. What will the Secretary of State do to help those GP surgeries in that situation? There seems to be a conflict between the sensible aspiration and the practical reality. \p Wes Streeting: There are 889 million reasons why GPs should be reassured about their financial sustainability for the year ahead—the £889 million allocation for general practice that I spelled out before Christmas, to provide reassurance to GPs when planning for the financial year ahead. I have been heartened by the response from GPs to that announcement, and I gently say to people who criticise the means of raising it that without the decisions that the Chancellor took in the Budget, we would not be able to invest £26 billion in our health and care services. We cannot have people welcoming the investment but criticising the means of raising it. If people do not support the Chancellor’s decision—a perfectly reasonable political position to take—they will have to spell out what services they would cut or what taxes they would raise. \p Laurence Turner: I echo the Secretary of State’s comments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on recognising the endeavours of health and  care staff during last week’s extremely difficult critical incidents, and I also recognise the effect of contingency planning that had taken place, including the provision of additional beds at West Heath hospital in my constituency.

With respect to the central support the Secretary of State referred to, is he willing to make summaries of the support provided by NHS England to local trusts this year and in previous years? \p Wes Streeting: I would be very happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out the support provided by NHS England to health and care services for his community, and I would be delighted to receive via him feedback from his health and care providers about what Government support they would like next winter and in future years. \p Clive Jones: I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.

The Secretary of State has a really tough job of clearing up the mess left in the NHS by the Conservatives, but some of the Royal Berkshire hospital estate is not fit for purpose and especially not fit to cope with the winter crisis. Can he confirm that a proper level of funding will be available to rebuild the Royal Berkshire hospital and that there will be no increase in the seven-year delay announced by the Conservatives in April this year? That will help with future winter crises. \p Wes Streeting: I will take that as another representation from the hon. Gentleman on the new hospital programme, and I reassure him we will be setting out our review and its conclusions shortly. \p Sally Jameson: As part of making the NHS fit for the future, moving some patient care from hospital to the community will be pivotal. In Doncaster, mayor Ros Jones and the council are already well on the way with this and they are setting up “Health on the High Street”, which is good not just for patients but for footfall in the city centre. Will my right hon. Friend set out what his Department is doing to support areas such as Doncaster in delivering on this strategy? \p Wes Streeting: I am delighted to hear of the work Ros is doing as mayor to support health and care services and to take health and care to where people are. I hate hearing that there are hard-to-reach communities; there are no hard-to-reach communities. There are underserved communities and, in our determination to tackle health inequalities, to get care closer to people’s homes and indeed in people’s homes, to do earlier diagnosis and to  provide faster access to treatment, we need to make sure that we take health and care services to where people are rather than expecting people to always come to us. \p Alison Bennett: I fear that corridor care has already become normalised and, as the Secretary of State says, it will be some time before we get back on the right path. This week there have been reports of a north London hospital advertising for dedicated corridor care nurses. I also think about my constituent who is a doctor at the Royal Sussex begging X-ray teams to give her a consultation room so she does not have to do intimate exams out in the corridor. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give the NHS workforce that things are going to get better? \p Wes Streeting: I am really grateful to the hon. Member for raising that question and for the example she gave of the Whittington advertisement for staff specifically to deliver corridor care. I make no criticism of the trust itself in trying to make sure it has the right staff in place to deliver the best care possible in the present circumstances. It is not the fault of the Whittington that there is corridor care; it is a legacy of 14 years of Conservative failure. I would also say that my reaction to seeing that advertisement was the same as hers: it was proof that corridor care has been normalised. I want to reassure her, the House and patients across the country that this Government will not accept corridor care as normal care. We will not tolerate it as being acceptable care. We will do everything we can as fast as we can to consign corridor care to the history books and I reassure the staff working in the NHS in these intolerable conditions that we will work with them to deliver the investment and the reform needed to get the NHS back on its feet and make it fit for the future. \p Richard Quigley: Despite the Conservative party’s best efforts to ruin our NHS, will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the hard-working NHS and social care staff in my constituency who, despite enormous winter pressure, are doing their best to go above and beyond to provide exceptional care and keep the NHS on its feet? \p Wes Streeting: I thank staff on the Isle of Wight for everything they are doing to support communities across the island against a challenging backdrop. Since my hon. Friend arrived in the House he has been an extremely strong, loud and effective voice for the people of his constituency and across the Isle of Wight, and I look forward to working with him and health and care leaders on the Isle of Wight to make sure that they see their health and care services improving as a result of their decision to send a Labour Member of Parliament and a Labour Government here to serve our NHS and his communities. \p UNKNOWN: 3.16 pm \p Bridget Phillipson: With permission, I shall make a statement on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

In July 2024 I paused further commencement of the Act in response to concerns raised by a cross-section of voices. I took that decision because it is vital that we get this right. Our universities are one of this country’s greatest strengths, and I know Members across the House share my pride in a truly world-leading sector. At the centre of that excellence sit academic freedom and freedom of speech. The ability of our academics to explore and express new ideas through teaching and research is precious and we must protect it.

These fundamental freedoms are more important—much more important—than the wishes of some students not to be offended. University is a place for ideas to be exposed and debated, to be tried and tested. For young people, it is a space for horizons to be broadened, perspectives to be challenged and ideas to be examined. It is not a place for students to shut down any view with which they disagree.

Here is our starting point: academic freedom matters and freedom of speech matters, and we will preserve those two pillars of national strength, but we will proceed in a way that actually works. That is why we have carried out extensive engagement covering all corners of the debate: academics, universities, students; those for the Act and those against. All voices were heard.

I was especially keen to consider the views of minority groups, to learn how the Act might affect them, particularly given the shocking rise in antisemitism on campus. Standing here in this great Chamber of debate, I remain resolute about the importance of free speech, but our engagement on the Act has raised concerns that any responsible Government must take seriously. What was being proposed simply did not rise to the challenge: unworkable duties on student unions, a tort clogging up the court system, and the Office for Students obliged to consider a vast number of complex complaints.

There are also serious concerns over the Act’s potential impact on the welfare of minority groups. Many are worried that it could lead to increased harassment and discrimination on campus, and that the Act could push providers to overlook their safety. I share their concerns.

I reiterate that I am appalled by the rise in antisemitism on campus. In my view, rising antisemitism is best tackled through education, which is why I have confirmed £7 million in funding to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities.

I have reached a way forward that I believe is effective and proportionate, delivering an Act that is fair and workable. My decisions, subject to agreement from Parliament, will ensure that our higher education sector and the Office for Students continue to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech while ensuring the safety of minority groups.

I propose implementing key elements of the Act and returning others to Parliament for decisions on their amendment or repeal. I propose shortly commencing the following requirements currently in the Act: the duties on higher education providers to take reasonably  practicable steps to secure and promote freedom of speech within the law; the duty on higher education providers to put in place a code of conduct on freedom of speech; and the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students at higher education providers in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. I also plan to commence the duties on the OfS to promote freedom of speech and the power to give advice and share best practice.

I will retain the director for free speech and academic freedom role, and I am pleased that Dr Ahmed will be staying on. I have complete confidence in Dr Ahmed. However, in my view, it is not right for this position to be a political appointee. The director should, of course, hold a deep belief in free speech and academic freedom, but their independence matters, and therefore their appointment must be free from any suspicion of political bias. Sir David Behan’s review of the OfS, commenced under the previous Government, recommended we reconsider how all OfS executive and board appointments should be made. I will decide on that shortly.

While there is much in the Act that is valuable, there are provisions that I do not believe to be proportionate or necessary, and which will drain resources from providers and distract from the other important issues they face. It is therefore my intention to return to Parliament to seek the repeal of two provisions.

The first is the duties on student unions in the Act. Student unions are neither equipped nor funded to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, I fully expect student unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not. I also expect HE providers to work closely with them to ensure that that happens and to act decisively to ensure their student unions comply with their free speech code of conduct.

The second provision I will seek to repeal is the tort. I have heard the views in favour of the tort, and understand the arguments being made. However, it would create costly litigation that would risk diverting resources away from students at a time when university finances are already strained. Members can be assured that the remaining routes of redress have plenty of teeth—the Office for Students will have powers to take tough regulatory action where universities and colleges do not meet their duties. Ultimately, an Act needs to be workable for its teeth to bite. How would Conservative Members rather our universities spend their time and resources: by lawyering up, or by focusing on high-quality teaching and groundbreaking research? In fact, the fear of litigation could hurt rather than help free speech, as universities may decide against inviting challenging speakers to avoid ending up in court, and nobody wants that.

I have a message for vice-chancellors who fail to take this seriously: protect free speech on your campuses or face the consequences. For too long, too many universities have been too relaxed about these issues, and too few took them seriously enough—and that must change.

There are other elements of the Act that I am planning to retain, but, with parliamentary agreement, to amend. I propose keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS. It is an important route of redress for anyone whose academic freedom or free speech has not been protected, and there must be a route for righting wrongs. However, it must be proportionate: the OfS should have  the power to consider complaints, rather than a duty to assess every single complaint it receives, including those that are poorly put together or nonsensical. This way, the OfS will be freed up to prioritise the most serious complaints. I also want to remove the confusing duplication of complaints schemes for students. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator can already consider student complaints on free speech, and will continue to do so. The OfS complaints scheme will focus on complaints from staff, external speakers and university members.

I will also amend the OfS’s mandatory condition of registration to give it flexibility in how it applies this condition to different types of providers. The OfS should have room to determine the best way to regulate on a case-by-case basis. That is the only way to deliver a sensible system that actually works.

Finally, I will take more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures. I remain fully committed to tackling cases of interference by overseas Governments, and the wider measures in the Act will further strengthen our protections. However, I want to ensure that any new reporting requirements for providers add value without being overly burdensome. We continue to work at pace with the sector on the wider implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme. My officials are working across Government and with the sector to review our response, and I will confirm my final decision in due course.

I intend to draft a policy paper to set out these proposals in more detail and will return to the House when it is ready. Where I am returning matters to Parliament, I will keep them under review in the meantime.

Our universities are leading lights of learning. They are spaces for vigorous discussion where people of all ages, faiths and backgrounds can come together to debate new ideas. I call on universities to promote a culture of disagreeing well. There is already excellent work going on across the sector, but we must see more.

Let me be clear that students have a duty as well: to embody that spirit of debate that makes our universities great, and not to simply try to cancel any views with which they disagree. This Government will secure freedom of speech in legislation that is practical, proportionate and workable, but legislation alone will never be enough. Freedom of speech is not easy. It is not just a right, but a responsibility. If we want a culture of debate that is robust yet respectful, challenging yet considerate, and strong yet civil, we must all do our part to nurture it. The freedom of speech Act provides a legal framework, but it is up to all of us every day to build a culture of truly free speech. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Laura Trott: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of the Act’s passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for it; indeed, there are positive signals coming from those on the  Front Bench today. However, immediately after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”, and paused its implementation. I ask the Secretary of State: what has changed? Does she still stand by her characterisation of the Act?

It should have been obvious straightaway to anyone with even a basic sympathy for the norms of liberal education that pausing the Act was a mistake. It should have been clear again, when more than 650 academics signed a letter to The Times decrying the decision, that pausing the Act was a mistake, but the Secretary of State still did not budge from her position. It should have been undeniable that the Government had made the wrong choice when, acting together, no less than seven Nobel prize winners and a Fields medallist later added their names to that letter, but still Labour was happy to roll out the old tropes about hate speech. Literary luminaries like Sir Stephen Fry, Tom Holland and Ian McEwan were forced to intervene. Those with natural sympathies for the Secretary of State’s own political positions were compelled to tell her that she was wrong. It is only now, after all that humiliation, that she has finally changed her footing. I pay tribute to the academics who led that fightback outside Parliament.

Much like they have done with academies in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government take a wrecking ball to policy without a thought for the consequences. They are much more interested in virtue signalling than in what is right for the country, more interested in listening to student union advisers than to women hounded out of their jobs. Since the Secretary of State decided to pause the legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have, in the process of vindicating their rights, racked up enormous legal fees that have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix said publicly that if the Act had been enforced, it would have saved her from that very ordeal. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to those who have suffered because of her inaction?

We have upcoming legal action in the judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union against the Government’s decision. Considering that a concern about expense was one of the reasons given by the Government to justify their decision, how much has that litigation cost to defend? What is the financial cost of the Secretary of State’s inaction? How much taxpayer money has been spent on a partisan play-up-to-your-own-gallery move that is about to fall flat of its face in the court? Did the Secretary of State receive legal advice before she made her decision to suspend the Act? Will she release it, so that Members can see the basis on which she acted? If she did not, how can she possibly claim to have acted responsibly in this matter?

Despite the Secretary of State’s statement, we now have confusion about what is actually happening. It seems that the Government cannot even do a much-needed U-turn properly. Without the tort, what consequences will universities face if they do not protect free speech? Why is the Secretary of State unable to set out a clear decision on overseas funding? Why is six months not enough time? Can she spell out the changes the Government are thinking about making to the overseas funding measure? Can she confirm that none of those were discussed during the Chancellor’s recent visit to China? Can she confirm that there were no deals done to amend that section? That is very important. It is extremely  poor timing at best and invidious at worst to consider changes to the overseas funding element of the Act so soon after that trip to China.

It was always obvious that the Education Secretary made a mistake in pausing the Act, but rather than commencing a little more of the Act to try to cover up the mistaken delay, she needs to get up and perform the U-turn in full. The Act contains much-needed protections and she must not abolish them just because they came from the Conservative side of the House.

Finally, while we are at it, the Secretary of State should perform a U-turn on academy freedoms too. The Government must not take six months to realise their mistake on that one. \p Bridget Phillipson: What we inherited from the previous Government was not a genuine attempt to solve a genuine problem; it was a mess designed to put party ahead of country. We saw a misplaced fascination with headlines for themselves, rather than a serious attempt to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom. It is precisely because this Government care about academic freedom and freedom of speech that we are determined to get this right, unlike the Conservative party. We are not content to leave it to vice-chancellors, who have done too little for too long. Universities must be places of robust discussion, where students’ views are challenged and academic freedom is central.

One of my many predecessors in the previous Government, the former Member for Chippenham, was unable to set out how the then Government’s proposals would prevent Holocaust deniers coming on to campus. Let me be clear: Holocaust denial has no place on campus or anywhere else in our society. The legislation would have emboldened Holocaust denial, and showed a shameful disregard for the welfare of Jewish students.

On the legal proceedings the right hon. Lady mentions, she was a member of the previous Government and knows very well that I am unable to comment on any aspect of that.

I said I would consider all options. I have done precisely that and have returned to the House, as I intended, to provide an update. If Conservative Members want to know what a U-turn on free speech looks like, I suggest they turn their attention to Liz Truss, who for so long extolled the virtues of free speech and is now on some bizarre quest to cancel the Prime Minister for saying that she and the Conservative party crashed the economy. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. What a bunch of snowflakes! \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Helen Hayes: I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the Government’s approach to the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, and I welcome the clarity that she has provided today.

The implementation of the Act will present some challenges for universities and for students. The Secretary of State will know that there can sometimes be a fine line between free speech and hate speech, and between statements of views and opinions and incitement or encouragement to violence or intimidation in the real world. Can she assure the House that she will ensure that universities and students are absolutely clear about  the limits to free speech, which are already enshrined in law, and that support will be provided on the interpretation of that when it is needed?

Professor Shitij Kapur, vice-chancellor and president of King’s College London, has said:

“Universities are not there to function as a Speakers’ Corner where anyone can stand up and express an opinion not necessarily supported by facts. If academic freedom is to mean anything, it must be accompanied by the academic obligation for ideas and claims to be accompanied by evidence and reason. Proponents have an obligation to engage and respond to those questioning their assertions and conduct that debate and discourse in a civil manner.”

