debates/debates2025-11-05f conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-05)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-05f conversation_22

Janet Daby:Hurricane Melissa has devastated Jamaica and left the country in crisis. The Imperial College storm model states that the hurricane would have been unlikely without climate change. I know that the Prime Minister is representing the UK at the COP30 summit against climate change. Will my good and right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the UK leads the way on preventing climate change? \p David Lammy: I am deeply saddened by the loss of life and the scenes of devastation in the great country of Jamaica. Like my hon. Friend, I have relatives in Jamaica, and I thank and commend her for her personal fundraising efforts. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been in touch with their counterparts to offer our full support, with £7.5 million of aid funding already mobilised. We have chartered flights from Jamaica for British nationals who are unable to fly home commercially. Jamaica will also receive $71 million from the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance  Facility pool—funding that began under the previous Labour Government and that Jamaica can draw on for its renewal. \p Rishi Sunak: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for joining me at a recent event in Parliament to support the work of Prostate Cancer Research, a charity of which I am an ambassador. He and I both believe that introducing a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer is the right thing to do and would save lives. Does he agree that the recent compelling results of the 162,000-patient European trial support the case, and that that evidence, alongside data from Prostate Cancer Research and others, should be given significant weight by the UK National Screening Committee? \p David Lammy: I thank the right hon. Member for raising the issue. Sadly, too many of us will know someone affected by prostate cancer; too many members of my family are currently living with prostate cancer. I was proud to co-chair the Prostate Cancer Research event last year and this year with him, and I share his determination to boost research, speed up treatment and deliver better care. He knows that I am biased, but these are rightly decisions for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the latest evidence for prostate screening and considering whether any changes should be made to save lives, and we have invested £42 million jointly with Prostate Cancer UK— \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Jenny Riddell-Carpenter. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: In the past 15 years, there have been 170 cases of matricide. In 2022, more women were killed by their sons than by strangers. Child-to-parent abuse is often linked to complex mental health issues, and earlier this year I met Laura and Ian who are doing all they can to support their son in his rehabilitation after serving time in prison. They are living in constant fear of physical harm from their son, who they love and adore. Will the Deputy Prime Minister support my request to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the effects of child-to-parent abuse? \p David Lammy: Matricide is a horrific crime and we are committed to tackling it. Our violence against women and girls strategy will set out how we will halve violence, including domestic abuse, against women over the next decade, and I will arrange for the Minister to meet my hon. Friend. \p Martin Vickers: Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency is under threat of closure, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. There have been a number of expressions of interest in taking over the whole site. If one of those passes the test of due diligence, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will back the project and allow the continuation of operations at the refinery? \p David Lammy: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance from the Dispatch Box, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him. \p James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Is it to correct the number of questions, and to say that I was right and you were wrong? I hope that you are not going for a job at the Treasury. Come on then. \p James Cartlidge: To be clear, Mr Speaker, my point of order is about a serious issue. The Telegraph is  reporting that a police manhunt has been launched for a second asylum seeker who was mistakenly freed from prison. Can you advise me on how I can ask the Justice Secretary whether he was aware of that when I asked him about it repeatedly in Prime Minister’s questions? \p Lindsay Hoyle: You have put it on the record, Mr Cartlidge. Let us move on. \p Priti Patel: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s approach to the worsening conflict in Sudan. \p Hamish Falconer: I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the shocking violence against civilians in El Fasher. The latest reports, including of 460 civilians being killed in a single attack, are harrowing. This is part of a pattern of appalling violence perpetrated against civilians and is just one element of the suffering driven by the war in Sudan, a conflict that has now created the worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid and 12 million have been displaced. Famine is spreading and cholera is widespread, with the parties continuing to block lifesaving assistance. As the Foreign Secretary said at the Manama dialogue last weekend,

“no amount of aid can resolve a crisis of this magnitude until the guns fall silent…the world must do more”.

The UK is using all the tools at our disposal to protect civilians, to get humanitarian aid to those in most need, and to secure a lasting ceasefire in Sudan. A year ago, the UK, along with Sierra Leone, brought a resolution to the UN Security Council. This would have brought forward concrete measures to protect civilians if it had not been so cynically vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, we brought international partners to London to host the London-Sudan conference to build consensus around strengthening humanitarian access and ending the war. On 30 October, we called an emergency UN Security Council session, condemning the assault on El Fasher by the Rapid Support Forces and its devastating impact on the civilian population. We led a press statement to maintain the spotlight on the situation and the pressure on the RSF to de-escalate in line with UN Security Council resolution 2736.

On Saturday, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million in aid in response to the situation El Fasher, which will provide lifesaving food and health assistance as well as support to survivors of sexual violence. That is on top of the £23 million we have already mobilised from existing budgets through partners such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. We are providing £120 million this year to the crisis in Sudan, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been clear that this funding is protected. We will keep working at every level to bring this horrific conflict to an end. \p Priti Patel: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The atrocities of recent days, including in El Fasher, are beyond horrifying. The suffering inflicted on the Sudanese people by this war is an affront to humanity. Red lines have been crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that cannot be allowed to stand, especially by the UK as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. Britain needs to use its influence to co-ordinate robust and stronger international action to tighten the screws on the warring parties, press them into a ceasefire and end this barbaric conflict.

The Government must go further and upgrade our support for those documenting evidence of these heinous crimes. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen? Will the Minister introduce more hard-hitting sanctions on the key operators and take concerted action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful conflict? Are actions of this nature being co-ordinated with international partners, and what progress has been made to build up organic civilian political groups so that Sudan can move back to a civilian Government after the ceasefire? It is essential that we have a credible day-after plan as soon as possible.

On the dire humanitarian crisis, are the changing territorial positions of the warring parties having an impact on the ability to deliver aid, and if so, what is the plan to counter this? We note the announcement earlier this month—I think last week in Bahrain—of the £5 million being provided for emergency aid support for the survivors of sexual violence in El Fasher. The whole House will recognise the importance of getting aid to them, so what can the Minister say about the delivery of that urgently needed aid? How is that happening? What discussions have the UK Government had with the Sudan quad in recent days? How does the Minister define the UK’s relationship with the quad, now and moving forward?

Can the Minister share his latest assessment of the region’s wider ability to manage the fallout from this terrible conflict? Have the Government carried out an assessment of what different outcomes from this conflict would mean for the security of the Red sea? Those carrying out the atrocities in Sudan need to know that the whole world is watching them and can see what they are doing, and that there will be consequences. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. Lady for that important set of questions. On accountability, we continue to lead the core group in Geneva. We are supporting the fact-finding mechanism of the United Nations, and it is absolutely vital that work on accountability and justice continues. Those at the top of both the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces are responsible for the conduct of their forces, and they must be held accountable for their conduct.

The right hon. Lady is right to raise questions about humanitarian aid. I am afraid I can confirm that the shifting of the frontlines is affecting aid delivery, and aid is clearly not reaching El Fasher in the volumes required. The reports, including the report from the World Health Organisation last week, of both the events in El Fasher and the consequences for civilians are horrifying. I can confirm that both the Foreign Secretary and I were in touch with many key players in the region over the weekend, including members of the quad, the secretary-general of the Arab League and a range of others. This is a situation of the utmost urgency, and more must be done. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: The UK, as penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, has already played an important role in calling an urgent Security Council meeting this week, but what my hon. Friend says about Russia chimes with the  Select Committee’s experience when we visited New York. It was suggested to us that the UK has held back from raising Sudan at the Security Council because it knows that Russia is likely to use its veto. Beyond providing direct aid funding, which I know is a priority for the Prime Minister, what can the United Kingdom do to focus the minds of the international community on the unfolding tragedy in Sudan? It has gone overlooked for far too long. \p Hamish Falconer: My right hon. Friend is experienced in these issues. Questions of aid are absolutely vital, but as the Foreign Secretary said over the weekend, aid is not enough in a conflict of this magnitude. We are working with all parties to try to ensure a change in behaviour from the two conflict parties. They are taking steps that are not only inflicting horrific hardship and violence on civilians in north Darfur and wider Sudan, but restricting the vital flow of aid, which is so important. We will continue to work with a range of international partners, including members of the quad, to try to bring this conflict to a close. The quad’s statement on 12 September is important, and all external parties providing support to either side in the conflict must stop doing so. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: The Rapid Support Forces’ capture of El Fasher, following an 18-month siege, has ushered in a new phase of terror. Reports of systematic sexual violence against women and the summary execution of civilians are truly horrific. The Minister referred to the UN Security Council, which met last week and demanded that all parties to the conflict protect civilians and abide by their obligations under international law. It is clear that those obligations are being entirely ignored. As the penholder on Sudan at the UN, the UK has a unique responsibility to show leadership and ensure that protection for citizens is more than just words.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm whether the UK sought at the UN to secure a country-wide arms embargo? Secondly, do the Government consider that the United Arab Emirates is a party to the conflict? Thirdly, in the light of reports that British weapons have been supplied by the UAE to the RSF, will the Government ban arms sales to the UAE until it can be proven that Abu Dhabi is not re-exporting British arms to the RSF? \p Hamish Falconer: Let me take this opportunity to be clear on reports about British arms, because I can see from previous discussions in this Chamber that there is some confusion. There was an article that made reference to a range of different arms that might be in use in Sudan, and I have already spoken about the importance of all external parties not supporting the two parties to the conflict. Let me clear: the UK is providing no arms that are of use in the conflict. As I understand it, the article referred to a seatbelt or a harness, which is not a prohibited item; components of an engine; and a target practice item, all exports of which were stopped in 2017.

I reiterate that we interpret our arms obligations carefully and strictly, but to clear up any confusion for the House, in some cases, these are not items that are  prohibited at all. None of those items is eligible for export at the moment, and none would make any difference to the scenes of conflict that we are discussing this afternoon. \p Marsha de Cordova: The situation in Sudan is beyond devastating. Indeed, Sudan’s ambassador has warned that a genocide is taking place there. As we focus on those who are being violated, I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK Government lead international efforts to bring the perpetrators of the disgraceful violence against women and girls to justice, no matter how long that takes. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks a critical question. I am pleased to confirm that today, the UK has called for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council, in our capacity as leader of the Sudan core group. This is further action on our part to ensure that there is exactly what my hon. Friend calls for: accountability and scrutiny in this horrific conflict. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Obviously, what is happening in Sudan is absolutely appalling for the people there, but we cannot insulate ourselves from these sorts of conflicts. Mali is about to be taken over by terrorists. All over Africa, energetic young men are fleeing. They are walking across to Libya, being tortured and ending up in Calais. It seems to me that we must think outside of the box on this issue, and we should not wash our hands of it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell): why are we cutting overseas aid at the precise moment when the whole of Africa is in absolute turmoil? We are not an island. These young men are coming here; it would be much better if we arrested and deported them, and sent them back—with some help; we should not just lock them up—so that they can assist with rebuilding Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia. After all, we are one planet, are we not? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour for his question. His questions in this Chamber often surprise me. I am very much alive to the issues he has raised. I was in Algiers two weeks ago, I think, and met young men of exactly the profile he described—men who had sought to leave Mali and had got stuck somewhere on their way to the UK. The conditions they find themselves in are much more brutal than those that the cruel human traffickers tell them they can expect when they leave their home country, and many of them wish to return. I will have to check, but I think we have supported 6,000 men and women in Algeria who have returned to their country, rather than attempted an onward journey to Europe, and possibly eventually the UK. This is vital work. In our efforts to smash the gangs and stop the boats, we must, as the Father of the House says, look right back to the places of origin, which include some of the places we are talking about today. \p James Naish: It is estimated that 11.7 million civilians have been forcibly displaced. Of those, 840,000 are in Chad, which of course has its own issues. What support is being provided to Chad and neighbouring countries that are housing refugees from Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: We have a programme of support for refugees displaced in the region. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Sudan’s neighbours face a range of challenges, and the burden of refugee support often falls particularly heavily on the places with the fewest resources of their own. I am very happy to write to him with details about Chad, but having served for two years in Juba when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) was Secretary of State for International Development, I know what a significant impact conflict in the region can have. It displaces large numbers of people, which puts huge pressure on public services elsewhere. \p Andrew Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and underlining the importance of this matter by allowing further discussion on Sudan in the House. The Minister is doing a very good job, but the whole House needs top-level, prime ministerial involvement in this matter, just as Sir Tony Blair and my noble Friend Lord Cameron were involved when they were Prime Minister. We are witnessing wholesale slaughter. Today is not about money and humanitarian aid, but about impunity. These murderous thugs are bragging online about their part in the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. We need to keep very strong records, so that we can hold to account as many of these people as we can, and we need more action at the UN, where Britain holds the pen. We need to demand access for an African Union-UN delegation to El Fasher, so that they can meet the leaders of the RSF, and we need to prepare international sanctions to be visited on all its leaders. \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, based on long years of experience. I will certainly discuss his suggestions with the Minister with responsibility for Africa. \p Anneliese Dodds: The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification recently discovered conditions of famine in El Fasher and Kadugli. It has also stated that conditions in Dilling in south Kordofan are likely similar to those in Kadugli, but those conditions cannot be classified due to insufficient reliable data. Does the Minister agree that just as it is unacceptable to indiscriminately kill civilians, health workers and aid workers and restrict aid access, it is unacceptable to deny access for the purposes of famine classification, and are the Government making that point to the belligerents? \p Hamish Falconer: That is a very important point. It is absolutely vital that the IPC has the access it requires to make its classifications. I note with alarm and dismay how often this House relies on IPC classifications, not just in Sudan but in Gaza. It is vital that the IPC can do its work properly, so that its classifications, which are the world standard, can be relied on. \p Brian Mathew: In last night’s Adjournment debate, I called for a Lancaster House-style conference for all the parties to the Sudan conflict, so that a way to peace can be found. Government Members also called for a peacemaking force. Given the urgency of the situation, can the Minister please see to it that both of those suggestions are investigated, and  that discussions are opened with our partners in the region, including Nigeria, so that the suggestions can be acted on? \p Hamish Falconer: I take note of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions. I am sure that he will be aware that six months ago, we did host a conference—I think it was in Lancaster House—for the whole world, in order to try to make progress on this question. We did so mostly privately, given the sensitivities for all involved. We will continue to do all we can diplomatically, both publicly at the UN and behind closed doors, as part of a concerted effort to bring this violence to an end. \p David Taylor: I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) yesterday. He noted that in previous conflicts, concerted efforts had been made to bring in some form of UN peacekeeping force, but unfortunately, that does not seem very popular in today’s world. I will forgive the Minister if he thinks this is a naive question, but in addition to the humanitarian aid we are providing and the diplomacy we are undertaking, what can we do to stop civilians from being killed right now? Are we looking at any form of peacekeeping force, be it UN, African Union or a coalition of the willing, to stop civilians being killed right now? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks the right set of questions. Of course, the first priority must be a ceasefire. As he knows, there have been peacekeeping forces in Darfur previously, and they have faced very considerable difficulties in exercising their mandate when the conflict parties are not prepared to take the vital first step, which is to hold a ceasefire. \p Mark Pritchard: I have asked this before, and I will ask the Minister again: when will the Government publish their Africa strategy, covering both north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa? I fear that there will be other conflicts like this one, and as the UK, the US and the French have divested politically, economically, diplomatically and as regards the provision of aid, we have seen others fill that vacuum, such as China, Russia, proxies and terrorist groups. Unless the US, the UK, the French, and other partners and allies get together, and get back into Africa to support fragile Governments and stop them becoming failed Governments, we are likely to see our adversaries advance all over Africa—including in Commonwealth countries—and we are more likely to see more bloodshed, rape and torture and what one of our UK papers has called “hell on Earth” in Sudan. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment to these issues. I can reassure him that I have been in north Africa twice in the past two weeks, and the ministerial team will continue to pay Africa the attention that it deserves. I will have to revert to him on the question of the timetable for publishing the Africa strategy. \p Uma Kumaran: Despite it being the largest humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, and despite the mass rape and slaughter of civilians, when it comes to Sudan, it feels like the world has taken a moral holiday. The atrocities in El Fasher were entirely foreseeable—this conflict is not new. I understand that  the Foreign Secretary is leading the fight to keep Sudan on the agenda and to secure accountability for the mass atrocities in Darfur, but does the Minister agree that it is time that global leaders followed the UK’s example and showed the moral resolve, the moral courage and the leadership needed to end this deadly assault? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is one with which both I and the Foreign Secretary agree. As she said at the weekend, the world must do more. \p Julian Lewis: May I repeat the question that I asked the Minister’s colleague last week: are there no other regional powers that could intervene physically to separate the warring parties? May I put it to the Minister that, while it is fortunate that we have been granted successive urgent questions on this subject in successive weeks—thanks to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), to the shadow Foreign Secretary and to Mr Speaker—it would be a recognition of the anxiety felt in all parts of the House if the Government made regular ministerial statements on it, rather than us having to rely on applications for urgent questions? \p Hamish Falconer: As I am sure the House knows, this ministerial team is very happy to return to the House regularly, and Mr Speaker provides us with plenty of opportunities to do so. I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments back to the responsible Minister. For reasons that I am sure he will understand, I will decline his invitation to comment on the regional balance of military forces. \p Tahir Ali: Sudan is facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at the moment, with 150,000 people killed in the past two years and more than 14 million displaced. There are two aspects to this. First, humanitarian aid has to get to those who are affected, and urgently. Secondly, what measures will the Government take to stop the murder, rape and torture of innocent civilians in Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: I agree with my hon. Friend about aid access. On the tangible steps that we are taking, as I said earlier, we have called today for an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council on these questions. We have supported the fact-finding mission. My colleague the Minister for Africa conducted an event at the UN General Assembly in September. The Foreign Secretary has described some of the work she has done, too. We will keep at it for as long as it takes. \p Ellie Chowns: British-made military equipment has been found in conflict zones in Sudan. That includes Cummins engines found in armoured vehicles, which were not subject to export licensing, did not go through any checks and were not subject to any diversion checks having been sent to the UAE. The Minister dismissed the concerns expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), but is it not clear that our arms export licensing system is not functioning, is not fit for purpose and needs a full review, and that we should have an embargo on all arms exports to the UAE now? I agree  with him that the UK Government need to do more, as does the world. Does that not include international pressure and sanctions on all those with links to the warring party, including, as I understand it, the UAE and Egypt, which are supporting and fuelling the horrific conflict in Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: It is vital that external weaponry does not flow into Sudan at this time. I would not wish to characterise my earlier remarks to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), as dismissing his concerns; it was an effort to be precise about what we are talking about. The articles in question are a seat belt, a target practice item and components of an engine. The engine components may have been licensed at a previous time, but since then those licences would not apply for getting the components into Sudan. We need to be clear that these are neither bombs nor bullets, and nor are they items that are likely to be irreplaceable.

We are looking carefully at those reports, but given the tone of some of the commentary in this House, I want us to be absolutely clear what we are talking about. Our arms export licensing regime is one of the strongest in the world. I recognise the strength of concern in the House, but we have a duty to be precise about what we are talking about. These are not arms as the public would understand them. It is right that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) raises questions about the engine components, and we are looking carefully at the reports about when they may have been transferred, but let us be under no illusion: the components for that engine are unlikely to be making a substantial contribution to the absolutely devastating violence that we are seeing. \p Navendu Mishra: Some 3.5 million children under five years of age are suffering from acute malnutrition. In January 2025, the former Biden Administration said that it judged that

“the RSF and allied militias have committed genocide in Sudan.”

Do the British Government share the opinion of the former Biden Administration? \p Hamish Falconer: As the House will know, genocide determinations are, in the view of the British Government, a question for the competent courts. That does not in any way take away from the horror of what we see and the reports that we receive, including the World Health Organisation reports from early last week, which are absolutely horrifying about the scale of the violence taking place in Sudan. \p Andrew Murrison: Sudan is a crushingly poor country, but it is not without resources, so it is hardly surprising that malign state actors and their proxies are closely involved there, and not in a good way. What can be done in particular to disrupt the smuggling of gold from Sudan to Syria by the Wagner Group to fund Russia’s war in Ukraine? \p Hamish Falconer: My right hon. Friend—my predecessor—makes an important point about the role of what was known as the Wagner Group and is now Africa Corps. It has suffered some setbacks in the region, not least in Syria, but it continues to play a deeply malign role. We are focused on what Russian support is doing to that  part of the world, and it is all malign. We will continue to bear down on those questions in the way he would expect. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I understand the importance of this urgent question, but we have substantial business to get through today, so I ask that questions are short and, Minister, that answers are just as short and on point. \p Stella Creasy: I welcome the aid that the Minister has outlined for this horrific crisis. He is right that we must be precise about what military involvement, if any, the UK may have via arms sales. He will have also heard the concern about the UAE and what is happening. Amnesty International has described it as a