How will the Secretary of State ensure—particularly as the erosion of fact-checking and moderation on social media is taking place before our very eyes—that the implementation of the Act results in a high quality of evidence-based discourse conducted in a culture of civility? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her questions and her approach, and I look forward to discussing these issues with the Select Committee in due course should its members so wish.

My hon. Friend’s point about disagreement is important. Free speech should be robust and we should be able to express our views, but all of us, especially those in public life, have a duty to ensure that we do so in a way that is responsible. As for the tort—this is at the heart of the issue that she has identified—I was concerned that the potential impact of legal proceedings and the financial consequences for providers of breaching their duties under the Act might have led to some providers unduly prioritising free speech that is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who feel harassed and intimidated. These issues can be finely balanced. We will provide further clarity through the Office for Students, but let me make it clear that academic freedom and freedom of speech are crucial tenets of our country’s history. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Ian Sollom: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Liberal Democrats fully support free speech, which, as several Members have pointed out, is at the heart of academic freedom, but it was clear from the start that this piece of legislation was not based on evidence, was not proportionate, and was fundamentally flawed. We welcomed the pausing of its implementation last year, and I welcome now the acknowledgement of its flaws and the Secretary of State’s move to repeal the provisions on the tort and on student unions in particular. I must, however, press her on the fundamental question of why the Act is necessary.

Higher education institutions already operate within a legal framework to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for academic staff, students, employees and visiting speakers, and universities have already taken action to improve their policies and processes relating to freedom of speech. Universities UK, which represents over 140 universities, has reissued and expanded its guidance in this area, as well as having regular discussions with university leaders to support them with these challenges. Would the Secretary of State  consider taking a more meaningful step to ensure that students are safe, welcome and protected at universities by giving higher education institutions a statutory duty of care for their students?

The Secretary of State also referred to the well-documented fears of minority groups, particularly those in Jewish communities, that the Act in its previous form would allow a platform for extremist views, and she mentioned Holocaust denial. We had some indication of this in her statement, but will she provide more details of her plans to protect those from minority groups and communities on our university campuses? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those questions. I will start where we agree, and then move on to where I might disagree with him.

I agree that freedom of speech and academic freedom are essential, but, sadly, we have seen too many examples of their not being upheld in the way that they should be by universities. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) raised a number of cases in which we have seen unacceptable practice, and some individuals have had to seek recourse through employment law when it should have been possible for them to seek redress sooner. That is precisely what we are seeking to deal with in ensuring that the Office for Students is able to focus on the most serious cases without being caught up in complex cases that could be less well founded or even nonsensical.

I want to be clear that we have engaged with people with a range of views on these topics, including those who hold gender-critical views, those who were in favour of the legislation and those who had concerns. That careful process of engagement with the sector, stakeholders and people with a range of views has enabled me to come to the House today and set out our approach. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Mark Sewards, a member of the Education Committee. \p Mark Sewards: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is good to see that our universities will no longer be a battleground in which political parties seek to make headlines—unsuccessfully, I might add. Does she agree that now that she has taken decisive action on this issue, it is time to talk about the financial situation facing many of our universities, which threatens their very existence? We know that students are paying far more for far less at university, and we need to end that ridiculous cycle. \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend that, across the board, there are big challenges in the university sector. That is why I took the difficult but necessary decision last year to increase the fees that they are able to charge. This year, we will engage in reform right across the sector to provide the long-term financial sustainability that is required. As my hon. Friend recognises, we on the Government Benches are clear that our universities are a central part of our local and regional economies, and a beacon of excellence around the world. That is why so many students from around the globe seek to come to our world-leading universities. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Dr Caroline Johnson, a member of the Education Committee. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I respect the Secretary of State’s wish to ensure that she has considered the Act thoroughly. I regret that it has taken her so long to come to the conclusion that free speech is important, but I am glad that she has decided to bring into force many of the measures in the Act, which was introduced by the Conservatives. However, she has chosen to exclude student unions from the legislation. Can she say a bit more about how they will be held to account if they fail to keep in line with her desire to promote free speech? \p Bridget Phillipson: On the timescale, this is a complex area, but in a little over six months we have consulted a wide range of stakeholders and considered all views, which is why I am able to return to the House today to update Members. The hon. Lady is right to say that we have decided not to commence provisions that will impose new duties on student unions. That is because some smaller providers have only a handful of members and do not have the resource or funding necessary to handle such claims, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, we fully expect student unions to protect freedom of speech, and providers to ensure that their student unions do so as well. \p Charlotte Nichols: I welcome the careful and considered approach that the Secretary of State has taken to this issue; it stands in stark contrast to when the Act was first brought forward. I refer the shadow Secretary of State, and indeed the House, to my comments in Hansard on 13 May 2021, when the previous Secretary of State explicitly confirmed on Radio 4 that Holocaust denial would be protected speech. In that vein, does my right hon. Friend share the concern of groups such as the Union of Jewish Students and the Antisemitism Policy Trust that the draft guidelines produced by the Office for Students risked undermining existing good practice in tackling antisemitism? Will she give an assurance that the OfS will meet Jewish representative organisations to ensure that such mistakes cannot be repeated? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am confident that the OfS, as the regulator, and its director for freedom of speech will seek to engage with a range of views, including those of Jewish students and community organisations, as they take forward this important work. That is certainly something that I have done to understand the concerns and the potential impact on minority students, including Jewish students, at a time when we all sadly know that antisemitism on our campuses and streets has been rising. As a country, we must do everything in our power to tackle that. \p Graham Stuart: This screeching U-turn is welcome and I hope that, as the shadow Secretary of State says, it heralds a new period of humility and further change by the Government. The Secretary of State said that universities must protect free speech or “face the consequences”, but as far as I can see, she has removed those consequences. Could she please lay them out for us? \p Bridget Phillipson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is probably used to his party engaging in these discussions on quite difficult and sensitive issues in a rather reckless and irresponsible way, but we on these Benches take our  time to do this seriously and properly to make sure that we get it right, because this is such an important area. He will have heard from my speech—I will set out further detail—the requirements that will be in place through registration conditions, the fact that the Office for Students will be able to impose penalties on institutions, and the requirements that we expect of all higher education providers. My message to vice-chancellors and institutions today is that they need to do more, and they need to do it better. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Select Committee member Darren Paffey. \p Darren Paffey: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for the measured, practical and common-sense approach that it takes, which is in sharp contrast to what we are hearing on the Opposition Benches at the moment. Although we will always defend their right to their opinions, a right to their own facts is rather regrettable and their revisionism is quite astounding. I know at first hand the value of a university education. It is about having our views challenged. It is about critical thinking based on evidence and facts and having our horizons opened. Does the Minister agree that this foundation and the measures announced today are the right way to secure academic freedom in the future? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend, through his background in higher education, knows all too well how essential it is that young people and students from a range of different backgrounds are exposed to views that they might not previously have heard or that they might find difficult or challenging. That is what a university education is all about, and that is what we are determined to secure and protect through the statement that I am making today. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: We have substantial business to get through today before the House rises, so if questions are short I can get everybody in; if they are not, people are going to be disappointed. \p Gavin Williamson: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and setting out the revised position of the Government. I am particularly concerned about the removal of the tort, because it effectively removes the real consequences for people who disregard free speech and the consequences that could be imposed on an institution or organisation. If that is going to be the case, can she set out to the House what resources will be dedicated to the director of free speech? Let us hope this is not just a one-person fig leaf. How many people are going to be working for them? What resource will there be to ensure that free speech is protected? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for his question. He will appreciate that this will be an independent regulator, and that there is a limit to what I can set out on their behalf. On the key issue of the tort, there will be consequences, even following the removal of the tort, for those providers who do not fulfil their duties under the Act. The OfS can already regulate providers in relation to free speech. It will be able to take regulatory action where there are breaches  of the duties under the Act, including monetary penalties if needed, and the complaints scheme will enable the OfS to make recommendations to providers that they will be expected to follow. Existing routes of redress through judicial reviews and employment tribunals will remain open, but we want the OfS to focus on making sure that there is a system in place that is workable so that complaints can be dealt with swiftly. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for this statement. I think freedom of speech is really important, but it should be done in an environment of shared respect, as it is most of the time in this place. I welcome this pragmatic approach to the process. Will she confirm that the previous unworkable legislation would have added additional financial stress to institutions? \p Bridget Phillipson: It is important that any legislation in this area is fair, proportionate and workable, and that is what we have sought to achieve through the wider engagement and consultation that has taken place since July, when I paused commencement. It is vital that we get it right. It is incredibly important, and today we have given clarity to the sector around expectations into the future. \p Richard Holden: I welcome the words from the Secretary of State around freedom of speech today—she knows that I have asked about this in the House previously—and I also welcome the partial U-turn. Will she join me, though, in thanking the academics who have really put pressure on the Government to get to this position, and also the work of the Free Speech Union? Will she encourage all academic institutions to sign up to the Chicago principles? Can she give us a brief timeline on when the foreign influence registration scheme could come forward?

Finally, I will be setting up the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of speech in the coming weeks. Will the Secretary of State agree to come along and speak to us about this at some point? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am afraid I did not quite catch the very last part of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I will happily look in Hansard and return to him on that point. \p Nusrat Ghani: I think he just wants to hear a yes to attending a meeting. \p Bridget Phillipson: I am afraid I am not going to do that without having reviewed exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know him quite well. The Department for Education and the Home Office are looking jointly at some of these areas, and I want to be clear that national security is our No. 1 priority as a Government. I am grateful to all those who have engaged in good faith with the Department in this conversation. They hold a wide range of views: there are those who are for the Act and those who are against, as well as those with views somewhere in the middle and those with some new ones. I am grateful for their contributions to this discussion. I hope they can all see that we have taken this seriously and that we now have a workable plan to ensure that freedom of speech and academic freedom in our institutions are protected into the future. \p Matthew Patrick: Frank Field was a very good friend of mine. He believed deeply in seeking out disagreement with other people for a richer conversation, and in the importance of listening in good faith to arguments made in good faith. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should see that spirit across university campuses? How will her measures ensure that that is a reality? \p Bridget Phillipson: I think we can all learn from Frank Field, who brought wisdom to a range of areas. We can all reflect on the need to keep our views under constant review to ensure that we challenge ourselves. The chance to be educated, whether at school, college or university, is a crucial part of challenging ourselves and understanding the world in all its many forms. These measures will allow university students to have precisely that experience. \p Matt Rodda: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I particularly welcome the emphasis on reducing burdens for universities, which will mean a lot to smaller institutions such as the smaller research-intensive institutions like Reading University in my constituency. Will she commit the Department to continuing to work with smaller research-intensive institutions? \p Bridget Phillipson: Yes. One of the many brilliant aspects of our country’s higher education sector is its diversity—smaller institutions, larger ones and those that bring a wealth of difference, having evolved and changed in different ways. We will continue to listen to and work with providers and institutions of all shapes and sizes across our country. \p Gareth Snell: I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on the sheer audacity of coming to this place and pretending that hers is the party of free speech. It was her party that introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the single largest restriction on free speech in the charity and voluntary sector, purely because the sector was saying things the then Government did not want to hear.

I encourage the Secretary of State to ignore the whines and the whinges, the gripes and the groans, of the Conservative party and carry on with what she is doing, because she is absolutely right. Universities are where people can challenge new ideas and hear things with which they may disagree. What advice is she giving to universities about the support they put in place so that students can explore these new ideas and have their own views challenged in a way that is safe and secure? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that freedom of speech cuts both ways, and Conservative Members would sometimes do well to reflect on that, too.

Sometimes, students can be exposed to views they find challenging or difficult, especially younger students who are newly away from home, and it is right that we put in place the right support. Institutions have invested a lot in mental health support and other provision. I think this also underlines the need to turn around the provision in the national health service, because I am  concerned about the extent to which providers are having to put in place additional support, above and beyond what should be a statutory requirement for every person in our country. \p Joani Reid: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I particularly welcome the funding for tackling antisemitism on campus, which is a well-documented problem. When the original guidance on the Act was published, it took an approach to free speech that did not take account of the limitations on freedom of expression for minority groups that arise from hate speech.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I am particularly concerned about the risk of giving that hate implicit protection and amplification on campuses. Can the Secretary of State assure me and minority community representatives who have raised this issue with us that any future guidance will more carefully outline the importance of expression for all, including minority groups that are sometimes crowded out by loud, hateful voices? \p Bridget Phillipson: I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s point is taken up. Many have raised very serious concerns about antisemitism on campus and its impact on Jewish students, and I can see no good reason why any university would invite a Holocaust denier on to campus to deny the overwhelming evidence. Holocaust denial is an appalling form of antisemitism.

Yesterday, I joined the Holocaust Educational Trust in Parliament to make sure that, as we come to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we redouble our efforts to fight hatred and prejudice, including antisemitism, wherever we find it in our country. \p Luke Myer: I declare an interest, not only as someone who has worked in the sector, but as a member of the freedom of expression organisation English PEN, which condemned the approach of the previous Government because it felt it would restrict academic freedom. Further, my constituent, who is a well-regarded economist, lost his job after publishing research into the impact of migration on coalfield communities. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituent that this Government are committed to academic freedom and to ensuring the stability of academic institutions? \p Bridget Phillipson: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is also why, as one of the measures that I intend to return to, we must look again at the board and executive appointments to the Office for Students. It is right that concerns have been raised that there could be the suspicion of political interference given that, rather unusually for that kind of appointment, it involves a political appointee. People might regard that as fine if they agree with the views of the Government of the day, but I do not think that is a good principle on which we enshrine in law very important positions that are central to how we uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech in this country. \p Adam Thompson: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and particularly in regard to the removal of the tort from the existing legislation. That will allow our universities to ensure that funds get spent on students and not on complex legal issues.

As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly today, the Government take the need to expose students to a wide range of issues seriously. As a former academic, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees with me that our universities must remain centres of robust, rigorous debate always? \p Bridget Phillipson: Yes, that is crucial. We know that the chance to study at university is life changing for so many students. That is of course the case for younger students—those who have what might be considered the more traditional experience of going to university at 18—but it is also about having the chance throughout life to return to education and training. That is what I have seen across so many institutions in our country. They put in place fantastic opportunities for upskilling and retraining later on in life, as people think again about how they want to go about things. I praise those institutions’ fantastic work in driving growth and innovation, and in the months to come, we will work with them to ensure they can do more. \p Laurence Turner: May I invite the Secretary of State to respond to the following statement that was shared by the Union of Jewish Students while she was on her feet?

“We support the changes brought forward by the Secretary of State. She has listened to the concerns we and others raised and has taken action. The result is that the Act will now be less likely to damage efforts to tackle anti-Jewish racism on campus. That should be welcomed by everyone.” \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing those comments. I pay tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for the amazing work it does every day to support Jewish students on campus and to ensure that their voices are heard, including at the  highest levels of Government. I give my commitment to UJS that I will continue to work with it and other student groups to make sure their voice is always heard. We as a Government are resolutely behind them in the fight against antisemitism in our country. \p Nusrat Ghani: For the final question, I call Dr Scott Arthur. \p Scott Arthur: As someone who was an academic until about 5 am on 5 July last year, I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the leadership she has shown on this issue. I will ask a question in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am proud of all the universities in Edinburgh and how they attract students from all over the world, but last year when I visited the Edinburgh Hebrew Congregation, which is the main synagogue in Edinburgh, I was ashamed to hear of the intimidation that Jewish students were facing in university. I was pleased to hear that universities are taking that seriously and I know that the Edinburgh Interfaith Association is too. Freedom of speech is an important right, but that should never extend to bigotry and hate. Does the Secretary of State agree that students should be free to practise their faith, always, and able to display their faith publicly, no matter what it is, without fear of intimidation? \p Bridget Phillipson: That is absolutely essential. The same is true for Jewish students and others from minority groups as they go about their business at school and college. Sadly, I have heard too many examples of abuse and intimidation of the sort that my hon. Friend describes. Universities must be robust places of intellectual challenge and rigour; there is no good reason why students should feel intimidated or harassed in a place where they should find comfort, challenge and support. \p Rupa Huq: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise an all-party parliamentary matter that is causing international ructions. Before Christmas, a report surfaced in the name of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. Basically, to the annoyance of APPG officers and many members of the public, it was a hatchet job on the interim Government of Bangladesh. On a delegation to the high commission in London during recess, I was picked up on this. Even when I went to Bangladesh, the interim leader, Professor Yunus, a Nobel prize winner, also said, “What are your Government doing issuing these falsities in the name of Parliament?”