“hub for arms diversion for years”,

affecting conflicts not just in Sudan, but in Eritrea. Can he update the House? He says that the Government are looking closely at the reports about arms sales. Can he update us on what conversations he has had with our counterparts in the UAE on that? How can we close those loopholes so that everybody can have confidence in this matter? \p Hamish Falconer: We have looked closely at the reports in The Guardian and the associated documentary evidence that it has provided. I have tried to set out our assessment of those reports. We are still looking in particular at this question of the engine and the licensing arrangements by which it may have made its way to Sudan. However, unlike some of the reports that I have seen online and elsewhere, this is not large-scale British arms; this is three specific components, and the dossier of documents included a range of other countries. That is why I have focused my remarks more broadly. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that the UK and the UAE continue to discuss these issues, including discussions on Friday between the Foreign Secretary and her counterpart. \p Caroline Voaden: Given the horrendous, apocalyptic scenes we are seeing in Sudan, and the fact that 25 million people are now estimated to be in acute hunger, does the Minister still think it was right for the Government to cut our overseas development aid budget? Can he commit to the House that the Government will increase it back to 0.5% of national income and use that funding to fund the UK’s response in Sudan, which is so desperately needed? \p Hamish Falconer: I am happy to enter into the wider debate about aid funding, whether in relation to Sudan, Afghanistan or Gaza, but I must also tell the House what I see on a day-to-day basis: in Sudan, just as in those other countries, restricted access is the single most significant cause of harm, and that is a result of the actions of the participants in the conflict. There is a debate to be had about the overall aid budget, but at moments such as this, when areas that require aid are being cruelly deprived of it, we need to focus on where responsibility lies, and that is with the parties to the conflict. \p Steve Race: I thank the Government for the leadership they are showing on Sudan, including last week’s statement at the United Nations. The Minister is right to stress both the urgency and the horror of the current situation in El Fasher and beyond, but can he set out what is required next at the UN, in terms of both process and outcomes, to try to stop the violence and to tackle the ongoing humanitarian crisis? \p Hamish Falconer: There are three particular areas in which we are focused on UN action. The first relates to the fact-finding mission that we have supported, which is critical to accountability and justice; the second relates to the Human Rights Council itself, where, as I said earlier, there will be an emergency session; and thirdly, we will be discussing with our partners on the United Nations Security Council what more can be can be done following last week’s events there. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The 25 million people who are starving at the moment in Sudan are obviously victims of the most ghastly proxy war. What engagement do the Government have with the UAE on all this, and on its wider war objectives, given the vast mineral deposits that exist across Sudan, including in Darfur, which clearly a lot of people have their greedy eyes on? The poorest people in the poorest place, as ever, are victims of this war. \p Hamish Falconer: There have been a number of contributions this afternoon about the various countries with an interest in the region. We of course continue to discuss the events in Sudan with all members of the Quad and all those in the region with an interest, including the UAE, which we spoke to on Friday. \p Chris Hinchliff: I echo the comments of those who have highlighted that the atrocities in Sudan are absolutely abhorrent, and I welcome the Minister’s statement that we must hold those responsible to account, but may I ask for some further reassurance? Will he press for the expansion of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to international crimes committed across the whole of Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: As I understand it, the ICC already has the necessary powers, and indeed it has secured a conviction for crimes committed in 2003. I am sure that the House will not find news of that conviction reassuring, given that it is 20 years after the fact, but accountability measures taking effect whenever possible, even after such a long delay, still makes an important contribution to the international justice architecture. However, I am happy to look at the question of the mandate if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about it. \p Martin Wrigley: I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment that the need to stop the horror in Sudan is urgent, but while I hear much talk of continuing actions, nothing, other than an emergency meeting called today, seems to be happening urgently. What steps is he taking to change, to move forward, to try some new things, and to make something happen as a matter of urgency to stop this horrible conflict? \p Hamish Falconer: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, yes, we have called for an emergency meeting in the Human Rights Council today, and we have also been in discussions   with our partners today. Over the weekend we announced the provision of a further £5 million. The Foreign Secretary has been extensively engaged in discussions with all those with influence, and I have been playing my part in the region this weekend as well. We will continue to be as imaginative and as determined as the House would expect us to be. \p Kim Johnson: Rape and violence against women and girls has been used as a weapon of war in El Fasher, with militias acting with impunity. What support has been given to non-governmental organisations working on the ground to support the victims, and does the Minister agree that diplomatic efforts must be ramped up to end this horrific situation? \p Hamish Falconer: I do agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of diplomatic efforts. We have provided support specifically to deal with sexual and gender-based violence, which has included sending out a special team under the auspices of UN Women, and we are working closely with international NGOs through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund and other partners. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: The public watching will have been rightly confused to hear the Minister and the shadow Minister speak of the importance of aid when it was their Governments who walked the aid budget back to 0.3%, a large percentage of which is spent in the UK. What assessment has the Minister made of the UK’s ability to support international aid efforts in Sudan and, indeed, around the world? \p Hamish Falconer: I want to be so clear about what is the significant driver of hardship in Sudan. I am happy to have this debate at some other time, but it is absolutely clear that the driver of hardship is the conduct of the parties. I am sure that there will be debates at other times about the overall question of aid percentages, but, as I said in my statement, Sudan has been protected, as has the aid for Gaza. We are trying to focus on areas where we can have the greatest impact, but when the primary issue is humanitarian access and the conduct of the parties, it is right for us in the Chamber to focus on those questions. \p Rachael Maskell: The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, in its evidence to the International Development Committee, made some insightful observations about the focus of the Government as the penholder. In what way is the Minister using the strength of the UK to bring parties together to stop the flow of arms, mercenaries and other resources into Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: We do of course use our role as penholder at the Security Council, but we try to use the full range of our obligations at the UN on this question, which includes leading the core group on Sudan at the Human Rights Council. That is why we have taken the action that we have taken today. \p Shockat Adam: In addition to surviving bombs, bullets and sexual violence, the 24 million people in Sudan are facing an acute food shortage. According to Save the Children, people are eating leaves, grass and even peanut shells to survive. That situation has been further compounded by the expulsion of the  World Food Programme’s country director and emergency co-ordinator. What steps, if any, has the Minister or his Department taken to ensure that the World Food Programme and other UN agencies can continue to deliver lifesaving assistance immediately, without obstruction? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I can confirm that we have raised directly with both parties to the conflict the importance of the issues that he has mentioned. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: What is happening in El Fasher is nothing short of catastrophic. My former colleagues at the International Rescue Committee report that although more than 250,000 people live there, fewer than 5,000 have been able to flee and make it to nearby Tawila, which suggests that many may be dead, or trapped in the city or along the route. Can the Minister say more about what the Government are able to do to get these civilians out? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is experienced in these matters, and she asks the right set of questions. The details of what has happened in El Fasher, and indeed what is still happening, are horrifying, and continue to emerge from north Darfur. We are doing everything we can to try to ensure the safe passage of civilians, but I must be clear with the House: progress is limited, and what civilians are facing in north Darfur remains appalling. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his answers. Open Doors reports that there has been a spike in the abduction and killing of Christian men, women and children by radical Islamist groups. Church leaders have been targeted with false charges, including terrorism and apostasy, while Christian converts face violence, forced marriage, sexual violence, and losing custody of their children. Many Christians are forced to flee their homes because they feel that to stay would be unsustainable. Action for those persecuted Christians is needed. May I ask the Minister what can be done to protect Christians and religious minorities, and to stop the violence against them? \p Hamish Falconer: Freedom of religious belief is absolutely vital in the region, and I have raised these questions in the region over the past few weeks. Obviously, in the wider context that we are discussing, almost everyone is facing very serious risks to their human rights, but I will give the hon. Gentleman a further update in due course on what we have done in Sudan specifically. \p Alice Macdonald: As I have said before, this is a war on women, but women are also fighting hard as human rights defenders in the diaspora and in Sudan, whether they are running emergency response rooms or advocating for change. Can the Minister say more about how we are ensuring that our aid is going to grassroots, women’s rights-based organisations? In the discussions at the UN, in line with the Women, Peace and Security agenda, will we ensure that women’s voices are heard? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion on these issues, and I know that she has been committed to them both in the House and before her election. We  are focused on ensuring that our aid reaches women and on the issues that are faced by them in particular, including— as I said earlier—sexual and gender-based violence. That includes the work through both UN Women, which I described, and mutual aid groups, and a number of other measures. I will ask the Minister for Africa to set that out in more detail for my hon. Friend. \p Patricia Ferguson: As people continue to flee from El Fasher to Tawila, a town that is already sheltering some 652,000 displaced people, it is clear that the situation on the ground in Sudan is not only extremely dangerous—not to mention barbarous in some cases—but chaotic. It is likely that Sudan will need ongoing support for a very long time. Has the Minister had those discussions with colleagues at the UN and from other interested countries, to make sure that that support is provided for the country, whenever we have the opportunity to give it that aid? \p Hamish Falconer: I wish we were in a position to talk about longer-term questions but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, as the frontlines continue to move rapidly and the conflict remains in such an active phase, our efforts have been most focused on the urgent questions regarding a ceasefire. \p Helena Dollimore: I share the view of Members across the House that the crisis in Sudan is simply not getting enough focus from the world. I thank the Minister for his leadership in this area. The situation in Sudan is absolutely horrendous. In last week’s attack on the maternity hospital in El Fasher, almost 500 civilians were killed. In the words of the UN relief chief,

“women and girls are being raped…mutilated and killed—with utter impunity”.

We know that this is an increasing trend across the world: more aid workers and health workers are being killed. What are the Government doing to ensure that  aid workers and health workers are not targeted? What we are doing to tackle rape and sexual violence in conflicts?

Will the Minister also remark on the fact that 11 UN staff are still being held hostage in Yemen by the Houthis—another example of attacks on health and aid workers across the world? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that specific attack. The details are truly horrifying: marauding through a hospital, killing civilians ward by ward, including the sick and the injured. This was a barbaric attack, and it is vital that we seek accountability for it, not simply for the people of Sudan but because we cannot, as a country or an international system, allow such things to pass without that justice and accountability.

My hon. Friend raises an important point about Yemen; the conduct of the Houthis has been appalling. I am pleased to inform the House that some of those detained UN officials have now safely left Yemen, but there is a worrying and deeply disturbing trend of Houthis capturing aid workers. \p Lauren Sullivan: With regard to the attack on the hospital, it is estimated that 80% of health facilities in conflict-affected regions are no longer operating, and those that are operating face shortages of medicines and supplies. That is leading to a resurgence of cholera, measles, dengue fever and malaria, as well as neglected tropical diseases such as leishmaniasis, leprosy and onchocerciasis. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that humanitarian assistance and medicines are getting to those who need them most? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Cholera is now endemic in Sudan, and the spread of waterborne diseases is increasingly common in humanitarian crises. I know that there are Members on both sides of the House with experience of post-disaster recovery. Water and sanitation are always vital, and it is deeply disturbing that we are seeing these outbreaks in so many places. The Government will continue to do all we can in the way I have described. \p Nusrat Ghani: Before we come to the statement from the Education Secretary, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker is disappointed that this announcement was widely trailed in the media this morning, before this House had an opportunity to hear directly from the Government. I remind the Government Front Benchers that the expectation set out in the Government’s “Ministerial Code” is that:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

I know that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is looking into how that expectation is currently observed and whether it continues to meet the needs of the House, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work. Furthermore, engaging directly with Mr Speaker on such announcements is no substitute for the courtesy that this House deserves. \p Bridget Phillipson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note your comments, and I will make sure that they are taken forward.

With permission, I would like to make a statement to update the House on this Government’s plans to renew the national curriculum, to secure for every child an education steeped in our rich history, ready to shape our country into the 2030s and beyond.

As I outline the future of our national curriculum, I do so in full knowledge of its past, because I was part of the first wave to benefit from a process begun by Jim Callaghan’s great education debate—his ambition for a curriculum of universal high standards. When Lord Baker introduced a national curriculum for the very first time in 1988, my generation secured a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation value most.

Since then, our national curriculum has evolved under successive Governments, and now it must evolve again, because the world is changing as never before as a result of artificial intelligence, machine learning and hyperconnectivity. Where once our young people had to compete locally, the playing field is now global. They are stepping into a world of huge opportunity, but it is also one of immense change and challenge—a muddy landscape of misinformation and social media. Our current curriculum no longer arms them for this brave new world. It lacks the breadth of knowledge and skills that our children need, not only for the jobs they will go on to do, but for the lives they will go on to lead. We need more, and they need more.

Our curriculum sits at the centre of an education system that has forgotten too many children—white working-class children; children with special educational needs and disabilities; the children who are bright but bored, not engaged as they should be and not achieving as they should. That is why I asked Professor Becky Francis and an external panel of experts to review our curriculum, assessment and qualifications—to equip every child and every young person to achieve and thrive. I thank Professor Francis and the whole panel for their hard work and expertise. The review’s final  report and our Government’s response have both been published today. We will publish a revised curriculum in 2027 for first teaching in 2028; we will update our GCSEs for first teaching from 2029; and we are planning to deliver new V-level qualifications from 2027.

This Government are facing the future boldly, taking our education system from narrow to broad. That means a curriculum rich in knowledge, strong on skills, and, in everything that we do, uncompromising on high standards, grounding every child’s education in the most important knowledge and disciplinary skills to master every subject—more specific on the most important content, to sharpen understanding, and more coherent in how different subjects slot together, to spark connections. It will be a truly world-leading curriculum: supportive, challenging, and urging all children on. The House should be in no doubt that I will put high standards to work, in the service of every child’s future.

Our work starts in the early years. Through our Best Start family hubs, we are supporting parents as their children take those first steps into learning. We are setting the foundations for their futures: developing language early, expanding the reach of maths champions, and introducing children to numbers early on.

As children arrive at school, they will begin to master the core subjects—the ones that unlock the rest of the curriculum—and reading especially. Whether it is for step-by-step instructions in a science experiment or a question in maths, reading is essential in every subject. It adds texture, colour and context—such as in history, by reading letters from soldiers on the frontline of the second world war. We have to build that right from the beginning. That is why we are introducing new training for reception teachers, to meet our ambition for 90% of children to reach the expected standard in the phonics screening check. We will double our reading ambition for all teacher training, for children who need the most help, reaching more than 1,200 primary schools, and we will train more teachers in 600 schools to help them teach reading fluency.

Together with reading must come writing and speaking, because in life we all need to express ourselves clearly and confidently, whether out loud or in writing. In July we published the new writing framework, which includes evidence-based ways to teach writing to children, and we are now going further by improving the primary writing assessment to focus on fluency. We will also design a new oracy framework to support children to become assured and fluent speakers and listeners by the time they leave primary school.

Too many children are falling through the gaps in the jump to secondary school, including on reading. Learning not just to read, but to read well, must be the entitlement of every child. It is the single most powerful driver of life chances that we have, yet too often problems that begin in primary are left to drift in those first years of secondary. The focus fades just when it should intensify. To make sure that every school is on top of this, we are introducing a new statutory reading test for all pupils in year 8. We will expect all schools to assess progress in writing and maths in year 8 as well, checking excellence in those vital skills. Our new regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—key stage 3 alliance will spread excellence from one school to the next. All children will benefit from a new combined oracy, reading and writing framework that will be embedded across  the entire secondary curriculum, and the brand-new digital version of the national curriculum will help teachers to strengthen connections across subjects and stages.

On those firm foundations, we will build choice and breadth as children move into secondary school. That means preparing them to tell fact from fiction, truth from lies and right from wrong. Our young people need a rich core of knowledge and skills—the high standards that I am determined to drive—but we must take literacy further and wider. The reformed English programme of study and English language GCSE will open students up to a wide range of texts to see how arguments are made across different types of media, to discover the power of persuasion and emotive language in different contexts, and to understand how they can be used not just to educate but to manipulate—exploited by dark forces online to spread lies and sow division. That is why we are building media literacy to prepare young people not to consume passively, but to engage critically and to recognise and reject disinformation.

We are not just boosting media literacy. We are also boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more, and we are boosting financial literacy to empower young people to make informed choices about money, saving and investing. All our plans aim to take education from narrow to broad.

We need a fundamental shift in what we value in our secondary schools. For that, we need a fundamental shift in how we measure attainment and progress to deliver the breadth that we want to see. Today I can announce that we will consult on improved versions of Progress 8 and Attainment 8, because the current structure holds us back in subjects that strengthen our economy and our society. Too often it restricts choice, turning children away from subjects like drama, art and design, and music. Our creative industries are a source of such national pride, but as Ed Sheeran has said so powerfully, we cannot continue to lead on the world stage without a broad base in our schools at home. The arts should be for all, not just a lucky few, so we will revitalise arts education, putting it back at the heart of a rich and broad curriculum.

To encourage variety to flourish in our curriculum, we will measure what matters. We will balance breadth with a strong academic core and promote mastery of the fundamentals, combined with student choice. We will strive for academic excellence, on a broad scale, in every classroom, art studio, dance hall and science lab. In those science labs, a new triple science entitlement will give all young people the best opportunity to get into exciting new careers in clean energy, digital technologies and life sciences. We will build the strongest science, technology, engineering and mathematics foundations, and introduce a new computing GCSE so that students can excel in the new advanced digital and AI qualifications, addressing critical skills gaps in the tech sector. We will go further, too, with a new enrichment entitlement for all that includes civic engagement, culture, nature and adventure, and sport, which will deepen children’s investment in their time at school.

The curriculum cannot begin and end in our schools; it must stretch from the best start in life programme to the post-16 White Paper. Last month, I updated the House on our plan for skills. Much of that is about supporting young people to build on this new curriculum and to make their post-16 choices from a clear landscape of A-levels, T-levels and the new V-levels, with clearer pathways through learning and into work, which will help them to develop skills to find a good job and get on in life.

Professor Francis and the expert panel have delivered a strong set of recommendations, upon which we will now build. Our new curriculum will be an expression of who we are as a modern nation—the knowledge, skills, values and ideas that will bring us together and take us forward, building on the past to shape the future.

For families who have withdrawn from education, the new national curriculum will be a chance to rediscover the power of learning once again. For every child across the country, it will be an invitation not just to share in our national story, but to write the next chapter. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Laura Trott: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I also thank Professor Francis for her work—any criticism of today’s announcement is directed not at her, but at the Government’s response to her review.

I welcome some of the measures announced today. I am pleased that the Government have not moved away from our phonics reforms. In 2012, only 58% of six-year-olds met the expected reading standard; today, the figure stands at over 80%. Primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world.

I also note the introduction of a year 8 reading test, which I support in principle. If properly implemented, this could help to ensure that pupils maintain strong reading skills into secondary school. However, the review recommends maths and English tests, so why is the Secretary of State not introducing a statutory maths test?

I have serious concerns that the proposed wider changes will water down standards, lower expectations and divert teaching time away from the core education, which gives every child the best chance to get on in life. The temptation to make the curriculum a repository for every social concern is ever present, but when everything is a priority, nothing is. If we keep adding and adding, we risk diluting the very core that underpins academic success. There are many things that the Government talk about adding to the curriculum, but there is little honesty about what will be squeezed out as a result. I hope that the Secretary of State will be honest about what is being taken out of the curriculum, particularly in primary schools.

Let me make some specific points. First, the review states:

“It is vital that schools and colleges are able to innovate…and that teachers have the flexibility to extend the curriculum”.

I agree, but the Government’s disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill does precisely the opposite, by making the national curriculum compulsory for all   schools and stripping away teachers’ freedom to adapt to the needs of pupils. It is nonsensical to talk about innovation while stifling it. The Secretary of State should abandon her assault on academy freedoms.

Secondly, the Government propose to reduce the number of exams by 10%, on the grounds that “only Singapore does more”. Well, Singapore also tops the international league tables in maths and literacy. Surely we should be learning from Singapore’s education system, not disparaging it.

Thirdly, the Government propose to abolish the English baccalaureate, which we put in place in order to give all children the chance to learn an academic core. Scrapping the EBacc is a backwards step. It will steer pupils away from history and languages, leaving fewer children with an understanding of our national story and fewer equipped to engage in a global economy. The irony is not lost on me that the Education Secretary herself studied history and languages. Why is she pulling up the drawbridge behind her and denying more young people the very opportunities that she benefited from?

Fourthly, the Education Secretary will introduce a new compulsory citizenship curriculum for primary schools. Forcing primary schools to use precious time to teach deprived pupils about media literacy and climate change before ensuring that they can read, write and add up is not going to encourage social mobility, which I thought Labour Members cared about. It is not clear at all how they are going to make time for this. What aspects of children’s education are being sacrificed for the Secretary of State’s political posturing?

As for new lessons on digital literacy and misinformation, I feel like a broken record. The Education Secretary said on the radio this morning, “I am worried about children spending hours in their bedroom looking at poisonous material that drips hate in their ears.” I agree. The right hon. Lady is right and I have a very easy solution: get smartphones out of schools and ban all our under-16s from social media. That does not need a lesson. It is something the Government have the power to do right now to help children with the vile content that they are seeing online, and to address the behaviour issues that we are seeing in schools—social media-driven knife crime and effects on attainment. I think the Education Secretary needs a lesson on social media harms, not children.

Finally, I turn to the right hon. Lady’s changes to school accountability. Professor Francis was clear in her report: do not change Progress 8. She wrote:

“We are strongly committed to the Progress 8 measure…it supports both student progress and curriculum breadth. We are therefore recommending making no changes”.

Yet the Education Secretary has overruled the review—the independent review that she commissioned herself. Why? We have been here before. Under the last Labour Government standards fell, ambition shrank and the attainment gap widened. The number of pupils studying core academic subjects halved. Britain slid down international rankings. It took Conservative reformers, like Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, to turn that around with evidence-driven policy, rigorous assessment and high expectation. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Ms Trott, you have run over your time. I hope you are going to conclude very quickly. \p Laura Trott: That formula works, with English schools storming back up the global rankings.

We on the Conservative Benches will always stand up for rigour, evidence and the life-changing power of high standards. We will fight Labour’s education vandalism every step of the way. \p Bridget Phillipson: The right hon. Lady said at the start that any criticism was levelled my way, but she then went on to criticise many of the recommendations in the review. Has she even bothered to read it at all? She comes here time and again, every single time full of sound and fury, signifying nothing—and yes, Shakespeare is here to stay on the national curriculum. She tries to paint the report and our response as undoing the achievements in schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not abandoning it; we are building on it, with a curriculum that will allow all young people to achieve high standards, with core academic subjects alongside the breadth that they deserve.

Our reforms have higher standards right at their heart. They will raise standards of pupils right across the curriculum, including in speaking and listening, reading, writing and maths. Our improved Progress 8 and Attainment 8 measures will ensure that students retain a strong academic core, but with a breadth to expand into further study. The right hon. Lady might oppose the changes we are setting out, but today they have won support from the Sutton Trust, from employers like the CBI and from Sir Hamid Patel, the wonderful leader at Star Academies, who backs the changes we are making, saying that they

“signal both a welcome emphasis on creativity—reflecting amazing career opportunities…but with continued affirmation that success in English and mathematics is crucial for everyone’s life chances.”

I could not agree more.

We know that it is important that our new measures provide breadth and enrichment. Leaving aside that the arts and creative subjects are worth up to £125 billion to our country and employ 2.4 million people, I want more young people to have brilliant careers and opportunities in those fields. The two are not in opposition. We can and will deliver high and strong academic standards, alongside making sure that a broad and rich curriculum is the entitlement of every child. There was once a time when the Conservatives supported that idea. It is why they introduced a national curriculum to apply in every school. We are restoring the Conservative principle of the national curriculum applying for every child. I benefited from that, and I want every child in our country to benefit from it.

The curriculum has not been updated for over a decade. Parents want one that is fit for the future, employers back what we are doing and children deserve it. The changes we are setting out today will secure better life chances for all our children. \p Darren Paffey: I welcome a curriculum review that will break down barriers. It opens up so much of the digital and financial literacy that the Conservatives seem to think is unimportant to all, but which we know will raise aspirations by equipping young people from all backgrounds. I have two questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. One is on examinations. We know that this country has an examination overload and I welcome the proposed reduction by 10%. \p Laura Trott: It doesn’t! \p Darren Paffey: I will listen to the experts before I listen to the Front Bench any day—the Opposition Front Bench. [Laughter.] If the right hon. Member listens, she will hear that. Will the Secretary of State please look at the overall load throughout school, not just in GCSE year, and comment on how she sees the introduction of an additional year 8 diagnostic panning out?

On my second question, I declare an interest as the vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on modern languages. We broadly welcome the Government’s response, which goes further than the recommendations, and the recognition of importance. It is right to scrap the EBacc, which has never really been taken seriously by professionals, but will the Secretary of State please say how she will stop uptake from dropping immediately? What other incentives will there be? When will she deliver the feasibility review of the new qualification based on languages ladder expertise, which is welcomed by the sector ? \p Bridget Phillipson: On languages, I share my hon. Friend’s determination to ensure that more young people have the chance to study modern languages. There is a particular challenge that we face around transition from primary to secondary—the review makes that clear—and that is one area for further action. On the EBacc, I am afraid that it did not have the outcome that was intended in improving languages take-up: we are no further forward than we were in 2010 in percentage figures. We are seeing increases in the number of teachers coming forward to train in modern languages, and that is welcome. I also believe that a new stepped qualification will provide a useful route for more young people to move on to study languages at GCSE.

On exams and time, particularly at GCSE, Ofqual has been clear that a 10% reduction in the time spent in exams—that amounts to two and a half to three hours—is more than achievable while at no point compromising the integrity or the high quality and standards of the system. We will work with the regulator to make that happen. We are an international outlier on the amount of time our children spend in exams at GCSE. On the year 8 reading test, we will introduce a statutory reading test to ensure that problems are identified and children supported. That will run alongside diagnostic maths and writing tests to ensure that children are also making progress in those key areas, but if you cannot read well, you cannot do anything else. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and I thank Professor Becky Francis for her important work on the review. I welcome much of what has been announced today. As with free school meals and maintenance grants, this Secretary of State seems to enjoy adopting Liberal Democrat policies. I particularly welcome more enrichment activities and citizenship education, including financial and media literacy. But today, many headteachers across the country will be asking about the how. How will we fund this when budgets are already overstretched? With specialist recruitment targets missed year after year, including in physics, computer science and music, how  will we find the subject specialists to deliver the new curriculum, not least the right to triple science at GCSE? Can the Secretary of State set out how she will protect time for other subjects, given the welcome new enrichment entitlement? Has she considered using money from falling school rolls to perhaps fund a longer school day?

Turning to the Secretary of State’s claims about breadth, instead of scrapping the EBacc did she consider broadening it? Having gone explicitly against Professor Francis’s recommendation to leave Progress 8 unchanged, the Government actually risk narrowing choice. The new Progress 8 model pits languages against creative arts for the first time. These two changes put together could mean the death of languages in our state schools.

The review missed the opportunity to broaden A-levels. The UK is an outlier in this regard. Combined with the defunding of the international baccalaureate in state schools, I worry that the Secretary of State’s legacy will be that breadth becomes the preserve of the privately educated. \p Bridget Phillipson: The hon. Lady asks many constructive questions. It is important that all young people have the chance to study triple science, and we will work with the sector on the implementation of that. We are seeing big increases in the numbers of teachers in initial teacher training, including in physics, but there is more to do; we will work on this carefully with the sector. I do not think we can continue to defend a position where young people from disadvantaged backgrounds do not always have the chance to study triple science; we know that if they have that opportunity, they are more likely to be able to go on to study A-level science subjects, so there is an important social justice consideration that we have to take into account. Teacher numbers are up and continue to go up, and teacher retention numbers this year are also moving in the right direction.

All children and young people should have equal access to development opportunities to help them to succeed, which is why we are setting out a core enrichment offer that every school and college should aim to provide. The offer will be part of our enrichment framework, which we will develop with a group of experts across education, youth, sports and arts sectors to set out benchmarks for schools and colleges to build that offer. I know that many schools already do this very well, and we want to build on the best success out there.

We will also support the wider provision through dormant assets, our music hubs, PE and school sport partnerships and much more besides. This is a real opportunity to deliver a step change in ensuring that all children get a firm foundation in the basics and a wide and broad education. I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the document that we have set out explaining the recommended Progress 8 changes, which we will go on to consult on. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Members should be in no doubt about the difference that these changes will make, because when our young people succeed, society as a whole succeeds. I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Secretary of State for delivering on our promise of a curriculum that will better prepare children not just for exams, but for life. Over the years, previous Education Secretaries—let’s be real: we have had quite a few—lost sight of what  school should really be about. It is about more than exams; it is about preparing children for the modern world and the realities of life. This renewed focus on oracy, reading, writing, maths and triple science, which are vital life skills to— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. This is a statement—you must have a short question. Please finish quickly. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Financial and media literacy are core skills to develop young people. How will the Secretary of State ensure that schools have the funding, resources and preparation time necessary to implement the reforms? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend has a real passion for this area and brings her expertise to this House, and I am really grateful for that. We will refresh the programmes of study and publish them in 2027, so there will be an opportunity for consultation and contribution towards that. Some of this is a question about how we better sequence our curriculum between different key stages; that is an important element.

It is important that young people in primary school have more citizenship education, including in the critical area of financial literacy. I was at the wonderful Ashmole primary school in Lambeth just yesterday, where I met year 6 students who were doing precisely that. If anybody tries to say that year 6 students cannot understand complicated concepts around financial education, I would suggest that they pay a visit to that school and see the amazing work that is going on there. \p Damian Hinds: This is a thorough piece of work from Professor Francis. There are things in it to welcome, including the retention of key stage 2 assessments and the triple science entitlement, although the Government will have to say where the resourcing will come from to make that a reality. In truth, there are other things that we just do know yet. It remains to be seen what the changes in English literature mean and what will get squeezed out; it also remains to be seen what the new computing GCSE is relative to computer science—I hope it is not a return to the pre-computer science days of the information and communication technology GCSE.

One thing I regret is the demise of the EBacc. Let us remember what that is: a set of subjects that is presented clearly to children and their families, including and especially disadvantaged children, who, by studying this core set of subjects, will keep their options most open and have the most opportunity to progress in life. The EBacc did increase uptake for history and geography. It could have been mitigated if the Secretary of State had kept Professor Francis’s recommendation to retain the structure of the current Progress 8. Why did she ignore that recommendation? Is she giving up totally on modern foreign languages? \p Bridget Phillipson: No, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I set out earlier, it is important that young people have the opportunity to study triple science. I recognise that the implementation and delivery of that will be important, and we will work with the sector to do that. The number of those entering initial teacher training in subjects  such as physics has increased massively this year, but there is more to do, including through subject knowledge enhancement, which we also want to provide to more teachers in other science subjects.

I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman says about computing; it is important to get this right. Every area where there will be change will be subject to full consultation with expert input. Computing is one area where we also need to ensure that there is the opportunity to refresh content more regularly, given the pace of change. We will of course ensure that the qualification is rigorous.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the review and welcomes much of Professor Francis’s work, for which I am grateful. The review found that the EBacc measure did not translate into increased study of those subjects at 16 to 19 and unnecessarily constrained student choice, affecting students’ engagement and achievement. Our revised Progress 8 measure will balance a strong academic core with breadth and student choice. I believe that is the right approach, but we will consult on the options. \p Peter Swallow: I warmly welcome this curriculum and assessment review and in particular what it says about a broad curriculum and the importance of enrichment and essential skills such as digital, financial and media literacy and communication. Will my right hon. Friend go further and look at introducing a skills passport, so that young people can have the skills they are learning in school properly recognised for both themselves and employers? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend always champions children and young people in his constituency and has a lot to offer with his background in education. I would be happy to discuss his ideas further with him. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am going to leave wider criticisms of this review to others. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, I welcome the recognition of all the lobbying that has gone into this review. Financial education being made a statutory requirement at primary school and its position being strengthened at secondary school are good measures. The one area where I want to push the Secretary of State further is on post-16 financial education. The review made reference to many examples of best practice around the country, but it stopped short of offering ideas on how we can continue to progress financial education at a time when young people are beginning to take financial decisions themselves. Will the Secretary of State work with the APPG to develop this area further? \p Bridget Phillipson: I would be keen to hear the hon. Gentleman’s ideas and those of the all-party parliamentary group, and I thank him for the work he is doing in this important area. I am glad that he welcomes many of the changes we are setting out around financial education. I note what he has to say about post-16, and I will make sure that those ideas are considered. \p Tahir Ali: The curriculum and assessment review found that the system has inequalities built into it especially for children with special educational needs and disabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Will the Secretary of State set out what interventions will be  brought in to provide support and help for those with special educational needs and disabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds so that they are not left behind, especially during the transition from the current curriculum to the new one? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities secure better outcomes and have better support through their education and their school life. Every child in our country deserves the best possible school experience, and that is especially true for children with SEND, many of whom do not feel that that is a reality and whose parents are really struggling. That is why, through our schools White Paper and the wider work we will be taking forward around SEND reform, we will ensure that their voices are heard through a co-creation process as we move to a better system of support—one where every child in our country can achieve and thrive. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have just 30 minutes remaining, so colleagues will have to be brief. \p Manuela Perteghella: Department for Education data shows that only 22.7% of students retaking GCSE English or maths post-16 achieve a grade 4 or above. This means that many young people are trapped in a loop, and they often miss the grade by one point. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that students who are unlikely to achieve grade 4 in GCSE maths and English are offered practical alternative pathways so that they can succeed in these important subjects? \p Bridget Phillipson: The hon. Lady is right to raise that point. This is an area that the review drew attention to. We will develop a new 16 to 19 level 1 stepping-stone qualification as a preparation for GCSE for lower attainers. The review was clear about the importance of GCSE English and maths, and I share that view. We need to make sure that more young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, secure a strong pass in English and maths. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. As a former teacher, which I may have mentioned a few times in this place, I broadly welcome this curriculum review. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to supporting teachers through this change. When the previous Government for some random, unknown reason decided to change GCSE grades from letters to numbers, teachers got very little to no support or resources. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that that will not happen on this occasion and that she will do what she can to support teachers through this change? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree. We want to make sure that teachers are ready for the new curriculum. We will introduce a digital version of the national curriculum to support teachers to more easily sequence their school curricula. We will also provide high-quality free digital resources through Oak National Academy, as well as  more curriculum support and continuing professional development. Our RISE teams will work with schools and school leaders to drive up standards. \p Nusrat Ghani: Now for a short question masterclass from Sir Desmond Swayne. \p Desmond Swayne: This is education in the clouds when contrasted with the reality of a war against elitism, which is so often actually a war against excel-ism on the ground, is it not? \p Bridget Phillipson: No. \p Sonia Kumar: I warmly welcome the statement. With improved medical care, earlier diagnosis and greater awareness, more children with special educational needs are being identified. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that schools have the right environment, staff, funding and resources for SEND children to get the most of the positive changes in the curriculum? \p Bridget Phillipson: We are investing more in our SEND system and in teacher training and development, including new SEND content for those entering the profession, but there is much, much more that we need to do, as we have discussed in this House on many occasions. I know that my hon. Friend cares very deeply about improving outcomes for children with SEND, and I look forward to working with her as we bring forward the schools White Paper and reforms that deliver a brilliant experience for children with SEND throughout our school system. \p Caroline Voaden: We welcome the Government’s ambition to see arts and outdoor enrichment education included at the heart of the school curriculum, and we have some phenomenal outdoor ed going on in South Devon. We have long called for a broadened EBacc including arts subjects, but without clear incentives to encourage or require their inclusion, why will schools prioritise these experiences for pupils when they are under already severe budgetary pressure from the Government’s many unfunded commitments? \p Bridget Phillipson: We are investing more in our schools and providing more support to teachers. Enrichment is important. That is why we will develop the framework with experts across education, youth services, sports and art sectors to make it a reality. I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the proposal we are setting out on Progress 8 reform, because I think it will deliver the breadth, alongside the academic core, that she seeks. \p John Slinger: I warmly welcome the further support for creative arts subject teaching, the new national centre and the £25 million for new instruments and much more. Right hon. and hon. Members with a musical background, such as the Prime Minister and I, know the transformative power of the creative arts— the soft and hard skills are just as impactful as in other subjects. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to turn up the volume, bang the drum, create a symphony and maybe even reach the tempo of “presto” on this issue, so that we can finally achieve creative arts for all? \p Bridget Phillipson: Absolutely. We are investing through our music hubs and the new national centre to make that a reality. By the end of next year, we will have delivered 130,000 new instruments, pieces of equipment and other music technologies to schools to support our young people to pick up instruments and create music. \p John Glen: Later today, the Government will publish their financial inclusion strategy. I welcome the steps forward for financial literacy. Will the Secretary of State collaborate with the Economic Secretary and use the wealth of expertise and enthusiasm that exists among the banks and financial services industry to ensure that maximum strides forward can be made in financial literacy across the whole age range? \p Bridget Phillipson: The right hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work in this area. What he suggests is very sensible, and I will certainly take that forward. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards would also be happy to discuss it with him. \p Josh Dean: I really welcome the review’s focus on social justice and the critical skills needed for work and life. We know that young people face an unprecedented mental health crisis. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that young people’s wellbeing will be a material consideration for her Department in implementing the review’s recommendations, particularly on assessment reform? Does she agree that mental wellbeing and resilience are also critical skills that we should support young people to develop, and that they too should be included in reform of the curriculum? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is why we are rolling out more mental health support across our schools to make sure that at the earliest possible point when problems arise, young people have access to high-quality mental health support. Alongside that is the enrichment framework and the opportunities there will be in music, sport, art and drama. We know that those subjects are important ways in which young people do not just find a passion and a joy but develop resilience, confidence, teamwork and much more. That is really important in what is sometimes a very difficult world for our young people. \p Rachel Gilmour: As the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead—Minehead being one of the most deprived areas in the country, standing 324th out of 324 in the social mobility index—I wholeheartedly commend what the Secretary of State has announced. However, I have grave concerns about the state of the schools in my constituency, particularly Tiverton high school, and the paucity of teachers, particularly in the arts subjects that the Secretary of State has quite commendably supported. \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue; I know she always bangs the drum for her constituency, and we have discussed this many times. If she requires an update on wider issues, I will be more than happy to make sure that she gets one from the new Minister. \p Shaun Davies: It has been 10 years since the last review, and the economy, education and, frankly, the world have moved on dramatically in that time, so I welcome the review. Subjects and activities like music, drama, art, play and debating have often had little to no attention and resources. Will the Secretary of State please assure me that she will learn from the best schools in the country and local authorities like my own, which have continued to invest in the “10 by 10” initiative, so that that can be cascaded across the country? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend has done amazing work in this area to make sure that children in his community have access to a wide range of opportunities. I agree that the best schools provide academic stretch as well as a broad and rich curriculum. It can be done, and we will make sure that it happens in every school. \p Andrew Murrison: Scrapping the EBacc means potentially reducing the exposure of disadvantaged children to modern foreign languages, and the problem with that—a bit like their access to classics in the past—is that they will become relatively disadvantaged when it comes to places at elite universities. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must make sure that that does not happen, since we all want to see improved social mobility in this country—and scrapping the EBacc looks like a very funny way of doing it? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with the right hon. Member in so far as he is saying that we should make sure that a range of subjects are available to young people, including languages, and that young people should have a good range of options, including the chance to go on and study at university. I think it is important alongside that, as the Prime Minister set out in his target, that two thirds of young people move into higher-level learning—be that through an apprenticeship or university. That is why we are also investing more in post-16 education. I do not accept what he has to say about the EBacc or Progress 8. It did not work as intended, and it has not solved the problem that he suggests it would. Our revised Progress 8 measure will ensure that we have a strong academic offer for all young people alongside the breadth and choice that they deserve. \p Anneliese Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that there must be strong support from school leaderships and local authorities for individual teachers as they, rightly, teach social media literacy? Does she agree that the review’s focus on social media literacy must be accompanied by stronger co-ordination on this issue across Government? \p Bridget Phillipson: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight that, and I agree. Some amazing opportunities come from the use of technology and computing and from giving our young people the skills they will need to succeed. However, we also see the dangers that exist, with the big challenges from misinformation online that teachers tell me they are having to deal with day in, day out. They will have more support to make that happen with more of a focus on the areas that matter most. We will consult on all the changes to the new programmes of study. \p Tim Farron: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s reference in her statement to adventure and nature. Will she go further and agree that it is essential that every child at primary school and secondary school has an outdoor education residential experience because of the wonderful advantages it gives them in building resilience throughout their lives and developing a love of learning once they are in the classroom? Will she commit to doing that and to meeting the all-party parliamentary group for outdoor learning so that we can talk about how this should be at the centre of the curriculum? \p Bridget Phillipson: Either I or the Minister for School Standards will be happy to meet the all-party group. The hon. Member makes a powerful case, which I am sure we can take forward as we consider the enrichment framework. I have many happy memories of residentials in his part of the world when I was at school: they are life-changing and always stay with you. I want to ensure that more young people have access to the outdoors and to brilliant opportunities like residentials. \p Liz Twist: I welcome the inclusion of community history and the acknowledgment of its importance. Does the Secretary of State think that projects such as the Addison project, which looks at a category D village in my constituency, help children to develop digital skills, learning and thinking skills and practical skills? \p Bridget Phillipson: That sounds like a wonderful project in my hon. Friend’s constituency. When our children study history, it can often be brought to life by local examples that demonstrate a wider connection to our nation’s past but also allow us to shape our future. It is in precisely those kind of examples where I want teachers to have more opportunities to expand children’s minds and provide them with greater opportunity. \p Julian Lewis: It is welcome news that the Government plan that children should be taught critical thinking and how to guard against fake news and misinformation, but the Secretary of State will be aware that some teachers, like some politicians, regard “fake news” differently from the rest of society. Will she ensure that teachers who teach that subject are schooled in the knowledge of the requirement for political impartiality in schools introduced in 1986 and carried forward in subsequent legislation? \p Bridget Phillipson: The right hon. Member is right to draw attention to the importance of political impartiality. The review found that the current non-statutory status of citizenship is leading to uneven and inconsistent progress in the subject. There is the chance to do this better to ensure that it is taught well and that young people are able to think critically and challenge what is in front of them. That is more important than ever given how some of those who are hostile to our nation’s interests seek to use social media to exploit division and poison the minds of our young people. \p Tom Hayes: I was delighted to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my constituency to visit JPMorganChase; soon after, it announced £350 million of investment. One of the questions of the  global chief executive officer was: how do we retain local talent? Financial education was a critical answer. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement.

I am also pleased that the Secretary of State visited Bournemouth East and met 12 heads of primary and secondary schools. This was among the things that they were crying out for. Will she let me know what I can tell the heads of my schools about how the new curriculum will improve the lives of the children they teach? \p Bridget Phillipson: It was wonderful to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and meet so many of the wonderful school leaders who are changing children’s lives. We will work with our teachers and school leaders to implement the new national curriculum to ensure that they have the support and that we have the right time allocated to implementation. There will be four terms’ notice, so there will be ample chance for teachers to adjust their teaching ahead of rolling out the new curriculum. I am delighted that my hon. Friend welcomes our emphasis on financial education and the benefits that it will bring to his community in Bournemouth. \p Ellie Chowns: I welcome the review’s emphasis on preparing young people for a changing world through things like media literacy, political literacy and climate literacy. My question is about pace. The Secretary of State mentioned implementation in 2028-29, but that is too slow given the urgency of these problems—by that point, today’s 12-year-olds may be voting in the next election. What will she do to speed up implementation of those critical parts of the curriculum before then? \p Bridget Phillipson: I see that there is a balance to strike. Some colleagues are rightly urging us to ensure we get the implementation right, but I understand the hon. Member’s impatience to make it happen. It is right that we update our curriculum to improve climate and sustainability education in geography, science, citizenship, and design and technology, but we do need to ensure that it is done properly. Of course, schools will be able to teach the new national curriculum sooner if they so choose, but doing so will not be a requirement until 2028. \p Luke Myer: I welcome Professor Francis’s work on the review, and the Government’s commitment to upholding many of her recommendations, particularly on professional autonomy and digital literacy. The review recognises the class attainment gap that is holding back so many working-class children. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the implementation of the curriculum review focuses resources on the places that need them most? \p Bridget Phillipson: The Government are committed to ensuring that a person’s background does not determine what they can go on to achieve. To take one example from the review, it is clear that on leaving primary school, too many young people do not have the reading and writing skills that they need to succeed later in life, and the attainment gap sadly widens throughout their secondary school careers. We will take action by providing more support around reading, including through a statutory test in year 8, so that schools better identify and target  support at the students who have the most to gain. That will extend to many disadvantaged children in my hon. Friend’s constituency. \p Vikki Slade: I welcome the broadening of the curriculum, which will allow more children to find joy in learning, particularly children with special educational needs, who really need the benefit of creative skills. As a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for performing arts education and training, and as the mother of a musical theatre undergraduate, I am concerned about the cuts announced just last month to teacher training bursaries in the creative arts. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they will be reversed, so that we have enough creative teachers? \p Bridget Phillipson: We have to target our bursaries and financial support at the areas and subjects where they are most needed, and that is what we have sought to do through the bursaries and financial support that we have put in place. However, I welcome the hon. Member’s support for arts and creative education. The review and the Government’s response to it have been widely welcomed by the creative sector. \p Matt Rodda: I warmly welcome the review and the Secretary of State’s statement. I am particularly pleased that the Sutton Trust is wholeheartedly behind the review. Will she say a little more about the importance of triple science, and how she hopes that will benefit social mobility across the country? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is right. At the moment, access to triple science is uneven, with big gaps in access for disadvantaged students and big geographic inequalities. It will take time to ensure that we have the subject specialists in place to deliver that, but all children in our schools should be entitled to do triple science, so that they can go on to study the relevant A-level and T-level subjects. \p Lisa Smart: There is a lot to support in the announcement, and I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s words about the importance of financial education from primary onwards. If that is done well, it could have a positive impact on our communities for decades to come.