I wish to seek your advice on this, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I get clarification on the significance of such things being issued? When I inquired into this, I was told that a pressure group had put out this report without final sign-off. So do these things constitute policy in any way, and is it right that a partisan organisation can hijack an APPG and then besmirch the name of our Parliament and our Government? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. She has put her point on the record. I am happy to confirm for the benefit of the House that all-party parliamentary groups represent a wide range of views across both Houses and their reports do not necessarily reflect the views of His Majesty’s Government or indeed of the wider membership of this House.

I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024—[Interruption.] I can see that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is incredibly excited by this. As I was saying, the Ayes were 418 and the Noes were 78, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024, the Ayes were 423 and the Noes were 77, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024, the Ayes were 424 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.] \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Tim Farron presented a Bill to require that every child be offered at least one outdoor education experience during primary school years and at least one such experience during secondary school years; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 161). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p James MacCleary: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with countries which are members of the European Union for the purpose of extending the Youth Mobility Scheme to applicants from those countries on a reciprocal basis; and for connected purposes.

The immense damage caused by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal is clear for all to see. Few thought that young people would be able to go for two years to live and work all the way over in Japan, but not be able to hop across the channel to do the same in France. I am not sure that anyone voted for that kind of increased bureaucracy back in 2016. This Bill gives us the chance to send a different message to a generation of young people who have been denied the opportunities that so many of us in this Chamber took for granted when we were growing up. If we wanted to take a job or to study in an EU country, we could just go and do so. Opportunity and hope for the future have rarely been in such short supply in this country, and this is how we can provide some of both.

What I am proposing is a pragmatic, defined scheme that will once again allow young people across the UK to be able to spend time with our nearest neighbours without having to navigate a tangle of Brexit red tape. It is a youth mobility scheme with the EU that would open up opportunities for British young people to learn new skills, languages and cultures and bring all of that back with them to benefit our economy and our society. This would not be the UK’s only reciprocal youth mobility scheme. We have such arrangements in place already with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Canada. They are familiar and tried and tested, allowing those aged 18 to 30 to live, work and study in the countries involved for a set period.

The Government have made much of their so-called missions. Mission No. 1, we are told, is economic growth, yet any proposal that might involve our European neighbours and contribute to boosting growth is dismissed. The UK is facing acute labour shortages, particularly in key sectors such as hospitality. These are exactly the kinds of jobs that young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on, whether while studying, immersing themselves in our culture or improving their grasp of our language. The situation suggests that this is a Government who are not serious about making the practical, hard-headed choices that would greatly benefit the UK economy and labour market in the long term, stimulating growth and improving the lives of British people.

The Government also talk up their reset with the EU, which, so far at least, seems to involve little more than warm words and a continuation of the previous Government’s attitude of seeing closer co-operation with the EU as a threat, rather than as a considerable opportunity to make Britain more secure and prosperous. Indeed, the Government have stuck so closely to the Conservative party’s script—or is it Reform UK’s script?—that Ministers have even mischaracterised, repeatedly in fact, a youth mobility scheme with the EU as a return to freedom of movement. That is categorically not what is  being proposed here. Any scheme would be time limited and involve a restricted cohort of eligible people. I truly hope that the Government will seriously reconsider their short-sighted and self-defeating position on the issue.

A number of hon. Members from across the House have rightly asked Ministers directly for an explanation of their refusal to explore such a scheme, yet no one has given a response that makes any sense. Meanwhile, the Government have tied themselves up in unnecessary red lines on Europe that do nothing to boost growth or support British businesses and young people. Even that cannot be used as an excuse, as this proposal does not breach any of those red lines.

The situation is having a real impact on young people growing up in this country today. Let me share Alex’s story. A bright and ambitious 25-year-old from Taunton, Alex left university last year with the aim of working in a German fintech start-up. He had planned to move to Germany for a few years, then return home with a better understanding of the German language, and with the knowledge and skills to launch his own start-up here in the UK, but the hurdles proved insurmountable. He told me:

“I didn’t want to move there forever, I just wanted a year, maybe two, to earn invaluable experience, polish my language skills and get to know German culture.”

With no simple mobility arrangement in place between the UK and the EU, Alex ended up shelving his plans.

Not only did Alex lose out, our economy lost out too. The Government’s failure to act risks closing the world to a whole generation of Alexes across the UK. It is also holding back British growth and prosperity. Let us take the UK’s £82.5 billion tourism sector as an example. It has been grappling with the impact of the last Government’s failure to address youth mobility with the EU. ABTA, a trade body representing the sector, reported a 69% drop in UK nationals working in European tourism roles in the five years after the EU referendum. Businesses that once offered transformative opportunities to young Britons now face rising costs and critical staffing shortages.

I have heard from one UK-based tourism company that once employed more than 400 young Britons a year. Mobility restrictions have forced it to drastically scale back its operations, undermining years of competitive advantage, and slashing training and employment opportunities for young UK workers. European Pubs, which runs bars and restaurants in France, previously relied on UK staff for most seasonal roles. Today, only 50% of its workforce is British. A youth mobility scheme, which recent polling shows is backed by a clear majority of British voters, could ease labour shortages, provide essential career pathways and help to safeguard our tourism sector’s future vitality.

Meanwhile, our small and medium-sized businesses are really struggling, especially in sectors where staff shortages have become acute. Sectors from hospitality to the arts, entertainment and retail are desperately short of staff. With the UK’s ageing population, that is unlikely to improve in the future. A youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses an excellent opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce. With the threat of tariffs from the incoming President of the  United States, it has never been more important for our Government to break down barriers to opportunity elsewhere.

When speaking with counterparts in Brussels in my capacity as the Liberal Democrat Europe spokesperson, I have been struck by a clear message. After years of attempts to cherry-pick, the UK now needs to show that it is once again a trusted and reliable partner. By taking the lead on a youth mobility scheme, we have an opportunity to build that trust with our European allies that would allow us to explore our other priorities. Britain’s ability to strike new deals on defence, agriculture and trade would falter if we sent the signal that we are unwilling to move on a pragmatic, mutually beneficial scheme like this one. A carefully designed youth mobility scheme would give the British people control. It would ensure that participants could come here only under a clearly defined category and a tightly controlled time limit, while also signalling that we value cultural exchange, business growth and an ongoing partnership with our nearest neighbours.

Let us be honest: we cannot afford to keep letting down young people like Alex, nor can we keep small businesses in limbo, forcing them to cope with staff shortages, when a scheme like this could do so much to help. Young people in this country already face unprecedented challenges: a housing crisis, low salary growth, a rising cost of living and high taxes on income. The very least the Government could do is to remove barriers preventing young people in the UK from living and working in the rest of Europe. It saddens me that the Government have so far ruled out such a scheme. I call on the Government to give the young people of this country a proper explanation. Many of them have put their faith in the Labour party to reverse the damage done by the previous Government but remain disappointed and frustrated.

The Bill calls for a solution that would restore vital opportunities for our young people who have been left high and dry by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. By embracing a well structured and controlled youth mobility scheme, we would send the powerful message that this country is serious about supporting our young people and backing British business with the labour force it needs to grow. This is a moment to bring opportunity and renewed good will back into the heart of UK-EU relations—a real reset. The issue will not go away and, as a Liberal Democrat, I am proud to have sponsors from the Green party, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. Many on the Labour and Conservative Benches know that a youth mobility scheme with the EU is the right thing to do. It is time to rebuild our relationship with Europe and set our young people free. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That James MacCleary, Tom Gordon, Siân Berry, Caroline Voaden, Stephen Gethins, Sorcha Eastwood, Sarah Olney, Liz Saville Roberts, Mr Joshua Reynolds, Richard Foord, Helen Maguire and Liz Jarvis present the Bill.

James MacCleary accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 160). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—

(a) businesses,

(b) high streets, and

(c) economic growth.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the impact on different types of business, including small businesses,

(b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets,

(c) whether the provisions have had a measurable impact on economic growth, and if so what that impact has been.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within six months of those sections coming into effect.”—(Vikki Slade.)

This new clause would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 of the Act on businesses (including small businesses), high streets and economic growth.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Vikki Slade: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Review of impact of new multipliers—

“(1) Within eighteen months of the day on which sections 1 to 4 of this Act are commenced, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of those sections.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the impact of the introduction of the lower multiplier on qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments,

(b) the impact of the introduction of higher multipliers in relation to a hereditament for which the value is £500,000 or more.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the review and lay a copy of that review before Parliament.

(4) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit including—

(a) businesses,

(b) the Valuation Office Agency; and

(c) Billing Authorities.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.

New clause 3—Sections 1 to 4: impact assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, conduct an assessment of the expected impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on relevant businesses.

(2) The assessment must compare the amount of non-domestic rates expected to be paid by relevant businesses once sections 1 to 4 come into force with the amount paid in each financial year between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2026.

(3) The assessment must consider how the impact is expected to differ depending on the number of hereditaments a business occupies.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the assessment.

(5) In this section, a “relevant business” is a business occupying a qualifying retail, hospitality or leisure hereditament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses occupying a single site compared with those occupying multiple sites.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.”

Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.

This amendment would add manufacturing businesses to the types of business that could qualify for use of the lower multiplier.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 33, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, page 4, line 9, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, page 4, line 13, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 5, page 4, line 31, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 35, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 37, leave out from ”persons” to end of line 38 and insert—

“who have special educational needs.

“(5A) In subsection (5) “special educational needs” has the same meaning as in section 20 (When a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”

This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates.

Amendment 8, page 5, line 38, at end insert—

“, or

(b) has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from that school.

(5A) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)—

“religious character” has the meaning given under section 69 (Duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,

“other special character” has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation,

“specified distance” is the distance specified under section 445(5) (Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996.

(5B) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(5C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would provide that charitable rate relief would continue to apply to a school with a religious or other special character, if no maintained school or academy with the same character was within the statutory walking distances (as set in the Education Act 1996) from that school.

Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 6, line 22, leave out “2025” and insert “2026”. \p Vikki Slade: Business rates reform is long overdue. It is frequently cited by my constituents as the biggest concern for their businesses’ survival and one of the most direct inhibitors to their growth.

I was contacted this week by a constituent from a local business in Three Legged Cross, right on the edge of my constituency. He has been running it for over 40 years, and the cliff edge created by the small business rate relief means that his rates bill will go from £2,800 to £8,500 per year. The only thing that will save this microbusiness is systemic change as proposed by the Lib Dems in our manifesto, not a tax based on an arbitrary valuation that bears no relationship to the activity taking place inside his building.

High streets are trying to redefine themselves, moving from the heart of goods purchasing to literal shop windows as they struggle to compete against online competitors that do not have their overheads. It would be wrong to think that the solution is to try to return to the perfect high street of the past, as if such a thing exists.

I am old enough to remember C&A being the place me and my friends browsed for the latest fashions, and there was a Blockbuster video store and pic ’n’ mix from Woolies. Where are they now? It is dangerous and self-defeating to be caught up in toxic nostalgia, trying to reclaim the past as some kind of perfect place. Parliament must enact legislation that supports the society of tomorrow and towns that will work for a technological and multicultural age—indeed, an age in which people can no longer afford the stuff that we used to buy on a Saturday afternoon, or are choosing, as I do now, to buy their stuff from second-hand stores.

The dangerous gap between the slashing of retail hospitality and leisure relief by almost half, and a regime that brings in as yet undefined new multipliers, brings real risk. Our new clause 1 would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, on high streets and on the real prize of economic growth that the Government mention so often. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about decisions being made without clear impact assessments. As we move through a period of reform, enshrining such an assessment in law, rather than questioning later whether it has been done, would save us all a lot of trouble and demonstrate that the Government genuinely want to make improvements. \p Luke Evans: One issue that the hon. Lady has not yet mentioned is the impact of the Employment Rights Bill, which will create further red tape for our high street businesses when it comes into play. Do the Liberal Democrats think that the Government should consider that? Changing taxes and rates is one thing, but creating red tape at the very same time, constraining business growth, is another. \p Vikki Slade: I agree that this is a difficult time for small businesses, with so many things changing at the same time—not least the increasing national insurance rates.

To return to the role of the high street, the most successful high streets are moving quickly to reinvent themselves. Since my election, I have been trying to find a high street location for my constituency office. I had decided to base myself in the historic market town of Wimborne, where my mum lived and my children went to school. It is the fastest-growing community in Mid Dorset and North Poole—Ministers have heard me talk about its housing problems many times—and it has great bus routes. I thought it would be a great place to find a small unit easily.

I was wrong, however. The strength of the sense of place, the innovation of its businesses and the hard work of its business improvement district and its town council are such that when a business closes down, others are waiting to move in. I have finally found my new home, which will open by the end of the month when we have fitted it out, but the experience proved what I already knew: the high street can survive, but only when the business community is prepared to give people what they want. Retailers such as Tickles and Co. trade alongside the hospice shop, and old businesses such as Bartletts, which has for 120 years sold smart clothes for all seasons, are able to sustain themselves despite changes in the market.

The Lib Dems welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, and we acknowledge that the financial situation the Government were left by the previous Government makes the 75% discount difficult to maintain, but any discount is worthless if businesses that are trying to stabilise following the covid pandemic, the energy crisis and the shift to online cashless purchasing do not even make it through the next year. As I have said before, that is not the reform that business needs. The Minister has already said that this is just phase 1, but we are incredibly frustrated that he has not taken the opportunity to take things further.

New clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), focuses our proposals further on the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, and raises valid points about the risk to individual businesses compared with those that have multiple branches. There must be an assessment of that risk alongside a broader impact assessment. \p Daisy Cooper: My hon. Friend is giving an impassioned speech about the importance of business rates reform. Does she agree that there is a risk of unintended consequences in what the Government are proposing? At the moment, the 75% relief is capped at £110,000, but when the relief goes to zero in two years’ time, that cap will not exist. House of Commons Library research shows that the net effect could be that small businesses end up being 80% worse off, while big chains such as Starbucks could be 40% better off. Although it is important that we get a review of the impact of business rates, it is also important that we get the differential assessment set out in new clause 3. \p Vikki Slade: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One problem is the same law of unintended consequences that we have seen with things like the national insurance  increase—which, as we repeat over and over again, is impacting small businesses, hospices, doctors’ surgeries and things like that—when quite understandably, an attempt is made to raise funds from elsewhere.

I want to share the views of Anthony Woodhouse, the chair of Hall and Woodhouse brewery and pub chain, founded and based in Dorset but with a branch just across the way from this place—unfortunately, I am not able to be at its event in Portcullis House because of the timing of today’s debate. Anthony told me that the revaluing of property when a huge amount of money has just been invested to make it fit for a changing market, and before you have even had a chance to benefit from that market, is completely crazy and discourages business investment. As such, it is important that as we look to reform business rates, we examine that issue as well.

Despite our failure to do that, businesses such as Anthony’s are responding to the market. Pubs such as the Olive Branch in Wimborne and the Old Granary on Wareham quay are now places where muddy boots, children and dogs are welcome, and where they sell as many cups of coffee as pints of local beer. The high street needs to morph as businesses have—to be ready and willing to change—but while business rate reform rightly starts with the high street, it is important that it does not end there.