We all know that the key to great learning is fantastic teaching. I am in my 20th year as a primary school governor, so I understand why school leaders will be questioning how they can afford to pay for what has been announced from their already stretched budgets. Will the Secretary of State assure all the primary schoolchildren in my constituency that there will be enough brilliant teachers on hand who are properly resourced to deliver what she has announced? \p Bridget Phillipson: I know that this can be done only through the amazing work of our teachers, our support staff and our school leaders. We will work with them as we roll out the new national curriculum. We are investing more this year and every year in our schools. We have also delivered two pay awards for our teachers. This year, we have seen 2,300 more secondary and specialist teachers, and we are retaining more teachers  across the board. We have achieved a lot, but there is more to do. I look forward to working with the hon. Member on that. \p Jacob Collier: At a recent Burton and District chamber of commerce meeting that I hosted, businesses raised the importance of financial education for young people about mortgages, savings and pensions. It appears that the Secretary of State was listening. What support she will give teachers, so that they can deliver that effectively? \p Bridget Phillipson: I always listen to my hon. Friend’s contributions on these important subjects. Given what we have heard from business, parents and young people, we want to make sure that young people have a better grounding in key concepts in financial education, be that mortgages, savings or the difference between a debit and a credit card—something I was discussing yesterday with in a wide-ranging conversation with a group of year 6 students. \p Cameron Thomas: The Secretary of State rightly points to the challenge of disinformation—a challenge that democracy is losing. I would welcome her agreement that education is our greatest weapon against disinformation. Which of her changes will ensure that those voting in future general elections are better prepared to vote in their interests than those of us who went before? \p Bridget Phillipson: As we move towards votes at 16, it will be important that our young people understand our democracy, our laws, our history, and their responsibilities as active citizens. That is why we want to make sure that there is better statutory teaching of citizenship in primary schools, and improvements at secondary as well. There is much brilliant practice already out there, but there is more to do to spread it. \p David Baines: There is a lot to welcome in the statement, but will the Secretary of State please assure me and families in St Helens North that not only will we have the measures in the curriculum review, but more certainty will be provided in the schools and SEND White Paper in the new year, and that all proposals to help all pupils, such as extending continuous provision throughout the whole of key stage 1, will be considered? \p Bridget Phillipson: Yes. In the schools White Paper, we will set out our vision for the school system into the 2030s and beyond. A central part of that will be how we better support children with SEND. So many young people face an adversarial system, in which it takes too long to get the right support, and in which parents have to battle and fight. That is why the guiding principle behind everything that we do in this area will be better outcomes and better life chances for children with SEND. I am always willing to discuss with my hon. Friend the changes that he believes are necessary. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Understanding history has a massive impact on social attitudes and people’s relationships with communities. Will the Secretary of State therefore look carefully at the primary school history curriculum to make sure that it includes a good  understanding of global history and the concepts behind it, as well as a big emphasis on local history and local achievement, to improve cohesion in our communities? That way, young people growing up will have that greater sense of involvement with the rest of the world, as well as with their local community. \p Bridget Phillipson: High-quality history education should allow students to understand both our role in the world and local history. There are many powerful examples of how learning about local history can really bring a topic to life. To give one example, earlier this year, I helped unveil a statue to women shipyard workers in Sunderland who stepped in to replace the men who went to the second world war. That really brought the topic to life. It is a fantastic example of how we can combine the local and the national to understand our past and look to the future. \p Leigh Ingham: Earlier this year, I held a debate on access to sport in schools, and one of my key points was how vital sport is for children’s mental health, and particularly for building their resilience. I am pleased that the review recognises that, and recommends broadening physical education’s role to reflect its wider impact on pupils’ mental and physical health. Does the Secretary of State agree that improving access to sport for all pupils is vital for building resilience in young people, especially as we know that there are children who do not have enough access to sport? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree that PE and sport are vital elements of the rounded and enriching education that every child deserves. They can also motivate young people, give them a sense of purpose, help with wellbeing challenges and much more besides. That is why we have committed to strengthening the national curriculum for PE, and we want to work with many fantastic sporting bodies and other organisations that deliver enrichment activities, through the enrichment framework, to deliver that. \p Adam Dance: I welcome many of the changes the Government have brought forward. The review highlighted the attainment gap for people with SEND at school. To close that gap, will the Secretary of State commit to universal screening for neurodivergence, and to more teacher training on the subject for those teaching primary school-aged children? Though strengthening the phonics screener is great, it is not enough. \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree about the need to provide better training and support for teachers and support staff. That is why this year, for the first time, there is expanded content on SEND in initial teacher training. However, there is more to do around teaching, training and support for the existing workforce. We are considering all that through the schools White Paper, as well as what more we can do to support staff, so that they can better identify early need and put in place the required support. It will also be important to do that through our Best Start family hubs, in which we can work with families at a much earlier stage. \p Jonathan Davies: This review is hugely welcome because it begins to help us address what we have known for a long time: the creative subjects in our schools have been in decline. That is bad not just for young people, but for society and our national life. May I first urge the Secretary of State to learn from this review, and implement a national centre for arts and music education? That would be an important intervention from the Government. Secondly, on what she said about civic engagement, may I urge her to go beyond the review’s recommendations on learning about local history? Every young person must learn about their locality to build a real sense of place and identity. \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend always champions the importance of music education, and the right of every child to access to music. Our new national centre for arts and music education will provide support for schools and teachers in delivering the reformed curriculum, and I am delighted that 43 music hubs are rolling out music instrument tuition, and opportunities to take part in music production and creation. I know that he will continue to champion those things. \p Claire Young: The Secretary of State acknowledged in her statement the progress gap for children with SEND. How will the Government support flexibility in the delivery of the curriculum, including for those children who are unable to access a traditional school setting? \p Bridget Phillipson: I recognise the challenges, and I have heard directly from many children and families about the struggles that they face. The review looked closely at this area. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I recognise its importance, but alongside that, we need to continue to have high expectations of what children with SEND can achieve with the right level of support. Through the schools White Paper, we will set out how we make that a reality for every child. \p Josh Newbury: I welcome Professor Francis’s review. On the critical issue of SEND, does my right hon. Friend agree that the review’s findings—on flexibility, time for repetition and revision, early identification of need and the role of special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators in ensuring an inclusive curriculum—could go a long way to ensuring that school is a positive experience for all pupils, not just a highly academic few? \p Bridget Phillipson: We want to build on the review’s work in this important area, and we will set out more detail next year, through the schools White Paper. We know that outcomes for children with SEND are not where they need to be. Parents and families have to battle, and it can all be an uphill struggle. That is why early identification of need and more support for families, as well as better training and support for our staff, will be critical elements of any reform programme. \p Sarah Dyke: Food and farming are almost entirely missing from the national curriculum, leaving young people with limited understanding of where their food comes from, or awareness of career opportunities in agriculture and the food system. What plans does the Secretary of State  have to embed agriculture, environment and food studies into the national curriculum, to inspire the next generation to pursue careers in those sectors? \p Bridget Phillipson: The review set out recommended changes in a number of related areas to those that the hon. Lady has raised. Through revised programmes of study, we will look carefully at how we deliver that. There will be opportunities for consultation throughout the process, before a full national roll-out. \p Amanda Hack: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for her commitment to our young people. Parents and teachers will know just how gruelling the GCSE exams are for our students, many of whom are undertaking mocks as we speak. I welcome the commitment to working with Ofqual to reduce time volume by 10%. Will the Secretary of State outline any other steps that have been discussed, following the report about managing the sheer volume of exams that our young people are taking? \p Bridget Phillipson: The review took an evidence-driven approach, informed by the data, with input from across the sector and experts, to make sure that we get this right. However, it did not seek to fix things that are not broken. I recognise that young people in England sit more hours of exams than their peers in many other countries. We will therefore work closely with Ofqual and exam boards to reduce GCSE exam time by two and a half to three hours. Ofqual is confident that that can be achieved while maintaining the integrity and validity of the qualifications system. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: On Monday, I enjoyed a coffee with a lovely couple in my constituency who run a charity with the goal of delivering e-books to primary schools. Although digital is often more difficult to read, in the sense that it is on a screen, it can go further, faster, in reaching children, especially those who are disadvantaged. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the importance of online reading? \p Bridget Phillipson: In 2026, it will be the National Year of Reading, and in our work on that, we are thinking about not just physical books that can be delivered to children, but what a strong digital offer could look like. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get involved in that process. \p Chris Hinchliff: I really welcome the efforts to curtail the excessive examination time that our children are facing. It does not help real learning and is having a big impact on the mental health of the younger generation. What opportunities does the Secretary of State see for introducing more modern approaches to teaching that offer opportunities to learn through play and would provide wider access to education than traditional methods do? \p Bridget Phillipson: We want to ensure that as we reduce GCSE content by 10%, we do so, together with the regulator, in a way that maintains the validity and integrity of the system. There are a range of different approaches that teachers can benefit from, and the Department provides much in the way of training and development. We always keep that under review to ensure that this is evidence-informed and driven by the best pedagogy.[Official Report, 18 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 6WC.] (Correction) \p Richard Tice: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After I spoke in the British Steel debate when the House was recalled on a Saturday back in April, three newspapers from the Mirror Group published false, inaccurate and, frankly, libellous statements about me that weekend, which were retweeted by a number of Labour MPs. I am pleased to report that the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the press regulator, has found in my favour against the Mirror Group, forcing it to apologise and to permanently delete those articles and all the social media posts. I am most grateful to those Labour MPs who deleted their posts when they were so informed. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of what is not really a point of order. He has most definitely made his point. \p James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notification of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, and in particular from the Justice Secretary, about our interaction earlier and the very serious case that it now relates to. I have strong reason to believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was aware of the case when I asked him very clearly five times about whether he knew about these sorts of cases and he did not answer the question. This is about Ministers being transparent with the House, and I seek your guidance. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have received no notice that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point of order and, I am sure, will take the hon. Member’s views into account. \p Charlie Dewhirst: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The recent Cabinet Office annual accounts show that the departed Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary collectively received a quarter of a million pounds in golden goodbyes. I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office the rationale for such a use of taxpayers’ money, and the Minister without Portfolio replied that it was the Government’s policy not to comment on individuals. That is clearly nonsensical. There is a clear expectation of accountability and transparency on payments to the most public senior officials, so do you agree that this approach is in keeping with the House’s resolution on ministerial accountability to Parliament? \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their responses to Members’ questions, so that is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt those on the Government Front Bench will have noted his question. \p Tim Farron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the early hours of Monday morning there was a serious derailment at Shap in my constituency, on the Glasgow to London   line. It is now Wednesday, but the Secretary of State for Transport has chosen not to make a statement to the House on the matter. The derailment shines a worrying light on the failure to invest in the modernisation of the railway line north of Warrington up to Lockerbie, putting passengers at risk on the busiest line in the whole of western Europe. Can you give us some guidance on how we can make our representations on that failure, and also voice our respect and admiration for the emergency services, the Network Rail staff, the Avanti crew, including the train driver, and the people at the Shap Wells hotel who looked after the stricken passengers on that terrible Monday morning? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As an experienced Member, he knows that while statements are made on the initiative of Ministers, there are other ways for Members to raise matters in this House. \p Iqbal Mohamed: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask whether my letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, dated 23 October—on whether the deeply offensive comments she made to me and my independent alliance colleagues in the Chamber on 20 October were in breach of the Nolan principles of public life—will receive a reply. The football game is being held tomorrow and the police assessment found that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were experienced fighters who were highly organised and intent on causing serious violence. The Secretary of State has not, to date, clarified whether she had seen that advice before she decided to label me and those who welcomed the ban on safety grounds as antisemitic. Can you advise me on what steps I can take to seek redress with an apology or resignation? \p Nusrat Ghani: Can the hon. Member confirm that he has actually notified the Secretary of State that he intended to raise this matter? \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am not sure. \p Nusrat Ghani: Well, that would be good protocol. All correspondence from Members to Ministers should be dealt with promptly, and no doubt those on the Treasury Front Bench will have noted this and will ensure that Back Benchers get answers to their correspondence in good time. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Heidi Alexander, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Jo Stevens and James Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about railways and railway services; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 November, and to be printed (Bill 325) with explanatory notes (Bill 325-EN). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Joe Robertson: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the integration of ferry services with other transport services; to make provision about the regulation of ferry services; and for connected purposes.

Our great nation, the United Kingdom, is a nation of islands. This country also invented the railways. Rail, road and ferries together ensure that in every corner of our country there is a place that somebody calls home. There is also a political consensus in this country, stretching back decades, that those who provide public transport do so with certain conditions imposed upon them. That political consensus has existed regardless of who is in government and which party holds power.

That means that train operators—whether they are soon to be part of the state or private companies—must provide services for a fair price that the Government have a say over, and provide timetabling that allows people to move about, regardless of whether that individual train journey is profitable on its own. There are laws to ensure that those operators must publish performance data, and similar rules apply to bus service providers. However, there is no national provision that applies to those who operate the ferry services that communities all over the country—whether island communities or communities that live along riverways—rely on for accessing essential services, employment, seeing friends and family, and all the things we do in our daily lives.

That has meant that constituents such as mine on the Isle of Wight—they are just an example—are faced with huge costs to take a car back and forth to the mainland, and that who wish to visit the Isle of Wight sometimes have to pay up to £400 just to take a car back and forth on a five-mile journey. Private equity groups have taken control of Wightlink and Red Funnel, which operate across the Solent, and in an entirely unregulated market they can do what they like. There is no fair competition because the barrier to entering that market for a new provider is simply too high.

It also means that what were once half-hourly services are now hourly. When I arrived in Southampton last week, a minute late for Red Funnel’s Red Jet service to Cowes, I had to wait an hour and 10 minutes for the next ferry. Had one of my predecessors, Andrew Turner—who is sitting in the Gallery today—done that 10 years ago, he would have had to wait only half an hour.

In too many places in this country, ferry services are getting worse. There is no mandatory reporting requirement on those companies either, so we have no objective way of telling whether they are providing a good service, other than the anecdotal evidence that people like me present.

I am not looking in this Bill to put an undue burden on ferry operators—quite the opposite. I am looking to end the carve-out that they have enjoyed for too long, a carve-out that no other public transport provider benefits from.

If I had the owners of Wightlink and Red Funnel in front of me now, this is what I would say to them: “We are tired of your methods, tired of your rip-off prices,   and tired of funding your huge ballooning bank debt interest. You have not done us a favour, and you are not doing us a favour. You should be providing a lifeline transport service, which the taxpayer gave you money for so that you could stay profitable during covid.” If those ferry companies, not just on the Isle of Wight but across the UK, truly believed in a quality service for their passengers, they would embrace regulation, just as other providers do in other modes of public transport.

Too often, when my neighbour the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) or I make the argument about expensive ferry prices, Wightlink in particular comes back and says, “Well, you can cross the Solent with us in a car for £31.” But it fails to admit that that is only if a person pays nearly £2,000 in advance and purchases 60 individual tickets. There are not many people living in my constituency who can afford to give the company nearly £2,000 in advance and who necessarily need to travel 60 times in a year. Ferry companies must be straight and not seek to mislead or hoodwink decision makers in this place when other Members and I talk about how expensive ferry services are.

It is not just my constituents; I have had exchanges with the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly, and we both share the view that our constituents are entirely reliant on ferry services for some educational opportunities and essential medical services and for accessing employment opportunities—things that people on the mainland of the United Kingdom take for granted. There is no reason why we should be beholden to private profits over and above everyone else.

I present this Bill at a time when the Government are already moving in this direction in how they deal with rail and buses. While I do not necessarily agree with nationalisation, and I do not agree in the case of the railways, I agree with the sentiment and the reasons why they are presenting those Bills. The Secretary of State has said that she wants to ensure better value for money for passengers, to better integrate different modes of transport and to stop profit being a priority over passenger experience and connectivity. I invite her to transfer all that good sentiment she feels about trains and buses to ferries, too, and ensure that communities that I and others in this place serve are not left behind.

I thank the Minister with responsibility for maritime, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), for meeting me, and I know that he has met my neighbour the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. I urge the Minister to continue to work with us to look at solutions for my constituents. I would also like the Government to bring in their own regulation for us and to devolve those powers to a forthcoming mayor, if they think it appropriate. This Bill is about more than just my constituents; it is about ensuring a fair and level playing field across the whole United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Joe Robertson, Mr Richard Quigley, Dame Caroline Dinenage, John Cooper, Rebecca Smith, Darren Paffey, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Jess Brown-Fuller, Andrew George, Siân Berry and Jim Shannon present the Bill.

Joe Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November 2025, and to be printed (Bill 324). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Judith Cummins: I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. \p Kate Dearden: I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 1B. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 48B.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu. \p Kate Dearden: I am pleased to speak on the Employment Rights Bill for our second consideration of Lords amendments, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this Bill is to her heart, and I am grateful that she is here in support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his work and dedication on this significant piece of legislation.

The Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help to grow the economy. The stronger economic performance that our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework, fashioned on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That is good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment.

The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a  modern economy. The Bill will back businesses that already do the right thing and give hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. It is in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing.

Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work.

Some will seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that such a view only represents failure. For this Labour Government, success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create, and that is at the heart of the Bill.

Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and in response we are offering, where possible, amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise with the proposed amendments. Although we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of the Bill and may compromise its intended impact.

We acknowledge that Lords amendment 1B, which relates to zero-hours contracts, is an amendment in lieu, intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right-to-request model to one in which employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer, and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. We therefore cannot accept it.

The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare. For employers, clear expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through better retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero-hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them.

The Government are also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth guarantee will include a targeted backstop under which every eligible and unemployed young person on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the Government’s aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Further details will be confirmed at the autumn Budget, following further engagement, including with employers.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 48B on seasonal work. The Government recognise that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, and that there are ways in which employers may account for that and remain compliant with the legislation. They may, for example, use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable—for example, a fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract rather than on a permanent basis. The Bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support the amendment.

Let me turn to unfair dismissal. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose retaining a qualifying period of six months for unfair dismissal. These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one—not two years, not six months, but day one. That was a clear pledge in our manifesto and it will ensure that about 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. A six-month qualifying threshold still leaves employees exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, which is why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments on maintaining a qualifying period. \p James Wild: Does the Minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations? They say that what the Government propose will make young people—whom it is riskier to take on—less likely to get jobs in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country? \p Kate Dearden: Yesterday, I was with the Hospitality Sector Council. I heard about all the brilliant work it does to provide employment opportunities for young people across the country. Indeed, my first job was in a café. Such opportunities to get on the employment ladder are significant for young people. That is why the Bill will work in alignment with all the other crucial work that the Government are doing through the youth guarantee.

As I have outlined on unfair dismissal, it simply is not fair that hard-working employees who have worked somewhere for 18 months can be unfairly dismissed and have no stability and predictability in their jobs. Protection through day one rights gives financial security to people who do not have it. We are striking a balanced approach by introducing a statutory probation period. As we have mentioned, the Government’s preference is for that to be a period of nine months, but we are engaging in  consultation on the next steps for those light-touch standards. The probation period will ensure that in the early months of employment, employers can dismiss employees who might not be performing or might not be suitable. The measures will tackle the causes of unfair dismissal. \p Ian Lavery: Some 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal—the day one rights—according to the Institute for Public Policy Research and TUC research, and 83% of managers agree that improved workers’ rights can and do positively impact on workplace productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to that extremely important research? \p Kate Dearden: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about research. Providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, which increases productivity and helps businesses across the country, as well as our economy. The Bill will provide flexibility and security for people in workplaces across the country, which is vital for our productivity. That is our vision for our country and economy. \p James Wild: The Minister referred to a nine-month probationary period as opposed to the six-month unfair dismissal period. A report from the Resolution Foundation—which is usually held in high regard on the Treasury Bench—says that this is a “messy compromise” that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on. That is the point that I was making. Some 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector. The sector is not taking people on because of the jobs tax, and it will take on even fewer people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that will come from this messy probation period, which is not on the face of the Bill? \p Kate Dearden: As we have said from the start, the implementation of day one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. I am keen to work with employers across the country, including in the hospitality sector, which plays a key role in employing and providing opportunities for young people. I will work with all stakeholders on the next steps and implementation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as is the case for lots of employment rights legislation, we are setting the foundation here in this crucial Bill, but there are lots of details to work through in consultation, which I am absolutely committed to doing.

The framework will be founded on the principle of social partnership: consent and consensus must replace dispute and conflict in modern employment relations. That will ensure maximum flexibility, so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in each sector of the economy. We will minimise the cost of its implementation and operation.

The Government are committed to ensuring that employers can hire with confidence. As I have said, introducing the statutory probation period enables employers to fairly assess new hires’ performance and suitability for the role that they have been hired for. Most employers already use contractual probation periods of six months or less. The Government have been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. That would allow for a standard  six-month term, with the option to extend supporting employee development without compromising operational needs.

We have heard the calls to ensure that the framework reflects real-world realities, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu to address that. Our amendment places a statutory duty on the Government to consult on key aspects of the framework. That would guarantee meaningful input from employers and employees, giving businesses a direct role in shaping the legislation to ensure a practical and fair approach. Additionally, we are tabling a further amendment in lieu, making technical changes to the words restored to the Bill by our rejection of the Lords amendments. \p Naushabah Khan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill not only provides vital protections to the workforce, but gives businesses the certainty they need to grow our economy? \p Kate Dearden: I completely agree. We are creating security for people across the country. Crucially, we are ensuring that employers do the right thing for their employees and go above and beyond the proposals in the Bill. That ensures a level playing field, which is good for our economy and for businesses that might otherwise be undercut by others that do not play by the rules.

We have also heard concerns about the pressures on the employment tribunal system. We will set up a taskforce to support us in fixing the employment dispute system, so that it works better for workers and businesses. The taskforce will have balanced representation from unions, businesses and other experts, including community organisations.

I turn now to the Lords amendments on heritage rail. The Government agree with the principle of the amendment and have tabled an amendment in lieu that captures the intent, while refining the drafting to provide more clarity and ensure that the legislation works as intended. The Government’s amendment, which has been tabled with the support of sponsoring peers Lord Parkinson and Lord Faulkner, places a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16-year-olds who volunteer on heritage railways. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I rise as co-chair, alongside Lord Faulkner, of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I express my thanks to the Government for bringing forward the amendment and recognising that volunteering with heritage railways is an immensely useful experience for young people aged 14 to 16. I am glad that we are now undertaking a 12-month assessment for guidance. \p Kate Dearden: I thank the right hon. Member for working with us and for her support throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand her passion and work in this area. As she says, the guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in important decisions. The Government are committed to the work, as she will know, with publication targeted by 31 March 2026. We believe that this collaborative  effort will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering.

Turning to the issue of political funds, Lords amendments 61 and 72 would remove clause 59 from the Bill. That clause reverses measures in the Trade Union Act 2016, which we have committed to repeal, that require members to opt in to political funds. This therefore reinstates longstanding arrangements where members are automatically included unless they choose to opt out. Removing clause 59 would break that commitment to restore balance and fairness in union operations. The opt-in system, introduced in 2016, added bureaucracy without improving transparency or strengthening members’ choice. To be clear, we are not removing that choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on the application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to a political fund. The same form will make it plain that opt-out has no negative bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of union membership. That is why the Government cannot support Lords amendments 61 and 72.

We have heard reflections around how opt-out notices would take effect and have tabled an amendment in lieu to refine that process. Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice was effective on 1 January following the year in which it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now have effect from either 1 January or the following year after it has been provided, or on a date specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of those dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility in the legislation to act more quickly and process the member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. In practice, unions already do this. We will also commit today to engage with unions directly, to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices can be honoured as swiftly and practically as possible. Our amendment is simply about ensuring that legislation matches what has been the established practice. \p Jim Shannon: I hope that the Minister has not referred to this already, but small businesses in my constituency that do not have human resources departments tell me that they will find it hard to navigate these legislative waters. Although we need strong employment rights and I support the Bill’s objectives, we need to ensure that there is support for employers, so that they know how to implement the measures and how to defend themselves, which they will sometimes need to do, without paying costly solicitors’ bills that are detrimental to their business. Will the Minister reassure me on that matter? \p Kate Dearden: I come from a family that has a business in the hospitality sector, which is close to my heart. In the first eight weeks that I have been in this role, I have had the pleasure to meet small and large businesses, and I have made clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation and to ensure that they are prepared for the changes when they come. We published our road map earlier this year and have committed to stick to that, which has been welcomed by businesses small and large.

Finally, turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 would remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate. As the period of disruption under the Conservatives’ watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This Government’s approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. \p James Wild: If this provision is introduced, does the Minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes? \p Kate Dearden: Strikes were a failure of the Tory Government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working, so I will not be taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and works to reset our industrial relations. Nonetheless, we recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. This amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold.

To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” road map, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and will help us to implement each in the interests of all. This is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy. \p Andrew Griffith: Act in haste, repent at leisure: never has that been wiser advice than in respect of this Bill. It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It has failed every test of scrutiny, from the  Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low-balled impact assessment.

On the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge that we face on worklessness, it will create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who cannot get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) reminds us, every Labour Government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this Government have actually legislated for that.

The Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start. Her motions to disagree reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work, the over 50s and former prisoners—some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their shot at employment and a job. \p Laurence Turner: Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman said the Conservatives

“will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 776.]

Could he inform us which elements of the Bill they will retain? \p Andrew Griffith: We will have our work cut out, with its 330 pages and 122,000 words—[Interruption.] Labour Members seek to hide behind measures that we support, such as enhanced maternity rights. But will the hon. Member tell me how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill, and how many times the word “union”—his paymasters—appears in it? \p Laurence Turner: I did not realise that was a genuine offer. I do not have the ctrl+F function in front of me to do a word count, but, again, I would be interested in hearing an answer to the question I posed to the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that, as his colleague the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said in Committee, trade union-associated MPs have been assiduous at declaring donations. I think only one Member on the Conservative side has declared an interest throughout all these proceedings; I find that utterly incredible. \p Andrew Griffith: I trust that you will want all Members this afternoon to declare any relevant interests, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have none. To answer the question that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to answer, the word “maternity” appears in this Bill three times; the word “union” appears in this Bill 478 times. Follow the money, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With unemployment higher every month—[Interruption.] Listen and learn. This will be Labour’s legacy: with unemployment higher every month of this Government, it is a bleak time for those trying to find work. The independent Office for National Statistics estimates that vacancies are down by 115,000 since this Government came into office. Some 41% of those  graduating in 2023 were not in full-time work 15 months later, and it is estimated that almost half the top 100 UK employers have reduced their graduate intake. In fact, graduates are competing for so few jobs that getting a job is as improbable as spotting a Labour Member who has not received a union donation.

But it is not just graduates: for many, seasonal work is the first opportunity to get a foot on the career ladder yet this Bill in its current form forces hospitality businesses or anyone who relies on seasonal workers into an impossible position. That is why we are supportive of the Lords’ compromise amendment that would allow employers who need flexibility across the calendar year to continue to have it; what could be so objectionable about that? \p Liz Twist: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman is talking about seasonal work but has he thought about the impact on young people of so-called zero-hours contracts and the pressure that puts on their being able to live a decent life and plan for the future? I was at a conference last week about mental health in the workplace, which Opposition Members are concerned about. Zero-hours contracts and flexible working are really difficult for young people, and we must address their concerns as well. \p Andrew Griffith: Mental health is a huge issue; across the House we would agree on that and the Mayfield report this morning is just one of many contributions to the debate. But for so many—this goes to reform of our welfare system as well—the right answer will be to be in employment, and the Mayfield report talks about creating barriers to employers giving young people a chance. There will of course be some challenges with any form of contracted employment, including zero-hours, which many find a very flexible way of combining work with study and parental or other responsibilities.