As such, I turn to our amendments 1 to 6, which would add manufacturing businesses to the lower multiplier. The UK has a rich history of manufacturing excellence, and Barclays’ “Made in Britain” report found that a product being made in Britain held an important influence over consumers’ decision to purchase it, with customers perceiving such products to be high quality, reliable and internationally respected. The “made in Britain” tag was found to be worth an addition £3.5 billion a year to our UK exporters, which is why we believe that the lower multiplier should also apply to manufacturing businesses. We need to give those businesses a shot in the arm to ensure they can compete on the world stage. The threats by incoming President Trump to put tariffs on UK products, our continued isolation from our neighbours through an inadequate Brexit deal, and the rapid growth of economies such as China and India represent a real threat to local manufacturing.

Poole Bay Holdings, based in my constituency, stands ready to produce its innovative Koolpak here in the UK. Anybody who has children will know the brand Koolpak—it is that ice pack that is not even ice—and that business has been modifying its equipment so that it can make the product here, in Dorset, to compete with China. It stands ready to drive up those sales. Recognition of such businesses through a lower multiplier, or at least the potential to include them in a lower multiplier if the market becomes more tricky, is the intent behind our amendments.

Turning to amendments 7 and 8, which stand in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the Liberal Democrats simply do not believe in the taxation of education. Alongside the changes to VAT, the removal of the special status for schools is really disappointing. Therefore, those amendments—which seek to recognise the value of schools for children whose needs are difficult to meet elsewhere, whether those are special educational needs and disabilities or whether people are choosing to educate in a faith school—seem reasonable.

In summary, this Bill is a fair start, and some businesses will feel it is better than the abyss that might otherwise have been. However, the Government could and should have taken different decisions to protect businesses that will face additional costs in just a few weeks’ time. We are often asked how we would pay for it; I welcome that discussion, as there were many proposals in our manifesto, from taxing big banks to asking gambling companies to pay their fair share. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I recognise that the Government have worked quickly to bring this Bill forward, but the risks of losing businesses en route to something better are just too great. We need proper reform, so that the businesses of the mid-21st century can weather the storms ahead. \p Adam Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on this Bill, having been part of the scrutiny process in Committee.

The Committee heard representations from a wide variety of experts in related fields, and I was heartened by the news that many experts felt that this Bill would have a positive impact on 98% of the retail stores that make up our communities. In particular, small convenience stores such as the local Co-op or the great British corner shop will see great benefits to their capacity to support staffing, security and other operational functions. Our incredible independent shopkeepers, such as those who populate the high streets of Ilkeston and Long Eaton in my constituency, will have more funds to take on additional staff, improve their security set-ups and gain long-term confidence in their ability to serve our community. These measures represent a simple, common-sense approach to rebalancing the scales in favour of local retailers and away from the online giants, and increasing taxes on the biggest players while relieving the burden on local retailers. \p Daisy Cooper: The hon. Member may have heard my earlier intervention. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that we have to shift the burden away from small businesses on to big online retailers. However, that could be undermined if all we do is shift the burden on to the big chains. House of Commons Library research says that small independent businesses are going to end up subsidising the big chains. Does he share my concern that this could be an unintended consequence and that the Government must look at it? \p Adam Thompson: I refer to Hansard for the discussions we had in Committee, but that did not come through in the evidence we heard. However, I respect the fact that the hon. Member has made that point, and I thank her for doing so.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), another sector to benefit significantly from these measures is our local pubs. The fine folk frequenting the Sawley Junction in Long Eaton or the Bulls Head in Breaston in my constituency can rest easy that their locals are in safe hands. More generally, the measures we are bringing forward will reduce the tax burden on the hospitality sector, which is considered by many to be overtaxed. I am very glad that the Government have been able to offer something positive to the sector, which has been broadly forgotten for many years.

Some of the Bill’s opponents have suggested that the removal of charitable relief from non-domestic rates for private schools will have a negative impact on the parents  of privately educated children, so I was strongly heartened to hear from one of our experts during the scrutiny process in Committee. Professor Francis Greene, professor of work and education economics at the University College London institute of education, noted that this Bill will have a “marginal” effect on the education sector, and that the policy was fair and would generally not have a great deal of impact on the proportion of children in private schools, which has remained broadly constant over the past 20 years, despite a cash-terms doubling in fees. \p Damian Hinds: Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on what he has just said, which is that the proportion of children going to private schools has stayed constant? Even the Government’s own analysis does not say that. It says that the number has stayed broadly constant, and in fact the proportion has come down. \p Adam Thompson: If I am incorrect, I stand corrected. My understanding from speaking to the experts is that the proportion has remained broadly consistent, but my apologies if that is incorrect. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.

The Committee stage reaffirmed what many of us on the Government Benches already knew, which is that this Bill represents a common-sense modification of our tax policy that will support local small businesses. The Bill represents a core pillar of this Government’s goal to rebalance the scales away from large online giants in favour of local independents and towards the 94% of children educated in the state sector. I know that traders and families in Ilkeston, Long Eaton and the surrounding villages in my constituency will broadly benefit from these measures, and I am proud to support this Bill through its remaining stages unamended. \p Sarah Bool: I intend to confine my remarks to two specific amendments—amendments 3 and 10, on private schools and special educational needs and disabilities—that would delay the introduction of this tax hike so schools have more time to plan financially.

Schools in my constituency have been punished by a series of tax rises since this Labour Government took office in July. By adding VAT to private school fees, and now by ending their charitable business rate relief status, Labour is attacking aspiration. These tax hikes will not hurt the wealthiest. It is the people who have scrimped and saved to send their children to a school of their choice who will be hit the worst. Labour seems to believe people should not have a choice over where they send their child to school, as is evident in their similarly misguided Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is making its way through this place.

Schools will close because of this tax hike, and I know this because it is happening in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Carrdus school, founded in 1957, survived the cold war, the winter of discontent, the global financial crisis and three Labour Governments, yet it could not withstand the tax onslaught from this Chancellor and it will close its doors at the end of the summer term. That will mean 120 pupils flooding back into the state system, which is already struggling with capacity issues, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. \p Adam Thompson: Will the hon. Member reflect on my comments a few moments ago about how the expert suggested that the Bill would have a marginal, negligible impact on the education sector? \p Sarah Bool: That may be the evidence that you have received in this instance, but I am giving the real-life proof. When I spoke to the headteacher about this, she said that the increase in national insurance on teacher costs, which are about 80% of outgoings, in combination with all the other things, has had a huge impact and the school will have to shut. It will be closing its doors at the end of July, which is a travesty. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. You said the word “you”, but I did not ask the question. \p Sarah Bool: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I would not dare say that about you.

If the Government are intent on punishing my constituents’ aspiration for the future of their children, the least they could do is grant the concessions that the Conservatives are asking for in all our amendments, and specifically those in amendments 7 and 10. Amendment 7 would exempt private schools that wholly or partially provide education for children with special educational needs and disabilities who have not yet obtained an education, health and care plan, or whose needs are established but not so severe as to require one. SEND support in schools helps pupils with a level of need below that of an EHC plan. Restricting relief only to those settings that provide for the most severe needs is out of step with the rest of our education system. Many families, on not being successful in applying for an EHC plan, or indeed enduring huge waiting times for the local authority to put one in place, opt to send their children to a private school. We should not punish families who choose to do what is in the best interests of their children.

Amendment 10 would delay the introduction of this tax hike for a further year to allow schools to plan their finances accordingly. That is just plain common sense. It would mean fewer schools like Carrdus having to make the unenviable choice to close their doors. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a timing issue. The Labour Government were explicit and up front on this tax rise in their manifesto, but they claim that they care about children’s education and welfare. If so, why would they implement the change halfway through an academic year? The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) just turned around and said, “Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s 120 kids in the Member’s constituency.” Actually, it really does matter, because every single child’s education matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if those are small amounts at the margin, it is completely justifiable to delay the measure as the schools, the experts and the parents have asked for? \p Sarah Bool: I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who made the point powerfully. The impact goes beyond the 120 individual students to their parents’ arrangements and how they work. The headteacher of the school has a husband who was also a teacher, and they face a huge  impact in respect of what they will do with their children and whether they can manage to make new school place arrangements. This policy is terribly misguided. We really need to think about what we are doing. It is a travesty that we will lose a school. \p Christopher Vince: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Sarah Bool: No, I will keep going if the hon. Member does not mind.

I do not want to see any other schools close or any other children suffer as a result of this plan. I hope that colleagues across the House will join Conservative Members in supporting our amendments. \p Paul Davies: I am pleased to speak in favour of the Bill, which is a significant piece of legislation that aims to reform the non-domestic rating system in England. I welcome the Bill’s primary objective of creating a fairer and more balanced approach to non-domestic rating. By increasing the multipliers for large businesses, we will ensure that those entities contribute their fair share to the local economy. That change is particularly important as it addresses the disparity between large corporations and smaller businesses, which often struggle to compete under the current system.

The introduction of lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties is a much needed relief for those sectors, which have faced significant challenges, especially in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. By reducing the tax burden, the Bill aims to support recovery and growth, ultimately benefiting local communities and economies such as the hospitality and retail sector in my constituency.

One of the most notable aspects of the Bill is the removal of charitable relief for private schools. Although private schools play a role in our education system, it is essential to recognise that they operate as businesses and should be taxed accordingly. This change will generate additional revenue that can be invested in public services, including state schools. The Bill represents a step towards a more equitable and balanced tax system. It addresses the needs of various sectors, supports local economies and ensures that all entities contribute fairly to the public good. \p Damian Hinds: There are problems with all taxes, which is why we end up with a blend of taxes. For businesses, there is tax on payroll, sales, profits and property. However, business rates are a particularly difficult and unpopular tax because they represent a fixed cost on the business that does not vary when the economy goes up or down, or according to the particular company’s success or growth, or a contraction in its sales or profits.

Over the years, I have heard many times from businesses in Alton, Petersfield, Horndean, Clanfield, Liss and elsewhere in East Hampshire about a desire for business rates reform. I am sure that a lot of small business owners were very attracted to what they heard from the Labour party—that it would to scrap business rates altogether. The Labour Government do not say that any more, but they still want us to believe that they are undertaking some great reform and cutting rates for our high street businesses. I am afraid it is all smoke and mirrors, because for those businesses, including the  ones name-checked by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the big effect that they feel right now is the cut in the relief for retail and hospitality business—not a small one, but from 75% to 40%.

It would be bad enough if that was all businesses faced, but it is not. They have to cope with all sorts of difficulties the whole time. We have rising labour costs—we support the increase in the national living wage over time, but not a hike in employer national insurance contributions at the same time. Because of what is happening to the threshold, there will be a massive effect on part-time workers. That will be very difficult for retail and hospitality businesses to swallow.

In and of themselves, the cuts to the multiplier for high street businesses are welcome, but we must remember that they are balanced by increases elsewhere in the system. Sometimes, Government Members talk about big businesses and corporations as some unwelcome part of our economy, but they are the biggest employers in the country and are fundamental to our economy. In the Red Book, these changes involve increases of hundreds of millions of pounds in business rates. Who will the increased rates affect? They will affect large supermarkets—a sector that is one of the biggest employers in the country—and hotels, which are a really important employer, as well as being fundamental to travel and tourism. Will the Minister also say a word about the expected effect on the national health service?

The blurb on the Budget says, “We are going to attack distribution centres, including those used by online retailers.” The word “including” does a lot of work in that sentence, because high street retailers also have distribution centres, and the changes will add to their costs, fuelling inflation on food and everyday consumer goods. \p Luke Evans: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent observation on the impact of these costs. We know from the surveys that 75% of businesses will pass on the costs to the very people who use them. They will have an inflationary impact on the public. Does he agree that it is imperative that we think about that? \p Damian Hinds: As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. In the end, there is no such thing as a tax on business—you cannot tax a business; you can only tax people. Any tax on business is ultimately a tax on its employees, its customers or its owners. Before somebody jumps up and starts talking about the owners, the owners are often pension funds who are then paying out the pensions for our mums and dads.

My point is that these business rate increases will mean higher costs for bricks-and-mortar companies as well, which come on top of all the other changes, in particular the hike in employer national insurance contributions. And this from a Government who yet again this week keep talking about their growth agenda. It makes me wonder what is actually written in that growth agenda.

Overall, the effect of all these changes—we need only look at the Budget Red Book—is that the revenue from business rates is projected to increase from £32 billion this financial year to almost £40 billion in five years’ time. It is a massive further tax raid on business, and a brake on employment and economic growth. \p Daisy Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned speech about the case for an overhaul of the business rates system. Why did the previous Conservative Government never get around to doing that? \p Damian Hinds: Well, I did refer at the start of my speech to the calls over the years for reform. I also said that there are problems with all taxes we levy on individuals or on business and that is why we end up with a blend. What I am talking about now is the fact that this Government are hiking up the total amount that will be taken in business rates, which will fall on major employers and then be felt in our unemployment rate. The Government are trying to do this thing of saying, “We are cutting stuff,” but they are not, because for all of the companies we have heard name-checked, reducing the relief will outweigh the effect of the multiplier. On top of that, we have a revaluation coming up in the near future. That is probably going to mean an increase in rateable values that will compound those higher multiples.

For all those reasons, new clause 2 is both important and a reasonable ask. It says that after a period of time, we should review the real-life effect of these changes and give the Government an opportunity to change course and get back to something that looks a bit like a growth agenda.

I turn briefly to the effect of these changes on independent schools. We have debated in the Chamber on a number of occasions the Government’s overall approach to independent schools. Let me say again that we object in principle to taxing education. It makes us almost unique in the world that we would do such a thing and it will be the first time in our national history that we have done so—it has never been done before by any Labour Government, or any other Government. The tax change we are debating today on rates is not the only tax change or transfer of money from independent schools to the Treasury. They were already facing a big increase—5%, I think—in employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme. Like all organisations—public sector, private sector, charitable and voluntary sector—they also have employer national insurance contributions to deal with. And then there is the enormous VAT change.

Specifically on this tax change, it is a fixed cost, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, at a time when there is all this uncertainty around the independent education sector and children will be moving. I will let Members into a secret: no one knows what the ultimate effect will be. We can line up as many experts as we like, but no one knows how many children will be moving, but we know it will be a non-trivial number greater than zero—there will be children moving out of that sector and there is a lot of uncertainty. It therefore seems to be a very unwise time to add, on top of all those other tax changes, a significant change to a fixed-cost tax. The amendments put forward by the official Opposition are therefore very well worth supporting; my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made that case very strongly.

On faith schools, we know that whatever the impact assessment says, people of faith, and particularly of smaller faiths, will be disproportionately impacted by this Government’s changes to education. We also know that children with SEND feature particularly prominently in the independent sector. Many of those schools have an awful lot of children who have special needs, but not  necessarily—or not yet—an education, health and care plan. Special consideration should be given to both those types of schools: faith schools—if we wanted to narrow it down further, we could say smaller faiths charging low fees to parents—and those catering to children with special educational needs and disabilities.

On amendment 10, with all else that is going on in the independent sector, it is at the very least an exceptionally reasonable ask of the Government that we delay these changes by a year to give the sector a chance to be able to cope and plan. \p Deirdre Costigan: Thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having been a member of the Bill Committee—my first Bill Committee in this place—I appreciate being able to contribute on Report in the Chamber.

Southall town centre is well known the world over as a great place to shop for an Asian wedding, with stunning lehengas, saris and sherwani on sale all down the Broadway, King Street and South Road. During the election campaign, I vividly recall seeing two clothes shop workers eating their lunchtime rotis behind the counter. When I commented that business must be good, they both said no. They said that a few years ago, they would never have had time for lunch, and would have worked right up until closing as they were so busy. They told me that they were suffering from being undercut by online retailers because they were paying through the nose for business rates, facing blitz robberies with no police around to respond, and constantly having to chase bigger businesses for payments.

It is ironic that the previous Government have suddenly decided they back local businesses after 14 years of ignoring their pleas. In fact, the only businesses they supported were the rail companies that could not run the trains, the water companies that could not keep our water clean, and, of course, the private sector mates they handed out dodgy covid contracts to. Indeed, the former Prime Minister and former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson, reportedly used a four-letter word beginning with f when making it clear how little he cared about business.

In contrast, this Labour Government are backing local businesses. We are already ensuring that suppliers pay small businesses within 30 days, and we are cracking down on retail crime, too. The Bill will deliver on our promise to ensure a fairer system of business rates that will help brick and mortar shops like those in Southall to compete with online companies. Finally, we will have a permanently rebalanced system that will stop local shops being undercut and stop the slow death of our high streets and town centres.

New clauses 1 to 3 and amendment 9 are all things that are already happening. We are already publishing a review of these measures as part of next year’s Budget, and there is already discretion for local authorities to look at the higher multiplier rate. Amendments 1 to 6 would add manufacturing to the Bill, which would, in my belief, dilute its effect. We have already prioritised manufacturing as part of the Budget, investing £3 billion into aerospace, automotive and the life sciences industries. We make no apologies for using this Bill to prioritise town centres.

Amendments 7, 8 and 10 all seek to either dilute or delay the changes in the Bill. The Bill already exempts all private schools that are wholly or mainly focused on educating children with special educational needs—that is already in the Bill. We know, however, that 93% of children in this country go to state schools. Politics is about priorities. Just as we are prioritising town centres in the Bill, we are also prioritising those 93% of children. Unless the Conservatives think it is okay to have children in state schools taught maths and science by unqualified teachers, they need to say where they would get the money from otherwise.

Although the Bill is about a fairer system of business rates that will help local businesses, many on the Opposition Benches have raised the issue of employer national insurance. Some 93% of businesses in Ealing Southall are microbusinesses. Most of those businesses will either pay less employer national insurance or the same as they currently pay. Some businesses will pay more national insurance, but that is because the previous Government ran up a massive £22 billion credit card bill making rash promises they did not even attempt to keep, while running public services into the ground. When the final demand letters started coming, they hid them in the back of a drawer and pretended everything was fine. Employer national insurance increases for some businesses will help us to pay for the triple lock on pensions, thousands of extra hip and knee operations, and more police on our streets. Again, unless the Conservatives think it is okay to reduce pensions in real terms, let waiting lists go up and up and give our streets over to criminals, they need to say where they would get the money from.

Before Christmas, I met the brewer Heineken at its pub the Star and Scorpion in west Ealing. Labour has already taken a penny off a pint in the Budget and our decision in the Bill to permanently lower business rates for retail and hospitality businesses will help to further protect local pubs like the Star and Scorpion. Without the Bill, the bars and restaurants of west Ealing and Hanwell would be facing a cliff edge in April, with big increases in their business rates as the sticking-plaster solution that the previous Government came up with ends. The Bill both extends temporary reductions in business rates for high street businesses and introduces a new permanent scheme that will level the playing field between the high street and the internet.

The one tax that the Opposition do not mention is the 10p crime tax: 10p added to every shopping basket due to the impact of shoplifting. The Tories did absolutely nothing about that, but this is a Tory tax that Labour is getting rid of. We are investing in neighbourhood policing, scrapping the Tory shoplifter charter that allowed thefts under £200 not to be investigated, and bringing in a new offence of assaulting a shopworker.

The Conservatives had 14 years to help out local businesses like those in Ealing Southall. Instead, they trashed our economy, destroyed public services and stifled business growth. The Labour Government are clearing up their mess. Through this Bill, we are ensuring fairer business rates for shops, restaurants and bars on Ealing Southall’s high streets. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I, too, served on the Public Bill Committee and would like to put on record my thanks to all the witnesses who attended and gave evidence.

The Bill shines a light on how politics is about choices. At the general election, we promised a Labour Government that would make different choices: choices rooted in fairness and a commitment to levelling the playing field. Today, the Bill is a powerful example of how we are going to deliver on that promise. This is a Bill about the politics of equity. It is about ensuring that everyone—from small business owners to schoolchildren in Wolverhampton North East—has a fairer chance to succeed. For too long, the scales have been tipped in favour of the largest corporations, online giants and private schools, while businesses and state schools have been left to shoulder an unfair burden. The Bill changes that. We are delivering a permanent reduction in business rates for the hard-working small businesses that are the backbone of Wolverhampton North East. My constituency does not include a city centre, but it does contain plenty of brilliant small businesses: fantastic cafés, restaurants, beauty and hair salons, a micropub, larger pub chains and family-run shops. These businesses are the heart of our community.

For years, high streets have been forced to compete unfairly with massive online retailers and retail parks, but the Bill will ensure that the largest online retailers, supermarket chains and distribution warehouses finally pay a fairer share. Small businesses in Wolverhampton and Willenhall will now see permanent lower business rates, freeing up resources to invest in their workforce, improve security and grow. As Paul Gerrard of the Co-op has pointed out, this reform will strengthen the viability of small shops, ensuring that they can continue to provide jobs, beef up security, and uphold their community-centred values. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that these changes will save small stores money that can be used directly to hire more staff, install new CCTV, and invest in the future.

The Bill is, however, not just about businesses; it is about fairness in education. Private school fees have risen by about 55% in real terms over the last 20 years, while state schools’ funding has largely flatlined. State schools and academies are paying business rates right now while private schools enjoy business rates tax breaks, and that is simply unfair. This is the reality. Almost 50% of private school students achieved top GCSE grades this summer, compared with just 20% in state schools. Sports facilities in state schools are crumbling, with fixtures cancelled owing to a lack of minibuses or drivers. Private schools have more swimming pools than all the state schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions put together. Just 35% of children from low-income families can swim 25 metres unaided, compared with 82% from affluent families.

The Bill removes those unfair tax breaks for private schools and reinvests every single penny directly in state schools. That funding will recruit more specialist teachers, provide breakfast clubs in primary schools, and give schools the resources that they need to unlock every child’s potential regardless of their family’s wealth. This is the politics of equity in action. I will continue to support strong, vibrant high streets, brilliant schools, and a fairer future for all. \p Melanie Ward: Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of the fact that six months ago our Labour Government inherited a £22 billion black hole from their 14 years of  Tory rule—[Interruption]—as they are demonstrating now. It is, however, a fact. With that inheritance from the Tories, our new Government are taking much-needed action such as that on which we are voting today. In particular, they are taking action to end tax breaks for private schools across the UK, and it is the education side of this Bill on which I will now focus.

Many of us are here today partly because of the inspiration, teaching and support that an incredible teacher gave to us. I want to pay tribute to one of my teachers at Hermitage academy, which is a state school. Mrs McKeirnan was my modern studies teacher, and a fine job she did too. I fondly remember writing essays about the reasons for Labour’s election win in 1997; they obviously had an impact. However, while we had skilful and energetic teachers like Mrs McKeirnan, what was less satisfactory was that the school roof often leaked when it rained, and sometimes the windows blew in during the winter. That continued until the election of Labour in both Westminster and Holyrood saw my old school being rebuilt.

We can compare that with the situation today in my constituency, where Balwearie high school in Kirkcaldy needs a new building. The funding has not been available during the last 18 years of SNP government and 14 years of Tory rule. My point is that much of our country’s public sector infrastructure is not fit for purpose after years of Tory neglect. To turn that around, we obviously need to raise revenue, and that is exactly what the measures that we are voting on today will do.

Ending tax breaks for private schools is crucial to the record budget settlement for the Scottish Government—the largest settlement since devolution, with an additional £1.5 billion to spend in this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion for next year. For too many in my constituency, the SNP’s record of educational failure has let the party down. Nicola Sturgeon once said:

“Judge me on my educational record”,

and she promised that her Government would close the attainment gap by 2026. Last year, the attainment gap in Scotland widened, and the PISA report showed that reading, maths and science are in long-term decline. Now that the SNP Government have the funding, it is up to them to clear up the mess in education that they have created, which fails young people in my constituency.

Across the UK, we know that when delivering large-scale investment to our schools to improve standards and increase opportunities, we have to pay for the policies that we want to implement, and it is only right for those with the broadest shoulders to support others around them. As many of my colleagues have said, politics is about choices, and I am proud of the choices that my party is making. \p Victoria Collins: I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that there is equity in education. The hon. Lady says that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the burden, but I have a family in Berkhamsted who worked really hard to put their son into private education. Following the changes, Seb has had to change schools after just two years, because the family cannot afford it any more. I make a plea on behalf of the children affected by this policy, because it should be about lifting all of us up, not bringing anyone down. \p Melanie Ward: All parents work hard to support their families, and all parents want the very best for their children. Hon. Members would do well to remember that.

The additional £1.8 billion a year, which will be raised by ending tax breaks for private schools, allows us to increase per-pupil funding in real terms and helps to deliver the record budget settlement of an extra £4.9 billion for the Scottish Government. I find it strange that the Conservative party, which in the last Parliament promised to level up the country, should be so opposed to measures that will do exactly that. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said that her first act as Prime Minister—I am not sure how many Conservative Members actually believe that the day will ever come—would be to restore tax breaks for private schools. She is obviously not here to defend that statement, but in recent months I have heard little from the Conservatives about what they would cut to pay for that policy. Would they make teachers redundant? Would they cancel breakfast clubs? Would they cut mental health support and careers advice?

At the last election, I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to break down the barriers to opportunity. As a state-educated MP, I am also proud to deliver this speech in a Parliament in which 63% of its Members were educated at state comprehensives, with 85% of my party’s MPs being state educated. Indeed, only 4% of children in Scotland attend private schools—even fewer than the 7% in England.

The needs of our students are greater than ever. Young people in Scotland face an annual marking saga, decreasing teacher numbers and a deepening mental health crisis—something that I have raised in relation to my own constituency. It is more crucial than ever that we intervene now to prevent those crises from deepening, and that is what these revenue-raising measures will help to fund. I am glad that this Labour Government have introduced protections for SEND children and military families, but it is necessary for private schools to contribute towards improving educational standards across our country. Let us not forget that they have raised their fees by 75% in real terms since 2000.

I know that parents in my Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy constituency want to see their children benefit from the kind of education that their ingenuity, creativity and innate talent deserves. They will be crucial to our future society and economy, and to the kind of country that we want to be. We must make the most of their potential.

In this matter, I take inspiration from Jennie Lee, who attended Beath high school in my constituency and went on to set up the Open University. Her picture hangs in my office. She knew the value of ensuring that high-quality education was available to all, no matter their background and where they lived. If we are to provide that, it has to be paid for, and that is why these measures are so important. \p Mark Sewards: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in favour of this Bill, having been involved in its scrutiny at most of its stages. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) in thanking all the witnesses who came forward to give evidence to the Bill Committee. I thank them for the evidence they gave and for the useful insight from their respective sectors.

We on the Government Benches are clear that small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors should pay lower business rates. The Bill establishes two new multipliers that are lower than the current standard business rates multiplier. In order to pay for these changes, we must ask larger businesses to contribute their fair share so that our smaller businesses can thrive. That is because we on this side of the House know that when we have tax cuts, we need to pay for them with revenue-raising measures—something the Opposition have not quite realised yet. This is a good mechanism that the Government are deploying to save our high streets, to incentivise local investment and to support entrepreneurship. As all Members will know, high streets are essential to local towns and should be given the support they need. I am pleased to say that the measures in the Bill will benefit smaller local businesses such as those on Queen Street, which sits in the centre of Leeds South West and Morley.

In Committee, we heard from Paul Gerrard, who is the board secretariat director at the Co-op. He told the Committee that these changes will help 92% of the Co-op’s retail properties, but he also estimates that they will help 98% of retail businesses because they will have a rateable value that allows them to benefit from these changes. That has to be welcomed. As for those that will pay more to make these changes possible, the higher multiplier will apply to properties with a value greater than or equal to £500,000, including large warehouses that are often used by online giants. They will pay their fair share, and we can start to level the playing field so that essential community high street businesses are on a level playing field with multinational corporations. \p Damian Hinds: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a challenge in making sure that things are fair, and we all support a level playing field between the online world and bricks-and-mortar businesses, including in our town centres. There is a thing called the digital services tax, which was conceived while we were in government. Will he say a word about the relative advantages and disadvantages of trying to go after online retailers with business rates changes, which will also affect all manner of other organisations, including bricks-and-mortar retailers, and doing it a different way through a more direct type of tax? \p Mark Sewards: I return to the point I made earlier. We know that we have to support these smaller businesses—these bricks-an-mortar businesses, as the right hon. Gentleman calls them—and the only way we are going to pay for this is by finding the money from elsewhere. We have chosen to cut business rates for smaller businesses, and we are choosing to raise the revenue from the larger businesses and corporations that have been getting away without paying their fair share for far too long. \p Daisy Cooper: The hon. Member will recognise that it is the Government’s intention to reduce business rates for the smallest businesses, but as I have mentioned a couple of times in this debate, House of Commons Library research shows that if we compare this year to two years’ time, small businesses will end up 80% worse off, whereas the big chains will end up 40% better off. I believe that this is an unintended consequence. Will he urge the Minister, as I am doing, to address that point in his wind-up? \p Mark Sewards: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course I have read the House of Commons Library research into this. I also took time to listen to all the witnesses who came forward in the Bill Committee, and they made it clear that the changes in this Bill will benefit small businesses in the long term. I am quite happy with the evidence that they provided to support the changes that the Bill makes. \p Daisy Cooper: rose— \p Mark Sewards: I will move on to the next part of my speech, but I am happy to take any further interventions that might be relevant to that point. I am going to talk about the amendments now.

I think new clauses 1 to 3 are unnecessary. The Government will monitor the effects of the new multipliers and, as we know, they will show what those effects have been in Budget 2025. They will do the same in all future fiscal statements, so the monitoring is already going to take place. The hon. Member refers to the impact these changes might have in two years’ time, and the Government will comment on that in all future fiscal statements.

Amendments 1 to 6 are noble, but they would significantly affect and reduce the support that the Bill is able to provide to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. \p Victoria Collins: The hon. Gentleman mentions leisure businesses, and I have been contacted by several soft play facilities. They talk about the importance of play to children’s wellbeing, but they are not sure whether they will be entitled to the lower rate. Even Parliament’s experts are not sure. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in calling on the Government to clarify that soft play will be included in those lower business rates? \p Mark Sewards: Yes, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarity. As someone who uses soft play—[Laughter.] Not personally, enjoyable though it is. I am sure that my sons Oscar and Arthur, who is six months old and not quite ready to take advantage of soft play, will also be keen to know, so perhaps the Minister could offer some clarity in his closing remarks.

Although amendments 1 to 6 are noble, this Bill is about the high street, and we know just how much our high streets have suffered. This does not mean, for one second, that we are backing down from the challenges facing manufacturing businesses, which amendments 1 to 6 aim to help with. The Budget announced over £3 billion to support the manufacturing sector, including £520 million for a life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, but the changes to business rates in this Bill are primarily about supporting our high streets.

As someone who was teaching on this date a year ago, I am particularly interested in clause 5, which removes the charitable relief enjoyed by some private schools. I welcome this, along with the Budget’s broader measures to remove tax breaks from private schools so that we can fund state education properly. A vote for amendment 10 would delay this funding for state schools by another year.

It is estimated that, of the 2,444 private schools in England, only 1,040 will be impacted by the change. The measure will raise around £70 million, which, when taken together with the other revenue-raising measures we have announced, will increase per pupil funding in real terms to benefit the 94% of students who attend  state schools. We must give every child the chance to succeed in life, and that is exactly what this Bill and the other measures we have announced are doing. \p Damian Hinds: It is worth reflecting that the education budget goes up every year. It does not go up because there has been a change to business rates, VAT or anything else, which is the logic we sometimes hear from Labour Members. If the revenue from those things is slightly smaller than expected, does that mean less money will go into education? Of course not.