The way to try to solve that challenge across this House is not the clunking fist of regulation dictating and providing perverse incentives and maybe unintended consequences, which mean that employers do not take a chance at all on young people and they do not get that first step on the employment ladder. I understand that the hon. Lady’s concerns and contributions are well meant, but that is why it would be so much better if we approached the Bill collectively, after so many hours of debate in Committee in this place and in the other place, and if the Government showed compromise to help mitigate—not shelve the Bill, as I might prefer—some of the worst damage that will manifest itself in fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and some of the most vulnerable finding it very hard to get into work.

Employers face the prospect of a hire going wrong when they take a chance or a risk, and of an employee being able to turn up in the morning on day one and before lunch file a claim with the employment tribunal that puts their business at the back of a two-year long queue behind 491,000 open claims. It is staggering that we have been talking about this Bill when the queue for the tribunal in many parts of the country stretches out  for two years. That is incredibly expensive, and justice deferred is justice for nobody. Why not focus much more of our endeavours on trying to fix that issue?

I would be very happy to be intervened on if there are any real business groups—not the Institute for Public Policy Research or the TUC, but real business groups—that the Minister or anyone else would like to cite in defence of this Bill and that supports it in its current form. I am all ears, because that is not true of the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors, UKHospitality, the British Retail Consortium and so many more. \p Rachel Gilmour: The answer to that question is the Chartered Management Institute. \p Andrew Griffith: Well, I am glad we have found one; I have not had any representations from it. \p Ian Lavery: The shadow Secretary of State is showing how much he despises the trade union movement and ordinary working people—[Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. \p Ian Lavery: I must declare a financial interest with regard to my connection with the trade union movement: I am a very proud member of a trade union.

In response to what the shadow Secretary of State said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge and the British public voted in their millions to support the Labour party to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That is what we are doing. \p Andrew Griffith: I ask the Member strongly to withdraw that: I do not despise trade unions; not a single word I have ever said at the Dispatch Box indicates anything of the sort, and I would ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get the Member to withdraw that comment as it is not worthy of him. I would have hoped for better form in the conduct of this debate.

I support people’s rights to trade unions—well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the Labour party accepted a broad consensus on the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the consensus on that balance that has served this country well, and it does no one a service to render people unemployed. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Andrew Griffith: I should give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who did so much service on this Bill. \p Justin Madders: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I am pleased that he has learned to count now; he must have improved his skills since his time under Liz Truss in the Treasury. He talked about the consensus over 30 years, but was it not his Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which did so much to damage trade union relations? \p Andrew Griffith: I am trying to be generous to the hon. Member, as this Bill was part of his legacy before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice.

It is not unreasonable to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid. I do not think the Labour party would claim the mandate that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter. \p Antonia Bance: The hon. Member is not being very clear. Does he like the pre-2016 trade union regime, which is the one this Bill takes us back to, or does he like the post-2016 trade union regime, which is the one he seems to be advocating except when he talks about the 30 years of settled consensus? Which is it, because it cannot be both? \p Andrew Griffith: We on the Conservative Benches seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy and—unlike what we see today—more people in jobs, rather than fewer people in jobs. That does not help anybody at all, least of all a Government who claim that their No. 1 obsession is growth. That is not an unreasonable position.

Not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is going around telling business groups that he is listening, but every one of them is against this Bill. From what the Health Secretary has been saying privately, it is clear that he is no fan of giving more power to militant unions to call low turnout strikes. The welfare Secretary has commissioned reports on getting people from welfare into work, and those reports talk about not disincentivising employers from hiring. Are Treasury Ministers really looking forward to the Office for Budget Responsibility next week scoring the impact of this Bill, given the independent estimates that it could shave up to 2.8% off GDP? The Chancellor likes to blame everyone from the dinosaurs onwards for her failure, but this one will definitely be on her.

The looming disaster of this Bill is the truth that dare not speak its name. It may be a triumph for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), but it is a disaster for Britain. It is bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers’ rights, it punishes those who want a job. We do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the Government’s allies are warning them against this Bill.

Government Members have a choice. They can stand by and watch as their Government bring into law decades-worth of economic stagnation, or they can be on the side of the young, the vulnerable and the enterprising. History will remember this moment, because when unemployment skyrockets, businesses shut their doors, and young people stop believing and stop hoping, no one on the Government Benches will be able to say that they were not warned. \p Angela Rayner: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare an interest as a lifelong trade unionist in the labour movement, which has helped me to get where I am today. Let me start by placing on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend  the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and all those colleagues in the other place who spent so many late nights working on this Bill.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) to the Front Bench. She was among the many trade union leaders who helped to develop this Bill before it came to this place. The shadow Secretary of State thinks that the Bill was cooked up on the back of a fag packet, but it took years and millions of union members and ordinary people in this country, who have faced decimation since the Conservatives’ Bill in 2016. I offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax in finishing her job, because the House will know that this Bill is unfinished business.

I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there was going to be a pay cheque from month to month. It was because of a good, unionised job with decent conditions that my life and the lives of the workers I represented changed. As I toured the country in the election campaign, in every community I heard from so many who were in the same position—they wanted change, they wanted fairness and they wanted respect at work. That is why when we promised to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, we meant it.

It is very clear from the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from what he said as the Bill passed through the House, that the Conservatives do not want to improve working people’s lives. In fact, it is very clear from his submission today—let us face it—that he wants to water the Bill down. When he mentioned the state of tribunals, I nearly fell off my chair. I cannot believe he can say that with a straight face, after the state in which the Conservatives left our justice system. I won’t even talk about the economic mess they left us in.

Despite the fierce criticism from Opposition parties and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I am proud to speak in this debate as we deliver nothing less than a new deal for working people. Every time we have made progress on employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted. It is always easier to do nothing—to take the path of least resistance—but in each generation, it has been the Labour party that has had the courage and conviction to change lives. Maternity allowance; equal pay for women; health and safety rights; the minimum wage—Labour changed lives, and this generation is no different.

This Bill shows that Labour is on the side of working people. They will know that ordinary people are better off, and it will have an effect on their families—their children, their brothers and their sisters. They will have basic rights from day one, such as protection from unfair dismissal. I cannot believe the Conservative party thinks that in this day and age we should dismiss people unfairly. I do not understand it.

We are going to strengthen sick pay, family rights, bereavement leave and protections from sexual harassment at work. We will have a ban on zero-hours contracts, a historic fair pay agreement in social care, an end to fire and rehire, a genuine living wage and the single biggest boost to rights at work in a generation, creating an economy that works for working people. That was the promise we made to the British public, and I urge the  Secretary of State to fight every step of the way to deliver it in full. The public have no patience for the Tory and Lib Dem lords who, cheered on by Reform, are standing in the way of better rights for workers and frustrating what was a clear manifesto promise. Tonight, this House will once again send the message that we will not back down.

I will not go through every Lords amendment, but I will pick out a couple of the most damaging. First, Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120 would break the pledge that we made to the British people to give them day one rights. The last Conservative Government shamefully doubled the qualification period against unfair dismissal to two years and stripped workers of protections at the stroke of a pen, and now they are at it again. Government Members believe that workers deserve fairness, dignity and respect at work, and they deserve it from day one on the job. Opposition Members say that these rights against unfair dismissal will slow down hiring, so let me be clear that employers can absolutely still have probation periods for their new staff; they just will not be able to fire them unfairly at will, for no good reason.

Secondly, Lords amendment 1B would tear up protections for workers on zero-hours contracts. This Government made a commitment to provide workers with an offer of guaranteed hours, and the Lords amendment would water down that right. We promised to ban zero-hours contracts—no ifs, no buts—and that is exactly what we should do. This Bill is a promise we made to the British public. It is our duty to deliver it, and I say to my Front-Bench colleagues that I will be with them every step of the way as we do just that.

Make no mistake: the Bill is good for workers, and good for business. It is not just the right thing to do; it is the foundation for the high-growth, high-skill economy that the UK needs. Its key measures are backed by many of Britain’s best businesses, including the Co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds. Those businesses prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why the Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions of workers. It is also why we say proudly that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill. Respected business voices, such as the Chartered Management Institute, have indicated their support for the key measures in the Bill. We will continue to consulting businesses and hear their voices, to make sure that we get the detail right.

We talk a lot about growth in this place, but as the results from New York overnight show, growth means nothing if ordinary people cannot see it, and if communities have nothing to show for it. The reforms we are making today will give people security and dignity that they can feel. They will mean something to the thousands of pregnant women and mothers who will benefit from new maternity protections; the tens of thousands of fathers and partners who will be brought into the scope of paternity leave; the 1.7 million who will benefit from new policies on flexible working; the 2 million who will   receive a right to bereavement leave; the up to 9 million employees who will benefit from protection from unfair dismissal from day one; and the 15 million people in every corner of this country who will benefit from Labour’s plan. Across this country, people will benefit from secure work and a decent wage that they can raise a family on. This Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work—to drive a race to the top on standards, achieve real growth, and build an economy that works for everyone. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and hear her passionate advocacy for this Bill.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the principles of this Bill. We have long advocated for strengthening employment rights in several ways, including by increasing support for carers, boosting statutory sick pay, and giving people on zero-hours contracts more certainty about their working patterns. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction, but we remain concerned about the specific way in which the Government plan to implement many of its measures. So much of the detail that should have been in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultations, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty.

For that reason, we support amendments that provide clarity for businesses, for example by setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country, and we must ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and businesses. \p Antonia Bance: Does the hon. Member believe that, in the first six months of employment, it is appropriate for people to be dismissed for unfair reasons and without a fair process? \p Sarah Olney: The point has been made on a number of occasions that it is always possible for employers to make mistakes in their hiring—for people to not be the right fit for the job. There should be a straightforward way for those employers to dismiss those people without being challenged on the basis that the dismissal was unfair. The key point is not that employers should be allowed to make unfair dismissals, but if a dismissal has been fair, they should not have to defend it. \p Justin Madders: The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has just said that it is not right that employers should pay for a mistake they made in hiring someone. Why should the employee pay for that mistake, if it was not theirs? \p Sarah Olney: There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.

There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.

The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable for those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have both security and flexibility.

Specifically, small and medium-sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not benefit either side.

As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.

Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into  jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable. \p Euan Stainbank: Can the hon. Lady define what rights somebody working behind a desk in this place should have under amendment 48B that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not? \p Sarah Olney: They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.

If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.

On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action. \p Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Lady inform the House of the statistics relating to her election at the general election? She was elected by a minority. If it is good enough for her—she is doing a great job, by the way—why is it not good enough for ordinary working people? \p Sarah Olney: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that 53.3% of Richmond Park voters voted for me to be their representative, so I was, in fact, elected by the majority of my constituents. I am delighted to hear that he thinks I am doing a good job for them. I think he was attempting to highlight that many of the people in the Chamber were elected on less than 50%. The first thing I would say to that is that on most ballot papers, there will have been a choice of more than two candidates. \p Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Sarah Olney: May I finish the point? If people are choosing from a list of five people, it is likely, under the first-past-the-post system, that the winning candidate will receive less than 50% of the vote. In a strike ballot, the choice is between two options. That is why there should be more than 50% of all members voting for the option to strike. That is the important point here.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has given me an excellent opportunity to point out that the Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of voting reform. Last December, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill advocating for  proportional representation, which was passed. It remains the will of the House, as expressed on that occasion, that we should change the way in which we elect hon. Members.

Maintaining a robust process for launching industrial action is particularly important when we consider the scale of the disruption that the public face when strikes happen. The Liberal Democrats also continue to support measures that would retain the current opt-in system for contribution to trade union political funds. Amendment 72B maximises choice and transparency for individuals about the political funds to which they are contributing.

Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom support the Bill’s aims, but they have significant concerns about the extent of the Bill, much of which is still undecided on and risks compounding other challenges that they face. Changes in employer national insurance, slow progress on reform of the apprenticeship levy and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices continue to be extremely damaging to businesses, and to our economy as a whole. We must find a way to support small and medium-sized businesses in particular, and to provide clarity, so that they can plan ahead. If the Government were prepared to make meaningful improvements to the Bill that would make things easier for small businesses—for example, through the amendments suggested by the Liberal Democrats—they might find it easier to make progress with the legislation.

We support many of the aims of the Bill, and the spirit of the measures that strengthen employment rights, but I urge Members to support our amendments, which will help to ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers and business. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Justin Madders. After his speech, there will be a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers. \p Justin Madders: Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and to my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

It is nearly nine months since the Bill completed its Commons stages and over a year since it was first introduced, so it is disappointing to see yet another delay. I know that many of my constituents would want these vital manifesto commitments to be enacted as soon as possible, but recent proceedings in the other place have demonstrated the intention of the Opposition parties to elongate the process and attempt to water down important protections that the Bill offers to workers. It is as simple as this: Labour Members were elected on a manifesto that committed us to making work pay, and the Employment Rights Bill is central to delivering that. It will be the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. It is long overdue, and we will all be unashamed of our commitment to improving the lives of working people.

This Bill will have a transformative impact on the world of work, and particularly on people who lack job security and dignity. Make no mistake: at every single stage the Conservatives and Reform have voted to water the Bill down or weaken its protections, and now it seems that the Liberal Democrats have joined in. Our constituents will no doubt conclude that those on the Opposition Benches are siding with the bad bosses, and I urge them to reconsider and choose the side of working people. That is not an exaggeration, because the Lords amendments under consideration will gut the Bill of important protections for the millions of people currently in insecure work.

We do not have much time, so I will focus on Lords amendments 1B and 62 and Lords reason 120B, which I consider to be the most damaging amendments. Lords amendment 1B represents a continued attempt to undermine our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The Government, and Labour Members, have always been clear that the only way to tackle the most pernicious elements of such contracts is to make the right to guaranteed hours a right that people can genuinely exercise. Workers on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered in our economy, and the least able to actively assert their rights. Their working hours are inherently precarious and often depend on the vagaries of their bosses, and they are more likely to be younger and working in the lowest-paid sectors of the economy. Shifting this commitment to a “right to request” model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests, would completely fail to recognise the power imbalance in the working relationship, and the real risk that assertion of rights would have negative consequences for those who just want some basic security and dignity at work. I am therefore pleased that we are rejecting those amendments.

Of course, that is not the only form of insecurity that those on the Opposition Benches want to keep on the table, as they support Lords reason 120B, which seeks to allow workers to be unfairly dismissed in the first six months of their employment. Maybe those in the other place, who have jobs for life, do not understand what it feels like to be tossed aside without any explanation. Maybe they do not appreciate how debilitating it can be for someone to go into work every day with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing that, if the chop comes, there will be absolutely nothing that they can do about it, but those bills will still need paying and their dependants will still depend on them. We need to drive out the insecurity that eats away at so many hard-working people in this country.

I do not agree with Opposition Members who protest that our change would, overnight, put a stop to hiring. The Government have been clear that employers will be able to pursue a lighter-touch dismissal process within a probationary period, and have rightly committed to consulting closely with employers on the implementation of that.

We often hear—we did again today regarding employers’ organisations—how it is not right that employers should pay the price for making a mistake when hiring someone, but why should the employee? Why should someone who may have given up a perfectly good job to take on another bear all the risk and the consequences if an  employer does not get their hiring practices right? The Liberal Democrats, in their response, talked about this being needed to “strike a balance”, but I think the proposals for a statutory probation period actually do strike the right balance and deliver fairness to both the employee and the employer.

Opposition Members have also gleefully referenced a recent report by the Resolution Foundation on this issue. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has been generous to me, but I will have to pull him up on something that he said in yesterday’s Opposition day debate: that the Resolution Foundation actually opposed this Bill. Well, I am afraid that shows that he simply has not read the report, because it says, in black and white, at the top of the first page:

“The Government’s Employment Rights Bill is important and welcome”.

I accept that it then goes on to argue against day one rights, but the only statistical evidence it put up in respect of that is a chart comparing us to other countries, and said that we currently have some of the weakest protections against dismissal and that this Bill will give us some of the strongest. Well, that is the actual point of this Bill, and I do not think it is a compelling argument to say that it is something we do not want to see delivered. \p Laurence Turner: Is it not also the case that, within that graph, a number of the nations that the Resolution Foundation says have weaker protections actually have higher unemployment rates than our own? There is clearly not the relationship between the two that some in the Opposition have tried to suggest. \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is something that the Resolution Foundation said when giving evidence to the Bill Committee. I will quote that directly:

“Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 116, Q119.]

So there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work. That is what the Resolution Foundation said in its evidence to the Bill Committee last year. \p Lincoln Jopp: Would the hon. Member like to put his money where his mouth is and tell us whether his faith in the Employment Rights Bill is such that he is prepared to make a commitment to his constituents in Ellesmere Port and Bromborough that if, having passed this Bill, unemployment goes up, he will resign his seat? \p Justin Madders: I absolutely cannot believe that the Conservative party, which saw massive increases in unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and 1990s when they were in power, have the cheek to start talking about the effects of unemployment on my constituents now.

The Resolution Foundation has said some things in recent weeks that I do not agree with, but it has said things in the past that are much more in line with what we believe the international evidence shows. So the kindest thing I can say about the Resolution Foundation is that I prefer its earlier work.

I turn to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 62, on repeal of the last remnants of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the removal of thresholds for industrial action ballots. I have always held the view that the introduction of e-balloting, if done properly, will lead to much greater participation in ballots and render arguments about turnout obsolete. The implementation timetable that the Government published indicates that e-balloting will begin next April. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, can provide some reassurance that that is still on track, and that we can therefore expect the end of thresholds to come at the same time, or very shortly thereafter. I would be disappointed if the amendment was an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. I am not particularly keen on the conditionality in the amendment, which talks about whether to repeal the thresholds. There should be no question of “whether”; it should be about “when”. After all, that is what we promised to do in our manifesto. I urge the Minister to resist any temptation to introduce any conditionality and to deliver the Make Work Pay agenda in full, as we said we would.

I will conclude, because I am conscious that a number of Members wish to speak. I am proud that the Government are continuing to commit to implementing this Bill in full. The policies in the Bill are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They formed a key part of our manifesto and remain central to the Government’s plan for change. We on the Labour Benches proudly stand against those who seek to water down this Bill and hamper its implementation. We are proud to back workers and to deliver meaningful change in their working lives. We stand against maintaining the status quo of low pay, low security and little dignity at work, and we stand for job security and for delivering on our promises. \p Antonia Bance: I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my proud 23 years in Unite, and the generous support from the millions of ordinary members of the GMB and ASLEF in paying into their political funds to put representatives of the working class here in Parliament.

I am here to deliver a simple but firm message: there will be no concessions on this Bill—not one. Opposition parties in the House of Lords are trying to water down the rights that working people voted for, but we will stand firm. The new deal for working people was a Labour manifesto commitment, and it will be delivered in full.

I want to talk about two sets of amendments, starting with Lords amendments 61 and 72, on political funds. The Lords want to keep the opt-in system, but it is abundantly clear that this is a deliberate attack on the political voice of working people. All this Bill does is restore the long-standing opt-out system that has lasted since 1946. Union members will still have robust rights, and they can opt out easily. Unions are tightly regulated—no other membership organisation has faced these rules. Unions’ political spending is transparent and accountable, with annual returns to the certification officer and the  Electoral Commission regulating donations and campaigning. Of course, these political funds support wider campaigning, not just party donations, although I am proud to say that they support party donations too.

I also oppose Lords amendment 62, on keeping the unnecessary and unneeded ballot thresholds, which are designed to stop workers having a voice. The Tory and Lib Dem Lords want to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold that was introduced by the draconian Trade Union Act 2016. I remind Members from the Liberal Democrat party that they opposed that Act in 2016, including the ballot thresholds, and I wonder why they have now reversed their position. Ballot thresholds weaken unions and stall negotiations. Before 2016, ballots triggered talks and resolved disputes early. Now the thresholds delay dialogue and make resolution harder. No other organisations face turnout thresholds; this just singles out unions. Of course, anyone who is familiar with how the trade union movement works knows that no union would call members out on strike if they are not up for it.

With all due thanks and respect to the other place, we will still repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 in full, with no concessions. This Bill is the first step in delivering the new deal for working people—our promise to the working people of this country. This is the change that working people voted for. The Government will not give in to unelected Tory and Lib Dem Lords siding with bad bosses to weaken workers’ rights—not now, not today, not ever. \p Andy McDonald: I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud.

The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the Conservative Government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of this Labour Government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission and the Employment Rights Bill will help to deliver that.

The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge. I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment. Instead, they would impose a six-month  qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end. \p James Wild: When the hon. Gentleman has spoken to employers in his constituency about this specific provision—I am sure that he has—what have they said? \p Andy McDonald: The concept is pretty simple. Conservative Members are conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. They are scaremongering. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing we are saying is that it would be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder why it is so difficult to grasp that concept. \p Lincoln Jopp: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Andy McDonald: No, because I am conscious of time.

There is no impact on retaining probationary periods—they remain intact. Having day one rights against unfair dismissal does not prevent an employer vetting and doing recruitment properly, and using probationary periods legitimately.

Turning to Lords amendment 1B, the so-called guaranteed hours opt-out, this provision transforms a clear right into a conditional option. Instead of guaranteeing a contract that reflects the hours a person actually works, it allows employers to invite workers to opt out of that right altogether. Experience with the working time opt-out shows exactly where this leads: it becomes a standard clause, routinely signed away. That is not the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts; it is their re-badging.

Finally, Lords amendment 62, which reintroduces ballot thresholds for industrial action, seeks to restore one of the most restrictive elements of the Trade Union Act 2016. This House has already agreed that those provisions were excessive and undemocratic. No other organisation is bound by such turnout requirements before it may act. Reinstating them would frustrate meaningful negotiation and delay the resolution of disputes, not promote it. Let us drop the thresholds and quickly move to e-balloting, as we promised.

For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist the Lords amendments and to insist on the Bill as originally passed by this House. It must be delivered in full, for it represents the baseline of a fair work settlement. However, while defending the Bill, we must also recognise that it is only a starting point. The consultations now under way must ensure that secondary legislation goes further and fulfils the Government’s wider promise to make work pay. I hope we see a robust and enforceable right of access for trade unions to workplaces, both physical and digital, so that unions can reach and represent workers effectively, with penalties that deter obstruction. I hope we will create a process to expand fair pay agreements beyond adult social care and schools, embedding sectoral collective bargaining across the economy to raise pay and standards in every workplace. We must also make progress towards a single status of worker.

The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark measure, but its promise will be realised only if this House defends it against dilution and strengthens it in implementation. I therefore call on all Members to reject the Lords amendments and to stand by our commitment to working people: to deliver the new deal for working people in full and to build from it a fairer, more secure world of work. \p Laurence Turner: Given that time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief. I intend to speak to specific amendments today, but I feel compelled to start with a general comment in respect of financial interests. Throughout the stages of the Bill, and again today, it has been suggested by the Opposition that a number of Government Members speak not from genuine and sincere belief, but because of arrangements involving donations to their constituency Labour parties. I say to those on the Opposition Benches that that argument and line of thought betrays a laziness towards this issue that is reflected in their lack of effective scrutiny of the Bill, with the Opposition resorting instead to hackneyed and ancestral stereotypes and lazy assumptions that reflect nothing about the world of unions and the world of work. \p James Wild: Members of the public who are watching this debate will not necessarily have ready access to the records of the thousands of pounds that have been taken by each Member referring simply to their financial interests. In the interest of transparency, will the hon. Gentleman therefore say how many thousands of pounds he took from trade unions, if any, to support this Bill? \p Laurence Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving my point exactly. I will happily tell him that since becoming a Member of this House, I have not received a penny in political donations from trade unions. My constituency Labour party received a donation before the election, but that is an entirely different matter. I have only one matter to draw attention to in my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, which is an unpaid role.