We keep hearing about hiring 6,500 more teachers. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many more teachers were hired in the last Parliament? \p Mark Sewards: I heard the right hon. Gentleman put that question to the Minister in last Monday’s Westminster Hall debate but, just to go back to his original point—I will come to the 6,500 new teachers—we are deliberately taking these decisions in order to increase the amount of money that state schools have to teach the 94% of students who enjoy state school education.

As a basic principle, all Members of this House can get behind the idea that it is a basic function of the state to provide a well-funded, excellent state school place for all students, whether or not parents choose to take advantage of it. That is exactly what we are doing with this Bill and the other measures we have announced. \p Luke Evans: Talking of basic principles, does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe it is right to tax education—yes or no? \p Mark Sewards: I believe it is right to tax businesses. Private schools are businesses, and we are choosing to levy the tax on businesses. We are not choosing to levy the tax on state education, because as I was just setting out, it is imperative on us to make sure there is an excellent and well-funded place in state-funded education for all students, should parents choose to take advantage of it. It must be remembered that not all parents have the choice of private or state education. The reason why 94% of students are in state education is because that choice does not exist for most parents in this country. That is why we will take the necessary action to fund state schools properly.

I will make some progress because I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to—oh, she is being quite generous with her time. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In which case, I will take more interventions.

Some Members have raised concerns about whether the legislation adversely affects the private schools that are primarily concerned with teaching students with EHCPs. I am pleased to report that it does not. The Government have clearly set out that private schools that teach 50% or more students with EHCPs will continue to be exempt from business rates, which is exactly the right approach. There are therefore no concerns there.

Amendment 8 seeks exemptions for certain kinds of schools. We have talked a little bit about faith schools, and we talked about that a lot on Second Reading. I cannot support the amendment given that we are ending the tax breaks to support the 94% of students who attend state schools. If we dilute the measures in the Bill for that exception, it is easy to make an argument for  the next exemption, the one after that and the one after that as well. Our guiding principle should be that every child is entitled to an excellent, properly funded state school place, as I think I have said repeatedly.

Amendment 9—the last one I will speak about—gives local authorities discretion over whether the higher multiplier will apply. As many hon. Members will know, local authorities already possess wide-reaching powers regarding discretionary rate relief. Given that the Bill does not affect those powers at all, I do not think the amendment is required.

To conclude, the measures in the Bill are vital to bring about the restoration of our high streets, support local businesses and give state schools the funding they desperately need. Those are the priorities of this Labour Government and my priorities too. If Conservative Members claim to represent the party of business again, if they ever hope to seize back the mantle of being the party of opportunity, I hope they put their money where their mouth is and join us in voting for this unamended Bill today. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thought it very sensible for the hon. Member to clarify that it is young Arthur, not himself, who enjoys soft play. I call the final speaker, Chris Vince. \p Christopher Vince: As I have about two hours to give this speech, I want to start by going back to the summer of 1983—[Laughter.] I have just told everyone how old I am, have I not?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also thank the Minister for all his work on the Bill. I genuinely want to thank all Members from across the House too for their contributions in Committee. I thought the way in which the Bill was discussed in Committee and the contributions from both sides were well thought out and, as I have mentioned before, respectful—I say that in advance of any interventions. I also want to thank all the people who came forward to provide evidence to the Committee.

I am honoured to rise to speak on Report on behalf of my constituency of Harlow. First—I promise I will not take two hours—I think everybody in the Chamber will forgive me for taking the opportunity to thank and praise the hard-working teachers and school support staff across my constituency for the hard work they do day in, day out to support young people.

I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Mark Hall academy in my constituency last week and saw the incredible work that its staff are doing to provide an inclusive atmosphere. I particularly welcomed the fact that the school was about not just exam results, but what I describe as the hidden curriculum—how young people grow and develop. The school also focuses on the importance of debating skills, which may be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—I am only joking. I thought that perhaps he and I could go together and learn a thing or two. [Interruption.] I set myself up for that. The school also recognises the importance of critical thinking. As I say, it was a fantastic visit, which was capped by an opportunity to meet the young carers in the school. As many Members will know, young carers are a hugely important issue for me.

I will briefly address private schools, as they have been mentioned a number of times. As I said on Second Reading, private schools affected by this policy can choose to absorb some of the cost if they so wish, and that is their prerogative. Members across the House may disagree with this, but, ultimately, the fundamental issue here is fairness and equality. \p Sarah Bool: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Christopher Vince: Yes, I certainly have the time. \p Sarah Bool: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that private schools could absorb the cost. The headteacher of my Carrdus school told me that they could not absorb the cost. The school has tried everything possible to stay open, but it cannot. One just cannot make this claim that these schools can absorb the cost; they cannot. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Having spoken to headteachers in private schools, I know that that is what some of them are looking to do. I recognise that may not be the case in that situation. As I said on Second Reading, ultimately, we want all schools to be at such a standard that parents do not need to choose to send their children to private school.

Every business in the UK is required to pay VAT. The “Cambridge Dictionary” definition of a business is a particular company that buys and sells goods and services. Parents pay for the service of their children’s teachers, and they pay for their children to go to private school. \p Blake Stephenson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that universities are companies? If he does, would he advocate imposing VAT on fees for university education? \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think that we have had a very good debate on higher education today. It is interesting that Conservative Members want to talk about university and higher education when it is in an awful state. Clearly, we need to look at how private schools are funded. [Interruption.] I am being a teacher, sorry. Members can carry on rambling; this is not a school.

The second part of my speech is about our high streets. I think we can all agree about the importance of supporting our high streets, while also recognising the changing nature of both retail and those high streets. The Bill is designed to decrease tax on high street businesses and make online retailers pay their fair share. Very briefly, in its evidence, the Co-op said that the Bill would benefit “92% of our estate”, which is 98% of retail stores, and described it as having “a significant impact”. The representative of the Association Of Convenience Stores described the Bill as very helpful, and

“very positive for the sector, but…also very positive for the places where they trade.”––[Official Report, Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 18, Q25.]

I have not taken two hours, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will conclude. I welcome the Bill. I welcome the practical steps that this Labour Government are taking to address the issues left by the previous Government and to support small businesses in my constituency of Harlow and across the country. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: It appears that the attraction of business rates has not been sufficient to draw as many speakers to the Chamber as some debates, but I am none the less grateful to all Members for their contributions to today’s debate.

Just a few months ago, we exposed a £2.4 billion black hole in the local government budget: £3.7 billion of additional spending was announced, with only £1.3 billion of funding to pay for it. Over the weeks since the Budget, we have seen pensioners, businesses of all sizes and types, schools, landlords and tenants all facing additional costs to begin to backfill the consequences of those political choices. With the Bill before the House tonight, those tax hikes are heading for the business rates bill of companies and organisations, large and small, on high streets the length and breadth of the country.

We should not pretend that this is an essential step. Our councils are acknowledged as the most efficient part of the public sector. They responded magnificently to the consequences of the financial crash in the late 2000s, with rising resident satisfaction against a backdrop of increasingly challenged budgets, but the decisions made by this new Government, in particular loading an additional £1.66 billion of national insurance costs on to local authorities, with less than a third of that covered by the promised additional funding, has consequences in our town halls. The Bill begins to make a small step towards bridging that colossal gap, but the Government need to own these political choices. The consequences of the Bill for our businesses and schools are stark.

First, let me address the changes in the multiplier, and in particular the consequences for larger premises. Under the changes to the business rate system introduced by the Government overall, increased costs loaded on to larger premises will provide the source for any reductions for smaller businesses, unlike under the previous Government, when it was covered from general grants. As a result, these businesses, often small and medium-sized enterprises—important employers and vital sources of growth for our economy—will face higher bills.

Such businesses have been characterised by the Government as warehouses, often owned by online giants, but when we look at the detail from the Government’s own data, we see firms such as Banner, which supplies the offices of Members of Parliament with all kinds of stationery products, Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, and Zetex Semiconductors plc, which is an American-owned business that trades on the London stock exchange, producing products that are vital for our security and growth. Those are just examples of businesses in the Minister’s own constituency that will be hit by the changes. Scapa Group Ltd, a major healthcare provider in the constituency of the Secretary of State, will also face significantly higher bills.

We have heard Members wax lyrical about how much they value the opportunities for growth in this country, and how they value in particular different types of community assets, but 28 of the data centres that the Prime Minister speaks of as being vital to the AI agenda will be hit by the Bill, and 16 of the breweries that have supposedly benefited from a penny off the pint, including  Fuller’s, Bulmers, John Smith’s and Greene King, all face significant increases in their bills. Eight zoos and safari parks, including Colchester, Bristol and Chester zoos, face significantly increased business rates bills, and 48 stadiums across the country, including Wimbledon, Twickenham and both the Manchester stadiums, all expect to see big rises as a consequence. All Labour Members who love to champion their local pub and talk about taking a penny off the pint need to remember that the consequence of the Bill is to put business rates up by, on average, £5,500 a year per pub. The list is available from Government data. It is very clear that this will be a difficult Bill for retail, hospitality and leisure to swallow, after a period of direct and specific support from the previous Government.

This change does not come from a Government that came to office saying that this was their intention or plan; it comes from a Government whose Chancellor—Rachel from accounts—went so far as to promise in 2021 that she would abolish business rates. Business owners and workers who thought they were voting for a Labour Government that would come in and abolish business rates are facing significant increases today.

There is still no certainty on the small business rate relief, which many of the witnesses in Committee and many of those who have been in touch with all of us as Members of Parliament highlighted as being incredibly important for smaller businesses and high streets.

The Bill comes against a backdrop of serious concerns expressed across the retail sector and licensed trade—the Association of Convenience Stores’ comment on the Bill was lukewarm to say the least—and some of the biggest retailers, such as Sainsbury’s, about the damage the Budget in general and the Bill in particular do to employment and pay. When my party reflects on the things we are proud of that we did in government, what stands out for me is that 4 million more people were in work in this country than when we took office and youth unemployment was halved in our time in office. The Bill puts the financial wellbeing of the families included in those statistics at risk.

The Bill not only has an impact on businesses; it carries out this Government’s spiteful and politically motivated attack on education in the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said, it is not the case that private schools are all luxury businesses; many face significant challenges. It is worth going through some of those challenges in a bit of detail to understand why the amendments are important and why many of the things that have been said about the consequences of the Bill are simply incorrect.

First, in the context of school financing, we should recognise that the measures in the Bill and the introduction of VAT will not end up benefiting our state schools. If every single penny of all those extra taxes were to find its way into state school budgets, it would represent the cost of half the salary of a single classroom teacher. The effect of the national insurance increases alone on school budgets wipe that out straightaway. State schools unambiguously will be worse off as a result of the measures set out in the Budget. \p Luke Evans: We have heard categorically from Labour that private schools are businesses. They see themselves as part of the community and as charities.  Now that they are seen as businesses, they will act as businesses and will have to look to raise revenue from all their sports facilities and anything else that they willingly gave away to the state system. Private schools work with the state system and ensure that there is support for the state system—that is the community basis of what schooling is about. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that defining them as businesses will be a big problem? \p David Simmonds: My hon. Friend highlights a point that many of us will have heard from our local state schools: the fact that they are in sharing arrangements with private schools to access facilities. They are concerned that, as the cost drivers introduced by the Government and the Budget increase the pressure on those schools, they may lose the free or low-cost access they have. \p Lewis Cocking: I had a meeting with a state school in my constituency that said the changes will be damaging because it gets a grant from a private school, which will have to be cut to deal with the impact of VAT. That state school, which is in a genuinely working-class community, will be £200,000 a year worse off under this policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is terrible? \p David Simmonds: I agree that it is terrible, but sadly it is typical of the consequences introduced into the system by the actions of the Government. \p Melanie Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that state schools should not have to go with a begging bowl to private schools to ask to borrow their facilities? They should be properly funded in their own right. \p David Simmonds: Having served as a governor in three different state schools during my local government career, I know that many state schools have facilities that they are very happy to share—some have swimming pools, some have libraries, some have adult education facilities. The sharing of facilities among schools of all kinds is normal, but the Bill introduces additional pressure that will take away access to those facilities. Isolated communities in particular, which benefit most from that access, risk losing it.

The basic fact that schools will end up net worse off demonstrates that, contrary to what has been said, this policy fails the basic test of equity and efficiency. It harms some people in our country, with no corresponding benefit to anybody else. Let me address the argument proposed by a number of Members that the consequences are marginal. We heard a lot of evidence from different people. The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) referred to an academic who has built a career writing tracts attacking the private education sector. That is not somebody I consider to be an expert. I will take the word of mums and dads, the Independent Schools Council, institutions that represent people across our country and the House of Commons Library over the word of a single left-wing academic.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) said, “It’s not fair because schools in the state sector pay business rates.” She may not be aware that there is already an 80% mandatory business rate relief for voluntary aided, foundation and academy  schools, and 100% of all state school business rates liability is paid for by central Government anyway, so no school budget is burdened by the cost of business rates, whereas the consequence of the Bill will be that every independent school is burdened by those costs.

Many of us in this Chamber will see the added value that independent education brings. Many of those experts whose opinion we value have spoken profoundly about the fact that so much of our special educational needs provision is in the private sector. I made reference in Committee to Gesher school in my constituency. I defy any Labour Member visiting Gesher to come away saying, “That is a private business that deserves to be taxed.” Such institutions have emerged—in many cases over a long time—to cater to very specific and profound special educational needs and disabilities, and they are looking aghast at the consequences of the Bill.

There are a number of reasons for that, some of which are technical. The Government’s solution is to introduce the “wholly or mainly” provision. Schools that wholly or mainly provide places for children with an education, health and care plan—by which the Government mean 50% or more—will be exempt from the provisions. The problem with that policy is that many children who have well-established, diagnosed special educational needs and disabilities do not have an education, health and care plan.

Indeed, beneath statementing, which was the term at the time, the previous Labour Government introduced a number of tiers: school action and school action plus. Children with moderate to severe special educational needs and disabilities could fall into those categories and be supported in a mainstream setting. The statementing and education, health and care plan process was only ever intended to make provision for children with the most significant and severe needs. That is already the case across the state sector. We know from the evidence of many parents up and down the land that they found provision in local independent schools, and at their own cost, for children who had not qualified or had not yet achieved an education, health and care plan. It is very clear that the Government’s solution underestimates, and falls well short of accounting for, the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities. This is a Government whose Secretary of State for Education stood at the Dispatch Box last week and talked about how much they believe in inclusion. Well, their actions in support of this Bill say otherwise.

The Bill also fails to address the needs of parents who wish to secure a place for their child at a school that has a special character. This is particularly important in rural areas, but it is an issue across the country. We all know that there are schools that have the ability to provide specialist training or coaching in a sport that a child excels in and wishes to pursue, and there are schools that have a faith or cultural identity that is incredibly important to the family.

By requiring all those types of school to pay these significantly hiked taxes, this Government are bearing down on choice in the education sector and pushing up costs for mums and dads. These are not wealthy families, but ordinary people in this country who are seeking to do the best for their child and who, in some cases, are willing to take on the responsibility of paying for their child’s education even if they could still pursue the opportunity of an education, health and care plan for  them through the state system. They choose to do the right thing by their child, and this Government will be penalising them.

The amendments we have tabled seek to address the shortcomings I have described as best we can. We will also support some of the amendments tabled by other parties where they clearly fulfil our shared objectives, but as the speeches and other contributions to this debate by Conservative Members have shown, there could have been so many more amendments seeking to get this Bill right.

In conclusion, all of the hereditaments that are covered by this Bill are important to our economy and to growth, and in many cases they are vital to our communities. Since the Chancellor’s Budget, growth has flatlined, inflation has revived, borrowing costs are rising and employment opportunities are diminishing. It is not too late for this Government to choose a different path, and we invite them to do so this afternoon. \p Jim McMahon: Before I speak to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I thank Members from across the Chamber for their contributions and for the constructive spirit, by and large, in which they have engaged with the Bill since its introduction. Although they are not always seen, with evidence sessions and Committee stages not always being prime-time TV viewing—it is a curse, but that is the way it is—those deliberations are nevertheless essential. The contributions that were made by Members from all parts of the House in probing and scrutinising the Bill were valuable, and I hope that all Members found them interesting.

I will begin by speaking to the amendments concerning the impact of the new multipliers. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, high streets and economic growth within six months of those clauses coming into effect. The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for St Albans have proposed two other new clauses. New clauses 2 and 3 would seek to impose in legislation a requirement for an analysis of the impact of the new business rate multipliers at varying points ahead of, or following, implementation of the Bill. New clause 3 also seeks to require an assessment of how the application of the new multipliers would differ between retail, hospitality and leisure businesses occupying different numbers of properties, and to compare that assessment with the impact of retail, hospitality and leisure relief from the 2020-21 financial year to the 2025-26 financial year.

We agree in principle with the points that hon. Members have raised through their new clauses. It is right that the Government consider the effects of their policies on businesses, on the high street and on economic growth, and indeed within different sectors. It is the policy of the Government that those businesses should feel a material benefit as a direct result of these measures, so let me set out how we propose to do that.

It states in the Bill that the two new retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers may not be set at more than 20p in the pound lower than the small business multiplier.  The Bill also places appropriate restrictions on the higher multiplier: when it is set, it cannot be more than 10p in the pound above the standard multiplier, and cannot be applied to properties with a rateable value of less than £500,000. It is important to state that those are not the intended tax rates, but the maximum parameters to be introduced through the new business rate multipliers. As we explained during the Bill’s passage through the House, the actual tax rates will be set at the 2025 Budget, taking into account the effects of the 2026 business rate revaluation, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context at that time. \p Daisy Cooper: The Minister has been here throughout the debate, and he will have heard a number of my interventions. I accept his point that those figures will not be published until Budget 2025. May I ask if he is in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee that small independents, with a small number of hereditaments, will not be subsidising organisations that have many, such as the big chains? \p Jim McMahon: I did hear the hon. Lady, and I think we all accept the principle of needing to target or get support to those important small businesses, which we can all identify in our constituencies. With respect, I think there was a degree of conflation with the temporary reliefs brought in during covid, which the previous Government did not account for, that were always going to come to an end.

Our challenge was how to reconcile ongoing support for the high street with a permanent relief in law so that businesses know exactly where they are and can plan ahead with certainty. The choice we made was far fairer: to target higher-value properties of more than £500,000, which are generally—but, I accept, not entirely—the large-footprint warehouse and distribution premises used by the big online retailers.

The shadow Minister used the example of the stationery provider in my constituency. It is an online retailer, so it ought to be paying more. Why? Because for a long time—and we have all heard this from our constituents and industry—we have needed a rebalancing from online to on-street and from out-of-town to in-town, and that is exactly what this targeting does. It was never intended to be a continuation of the relief that was only temporary during covid. It is about rebuilding the foundations, and that is exactly what we have set out to do. \p Daisy Cooper: I completely accept that point, and I am very sympathetic to the fact that the Minister inherited a sticking-plaster system from the previous Government. If during the course of this year his Government’s own analysis proves what I have discovered from the House of Commons Library research, will he ensure that the Government at least do not rule out introducing a new small business relief in a targeted way to support such small independent businesses? \p Jim McMahon: As with all tax policies, we will keep this under review, and I say that in a very general sense. We absolutely believe that the businesses that are the backbone of our high streets, town centres and communities would, were it not for these measures, go bust. They would not be viable and they would feel the heat very quickly.  However, because of the measures we are taking, businesses will be able to plan with certainty for the future, knowing that they have a Government acting in partnership with them in that enterprise. \p David Simmonds: I appreciate the Minister’s point, but clearly no Parliament binds its successors, so every Parliament must make its own decisions. A lot of Members have asked about small business rate relief. It would be helpful to have some certainty from the Dispatch Box about the Government’s intentions on that. Can he give us that certainty tonight? \p Jim McMahon: I can certainly give the certainty that we are providing in law for a permanent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and we will fund that through a very targeted additional payment for properties of more than £500,000, which will primarily be the online retailers occupying big warehouses and distribution centres. It is a promise to shift from the online to the on-street, as I talked about.

Before we move on to vote on the amendment, I will make some progress. The House will know that tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for the impact assessments that accompany non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of any multipliers at Budget 2025, which we hope will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that we will be considering the impacts of this policy carefully before the new rates are set.

The Government will continue to keep the policy and its effects under review as a matter of course, because we believe it is good practice to do that for all taxes. However, we want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Government have heard them, and we understand the importance of robustly understanding tax changes, which is something to which we have already committed. I hope this commitment to understanding the effects of the new tax rate when it is introduced will enable hon. Members not to press their proposed new clauses.

Amendment 9 would give local authorities discretion over whether the higher multipliers enabled by the Bill should be applied. The Bill would enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more. As we explained in Committee, we do not have any plans to narrow the scope of the higher multipliers as doing so would reduce the funding available for the very targeted support for lower multipliers for uses that everyone in the Chamber supports.

That does not mean that local authorities will be unable to apply local discretion to rate bills. As was set out in contributions, local authorities already have wide-ranging powers for discretionary rate relief as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where the authority is satisfied that that would be reasonable, having regard to the interests of council tax payers. We assure the House that those discretionary powers are unaffected by the Bill and remain in place. Given that local authorities will be able to use those discretionary powers to provide relief, including for ratepayers subject to the higher multiplier, the amendment is not required. I hope that assures hon. Members.

I turn to amendments 1 to 6, which would widen the scope of the lower multipliers so that qualifying manufacturing properties would become eligible alongside retail, hospitality and leisure properties. In the Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke of the vital importance of manufacturing to the British economy and of how providing them with a permanent cut to their business rates could help them to recover.

Let me reiterate the Government’s support for the manufacturing sector as a whole. It is said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers, but it is also a nation of innovators, creators and entrepreneurs. Our manufacturing sector helps bring many of those ideas to life, and we understand its importance. But the Government must also support our high streets—the hoteliers, restaurateurs and publicans—and that is especially important with a property tax such as business rates as those sectors rely on good locations, which in the business rates system are often valuable locations. If they did not have that targeted support, they would feel the hit very strongly.

Through the Bill, we are delivering our manifesto pledge to protect valuable town centres and high streets by enabling the introduction of permanently lower taxes for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief that has been rolled over year on year since the covid-19 pandemic. We have been clear throughout the process that this tax cut must be fully funded. Therefore, against the current fiscal backdrop, a widening of the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers might dilute the support that the Government were able to provide, or its impact might even require a higher tax rate for properties with values of more than £500,000 to fund such new multipliers. However, we respect hon. Members’ points of view and agree that our manufacturing sector should be recognised and supported.

Advanced manufacturing is one of the eight growth-driving sectors identified as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. At the autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for the new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. That is how the Government intend to support the innovators, creators and entrepreneurs mentioned earlier. Because we have this package in place to support manufacturing, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that I have been able to provide hon. Members with reassurance as to our commitment to support the sector, which I am sure the whole House recognises is vital.

I turn to amendments 7 and 8. While clause 5 will remove business rates charitable relief from private schools, the amendments would introduce new provisions or expand existing provisions in the Bill to ensure that certain private schools remain eligible for business rates charitable relief. Amendment 7 would result in a fee-paying school retaining its relief if it wholly or mainly catered for pupils with special educational needs as defined under section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014, whether or not those pupils have an education, health and care plan. Amendment 8 would result in a private faith school or a private school with a special character maintaining its eligibility for charitable relief if there were no maintained or academy school of the same faith or special character  within the statutory walking distance set out in the Education Act 1996. Although amendment 8 does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from previous contributions in the House that that would include schools that follow a particular method of education. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are eligible to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which the amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools. As we have said, the removal of the tax break is necessary to fund school support for the over 90% of pupils who are educated in the state sector.

The Government have carefully considered their approach to minimising the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that private schools that are charities and that wholly or mainly—by over 50%—provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable relief. As hon. Members will be aware, most children with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can only be supported in a private school, the local authority directly funds that place.

Where an EHCP has not named a private school, the parents or carers of the child may choose to place that child in a private school, but that is a choice made by the parents and does not detract from the assessment that the pupil’s needs can be catered for in the mainstream state-funded sector. In instances where a child’s parents disagree with the local authority’s assessment that their needs can be met in the state sector, the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel to resolve such disagreements.

The Government are aware of the concerns raised by hon. Members and others that pupils with special educational needs in private schools may lose their charitable relief. The Government believe that most private special schools will not be affected at all by the Bill. In fact, we expect any private special schools losing eligibility for private relief to be the exception; according to our assessment, they could be in the single figures. It is important that we keep it in that context. \p Richard Tice: Will the Minister give way? \p Jim McMahon: I do not have time for any more interventions.

Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. The majority of children in England with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in the state sector already. The Government’s ambition is for all children and young people with special educational needs or a disability to receive the right support to succeed in their education as they move into adult life.

As Members know, all schools are required to follow the Equality Act 2010, which includes fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and of none. We have listened carefully to arguments relating to exempting faith schools from the Bill, and we have decided that a carve-out for faith schools or schools with other special characteristics cannot be justified. For those reasons, we are unable to accept amendment 8.

Finally, amendment 10 would delay the removal of charitable rates relief from private schools by one year to April 2026. To eliminate barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture of the state sector, where most children are educated. Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a tough but, in the end, necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver on the Government’s commitments to education and young people. Together, these policies are expected to raise over £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30—essential funding to improve the education of the vast majority of school-age children. Delaying their implementation would forgo about £140 million, which, frankly, cannot be justified.

The House has heard a good range of amendments to the Bill, and I hope that I have been able to address them all. Although we are not able to accept the amendments, I hope that the assurances that I have outlined are accepted and Members feel able to withdraw them. If not, the Government cannot support them.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 342.

Question accordingly negatived.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 25 November).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Within eighteen months of the day on which sections 1 to 4 of this Act are commenced, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of those sections.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the impact of the introduction of the lower multiplier on qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments,

(b) the impact of the introduction of higher multipliers in relation to a hereditament for which the value is £500,000 or more.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the review and lay a copy of that review before Parliament.

(4) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit including—

(a) businesses,

(b) the Valuation Office Agency; and

(c) Billing Authorities.”—(David Simmonds.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 340.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 7, page 5, line 37, leave out from “persons” to end of line 38 and insert—

“who have special educational needs.

(5A) In subsection (5) ‘special educational needs’ has the same meaning as in section 20 (When a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”—(David Simmonds.)

This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 341.

Question accordingly negatived.

Third Reading \p Jim McMahon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge all who have contributed to the Bill’s passage through this House, particularly my private office team, for the support that they have offered during this process, officials in my Department, for the outstanding work that they have done, and colleagues in the Department for Education and the Treasury, as well as Clerks of the House, for supporting the process of this Bill.

The Bill honours the Government’s manifesto pledge to end business rates charitable rate relief for private schools in England and to fundamentally reform the business rates system. We are kickstarting this endeavour through the introduction of lower tax rates for retail, hospitality, and leisure properties.

I thank all Members who contributed to the evidence sessions, the Committee stage and today’s debate. I hope, even though there were disagreements on parts of the new clauses and on the amendments, that there is at least an acknowledgment that we have gone a long way to ensure that we get to the heart of what this Bill is intended to do when it comes to the high street and our town centres. In the end, whatever the differences—and let us be honest there are plenty—we all know how important our small businesses are to the viability of our high streets. We all recognise that these are more than just places in which to do business; they are places that people look to as the heart of their community. They are always more than the sum of their parts. Hopefully, Members will see that these measures will really make a dent in this area.

I also place on the record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, including: the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation; the British Retail Consortium; the Co-op Group; M&S; the Shopkeepers’ Campaign; the British Property Federation; and the Independent Schools Council. They have enabled us to scrutinise the Bill properly and to get evidence from professionals who understand what things are like on the ground, and that, I believe, added value to the process.

I thank those who attended and gave evidence in Committee for their time and willingness to share their expertise. I also wish to extend my thanks to hon. Members who attended the Public Bill Committee to ask questions, to foster debate, and to contribute to discussions as we take these important first steps to transform the business rates system.

The Bill will help to secure additional funding to enable the Government to deliver their commitments to the majority of children who attend state schools, which is the second part of this Bill. Ending tax breaks for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. It will come as welcome news to most parents in England, as it represents the Government’s determination to break down the barriers to opportunity and ensure that all children get a high-quality education. Let us be absolutely clear: more than 90% of children in this country go to state schools and they deserve the best, too. Now they are going to get it.

Let me assure Members that the education system in England is prepared for the relatively small number of pupils who may move as a result of the measures in this Bill. Much of what we have heard about churn in the system is not supported by the evidence and, in the end, it runs the risk of scaremongering. We need to reflect on the fact that there has always been change in the system, even before these measures were introduced. Importantly, we are organising to make sure that parents and pupils receive support if they need it, but we believe that will be around the edges.

The Bill will also provide certainty to high streets by making provision to introduce a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have heard a lot about the change from the covid relief to the permanent, baked-in relief that we are providing through the Bill. The Opposition have said a number of times during the Bill’s passage that it represents a reduction, but a degree of honesty is required. The Opposition know, as do we, that there was no provision—not a single pound or penny—for the continuation of the temporary relief provided during covid on which retailers, hospitality providers and leisure providers were relying.

The Opposition know that that is a fact, as do we. The only difference is that while the Opposition were willing to political point score, while businesses were waiting for maturity and for an answer to the problem, we were getting on with the job of government, and providing the permanent support that businesses need. How will we pay for it? We have heard the Opposition say a lot that they do not support measures, but they always support the investment. They support the investment in state schools, but not the measures to generate the income. They support the measures to support high streets, but seem not to support the measures to ensure that premises with a value of £500,000 or more pay more into the pot.

The reality is that this has not just come out of the blue. The Conservatives had 14 years to address the imbalance from the online to the on-street, from the out-of-town to the in-town, and they did nothing, so it is, frankly, ridiculous for them to try to present themselves during the passage of the Bill as the champions of enterprise, of our town centres and of small businesses. They now have an opportunity. We have sorted out the amendments—they were nonsense, and most people would accept that—but on Third Reading we get to vote on the substance of the Bill. The Opposition could do the right thing. They could change course and back support for state schools to get them the money that they need. They could back measures to get money to the high street in our town centres and do the right thing. Now is the time to show that they will be the mature Opposition that they promised to be, but I expect that that will not be the path they choose. Luckily, the Government are getting on with the job. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the Minister, and indeed my shadow Ministers, the other Opposition spokespeople and all parliamentarians who have helped with the passage of the Bill, as well as the Clerks and officials—not that I would like to see the Bill progress any further. Aristotle, in his book “Politics”, over 2,000 years ago—[Interruption.] \p Caroline Nokes: Order! \p Kevin Hollinrake: Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle talked about deviant government. Alongside tyranny, he placed democracy. He said the risk is that, sooner or later, a Government will come along who represent only their own interests and those of their supporters, and that that Government will pursue the politics of envy. Let us see who the Minister’s supporters are. They are not the 12.6 million pensioners in this country, if we judge by the winter fuel allowance; not the 89,500 farmers whose livelihoods will be damaged by the family farm tax; not the 5 million businesspeople who will be damaged by the changes to business property relief, who employ 14 million people and pay £200 billion a year in taxes; not those people who live in rural areas; and not the families of the 550,000 young people who are in private and independent education. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—this is not scaremongering —90,000 of them may go back into the state sector as a result of the Government’s choices.

The Government have the gall to say that the fact that business rates or VAT do not apply to school fees is a tax break. It is no more a tax break than there being no VAT on housing, children’s clothes or food. Those measures are there because we should encourage people to pursue education, particularly those who scrimp and save to send their children into private education.