We are asked today to consider a number of amendments that directly contradict our manifesto commitments. Lords amendments 61 and 72 on political funds are a case in point. In the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue, but the Make Work Pay document, which our manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the Trade Union Act 2016 would be repealed. That must include this provision.

The amendments before us seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927 and repealed in 1946, after which we had 70 years during which arrangements worked effectively. The actual impact of these amendments, were they passed, would be the same as any arrangement that moves from opt-out to opt-in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice.

Let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties. Look at the campaigns that have been run and the cross-party support they have won, such as GMB and Unison’s “Protect the Protectors” and GMB’s campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing—two campaigns that the Conservatives came to support—as well as USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear”, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the result of Unite’s campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many cockle pickers tragically and disgracefully lost their lives. Even today, in this place, trade union funding helps to address the abuse that has occurred within the confines of the estate, and which there is a risk will continue in the future.

Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis. When that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee Government’s Attorney General of the day said—I think this bears repeating today—that the Conservatives relied on the

“old delusion that the Labour party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so much opposed.”

Anyone who has worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and we have heard much of that delusion from the Opposition through the passage of the Bill.

I was going to make similar comments to those my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—who is both honourable and a friend—made in respect of Lords amendment 62, but she covered it expertly. I will finish by talking about Lords amendment 121B on the school support staff negotiating body, which has not been discussed so far today. I recognise that this amendment is substantially different from other amendments that have been sent to us on this matter, but I still believe that it is unnecessary.

First of all, the overwhelming majority of academy employers do subscribe to the National Joint Council terms and conditions for school support staff—terms and conditions which, as has been widely recognised for more than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff. The effect of Lords amendment 121B would to be to create a two-tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and academies. It states that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which that require such changes to be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be “in aggregate” an improvement. That clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening to some areas to the detriment of the 1,700 school support staff in my constituency.

I am proud to have had an association with this Bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight. \p Amanda Martin: I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my involvement in the trade union movement throughout my professional career.

The Employment Rights Bill is long overdue, and although others continually seek to wreck it with worker-unfriendly amendments, we will not allow it. We on the Government Benches know that this Bill is about economic growth and security for all workers. It is about banning unfair dismissals, strengthening statutory sick pay, outlawing fire and rehire, and gaining new maternity and paternity leave rights and rights to bereavement leave.

There are so many fantastic measures in this Bill, and as the Minister noted, we are today again presented with a number of amendments that we do not support. I want to speak to just one. Lords amendment 1B is about the Employment Rights Bill’s most vital protection—a manifesto commitment on which I proudly stood in my city to deliver: the statutory entitlement to fixed hours. This is not an abstract legal reform; it is a common-sense protection for people who are often invisible in our labour market and for whom insecurity is the norm, not the exception. \p Naushabah Khan: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that exploitative zero-hours contracts are a huge problem for workers and that banning them is a big step, so we should oppose any steps to try to water down the legislation? \p Amanda Martin: I absolutely agree; I think the key word there is “exploitative”.

People in Portsmouth North and across the country deserve fairness, dignity and the ability to plan their daily lives and future. In sectors such as retail, hospitality, construction, social care and logistics, many workers are on unpredictable, variable hours,, with shifts cancelled at short notice or only a minimal work week offered in order for employers to control their labour costs. This makes budgeting, second jobs, childcare, healthcare planning and indeed everything in life almost impossible.

Let me give the House a local example. One of my constituents, “Sara”, has worked in a Portsmouth café on a zero-hours contract for four years. She is told at the beginning of each week what hours she might get. One week she might have 25 hours, and the next week she might get eight—and the next she might get nothing. Because she cannot predict her hours, she ends up in debt, skipping medical visits and having to rely on emergency credit to pay her bills. Under the Bill’s intended protection, Sara could request fixed hours and have far greater stability for herself and her family. \p Michael Wheeler: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. Does she agree that for Sara and for my constituents who are on short or zero-hours contracts, the meat of the amendment, which would introduce the bureaucratic farce of an offering of an offer, instead of a right, would ruin the meaningful change in the Bill and that the introduction of an ability for workers to opt out would open up a loophole with detrimental effects in the real world, where people could be rewarded with overtime if they agreed to opt out? \p Amanda Martin: Absolutely. It would leave workers unable to reject overtime, even if they were knackered, having already done 60 or 70 hours that week.

That brings me to Dave, a plasterer working on one of my local building sites. He is technically self-employed, but in reality he is also on a rolling zero-hours contract. Some weeks he earns enough to keep his mortgage, and some weeks he earns enough to put aside a little bit of money for Christmas; other weeks, he earns nothing at all. He is told to stand down when winter hits and work slows, with no pay, no notice and no safety net. That insecurity is corrosive and affects not just finances, but families, health and morale on jobs.

Let us be clear, the public are firmly with us. According to the TUC’s 2025 mega-poll, support for guaranteed-hours contracts sits at over 70% across the regions and nations of the UK. This is not about denigrating businesses and business owners—many are fantastic and provide great opportunities—but without the bill, unscrupulous employers will continue to sidestep responsibility and run a race to the bottom.

Arguments are made that these measures would impose burdens on business, discourage hiring and risk flooding employment tribunals. Those concerns should not be a pretext for hollowing out protections and should instead ensure that workers know how much they will earn each month so that they can plan and live their lives. Sara and Dave, who I referred to earlier, are just two names; behind them are thousands of lives blighted by unfair employment practices. Sara and Dave will not mind me saying that they are not young. Despite what the Opposition want us to believe, zero-hours contracts are not just exploitative for the young; they are exploitative for many other people in our society.

People deserve the right to security. I urge colleagues to reject these Lords amendments, which would weaken the Bill, because fixed-hours entitlement is not a radical idea but a basic standard of decency in the modern world of work. If we really mean it when we say in this House that we respect working people, we must deliver laws that protect them. \p Euan Stainbank: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud, experienced hospitality worker of six years. I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place on the Bill, and am once again bemused and frustrated on behalf of my constituents that this generational, fundamental and basic common sense bit of legislation is once again before us, along with the hill that many in other place seem to want to make a stand on.

It is apparent that after years of stagnating living standards, job No. 1 for the Government was to make work pay again, tipping the scales in favour of working people and, especially for the younger generation who have been discussed today, recapture a work ethic and value of work that I worry had been lost during the years of Tory Government. Why, then, does the other place insist on Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would remove the day one right on unfair dismissal? That is once again telling young, predominantly lower paid and insecure British workers in hospitality, in factories and on work sites across our constituencies that their continued employment and income is precariously balanced on the benevolence of their employer, not on the value of their labour.

That feeling is real every day that this measure is not on the statute book. Young men and women are being bullied, prodded and pushed out of their jobs by the  small minority of bad employers that do exist across our constituencies. I have had kids in their first jobs straight out of school, further education or higher education—this was their first chance—tell me that they were sacked in the weeks prior to two years of service. Looking at Lords amendment 106 from my perspective, I see no reason why that same circumstance would not then occur a few weeks before six months of service. \p Tracy Gilbert: Does my hon. Friend agree that good employers have nothing to fear from anything in the Bill and that many good employers will embrace these measures, as indeed many do? \p Euan Stainbank: When I listen to businesses in my constituency I find, as I am sure every Member of this House does, that they are worried across the piece for a number of reasons and have been for a number of years. Yet many good employers do not rank this in their top five concerns coming forward, and especially not the employers that I worked for in the hospitality and retail sector. Actually, they see the benefits in keeping workers for longer and having more security in knowing who their workforce is. That was a major concern for the hospitality and retail sectors that I worked in, especially on coming out of the pandemic, and not being able to keep staff was also a major cost.

On unfair dismissal, if we accept the amendment, we will leave people without a legal right of action when they are unfairly dismissed. We must reject it; it is an unfair proposal.

Moving on to Lords amendment 1B, why did the Opposition insist on that? It fundamentally mischaracterises the dynamic of the workplace for the majority of those who are on zero hours contracts, as I was for six years in the relatively recent past. Rather than the employer proactively offering a guaranteed hours contract, the amendment would put the obligation on the employee to access and accept. In the lowest-paid and most insecure industries, this would be rife with potential for interference and bad incentives for employees to opt out to convenience the employer. As I have experienced in hospitality and retail, in reference to the working time directive, this was rife throughout the sector, especially when someone was finishing a shift late on and the employer needed somebody in the next day. I cannot see a world in which this situation would not be subject to similar interference from the employer; or worse, with the reference period, the employee will be given fewer hours, especially if they have pre-emptively insisted to their employer that they would access that right.

On amendment 48B, I am exasperated, as I have stated several times, that with the definition of “seasonal work” as captured including work in the creative industries, retail, hospitality and other sectors, there would be an attempt to carve out those sectors from other rights in the Bill. The Tories, Lib Dems, Reform and anybody else who supports the amendment tonight will have to go back and explain to their constituents why they believe that those who serve them behind a bar should  access fewer rights than those who work behind a desk. The industries targeted under the amendment are very specific. \p Lincoln Jopp: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I like very much, for giving way on that point. He is clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill. The people of Falkirk are watching him, so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, he will resign from his seat? \p Euan Stainbank: I make the commitment to the people of Falkirk that the quality of their work, especially for younger people, will go massively through the roof. Younger people in my constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished, so my guarantee to the people of Falkirk is that the quality of work will go up. I think other Members referred to this, but it is a cheek for Tory Members to talk to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, which were savaged by the Thatcherite Government. They will get absolutely no credence in my constituency.

I say to those on the Opposition Benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the Government today, get the Bill passed without it being watered down and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray young British workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way. For too long under the Tories, those workers have lost the belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided. They will see massive benefits from the Bill. Make work pay and get this done. \p Nusrat Ghani: For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley. \p Anneliese Midgley: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my membership of and financial support from the trade union movement.

I stand here as a proud trade unionist, with a couple of decades of work behind me standing up for the working class. I pay the truest of tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). \p Ian Lavery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about some hon. and right hon. Friends and the work that lots of people have done to bring this transformational Bill to the Commons. We also need to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his tremendous work at the very beginning of this process. It is transformational and everybody deserves lots of credit. \p Nusrat Ghani: Success has many mothers. \p Anneliese Midgley: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him about the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has done on this for over a decade.

This Bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and, taken together with the rest of the new deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in our generation. That is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and it is one that will change the lives of millions of working-class people for the better. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), will do a great job of completing the process.

This is personal for me, because it was my dad’s secure, well-paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford’s Halewood plant that gave me a better life than my mum and dad had. It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that, and that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive and for jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. No way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad’s job.

The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down the Bill. They are aided and abetted by Reform, who are never in this place to debate this and have consistently voted against the Bill. Some of the Lords amendments would rip out the heart of the Bill. I am going to speak briefly to amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker had been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker could be dismissed at whim, for no reason. How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the research from the IPPR and the TUC, which found that 73% of employers supported giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the TUC’s research from the Dispatch Box, but it represents 5 million workers and everyone else at work. Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? We know that good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this Bill. Today, we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal that our constituents voted for and make sure we deliver the new deal for working people in full. \p Kate Dearden: I thank all Members for their brilliant contributions today and for their engagement with the Bill throughout the many months we have been debating it. That is incredibly appreciated and valued.

I start by reiterating a quote from Professor Simon Deakin at the Cambridge University centre for business:

“strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects. The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity.”

I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who made a number of contributions, of my opening remarks.  UK employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses employ people or with how people experience their working lives today: when, how and where they work. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman’s party spent 14 years impotently watching the rise of the gig economy and the many changes in our employment landscape but now pretends that the status quo still works for everyone. It simply does not. That is why the Bill is so important: it raises those standards and levels the playing field for businesses, so that they are not undercut by people who do not play by the rules, which negatively impacts their businesses and productivity. The Bill is important for working people so that they get that security and those rights at work, as well as for businesses, including those good businesses that already go above and beyond and do brilliant work supporting our workforce and different economies across the country.

The shadow Minister mentioned seasonal work. The initial reference period will be set out in regulations, as I have already spoken to. I reiterate that we believe that 12 weeks is the right length, balancing the need for qualifying workers to be offered those guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a role and the need for a reference period long enough to establish the hours that they regularly work.

I was surprised to hear the remarks from the shadow Minister on employment tribunals. On their watch, average wait times for an employment claimant increased by 60% between 2010 and 2022 due to funding cuts. The previous Government’s introduction of fees had a disproportionate impact on woman and the low-paid. Yet again, we are fixing messes that they left behind. The taskforce I mentioned in my introductory speech for how we can fix our employment tribunal system, and our work under the Fair Work Agency, which will be up and running next year, are incredibly important as part of that wider package. \p Amanda Martin: It is good to hear about the taskforce. Could the Minister give us more information about what other things it will look at and investigate that will support employees? \p Kate Dearden: The taskforce will bring together different stakeholders so that we can assess the problems within the system and work out the best way to fix them, because at the moment it is not working for employers or workers, who want access to justice and want it quickly. \p Andy McDonald: Would the Minister agree that the introduction of these rights and protections is absolutely critical, but equally important is the ability to enforce those rights? The Fair Work Agency has the potential to bring that to fruition and ensure that when people are in those circumstances and are the beneficiaries of an award, they will ultimately receive it, because far too many people take on these cases and do not get any redress. \p Kate Dearden: We met Matthew Taylor, the new chair of the Fair Work Agency, this week to discuss the agency’s progress to ensure that it is up and running at speed. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, enforcement  is vital, and it is crucial that workers are aware of their rights. That is why the agency is so transformational in our approach and important for our wider agenda.

To respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I urge her to support the Government as we seek to update and upgrade our employment rights to be fit for the 21st century. She mentioned lots around detail. As I mentioned earlier, as is standard for lots of employment rights legislation, we want to consult extensively with businesses, unions and employers to ensure that we get this right, and I am sure that she agrees with that approach.

The hon. Member mentioned turnout thresholds. As I have mentioned, we want to create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy and workforce and that works for everybody. We have been clear that we intend to ensure that trade union legislation is proportionate and effective and does not create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. We remain committed to removing the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots through the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. We support a strong mandate for strike action, but a threshold set in legislation is not the best way to achieve that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) talked about our proud Labour legacy of the courage and conviction to change lives, and she is a powerful and inspiring demonstration and testament to that. That is why this legislation is so important, reshaping the world of work and delivering security and dignity that people can feel, as she rightly mentioned. We cannot build a strong economy through employment insecurity. The legal loopholes that exist have contributed to the erosion of living standards and allowed a race to the bottom. I am always grateful for her support and thank her for her offer of support as we proceed to Royal Assent and the implementation stages to ensure that everybody across the country can benefit, workers and business alike, and that is why the Bill is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a powerful speech and responded eloquently to lots of points raised by Opposition Members, and I thank him for that. I reassure him that we remain committed to the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, and we have been clear that it is our intention to align the removal of thresholds with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for unions. The amendment does not change that commitment. We are working at pace to permit electronic balloting by April 2026. He will be pleased to know that we will shortly launch a consultation on an electronic and workplace balloting code of practice, and I encourage all stakeholders to respond to that consultation.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her excellent points on the importance and use of political funds. I reiterate my remarks on the 50% threshold and hope that she is reassured by them. She will have heard the Government’s commitment to delivering the Bill in full from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at Labour conference. I hope to have reiterated that commitment at the Dispatch Box today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all his work on this legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with  him over a number of years. He mentioned fair pay agreements, which we are introducing for social care, as he rightly said. We will learn from that process before considering their introduction in other sectors, but I appreciate his passion for this area. I am sure that we will be in touch with him to speak about that progress.

On trade union access, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East may be aware that we launched a consultation last week seeking views on a number of changes to modernise and hardwire negotiation, engagement and dispute resolution into industrial relations, including the enforcement mechanism for the right of access. I thank him for raising that matter.

My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made brilliant points. I am forever grateful for their support. They are strong advocates for working people across the country. It has been wonderful to work with them over a number of years, and to be in this House today with lots of friends who have contributed to this agenda and this vital work. I hope that we have the chance to celebrate it at some point. \p Laurence Turner: May I invite the Minister to respond to two things? First, I was asked earlier how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill. The word “pregnancy” appears 16 times, “parental” 27 times, and “bereavement” 34 times, but we cannot restrict the debate to individual phrases. Secondly, this is not some abacus exercise; the real impact of the Bill is the change and improvement it will make for millions of working families thanks to day one rights. \p Kate Dearden: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent and well-made point. I am glad that he has managed to find the ctrl+F function with such speed. I always rely on him to provide such efficiency and clarity. The Bill will benefit more than 15 million workers. That is an incredibly powerful statistic to give at the Dispatch Box. More than 2 million people on zero-hours contracts could benefit, as well as the many workers he mentions who will benefit from further protections and rights at work. \p Michael Wheeler: I thank my good and hon. Friend for giving way. Millions of workers, including those on zero-hours contracts, stand to benefit from the measures in the Bill. Does she agree that the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat peers on the right to guaranteed hours are an unworkable bureaucratic mess that opens up scope for abusive practices in the workplace and removes the Bill’s meaningful protections from far too many workers? \p Kate Dearden: I thank my good and hon. Friend for his important contribution. Like him, I meet many people in my constituency who do not know day to day whether they will have enough money for food and rent because they do not know how many hours they will work that week. That is why it is so important that we give people basic security by banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. We know that people value the flexibility that those contracts offer, which is why we are tackling the exploitative ones, as he rightly outlines. Those amendments might look for a different route to tackle exploitative  zero-hours contracts, but we want to protect working people, because it is so important that they have certainty, week by week, on what they will be paid—that is what they deserve. I thank him for all his work in this area over a number of years. He brings a wealth of experience to this part of the Bill.

The Government are clear that we cannot build a strong economy while people are in insecure work. Employment law has not kept pace with modern working patterns, and that has allowed some employers to exploit gaps in the law, undercut responsible businesses and fuel a race to the bottom. Backed by our new industrial and trade strategies, the Bill will drive productivity, foster innovation and lay the foundations for long-term secure growth. It will level the playing field for good employers and put the UK economy in step with competitors in other advanced economies.

As we have heard today, I stand on the shoulders and build on the incredible hard work of many right hon. and hon. Friends. I pay tribute to them, and put on record my thanks and gratitude for all their work in getting us to where we are today. I hope that all hon. Members support the Government in our determination to get the Bill over the line and update our employment rights legislation in this country, for businesses and for employers, for the future and for growth. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 155.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 1B disagreed to.

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Order, 15 September).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A, but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.—(Kate Dearden.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 153.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 48B. —(Kate Dearden). \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 150.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.—(Kate Dearden.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.—(Kate Dearden.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 151.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.—(Kate Dearden.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 1B and 48B;

That Kate Dearden, Nesil Caliskan, Dr Jeevun Sandher, Laurence Turner, Antonia Bance, Andrew Griffith and Charlotte Cane be members of the Committee;

That Kate Dearden be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

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

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p Chris Philp: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner being released early, having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession at that time a folder containing  details of the accidental release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth prison last week—a man previously convicted of sex offences and who is, as we speak, at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday.

The Deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House. The House and the public are entitled to be told about such things, but the Deputy Prime Minister withheld that information. The police have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection to that information being released, contrary to briefings from the Government. Will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so that Members can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday for a proper account. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. Whether the Government choose to make a statement is not a matter for the Chair; however, the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s concerns. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan police from answering that question at Prime Minister’s questions. Mr Swinford of The Times has published right now that far from that being the case, there is

“significant frustration in the Met Police”,

as they said that there was clearly “no operational issue” at all with the release of that information. I wonder if you will take that into consideration, Madam Deputy Speaker, because surely this is a process of misleading the House. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer him to my answer to the previous point of order. It is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of debate. \p Graham Stuart: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker— \p Judith Cummins: Can you confirm that it is a point of order? \p Graham Stuart: It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Bill was presented to Parliament only this week that provides for a duty of candour for public servants. It is not enough simply to tell the truth; there has to be a duty of candour. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that Bill? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it is not a point of order, but a point of argument. \p Andrew Murrison: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker— \p Judith Cummins: I do hope that this is a point of order. \p Andrew Murrison: It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a point of order. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 February 2025 (Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery): Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 75, 30 and 31, 43, 84, 97, 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96 and 98 to 121.

Subsequent stages

Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Judith Cummins: I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. \p Andrew Western: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 1, and Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 75, and Government amendment (a).

Lords amendments 30 and 31, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 84, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 97, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.

Lords amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121. \p Andrew Western: The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It takes money away from vital public services, eroding trust and harming innocent people. The Bill introduces new powers to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside of the tax and social security system, using its expertise to act on behalf of other parts of Government.

The Bill also contains new powers for the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle fraud and error within the social security system, providing much-needed modernisation for our defences. At the same time, it includes significant safeguards, including new independent oversight to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. As we now reach the final stages of the Bill, I am sure colleagues across the House will agree that it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible, so that we can realise the delivery of the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits by 2029-30. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward and for all the hard work that the Government have done in relation to this. There is one thing that always concerns me. In my office, nearly every week I have people come to me who have inadvertently made mistakes. They perhaps do not  understand how the online system works or how the paperwork has to be filled in, and sometimes they have ticked the wrong box and found themselves in a difficult position. This does not take away from those who deliberately defraud and try to get money that they should not be receiving. How can we be absolutely sure that those who make inadvertent mistakes will not find themselves in a difficult position alongside those who have done wrong? How can we ensure that they get the sympathy they need? I know that the Minister will be of the same opinion as me that we must make sure this is done right. \p Andrew Western: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is enshrined elsewhere in legislation that claimant error is recoverable as part of universal credit. I can also assure him that, as part of this Bill, the eligibility verification measure will enable us to identify errors that are legitimate as well as illegitimate—deliberate, shall we say—in order to minimise the level of debt for individuals who have, I accept, done this accidentally and ensure that they are caught earlier. Any overpayments will be smaller as a direct consequence. One advantage of the Bill is that it can minimise suffering for people who have inadvertently made a mistake.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friends Baroness Anderson and Baroness Sherlock who expertly guided the Bill through the other place. I share their appreciation for all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny and their invaluable insights that have helped the Government to strengthen the Bill.

The Government made important changes to the Bill in the other place, and I now ask this House to endorse those Government amendments. They were made to ensure that the Bill delivers its aims and to clarify the operation of the powers, as well as to ensure that the safeguards this Government have introduced are strong and effective. More procedural yet still important amendments have been made to part 2 to reflect the Scottish Government’s position on how the powers should be applied to devolved benefits. Across the Bill, we have made amendments that are more technical in nature, including to reflect the recent Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and to ensure flexibility in the commencement of certain provisions of the Bill across the different nations of the United Kingdom.

In the interests of time, I will focus my update to the House on the most substantial and pertinent areas, on which there has been extensive engagement with external stakeholders and points have been made by peers in the other place. First, the Government tabled a group of amendments to part 1 to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to be merged with another statutory body, rather than necessarily being set up as a stand-alone statutory body, although the power to do so remains. That builds flexibility into the legislation, enabling the PSFA to achieve the aim of separation between investigators and Ministers in future, while avoiding the need to set up an entirely new statutory body if it is not considered proportionate to do so.

Linked to that, I would like to speak to a minor and technical amendment that I propose to make to Lords amendment 75 to schedule 2. Amendment (a) simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation-making power set out in schedule 2 if or when the powers conferred under part 1 of the Bill are  transferred to another public authority, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body. It does not change the use of any powers laid out in the Bill.