What about businesses? Businesses are suffering on the back of the employer national insurance rise of £25 billion a year, and are worried about the future because of the withdrawal of business property relief and agricultural property relief. The reality is that this Bill means a cut in support for many of those whom the  Minister said he seeks to protect—people who work in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. The 75% discount is down to 40%. That will mean a tangible difference for the average pub of £5,500 a year. That comes on top of the huge increases in employer national insurance. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off to the tune of £925 million. That is the tax charge he is placing on those businesses he says he seeks to protect. If he is honest with them, those taxes will go up again in April 2026. That is the reality of the situation.

What promise did Labour make before the election? They said they would scrap business rates completely—another broken promise. In their manifesto, they said they would change the balance between high streets and the online giants. That is not what the Bill does. The Bill also taxes breweries, airports, football stadiums and bricks-and-mortar retailers such as John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. That is the reality behind the Government’s changes: not scrapping business rates, nothing on the online giants and big taxes on many businesses. This is the politics of envy. It is the tyranny of socialism, and that is why we will vote against the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 171.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 16 January, the business determined for that day by the Backbench Business Committee may be proceeded with until 5.00pm or for 90 minutes, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; those proceedings may be entered upon and continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.) \p Gill Furniss: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the plight of women with endometriosis and the everyday struggles they face in the workplace.

Endometriosis was first identified in 1860, but progress in improving the lives of women suffering from it has moved at a glacial pace since then. As the Women and Equalities Committee so accurately put it:

“Women and girls are missing out on their education, career opportunities, relationships, social lives and are having their fertility impacted because of neglected reproductive health conditions.”

This debate focuses on the impact of endometriosis on women in the workplace. I chose this specific focus of attention because an examination of all the issues facing women with this condition would far exceed the time constraints of an Adjournment debate; it would span an entire Parliament and more. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for raising this massive issue. I have in my office a girl who joined as a 16-year-old and has been with me for almost 12 years. She got married on new year’s day. At the age of 28, she had menopause to try to help her endometriosis. As a caring employer, I obviously made sure that she had all the days off that she needed, but not every workplace will ensure that such women get the time off that they should. Does the hon. Lady agree that, although the debate will raise awareness, there is a role for the Government to ensure that there is training for businesses so that they understand their obligations? \p Gill Furniss: I thank the hon. Member for that point.

The issue has been known about for a long time. The women’s health strategy, published in 2022, painted a picture of what workplaces should be like over the next 10 years, arguing that women should

“feel able to speak openly about their health and to be confident that they will be supported by their employer and workplace colleagues, with an end to taboos”

and that

“women experiencing women’s health issues such as period problems, endometriosis, fertility treatment, miscarriage and menopause”

must

“feel well supported in their workplaces.”

This is a far cry from the reality facing women in the workplace today. \p Alec Shelbrooke: It is fortuitous that you are in the Chair tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker, given all the work you did on these issues in the last Parliament as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

I think that the hon. Lady attended my Westminster Hall last year, and I am grateful to her for securing this Adjournment debate. As a direct consequence of my Westminster Hall debate, Essex police contacted me, saying, “We are looking into doing this. Can you give us advice on the workplace?” It was a great example of the  impact of this place, and employers will be listening to her debate. Des she agree that education and sunlight will help a lot of employers make the right decisions? \p Gill Furniss: I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for the efforts he has put in over many years.

Stigma and a lack of awareness by employers means that reproductive health conditions can have a significant effect on women’s experiences at work. It is almost impossible to remain at work when suffering from chronic pain and the mental toll that these conditions cause. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I thank my hon. Friend for the fantastic speech she is making. Endometriosis UK, which provides the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, of which I am the chair, released a report last year that found that 47% of women had visited their GP 10 or more times with symptoms prior to diagnosis. Many of those women are likely to face issues with getting time off work to attend these appointments, or experience some form of disciplinary action because of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that being understanding and tolerant about the number of appointments needed to secure a diagnosis is critical to being an endometriosis-friendly employer, and that, ultimately, we need to take steps to ensure that the process does not take several years and so many appointments? \p Gill Furniss: I thank my hon. Friend. The average length of time taken is now eight years, which is not good.

Many women feel unable to speak openly about endometriosis as they would other conditions, as if it were something to be ashamed of. Research shows that 23% of women take time off work because of period health issues while 80% lie about reasons for absence if they are related to periods. Having said that, endometriosis is not just about periods; it is a whole-body complaint. I do not think there is an organ in the body up to the chest that has not been found to be affected by what is a crippling disease. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I want to build on what the hon. Lady said about endometriosis in the workplace. The condition often comes with infection of the digestive system, which can make many women incontinent to the point that they suddenly have to run. That is important to consider, as this is not just about appointments and time off but the conditions in which people work and the understanding they need from their colleagues and bosses. \p Gill Furniss: I completely agree, and it has serious consequences. Women may need to have a stoma because of the damage done to their bowels. The right hon. Member and I have both met quite young women their 20s who have needed to have hysterectomies and will never be able to bear a child.

Endometriosis should not mean that women have to put their careers on hold and leave the jobs they have worked hard to get. Employers can take simple steps such as offering flexible working, access to period products and time off to attend appointments to build the type of workplace envisioned in the women’s health strategy.

I am pleased that the Government have brought forward the Employment Rights Bill, which will be the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation. That offers the perfect opportunity to begin to change the workplace experience of women with endometriosis. \p Alice Macdonald: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As she mentioned, endometriosis can have a knock-on effect on many areas of a woman’s life. It can affect mental health, and it can also have an impact on fertility, yet there is no statutory right to time off work for fertility treatment, or indeed in many other scenarios. Does she agree that we should welcome the support that employers provide in this area and encourage others to do much more to support women going through endometriosis and so many other difficult conditions? \p Gill Furniss: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I completely agree.

Although the Employment Rights Bill does require large employers to publish equality action plans, there is no specific mention of reproductive conditions. What discussions is the Minister having with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that those issues are not forgotten?

What hope can we have that employers will understand the condition if even some medical professionals do not? All too often, we have heard stories from women who have been told, “It’s just a heavy period” and, “Suck it up—every woman goes through this.” \p Catherine Atkinson: I met women from the endometriosis support group in Derby, and so many reported that they had had to give up work because of their symptoms as well as the huge delays in their diagnosis and treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that until this gets real priority and understanding, we will continue to lose out on the talents and skills of women with endometriosis? \p Gill Furniss: Absolutely, and I will come to that shortly.

That leaves women feeling dismissed, ignored and belittled by the very people who should be helping them. The result is that it takes almost nine years on average to get a diagnosis of endometriosis in the UK. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister on the steps she is taking to promote better awareness. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Gill Furniss: I am sorry; I have got to make progress.

I do not underestimate the task for Ministers in fixing our NHS after it was left in tatters by the previous Government. Waiting lists for gynaecological care have grown faster than those for any other specialty in recent years, leaving many women in agony. The women’s health strategy correctly identified some of these chronic issues, but in the absence of funding to back that up, we have gone further and further backwards from what we need.

For instance, women’s health hubs have improved women’s access to healthcare services, but the previous Government failed to give them long-term certainty  and their funding is set to run out in March. As the Government work hard to rebuild the NHS, improving gynaecological care must be at the centre of that, because women have waited long enough. Will the Minister therefore update the House on how the Government will implement the measures in the women’s health strategy?

We must continue to encourage research into endometriosis. Our world-leading researchers are doing vital work in clinical trials to find better ways to manage and treat this condition. They will not stop until they find a cure. Therefore, will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to support clinical research and ensure that women are able to get on to those clinical trials? If we have a cure, it is obvious that we will not have any of the problems that I have spoken about.

I commend the Women and Equalities Committee on its excellent report into women’s reproductive health conditions. It has made a number of recommendations, including on employment rights, and I look forward to reading the Government’s response. I hope that they will listen to calls to give specific mention to reproductive health as part of the Employment Rights Bill, which has cross-party support. I also praise Endometriosis UK for its invaluable work in supporting women with this condition and campaigning for change. It acts as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, of which I am an officer. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this critical debate. With an average of eight-plus years for a diagnosis, does she agree that employers must build a more supportive and flexible approach that embeds policies to help women, such the endo-friendly employers scheme? Will she join me in thanking campaigners such as the Endo Warriors West Lothian for their tireless awareness-raising efforts? \p Gill Furniss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that is what we are talking about. For many years, the APPG was chaired by our dear friend David Amess. David campaigned tirelessly for improvements to endometriosis care, and he will forever remain on our minds as we continue his legacy. \p Karin Smyth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing this important debate on the impact of endometriosis on women in the workplace. In opposition I supported the work of the APPG. I echo the praise for the campaigning work of Endometriosis UK and the support that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and others in the Chamber have given to the APPG. I also remember the work of our friend David Amess. I echo the recognition of the recent report by the Women and Equalities Committee on reproductive health conditions. My Department is working across Government on our response, which will be published in due course.

I welcome the progress made on raising awareness—we are moving very fast on this—and on providing better support for women’s health conditions, including endometriosis. Nevertheless, this Government recognise that women with endometriosis have been failed for far too long, and we acknowledge the impact that it has on women’s lives, relationships and participation in education  and the workforce. There is still much more work to be done. We are committed to improving support for any women and girls whose periods or women’s conditions disrupt their normal life, work or education.

In addition to receiving support in the workplace, all women should have access to healthcare support to help diagnose and manage this condition. We are making progress to ensure that those with endometriosis receive a timely diagnosis and effective treatment. \p Alec Shelbrooke: There has been a lot of cross-party work on this issue. I led a debate—the last one before the general election was called, I think—on endometriosis education. It is not prescribed that schools should educate about what a bad period is—I still meet women born in this century who do not know. If someone does not know what a disease is, how do they know that they have it? I urge the Minister to ensure that those messages are pushed in the Department for Education, as we need to ensure that people know what diseases they could have. \p Karin Smyth: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point, which I will talk about later.

On the Employment Rights Bill, our plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth. On 10 October, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to introduce legislation within 100 days of entering office, by introducing the Employment Rights Bill. As part of the Bill, we are taking the first steps towards requiring employers to publish action plans alongside their gender pay gap figures. The relevant clause sets out that regulations may require employers to develop and publish action plans relating to gender equality, which include measures to address the gender pay gap and support employees going through the menopause. It deliberately does not provide an exhaustive list of matters related to gender equality, giving us the scope to be led by the actions themselves. This reflects the fact that many of the actions employers take will be beneficial for people in a lot of different circumstances; for example, improved provision of flexible working can be valuable for an employee balancing childcare as well as someone managing a health condition such as endometriosis.

In the same way, ensuring that employers support staff going through the menopause will necessitate them taking steps that are positive for supporting women’s health in the workplace more broadly. For example, menopause best practice includes greater discussion around women’s health and awareness of potential workplace adjustments—things that have a much wider potential benefit. As my hon. Friend said, we need to start to reduce the stigma and taboos and remove them from the debate.

Through the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are also making statutory sick pay payable from the first day of sickness absence. This will particularly benefit those who suffer from conditions such as endometriosis, who may need to take time off to manage a flare up. We are also removing the lower earnings limit and extending statutory sick pay to up to 1.3 million additional low-paid employees, particularly benefiting women, young people and those in part-time work.

The Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), leads for the Government on the Bill from the equalities team, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough that we are working with her and talking about this issue throughout the Government. For example, I regularly join Women and Equalities questions here in the Chamber to make sure we work closely together, and I will continue to work closely with colleagues on these issues.

The new measures we are seeking to introduce build on existing Government support for employers, which recognises their key role in increasing employment opportunities and supporting disabled people and those with health conditions to thrive as part of the workforce. The Government’s current offer to employers includes a digital information service that provides tailored guidance to businesses to support employees to remain in work. That includes guidance on health disclosures and having conversations about health, as well as guidance on legal obligations including statutory sick pay and reasonable adjustments. The service is available across Britain and can currently be accessed from a range of trusted locations, including both the Health and Safety Executive and ACAS websites. We are also taking steps to better understand the challenges faced by women with endometriosis in the workplace and to improve workplace support for those with the condition.

The Government health and wellbeing fund has awarded almost £2 million to 16 voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations leading projects focused on supporting women who experience reproductive health issues to remain in or return to the workplace, including a project on endometriosis delivered by Endometriosis UK.

An Office for National Statistics study is investigating the impact of endometriosis on women’s labour market outcomes. This important study will be a vital step to improving our understanding and will inform future actions policy work. The first publication in this research project, on the characteristics of women diagnosed with endometriosis in England between 2011 and 2021, was published in December.

In addition to providing workplace support for endometriosis, the Government are committed to improving healthcare support and ensuring that women with endometriosis can receive timely diagnosis and treatment. We recognise that patients have been let down for too long while they wait for the care they need. Nearly 600,000 women are on gynaecology waiting lists. It is unacceptable that patients are waiting too long to get the care they need. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough for her sympathy with the task of reducing those lists, but that is our priority. Cutting waiting lists, including for gynaecology, is a key part of our health mission and a top priority for this Government. We have committed to achieving the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment by the end of this Parliament, and that absolutely includes those waiting for gynaecology treatment.

My noble Friend Baroness Merron, the Minister responsible for patient safety, women’s health and mental health, and I recently met with the Government’s women’s health ambassador, Professor Dame Lesley Regan, and NHS England to discuss progress on women’s health and current issues including gynaecology waiting lists.  Following that meeting I am pleased that our recently published plan for reforming elective care sets out commitments to support the delivery of innovative models in gynaecology offering patients care closer to home and piloting gynaecology pathways in community diagnostic centres for patients with post-menopausal bleeding.

Enabling access to adequate healthcare support begins with providing high-quality education and information on menstrual health, as the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) highlighted, so that women and girls know when and how to seek help for symptoms such as heavy or painful periods. The compulsory aspects of the curriculum on relationships, sex and health education means all pupils are taught about several areas of women’s health, including menstruation, contraception, fertility, pregnancy and menopause.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has committed to providing teachers with clear guidance that focuses on the wellbeing of children. Her Department will look carefully at all relevant evidence and engage with stakeholders, including young people and parents, ahead of publishing a consultation response and the revised guidance later this year. I am pleased that Dame Lesley Regan, in her role as women’s health ambassador, has been feeding women’s health perspectives into this work.

My Department has worked with NHS England to improve and create new content on endometriosis symptoms, diagnosis and treatment options on the NHS website and YouTube channel. NHS England has also published a decision support tool for managing heavy periods to support women’s understanding of their symptoms and appropriate treatment options to discuss with clinicians. Education and clinical guidelines support healthcare professionals to provide care for women with endometriosis.

The General Medical Council has introduced the medical licensing assessment for most incoming doctors, including all medical students graduating in the academic year 2024-25 and onwards. The content for the assessment includes several topics relating to women’s health, including menstrual problems and endometriosis, and will encourage a better understanding of common women’s health problems in all doctors as they start their careers in the UK, which we all want to see. Endometriosis is also already in the core curriculum for trainee GPs, obstetricians and gynaecologists.

Last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published updated guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, and the new and updated recommendations on referral and investigation should help women receive a diagnosis more quickly. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department has also commissioned a number of studies focused on endometriosis diagnosis and treatment and patient experience.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough for tabling this debate and for her continued long-standing advocacy for women’s health. Let me affirm the Government’s commitment to supporting the many women who live with endometriosis in the workplace and beyond. This Government are committed to prioritising women’s health as we build an NHS fit for the future. My noble friend Baroness Merron is carefully considering how we take forward the women’s health strategy by aligning it to the Government’s missions and forthcoming 10-year health plan, and women’s equality will be at the heart of our missions. It is vital that we work with women to better understand their experiences and address their concerns, which have been ignored for far too long.

Question put and agreed to.

7.27 pm

House adjourned. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 18 November 2024, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 418, Noes 78.

Question accordingly agreed to.

That the draft Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 19 November 2024, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 423, Noes 77.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 21 November 2024, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 424, Noes 109.

Question accordingly agreed to.