The Government also amended parts 1 and 2 to ensure that the Government must disclose relevant information to the PSFA independent reviewer and the eligibility verification notice independent reviewer. Effective oversight is a critical aspect of this Government’s approach. These amendments do not represent a change in that approach; indeed, they further strengthen the commitments this Government have made to support open and transparent use of the powers. I will return to the point about oversight later in relation to Lords amendment 43.

The Government made several amendments to the debt provisions across parts 1 and 2. Those are a consequence of the extensive engagement by the PSFA and the Department for Work and Pensions with the financial sector, and they clarify important aspects of the operation of the powers, including in situations where a liable person might have a legal deputy managing their affairs. They also strengthen the rights of debtors by ensuring that a deduction order cannot be in suspension indefinitely, and that after a two-year period in suspension, it will not be resurrected. The Government have also responded to the continued confusion that seems to have arisen on the DWP debt recovery provisions in part 2 and who those powers apply to.

The Government have made amendments explicitly stating that a direct deduction order, as outlined in schedule 5, and a disqualification from driving order, as outlined in schedule 6, cannot be made where the person is entitled to and in receipt of a benefit from the DWP. That clarifies the existing intent that these powers are only for use with those who are not on benefits where the money cannot be recovered from a payslip and where the person can afford to pay and is refusing to do so. I remind the House that this power addresses an important point of fairness. It cannot be right that those who can pay money back can avoid doing so, and the amendments underline that point.

The Government also acted to strengthen the legislative safeguards around the use of the eligibility verification measure. I remind the House that that measure simply enables the DWP to ask financial institutions for limited data that will help the Department to identify incorrect payments and verify eligibility for specific benefits. The amendments made by the Government in the other place will introduce an explicit, necessary and proportionate test before an eligibility notice can be issued, and clarify the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued to only assisting in identifying incorrect payments. That puts the existing policy intent in the Bill. Again, I will return to the eligibility verification measure when I address Lords amendment 84.

I turn to the other amendments made in the other place. We welcome the challenge and scrutiny provided by peers’ contributions, but we cannot accept changes that risk undermining the powers. The Government’s position will continue to reflect that, including in our amendments in lieu. First, Lords amendment 1 would give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. [Interruption.] Just so that he is sure of that power, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has joined me on the Front Bench.

We are proposing technical changes to Lords amendment 1 through amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. Those changes will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. The other place asked us to go further than the original drafting of the Bill allowed, and our amendments show that we have listened. The Government believe that it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise that new power because of the collaborative approach in the normal working of government, but it will be available if there is a genuine need.

Our amendments in lieu also make consequential changes to clause 2 to preserve the intention that the PSFA should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for social security or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The reason for that is that the DWP and HMRC already have well-established functions and frameworks to tackle social security and tax fraud. Of course, it goes without saying that both Departments may still collaborate with the PSFA if a fraud crosses many departmental boundaries.

I turn now to Lords amendments 30 and 31. The Government wholeheartedly agree that the measures in part 1 of the Bill are powerful and must be used with care. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers, and that robust oversight—both internal and external—is essential. Our amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu mandate statutory guidance and a new reporting requirement, and set internal record requirements. The amendments in lieu ensure strong ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers, as was called for by the other House, without involving Ministers unnecessarily in operational decisions.

The statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline structures of internal oversight, the delegation of powers, standards for the training and appointment of all authorised officers and investigators, and the PSFA’s collaboration with an independent reviewer. New reports will be prepared following the end of each financial year and laid in Parliament by the Minister, stating how many times the investigation and enforcement powers in part 1 have been used. There is now a requirement in the Bill for the PSFA to keep internal records of the use of those powers, available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer. Together, those measures ensure that Ministers are accountable for the use of the powers, and show how they are delegated. In places, they build on processes that would already have been in place, but we have put them in the Bill.

Let me move on to part 2 of the Bill, focusing first on Lords amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained under an eligibility verification notice. Although I understand the intent of the other place, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted, and I urge Members instead to back Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 84 risks compromising the weight that the DWP may be able to attribute to information obtained through an eligibility verification notice. The Government have been clear that EVM information on its own has no tag of suspicion attached, and that the  DWP must look within its own systems first and check for any inconsistency before taking further action. However, depending on the information held, EVM information may form an important part of any further action. We must not compromise that. The amendment also risks legislating for a person’s state of mind—in this case, that of a DWP-authorised officer. That is something that we should avoid where we can. It is far better to focus legislation on the actions that must or must not take place following receipt of EVM information.

The second part of the amendment, relating to the seniority of staff who must review EVM information, risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. There is also uncertainty about what would constitute a suitably senior person. In any case, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that officials are suitably trained and experienced to take decisions on their behalf.

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 84 seek to address those risks and build on the amendments that the Government tabled on Report in the Lords. They more accurately reflect the policy intent and focus on the actions that DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information. The amendments in lieu clarify that where the DWP has received EVM information, it must also have regard to all other relevant information that it holds before taking further actions.

First, the amendments in lieu require an authorised officer to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice, as well as the relevant EVM information, before issuing the notice under the Department’s investigatory powers. Secondly, they require a DWP agent to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to suspend a payment, as well as the relevant EVM information, before suspending that payment. Finally, they require a DWP agent to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to change an earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information, before making that change.

I believe that our amendments succeed in offering the necessary reassurances about the way individuals within the DWP will take decisions once EVM information is received by the DWP—namely that no decisions will be made using EVM information in isolation—and I therefore urge hon. Members to back them. \p Kirsty Blackman: I am still not exactly clear why the Minister disagrees with Lords amendment 84. I understand that he is saying that DWP agents will look at EVM information and everything else, but what happens in circumstances when they have only EVM and not much else by way of information? Is he unable to agree with Lords amendment 84 because if the DWP has only EVM information, he wants decisions to be taken based only on that and not on anything else? \p Andrew Western: There are a couple of issues with Lords amendment 84 as drafted. It could minimise clear evidence from an EVN that has been returned. The point about what information DWP agents would have to consider is pertinent, because it may answer a question about why, for example, someone has more than £100,000 in a bank account. It is about considering  all information, not about having no further information on which to act. I am probably not explaining that tremendously well, but I am effectively saying that an EVN could provide information that is sufficient for us to launch a fraud investigation, but we would want to consider all relevant information, including that EVN, to see whether that information is valid or should be discounted for any reason of which we are aware.

I cannot accept Lords amendment 43, which would add three additional requirements to the role that the EVN independent reviewer would be required to undertake. On proposed new paragraph (d) in Lords amendment 43, regarding costs incurred by business, the Government are committed to keeping costs associated with the measure proportionate and to a minimum. Officials have discussed this part of the amendment with the finance industry, which acknowledges that it may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. That is something we clearly would want to avoid.

As for proposed new paragraph (e) of the amendment, let me be clear that there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under the eligibility verification measure. We have been clear that this information does not imply any wrongdoing, and the measure simply provides a source of data, which feeds into long-standing processes in DWP, and the Department already has layers of support and specialist staff to support those who are vulnerable or have complex needs. Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 84, which I have spoken to, reaffirm this. Furthermore, the measure will help our customers; it will help us spot errors in claims sooner and take steps to correct them, and help prevent larger overpayments and debts from building up, as I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

As for proposed new paragraph (f) in Lords amendment 43, I have already outlined that the Government amendments made in the other place require the Secretary of State to provide the independent EVM reviewer with all reasonably required material, so there is no need for the reviewer to write a statement to that effect in every report; but if they felt the need to, there is nothing to stop them doing so.

Finally, Lords amendment 97 concerns the DWP’s authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force. I begin by reminding the House that the powers of search and seizure are intended to be used by expert DWP staff, trained to industry standards, to tackle only serious and organised crime against the DWP. While I understand the intent of the other place, I again cannot accept the amendment. The use of reasonable force is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That governs all bodies exercising that power, to ensure a single, consistent framework. It does not distinguish between use of force against items, and use of force against persons. We cannot break down section 117 of PACE, and there is no precedent in PACE for specifying where, or on what, reasonable force may be applied.

However, I have been clear from the outset that the DWP’s policy position was never that a DWP authorised investigator should be able to use reasonable force against a person. Instead, the aim was to allow them to  gain access to property, such as locked filing cabinets or cupboards, when on premises to search for and seize critical evidence. Where force against a person might be needed, the intention has always been to rely on the likes of the police. I stand by the position that the best way to provide for the DWP to have powers of reasonable force is to remain within the umbrella of PACE, to safeguard consistency. There is clear precedent for that; other Government Departments draw on the same powers of reasonable force.

However, I have heard the concern raised about this measure in the other place, so I am introducing Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 97 to clause 76 and schedule 4, to draw a distinction between the power of reasonable force exercisable by DWP authorised investigators, and that exercisable by police officers. These amendments remove the power of reasonable force derived from section 117 of PACE, and instead create a stand-alone provision on reasonable force in this Bill. They restrict DWP authorised investigators’ access to reasonable force, so that it is force against property only, while retaining the police’s power to use reasonable force where necessary against people and property. This delivers the policy intent, but brings the DWP’s power of reasonable force outside of PACE.

To ensure the stand-alone power of reasonable force benefits from the safeguards provided by alignment with PACE, DWP authorised investigators will still operate in compliance with PACE code B in their exercise of search and seizure powers. My Department is working closely with the Home Office on this. Officials in the Home Office have confirmed that secondary legislation will be laid before Parliament to insert the relevant clauses of this Bill on reasonable force into PACE code B when parliamentary time allows. I have repeatedly assured the House that the DWP policy position is that DWP authorised investigators will not use reasonable force against people, and I believe that the amendments put that beyond doubt.

The Government are grateful for the scrutiny of this Bill; improvements have been made as a result. However, we cannot accept amendments that undermine how the powers will operate, so I urge the House to support the Government’s alternative proposals. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Rebecca Smith: I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective.

This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that  the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill.

I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals.

Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the  independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities.

We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness.

As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill.

Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that

“This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”,

but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for.

In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted.

Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud  and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: The Minister may remember that on Report, I tabled a number of amendments in the hope of safeguarding the public from seeing their bank become an arm of the state. Today, I will speak about Lords amendment 43, which deals with the scope of the eligibility verification measure. The EVM would give the DWP power to give certain financial organisations an eligibility verification notice. That notice would require the receiver to identify relevant accounts that specified benefits are paid into, assess those accounts against eligibility indicators and, where there is indication that incorrect payments have been or may be made, share specified details of those accounts with the Department.

The Bill includes provision for an independent reviewer to conduct an annual review of the Secretary of State’s powers under the EVM. Lords amendment 43 seeks to expand the scope of that review to ensure that the costs to banks are proportionate, and that any unintended adverse consequences to benefit recipients are identified. At the moment, the independent review of the EVM need only consider the extent to which the Secretary of State and the financial institutions in receipt of a notice have complied with the requirements when exercising the measure, and whether the EVM has been effective in assisting in identifying incorrect benefit payments. It does not require the independent reviewer to also consider whether the EVM is being used proportionately, which is the key to Lords amendment 43. It is essential that any consideration of the proportionality of the EVM takes into account the potential harm to individuals.

In Committee, several witnesses warned that the EVM could result in serious harm to benefit recipients. For example, there is the possibility of an algorithmic error when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated.

As I mentioned on Report, I am concerned about what this Bill says about our welfare state. It is in danger of creating a second-class citizenship, where welfare recipients have fewer civil liberties than the rest of us. It turns banks into an arm of the state, empowered to trawl through personal data, even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. It strips away a fundamental principle of British justice: the presumption of innocence. That is why we need to ensure that in the annual review of the power, the independent reviewer considers the harm to individuals, so that we can understand whether the powers being exercised are proportionate. I therefore urge the Minister to address these concerns while there is still time and accept Lords amendment 43 as a basic safeguard to ensure that those who are most likely to be impacted by these powers are taken into account when we scrutinise how they have been exercised. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Steve Darling: I thank the Government for the steps taken to improve the Bill since it was debated in Committee. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns about elements of the Bill, but it is in a much better place, and I thank all colleagues for working together collaboratively to drive for improvements.

Clearly, fraud is wrong. Some people believe that fraud against large organisations such as supermarkets and the Government is a victimless crime, but if we do not have that money, because it has been fraudulently claimed, we have to apply larger taxes or choose not to spend money on things such as tackling climate change. It is therefore important that it is tackled, but we need to ensure that we have two words guiding us: proportionality and fairness. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns that elements of the Bill are not as proportionate as one would wish.

I will focus my remarks on Lords amendment 43. We Liberal Democrats feel that more responsibility should be given to the independent reviewer in relation to proportionality and fairness. We still have concerns about the blanket approach, where mass fishing will effectively occur with the proposals before us. One does not have to look that far back in recent IT history to see where things have gone wrong. I believe it was only last week that child benefit was frozen for 23,500 households across the United Kingdom, because those families left the country and were not accounted for when they returned. That error was made on a computer system, and that affected just a small proportion of those to whom this Bill is set to be applied.

The reasonableness of Ministers was debated repeatedly in Committee. I am not questioning the reasonableness of the current Minister, or multiple Ministers who preceded him, but I question what we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic and the person who has the levers of power in the Oval Office. What may be seen as “reasonable” in politics in the United Kingdom is sadly a distant memory in the United States of America. We must ensure that we guard against that future in the legislation we are putting forward now.

On the use of force, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have taken a step in the right direction in their amendment, although we feel that it could be stronger. We would encourage colleagues to vote against the Government’s proposals, because we strongly support Lords amendment 43. \p John Martin McDonnell: I must say that I do get a bit edgy when Front Benchers agree so much.

In respect of Lords amendment 84, I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. As far as I am aware, it will now be a human being making the decisions: an authorising officer. The authorising officers will be able to draw upon all other information—that is what the Minister said—but it is still not clear to me whether a decision can be made simply on the basis of the EVM information. It would therefore be useful if the Government’s intention were read into the record more clearly.

As for Lords amendment 43, I want to follow up on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). We have received representations with regard to, in particular, people suffering from mental health issues, some of whom would be leading chaotic lives. The Minister is right to say that it is not for Ministers to engage in the process of making individual decisions because that is for the authorising officers to do, but the one occasion on which the Minister can be held to account is when the annual independent review takes place.

According to my understanding, the Minister said that the reviewer would not be prevented from exploring the issue of the exercise of powers and the impact on vulnerable people. May I suggest that that could be strengthened? Perhaps he will tell us when he responds to the debate. It is not just about prevention; it is appropriate for the independent review to consider that issue, largely because of the representations that we have received consistently throughout our debates on the Bill, and from a wide range of organisations that represent people with disabilities and, in particular, mental health challenges. A statement to that effect would be more reassuring than the words that we have heard so far.

I do not really understand why the Government would resist this, because it is just a basic element of accountability in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has said, could affect so many people and could have such a significant adverse effect. I do not want to exaggerate, but I was in the House throughout our discussions of the introduction of the work capability assessment, and, although the last Government refused to accept it, we now know that it resulted in a large number of suicides. In this instance, I would not want us to enter into a reform of the processes specified in the Bill without a regular review of the harms that could be caused, which would enable us subsequently to adjust the legislation if necessary.

I would welcome a clarification from the Minister, or perhaps a strengthening of the words that he has used so far. \p John Milne: Everyone accepts that we need to keep a handle on fraud, but the powers being taken in the Bill, including DWP access to people’s private bank accounts, go much further than anything we have seen in the past. Can we trust the DWP to exercise these sweeping new powers in a fair and responsible way? Unfortunately, past DWP errors have had the most tragic consequences.

Philippa Day was 27 years old when she died. She was found unconscious next to a letter from the DWP refusing her request for an at-home assessment. Philippa had agoraphobia and anxiety, making it impossible for her to attend a personal independence payment assessment in person. Those at the DWP knew that—they were told by her sister, and they would have been told by her mental health team if they had bothered to speak to them, but they did not. The letter by her side was the last of a long back-and-forth exchange with the DWP. During their final conversation about the DWP, Philippa said to her sister, “I’m done trying to fight them.” But why was she having to fight them in the first place? Surely this is a system that was designed to help.

The coroner’s report identified 28 separate failings by the DWP and its private assessor, Capita. Errors were made from the very outset: her PIP claim form was lost, her mental health needs were not logged, and no attempts were made to communicate with her mental health team or her GP to ensure that the very system designed to help her would do just that. It is easy to see, with a system riddled with errors and seemingly devoid of compassion, how someone could be driven to just give up the fight. Philippa wrote:

“I’m not dying because I’m suicidal... I’ve been so trapped for so long, and then comes along the government people, who I had assumed are there to help. Since January the 11th 2019 my benefits have been severely cut”.

I also want to share with the House what happened to Kristie Hunt. Kristie was training to become a nurse. She was 31. She had been on PIP and employment and support allowance until she rejoined the workforce after 13 years—admirable, considering her struggles with mental health. She, like Philippa, was basically a strong person.

Kristie informed the DWP about her return to employment, but staff forgot to log her call, so Kristie was hounded by calls and letters from the counter-fraud team. The DWP even sent incorrect information to her local council, resulting in further letters and threats of losing her home. For months, Kristie was subjected to erroneous accusations of fraud and threats of losing her flat and the life she had fought so hard to build back. On her final call with the DWP, she was noted as being confused and tearful, yet no one even asked whether she was okay. No one flagged concerns for her welfare. All they wanted was the money.

Kristie is an example of a person using the system that was designed to support her back into work, but was instead the victim of mistake after mistake. There are many others I could describe: Karen McBride, Stephen Carré, David Holmes, David Clapson, Errol Graham, Kevin Gale, Jodey Whiting, Roy Curtis and James Oliver. All of them were wrongly hounded by the DWP, which at least contributed to their deaths.

It does not reassure me that part of the name of this Bill starts with “Fraud”, when the biggest cause of overpayment is departmental error. The DWP has a long track record of badly handled mistakes. That is a cultural failing, and it is wildly optimistic to assume that everything is suddenly going to be fine going forward. Do the Government really believe that this Bill has enough checks and balances to protect vulnerable claimants? One thing is for sure: there will be more DWP mistakes.

Going forward, I would ask that the Government commit to making coroners’ reports automatically available to the public in every case where there is a link to the DWP’s actions. \p Kirsty Blackman: It is not easy to follow that excellent speech. I really appreciate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) reading out the names of people who have been failed by the system that was meant to support them—and we should remember that the system is what failed them. As he said, in a number of cases they were incredibly strong people who had fought through adversity but were then failed by the system. A significant number of disabled people have had to fight for so much of what they have. They have had to fight every day just to manage to get to work or get to the shop. They have had to fight for so much, and the system that is meant to support them should not then be another battleground.

I want to talk about a number of different things in the Bill, but I will start with the fact that this is not a happy Bill and the SNP does not support it. We are unhappy with a significant proportion of the Bill’s direction of travel, such as on the eligibility verification, not least because of the potential future risks. I said to the Conservatives when they were in government, and I will say again now that the Labour party is in government, that you will not be in government for ever. At some point, somebody else will be in government, and if it is somebody who shares the authoritarian ideas of some potential future leaders, I am not sure that I want them to have access to everybody’s bank accounts.

We need to look at the proportionality of accessing universal credit claimants’ bank accounts to see if they are committing fraud. I wonder what proportion of universal credit claimants defraud the system, compared with the proportion of billionaires who defraud His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and do not pay the level of tax that they should be paying. I do not think it is proportionate for us to say that universal credit claimants need to have their bank accounts looked at because they are likely to commit fraud, whereas people who earn millions and millions of pounds and store it in offshore trusts do not have exactly the same constraints put on all the many bank accounts that they may have.

It is disproportionate for us to assume that social security claimants are more likely to defraud the system than anyone else, especially given that we have significant levels of proof that other people do defraud the system and that a significant number of the errors made—through overpayments, for example—are made by DWP itself, rather than by the claimants. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) talked about elements of Lords amendment 43 and vulnerable individuals who may be disadvantaged. If we could trust that DWP never or very rarely makes mistakes, I could understand the Government putting forward this Bill. From the written-down facts in coroner’s reports, and from all our constituency casework, we know that DWP makes mistakes. I am not blaming individuals at DWP for making those mistakes; there are sometimes systemic failures and sometimes individual failures. Mistakes are made at DWP, and adding both another layer of places where it can make mistakes and a further ability to sanction people—for example, by taking their car away or looking at their bank accounts—will not be proportionate until DWP is much less likely to make mistakes and to greatly overpay carers, for example, and then attempt to claw back the money. The Government need to get the Department in order before taking action against individuals. I understand that there are people who defraud the system—I am not doubting for a second that that is the case—but, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, putting the word “error” first might have been helpful, given that a significant proportion of the money that is overpaid is due to error.

I turn to the costs and savings mentioned in Lords amendment 43, on how much it costs to recoup money and to undertake an investigation in order to see whether somebody is defrauding the system. We know that a school meal debt system was set up, and we have had bailiffs at people’s doors looking for under £10 of school meal debt. Sending a bailiff to somebody’s door for under £10 involves a disproportionate cost, and I hope that everybody in this room thinks that we should  not be spending so much money, and upsetting somebody’s life that much, for the sake of £10. If a person cannot afford to pay £10 of school meal debt, they have pretty significant problems, and sending a bailiff to their door is not going to help. We only know about some of these bailiff situations because they have been brought to MPs, or because they have been reported by various organisations. Aberlour Children’s Charity has done a huge amount of amazing work on public sector debt and some of the methods that are used to recoup that money. The Government should have to report whether it costs a disproportionate amount for us to ensure that we are not paying out a very small amount. I think it is completely reasonable for that question to be asked.

I think it is completely reasonable as well—the hon. Member for Poole talked about this—to think about vulnerable groups and whether they are overly disadvantaged by the system being put in place. Will people with learning difficulties, specific mental conditions and physical disabilities, and those from certain minority communities that are already marginalised, for example Gypsy Travellers, be specifically disadvantaged by the changes? All Lords amendment 43 asks is for reporting to ensure that those vulnerabilities, if there is an entrenchment of inequality and an increase in the disadvantage faced by people, are reported on, so we aware of it and there is transparency, and so we can see that it is creating a significant additional disadvantage on an already vulnerable and marginalised community. I would therefore really appreciate it if the Government agreed, rather than disagreed, with Lords amendment 43.

Finally on Lords amendment 43, the amount of money proposed to be saved by the Bill in its entirety—the total amount of savings—is, I understand, £1.5 billion. Governments of all colours are monumentally bad at reporting back on how much savings have been achieved by any of the measures they put in place on just about anything. Unless a tax is hypothecated, for example, we do not see exactly how much money is saved or exactly how much money is spent, and whether it delivered what was promised by the Government. Again, it is Governments of all colours who do not do post-implementation reviews in the right amount of time, and when there is a change of Government they sometimes just forget that post-implementation reviews exist. We will not know with any level of accuracy, unless we get proper reports on costs and savings, exactly how much money is saved and whether the Government have met their target or expected amount of £1.5 billion, so I have significant concerns.

I appreciate the Minister’s answer to me on Lords amendment 84. I had not understood what he had said originally on his position on Lords amendment 84 and the answer he gave me in response did clarify his position. I do not agree with his position, but I now understand why the Government hold that position. I still think it would be important to ensure there are things in place other than the EVM. I understand the Government want a little bit more flexibility and that they are saying they have to look at all the other information they hold. It is possible that the DWP may not hold any more information or may hold very little more information. Therefore, the decision to initiate a fraud investigation could be taken almost entirely, if not completely entirely, on the EVM. That is why I still disagree with the Minister’s position.

I would like a requirement for the DWP to have more than just that one piece of information. My understanding is that that was what Lords amendment 84 intended to do in the first place, but I appreciate that other amendments in lieu have been tabled by the Government to provide a little more clarity on what is expected. I would expect them to look at all the information provided, as the Minister said. I am just concerned that they may not hold lots of information, and a requirement to look at all the information they hold when they only hold one piece of information gets us back to the situation we were in at the beginning, where it could hinge on one thing rather than looking at a wider suite of things.

Generally speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will sit down in just a moment—the SNP is not in favour of the Bill. We have significant concerns. If the Minister, when he responds, confirmed that the Government will do as much as they can on transparency, and that they will report back on the level of costs and savings that are created by the Bill, that would give me a measure of comfort. I still will not support the Bill, and I might still vote against some of the amendments tabled today, but I think it would make Members from across the House a bit more comfortable to have a better understanding of what is happening and whether the Bill is working as the Government intend. \p Judith Cummins: With the leave of the House, I call the Minister. \p Andrew Western: I begin by thanking the Members who have contributed for what were thoughtful contributions, even where we fundamentally disagree on aspects of the Bill.

I have already outlined the benefits of the Government’s proposed approach, but I will respond briefly to some of the specific points made in the debate. First, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for the constructive way that she and colleagues in both Houses have engaged on the Bill. She is correct that we have ended up in a better place, and I thank her and all Members who fed into that process—that is the point of it. I am pleased with where we have ended up.

The hon. Lady asked two specific questions. I can confirm that there will be a take-note debate at Grand Committee, as she referenced, at the point when statutory guidance is laid before Parliament. I can also confirm that Members will be able to meet with the PSFA independent reviewer.

I will briefly touch on some of the points surrounding Lords amendment 43, which has taken up the majority of the debate. I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Horsham (John Milne) and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).

First, I think we need to be clear about where we have already acted in other parts of the Bill or in amendments that have come forward today. On the question of costs, for instance, the independent reviewer already has to  look at effectiveness and has already committed to updating the impact assessment within 12 months of the powers coming into force.

I will turn to the question of vulnerable people, which the hon. Member for Horsham in particular illustrated very eloquently indeed, with moving examples. I want to say something specifically on debanking, which is a concern that has been raised multiple times throughout the stages of the Bill. We are very clear that nobody—vulnerable or otherwise—should be debanked as a result of the Bill, as was made clear in the code of practice and in amendments we are considering today. There are many existing layers of protection in our existing processes. On vulnerable people, Lords amendment 82 clarifies that the use of the power must be “necessary and proportionate”, which I believe would cover this.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made a specific point on whether EVM information alone is enough. We are baking in a human decision maker at all points throughout the process. We cannot take a decision based on EVM information in isolation; we must consider all other relevant information. Practically, that means that we must look at a benefit claim and check for disregards or for any other reason that someone may have capital in excess of £16,000—the limit—before taking any action.

However, as I said earlier, I do think that this Bill is much improved from where we started. \p John Martin McDonnell: I just want to clarify one point. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are resisting having contained within the annual review the question of whether harm is being done, because that is, to be fair, the only way we will learn whether the legislation is operating in the way the Government wish it to, and then whether any changes in the system are needed. When we had the work capability assessment, it took us 10 years and more than a thousand suicides before people accepted that there was a problem, because there was no review mechanism publicly available. That is all this amendment is asking for. All I am asking for today is for the Minister to put on the record very clearly that it is perfectly appropriate for the independent reviewer to look at the harms that could have been created by this legislation. \p Andrew Western: I appreciate the point my right hon. Friend is making. As I have just said, the question of whether actions taken as part of the eligibility verification measure are necessary and proportionate is baked into the Bill, and I believe that would cover the points he is making. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to attend the meeting with the independent reviewer that I referred to earlier to stress that point. I will certainly go along, and I will undertake to press on that, too.

I understand where we are on Lords amendment 43, but with the additional safeguards that will be baked in through the amendments in lieu, I believe we have reached a point where the Bill will achieve what it needs to while being fair and protecting vulnerable people. I urge all colleagues to support the Government proposals today.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 75.

Lords amendment 75, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.—(Andrew Western.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 80.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 43 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 84 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 84.

Lords amendment 97 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (f) made in lieu of Lords amendment 97.

Lords amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96 and 98 to 121 agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 43;

That Andrew Western, Josh Simons, Taiwo Owatemi, David Pinto-Duschinsky, Chris Vince, Rebecca Smith and Steve Darling be members of the Committee;

That Andrew Western be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p Judith Cummins: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 September, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to. \p Jayne Kirkham: I rise to present this petition about Falmouth’s need for a swimming pool, since our pool was shut in 2022. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign to build a swimming pool in Falmouth, recognising the health and social benefits to the community, particularly as a facility for children growing up in a coastal area learning to swim safely.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of Truro and Falmouth constituency,

Declares that the town of Falmouth, a community with a strong maritime heritage and a large population of children, young people, and older residents, currently has no public swimming pool; further declares that access to  swimming facilities is essential for water safety education, physical and mental health, rehabilitation, and community cohesion; and notes that the lack of such infrastructure disproportionately affects those without the means to travel to facilities elsewhere.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign to build a swimming pool in Falmouth, recognising the health and social benefits to the community, particularly as a facility for children growing up in a coastal area learning to swim safely.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003126] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.) \p Charlotte Nichols: I extend my thanks to Mr Speaker for providing the opportunity to discuss the crucial matter of drug-related deaths. I declare an interest as the unremunerated chair of the Centre for Evidence Based Drug Policy, a think-tank in this policy space. The Office for National Statistics reported last month that deaths related to drug poisonings have increased for the 12th consecutive year, and have consequently reached an all-time high once again. The ONS reports that in 2024, there were 5,565 deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales, with just under half of those confirmed to involve an opiate. Continuity is therefore not a strategy; it is a guarantee of further avoidable loss. Every single one of those lives mattered, and every single one of those deaths was preventable.

Eight months ago, a similar debate was held in Westminster Hall on the topic of preventing drug-related deaths, to which the Minister responded. Though it was a well-attended debate, during which Members from across the House called for the expansion of harm reduction and evidence-based measures, I am afraid to say that, since then, limited progress has been made in advancing drugs policy to limit the unspeakable further loss of life in our constituencies. \p Allison Gardner: Stoke-on-Trent has the highest number of drug-related deaths in north Staffordshire. Synthetic cathinones, colloquially known as monkey dust, are used in Stoke-on-Trent to an extent not seen elsewhere in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to battle the scourge of monkey dust in Stoke-on-Trent? \p Charlotte Nichols: I absolutely agree. There are huge regional disparities in drug deaths across the country, and a regional approach need to be taken to tackling them.

While I appreciate that drugs policy and legislation do not fall under the Minister’s departmental remit, I am happy to see her here, as the drugs-related deaths crisis is primarily a public health issue, and must be treated as such if we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes of the last 50 years. \p Jacob Collier: I am proud to be a patron of Burton addiction centre, a residential rehab centre in my constituency. It is calling for a 2% target across the nation. Does my hon. Friend agree with that target for residential rehab? Perhaps the Minister would like to visit some time, when she is able to. \p Charlotte Nichols: I completely agree about the role that rehab facilities can play in supporting people into recovery, and about the need for proper, consistent funding from the Government. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. I congratulate her on the campaign, and on her words to the House on the issue. We all greatly admire what she does, and thank  her for it. In Northern Ireland, there were 169 drug-related deaths in 2023. That was an increase of 47% on the decade before, and it proves her point that the issue is not specific to her constituency; unfortunately, this happens everywhere. Does she agree that the tactics we have in place are not addressing the growing prevalence of drug abuse, and that not only this Government but the devolved Governments must work to save the precious souls who are passing away? \p Charlotte Nichols: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; without it, it would not be an Adjournment debate. I completely agree. The deaths that I am talking about today are drug poisonings in England and Wales only, but if we look at drug deaths in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and at deaths related to alcohol and despair, we see that drug poisonings in England and Wales are a very small part of a huge issue in every part of our United Kingdom. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Scotland has had the highest number of drug deaths in Europe for seven years in a row; there were 1,017 in 2024. Does she agree that cuts to funding for rehabilitation facilities and drug and alcohol support services undermine the holistic, comprehensive approach needed if we are to bring down the number of drug deaths, and to give hope to those living with addiction, and to their families? \p Charlotte Nichols: The number of drug deaths in Scotland is stark, and it underlines the fact that the issue affects every part of the UK. We know what we need to do to start addressing it. I welcome the recent Scottish Affairs Committee report, which I will mention later.

I have said before that putting drugs within the Home Office’s ministerial purview is putting the issue in the wrong place, so I am very happy that a Health Minister is here to respond. The current approach is rooted in the belief that we can simply arrest and imprison our way out of this. Despite the death toll rising every year in the six years that I have been doing this job, the Home Office seems to show not just a lack of curiosity but hostility towards harm reduction measures. My overarching question today is: will the Government finally take an evidence-based stance on drugs policy to reduce the immense harm that the status quo causes in our constituencies? Will the Minister work across Government to bring forward necessary changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and deliver a fit-for-purpose, public-health-led approach to drugs across the UK, saving thousands of lives? \p Anna Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Bradford district, there were 70 drug-related deaths in 2023. I agree with her that we need to take a different approach to tackling the problem, and it must be a public health approach. The UK could learn much from countries like Portugal, which has gone a long way towards adopting such an approach to drugs and drug-related deaths. \p Charlotte Nichols: I absolutely agree. Later, I will try to develop my argument for that kind of approach, which we could take here but do not.

As a Parliament and as a society, we may have inadvertently come to accept the yearly statistics, and have perhaps not given them the necessary thought, but I stress that there are cost-effective solutions that could save the taxpayer money and save the lives of our constituents, while taking money out of the pockets of exploitative, organised criminal gangs.

I am afraid to say that the problem may be far worse than is recognised. A recent report by King’s College London indicates that there has been a severe under-reporting of drug-related deaths over the past 15 years. The researchers found that drug-related deaths have been under-reported by 30%, and opioid-related deaths between 2011 and 2022 were found to be 55% higher than recorded, putting the estimated number of opioid-related deaths in that period north of 39,000. \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She will be aware that many of those who have died from complications and overdoses related to opioids died on their own. That reflects the social isolation that so many experience when they become addicted to drugs. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that the social isolation of those seeking to move beyond addiction is broken through, and will she join me in thanking organisations like Jungle in my constituency, which seek to provide companionship and support for those who are trying to move beyond addiction? \p Charlotte Nichols: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The clearest way to recovery is with companionship and support—there is no path to recovery without that—and I of course give credit to the organisation she mentioned that is doing such fantastic work in this space, as we were discussing earlier today.

The implications of the under-reporting of drug-related deaths are that the problem is far worse than previously thought and the decision to cut funding to services under the previous Government was based on flawed figures. The National Audit Office reported that between 2014 and 2022 there was a 40% reduction in real-terms spending on adult drug and alcohol services, so I do not think it is a coincidence that the Office for National Statistics has reported a near doubling in drug-related deaths since 2014, and that the number of deaths only rises every year.

It is clear that the problem has been made substantively worse by under-investment by the previous Government. We can all acknowledge that, but acknowledgment without reform is meaningless. Persisting with failed, punitive policies will only deepen a crisis that already ranks among Europe’s worst. Now is the time to show the difference a Labour Government can make by putting in place harm-reduction policies that will start to undo this extensive damage.

As I mentioned previously, and I will repeat again because it is important, near half of all drug-related deaths registered in 2024 were confirmed to involve an opioid. In addition, this year’s ONS report found that the number of deaths involving nitazenes—a group of highly potent synthetic opioids—almost quadrupled from the year before. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the drug-related deaths crisis. As we have seen  across the Atlantic, once those synthetic opioids take hold, it becomes all the more difficult to limit their devastation.

I welcome this Government’s changes to the human medicines regulation that further expanded access to naloxone, the lifesaving opioid antidote administered in the event of an overdose. Indeed, naloxone plays a vital role in the fight against drug-related deaths. However, further change is necessary and naloxone should be available rapidly and reliably in every community pharmacy in the UK, so that it can be quickly accessed in the event of an overdose.

It is important to note that naloxone cannot be administered by the person overdosing and must instead be administered by someone else. That necessitates further education on the existence of naloxone, and how and when to use it, with people who may come into contact with people who use opioids, including frontline service workers, such as police officers and transport workers, and the loved ones of those struggling with addiction.

The period immediately after release from prison or discharge from hospital is when risk peaks. Opt-out pathways for naloxone distribution should be the norm. Take-home naloxone on release or discharge, same-day linkage to community treatment and a clear pathway for handover care are essential for people struggling with substance use disorders.

As of December 2021, the Government estimated the annual cost of illegal drug use in England to be £20 billion. Around 48% of that was attributed to drug-related crime, while harms linked to drug-related deaths and homicide accounted for a further 33%. Notably, the majority of those costs are associated with the estimated 300,000 people who use opiates and crack cocaine in England.

Dame Carol Black’s landmark 2021 review of UK drug policy found that for every for every £1 spent on treatment, £4 are saved through reduced demand on the health and justice systems. In the face of rising fatalities and a cost of living crisis, failing to scale treatment and harm-reduction measures is both morally indefensible and financially illiterate. If we want to realise that four-to-one return, we must provide long-term funding for organisations delivering services. Drug treatment services can only deliver if they are able to retain staff, train consistently and scale according to demand. \p John Slinger: I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. Does she agree that organisations such as Change Grow Live, which I have visited in Rugby, are doing superb work with people as they recover after the problems that they have been facing, and that it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to encourage the Government to ensure that those organisations get the funding and support they need to do that important work? \p Charlotte Nichols: My hon. Friend is exactly right: Change Grow Live is a fantastic organisation. Multi-year funding schemes with clear outcome metrics, such as faster time for treatment, improved retention and improved naloxone coverage, will make a difference in bringing down the figures I have talked about. That is the path out of this crisis.

I recently received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime stating she could not support overdose prevention centres because of concerns about organised crime supplying the drugs there. Overdose prevention centres are a frontline, evidence-based intervention that save lives and public money, reducing ambulance call-outs and A&E attendances, cutting public injecting and needlestick injuries, and creating a bridge into treatment. I recognise and share the Minister’s concerns about supply but, with or without such centres, people will use the same drugs, either in alleyways and stairwells or in safe hygienic settings where sharps are disposed of, and where staff can intervene and build relationships that can be the foundation for recovery from addiction.

The Scottish Affairs Committee recently published a report into problem drug use in Scotland and Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, and it is interesting to note the call for legislative action from the UK Government and Parliament and the fact that they seem to share my frustration with the Home Office’s ideological rather than evidence-based approach on safer drug consumption facilities.

In written correspondence to me, my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime also maintains that supplying essential safer inhalation equipment would contravene current legislation, and that the Government are unable to support such a provision or to provide a legal pathway to address this. Encouraging drug users to change their method of consuming drugs from injecting to inhaling can be an important harm reduction step, yet while supplying clean hypodermic needles is exempt under section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government continue to support a policy of criminalisation of potential providers and users of safer inhalation equipment. \p Patricia Ferguson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an intervention, and indeed for bringing forward this debate. As she has referenced, the Scottish Affairs Committee has done some work on this issue and has visited the safer drug consumption room in Glasgow, but it has also looked at facilities in Norway and Lisbon. The disappointment we have is that at the moment the Thistle operates under the prosecutorial discretion of the Lord Advocate in Scotland and that could continue indefinitely—she has made that clear—as could her permission for other centres to open. We need a change in the legislation that would allow such centres to be set up across the country if necessary. There is going to be a three-year assessment of the Thistle, and if that assessment comes up with the results that we think it might, then surely that evidence should be used to inform Government policy. Our particular disappointment is that the Government seem not to think that is relevant. \p Charlotte Nichols: I absolutely agree and I took a note from that report:

“However, it was clear from the Minister’s evidence that the Home Office will not make legislative changes, even if the evaluation finds that the facility has been effective in meeting its aims.”

That is ideological, not evidence-based, which is why I believe the Home Office is fundamentally incapable of dealing with drug deaths and drug harm in our communities. \p Lewis Atkinson: I commend my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Does she agree that even if the Home Office does not agree with changing legislation, more could be done within existing legislation, for example with drug checking facilities, of which a very small number are already licensed by the Home Office? That would allow those consuming drugs to have clarity about what they are consuming, but it would also provide important intelligence to the authorities about the drugs that are in circulation to inform the response of health and other authorities. \p Charlotte Nichols: I absolutely agree that more can be done without the need for a change in legislation, but it is concerning that the Home Office does not look at legislation. Despite everything that was said in the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry on drugs in the last Parliament, for example, which made very clear how outdated our current legislative framework is, there does not seem to be curiosity about fixing this. I completely agree with what my hon. Friend said about treatment and testing, particularly at large-scale events and festivals, because that can be a lifesaving intervention.

It is both bizarre and frustrating that the Home Office actively chooses not to take some of the measures it could take on safer drug consumption facilities and safer inhalation equipment. That is something that is very much within its gift. We cannot continue to hide behind a 1970s statue, periodically tightened but rarely reviewed, that has too often exacerbated harm. If the House wishes to take money out of criminal markets, I ask the Minister to work across Departments to expand diamorphine-assisted treatment, which is proven to be effective and cost-saving both here and abroad, to provide dignified, supervised care for those with the most entrenched opioid dependence. After all, it was in this country that that type of world-class treatment originated, with the publication of the Rolleston report in 1926.

I have focused much of my remarks on opioids, but in the short time remaining I will touch on some other substances. The first substance is cocaine, with 1,279 deaths involving cocaine registered in 2024, which was 14.4% higher than in the previous year and 11 times higher than in 2011. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the UK is the largest consumer of cocaine per capita in Europe and the second-largest consumer of it in the world, according to the OECD. The National Crime Agency estimates that in 2023, England, Scotland and Wales consumed 117 tonnes of the drug. It is worth mentioning that around 52% of homicides are drug-related, and there is evidence that cocaine use is fuelling domestic violence. In 2023, a pilot scheme found that 59% of domestic abuse offenders arrested in seven police force areas tested positive for cocaine and/or opiates. The status quo is not working.

The second substance is ketamine. While ketamine deaths are relatively low, with 60 deaths, the stats are again trending the wrong way, as is the prevalence of the drug in our communities. I refer Members to the rate of past-year ketamine use among 16 to 24-year-olds, which has doubled since the drug was reclassified from class C to class B in 2014. We need a fit-for-purpose national drug policy, not a platform for point scoring or performative “tough on crime” posturing while harms continue to mount.

There is much talk at the moment about the reclassification of ketamine to a class A drug, as if that is some sort of panacea, despite the fact that deaths from heroin and cocaine—both class A substances—have been increasing year on year. It is as though the Home Office thinks that making something that is already illegal more illegal is somehow worthwhile. In the light of that, I have tabled a number of questions recently on the effectiveness of the reclassification. I am genuinely concerned that no analysis of that move has been made, and the intention is clearly to ramp it up further. Other policy levers are available. In particular, an emphasis should be placed on tackling the mental health crisis among our young people, which can make the dissociative effects of ketamine an appealing proposition.

Throughout this debate, I have sought to lay out the extent of the problem and to offer realistic, cost-effective and constructive measures that could save this country billions of pounds, not to mention thousands of lives. There are solutions to these issues, and the UK has both the expertise and the capacity to lead in this area. We must simply find the political expediency and courage to take bold action and do what is right. We cannot govern as the careful custodians of a failed Conservative settlement; we must replace it.

This is a solvable problem, and it is clear what works. With clear guidance, consistent commissioning and the courage to back frontline services, we can save lives, support families and ease pressure on our NHS. We will not solve this problem overnight, but I hope to come back next year with the figures at least trending in the right direction. No amount of warm words or hand-wringing in this place will absolve us of our collective responsibility if we do not take the steps necessary to do that now. We promised the country change, and it is now time to see it. \p Ashley Dalton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their wide-ranging interventions. They all raise a number of important points.

The continued rise in drug-related deaths is deeply concerning, and my Department is committed to tackling it. I hope hon. Members will recognise that my presence at the Dispatch Box confirms this Government’s public health approach to drug-related deaths. I continue to work with my colleagues in the Home Office and others to bring forward measures to improve in this space.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North mentioned, the latest Office for National Statistics figures show that more than 3,400 drug misuse deaths were registered in England in 2024, which is a continued increase on 2023 and over the past 12 years. In terms of the work across our four nations, I am proud to regularly attend the UK ministerial drug and alcohol forum, and I work closely with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, having recently met them just in September. I will continue to work with them in future.

Many drug deaths are preventable, and this Government are committed, through our health mission, to ensuring that people live longer, healthier lives. Through our safer  streets mission, we are also determined to make our communities safer, more secure and free from the violence caused by the illicit drugs market. We know that many people struggling with a drug problem are already at the sharpest end of inequality, often with multiple and complex needs; there are strong links between drug use, prison, deprivation and homelessness. The Government’s work to tackle drug-related deaths and to fund and improve drug treatment and recovery services can therefore also contribute to reducing social inequalities.

We are committed to ensuring that anyone with a drug problem can access the help and support they need, and that they are provided with evidence-based, high-quality treatment. Treatment is protective, and is the safest place to be for anyone with a drug problem. In addition to the public health grant, in 2025-26 the Department of Health and Social Care is providing local authorities with an additional £310 million to improve the quality and capacity of drug and alcohol treatment and recovery services. As a result of increases in funding, there are now nearly 345,000 people in structured treatment in England, which I am pleased to say is the highest number on record.

However, patterns of drug use are always changing, and my Department remains alert to the need to tackle new threats. We recently launched a public awareness campaign informed by new patterns of drug use, focusing on the dangers presented by synthetic opioids, ketamine and THC vapes. That campaign includes online films and targets 16 to 24-year-olds, following a worrying rise in the number of young people being harmed by drugs. It highlights particular risks, including the potentially irreparable damage that ketamine can cause to the bladder; the danger of counterfeit medicines purchased online containing deadly synthetic opioids; and the risk from so-called THC vapes, which often contain dangerous synthetic cannabinoids such as spice rather than THC.

We are distributing resources to local public health teams, drug and alcohol treatment services, youth services, schools and universities, and we remain alert to the wider threat posed by synthetic opioids. We are working with other Government Departments to enhance surveillance and early warning, improving our ability to respond to this threat. We have established new data streams, including collecting information on deaths linked to nitazenes through laboratory testing and ambulance  call-outs in which naloxone was administered. As a result, we have a much closer to real-time understanding of current levels of prevalence and harms.

In addition, we have provided data to local areas on factors related to drug and alcohol deaths, and we are developing a self-assessment toolkit that local areas can use to identify where to focus more on these issues and on interventions that are known to reduce the risk of drug-related deaths. The first quarterly report of data from those sources has now been published on the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System’s website, and a weekly report is released to local authorities.

We also know that many people struggling with drug addiction have multiple and complex physical health needs. Together, these issues can be mutually reinforcing, making treatment and support much more complex and often increasing people’s risk of overdose. We are developing plans to improve care pathways between drug treatment and services for physical healthcare needs, such as heart and lung disease, as recommended by Dame Carol Black; and intervening earlier and treating co-occurring physical health conditions to reduce drug-related deaths and improve outcomes.

We are also looking again at naloxone, the opioid reversal medication, which is a key pillar of the Government’s response to drug-related deaths. Last year, this Government made changes to legislation to enable more services and professionals across the UK to supply that medication without a prescription, making it easier for people at risk and their loved ones to access. We intend to consult soon on further steps to expand access to this lifesaving medication.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North for securing this debate on such a critical issue. The Government are committed to reducing the harms that illicit drugs cause to both individuals and wider society. The Department of Health and Social Care will continue to champion a harm reduction and public health approach to drug-related harms. Many of these deaths are avoidable, and I am confident that the steps we are taking will put us in a stronger position to tackle this complex issue.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.