Civil Service Pension Scheme
Order. Some Members have left the Chamber, so I am increasing the time limit to one minute and 30 seconds.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pension Scheme
Order. Isb apologise for the hokey-cokey way of chairing. We are back down to a minute for speeches.
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pension Scheme
Order.
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pension Scheme
I apologise; I did not see you, John. I will reduce the Minister’s time so that you can speak.
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pension Scheme
I call the Lib Dem spokesperson. You have five minutes.
- Hansard source
Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I warmly welcome the Minister to her post. I had meetings with most of her predecessors. I do not need to keep having meetings; I just hope that she takes up the points we have raised. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on laying out the issues so clearly—as a result, I have cut my speech in half. Sadly, it is a bit like “Groundhog Day”: we have all raised these issues before. The peroration of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) summarised the complexity that the Minister and the Government have to grapple with. It is not just the Government who are part of this challenge, but they have to be part of the solution. I will not name any of the developments that I am talking about, because my residents are very concerned about being blighted. There have been some improvements. The Building Safety Regulator is getting better and the delays have reduced, but as well as dealing with historical issues, it has to work with new developments. Hackney council has a good track record of building council housing, but some of it has been delayed by the Building Safety Regulator. I understand that the delays have now reduced substantially, but I hope the Minister will look closely at that issue in her new role to make sure the Building Safety Regulator is working as efficiently as possible. Skills remain a big issue, and there has been a woeful lack of activity. Some of us were here in 2018 talking about training fire safety engineers. It takes three years to train them, and if anyone had done that then, we would be in a much better place now. I also wish to mention mortgageability. As recently as 3 September, I had a letter from Baroness Blake of Leeds, repeating what I have had from Ministers of different parties over time: that there are 10 mortgage companies that will lend on property with dangerous cladding. I point that out to constituents and keep referring them to the 10 companies, but there is always a reason why it cannot happen. Those companies obviously have criteria that are often not met. If the Government are routinely sending out that sort of information, it needs to be absolutely accurate. Insurance is a huge and ongoing problem. For two developments in my constituency, only one insurer took part in the insurance tender process—insurers are just pulling out. The Treasury Committee is keen to look at that issue, but there is a real role for the Government to play. I spoke to the Minister’s predecessors in the previous Government, but this nut has not yet been cracked. I think I speak for every Member in this Chamber when I say that we would be happy to put our weight and effort behind it to help the Minister tackle the issues with insurance companies. We cannot have properties that are effectively uninsurable and bankrupting our residents. As the right hon. Member for Islington North said, people are going into debt to pay their insurance premiums, and that is before they have a claim to make. The lack of skilled contractors was first raised back in 2020 in a Public Accounts Committee report, when I was Chair of that Committee. We asked for work to be done, but nothing has happened. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke about tolerability. I have a very expert constituent who came to my advice surgery this summer. I am very happy to introduce the Minister to him. He has written to me and the Department a number of times, and we have had a number of exchanges about the changes in British standards since Grenfell, and specifically about building materials. Instead of having set standards, fire safety is now done on measures of tolerability. He says that there is now a scale of standards, depending on the individual who does the fire safety assessment. That is why, after the Adam Kiziak affair, in which a number of EWS1—external wall system fire review—forms were forged, other people qualified to do the EWS1 certificates came to different conclusions. Two buildings in Hackney that were tolerable were then said to have issues that require remediation. My constituent said that insurance has become so expensive because the insurers are not certain about the standards, which will no doubt have an impact on mortgage lenders, too. The issue needs to be resolved. I say with respect to the Minister that the solution must be much more fundamental than the Government getting people in, banging heads together and saying, “Sort it out.” This is fundamental to why Grenfell happened in the first place. It was the biggest public safety failure in several generations. The Department’s permanent secretary at the time spoke to several of her predecessors to find out who could have seen it coming. Changes happened here, there and everywhere, and no one saw what the cumulative impact would be on Grenfell—obviously, there were also other shocking aspects of the Grenfell situation. This is an opportunity for the Minister, who is a very capable woman—we are all delighted to see her in her post—to tackle this issue once and for all. It may not help our residents immediately, but it has to work for the future. I have several simple asks. Will the Minister get working on the mortgage lender issue and make sure that we are sending out accurate information? Will she work with mortgage lenders not just to get them to sign up to a list saying that they support lending but to be really clear about the criteria that will allow them to lend? Will she look again at insurance and skills, and will she please tackle the issue of tolerability?
- Hansard source
Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation
I welcome that step, but what the Minister says suggests it is some way off. Can she give some indication of the timescale for getting mandatory licensing in place?
- Hansard source
Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation
We all want to see stronger and better building control, but local authorities have been hollowed out. We have lost a lot of experienced planners and there is not always a pipeline coming through with the necessary experience. Can we lobby the Treasury for support for local government in that respect?
- Hansard source
Student Loans
I am pleased to rise to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Treasury Committee’s report on the student loans system. It is worth laying out what our inquiry did. We took evidence from a number of people, including students and graduate representatives at the National Union of Students; Rethink Repayment, which was set up by one of my constituents on behalf of affected graduates; and the union Prospect. We also took evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Universities UK and Sir Philip Augar, who led the Augar review of post-16 education, and who knows more about higher education finance than most of us in the Chamber. We hosted an online survey that received 52,000 responses from individuals, mostly those affected by plan 2 student loans. That was the second biggest response to any Select Committee inquiry ever. We made numerous written requests to the Department for Education for all the publicity material that the Department had produced about student loans from the past 15 years. This unearthed over 200 pages of slides and videos of student presentations. We found in our inquiry that for many years, students were sold an idea that the repayment threshold for student loans would rise with inflation or earnings. This commitment—indeed, a promise—has been repeatedly broken, and graduates are now having to pay back far more over their lifetime as a result. That has happened under Governments of different colours. That promise and the promotional materials created by the DFE downplayed the monthly repayments that most students would have to make once they graduated. In the Committee’s view, this amounted to mis-selling, but the Government have exempted themselves from consumer protection law, so students have no avenue for seeking redress. For most graduates, their student loan repayments will now act as a career-long additional income tax of 9% on top of their marginal rate of tax. The knock-on impact of this additional rate of tax is that it is harming the ability of graduates to get on to the housing ladder, and that in turn affects their ability to start a family and save into a pension. In the run-up to our inquiry, we heard interesting comments from several then Cabinet Ministers, who described the student loan system as “broken” and “unfair”. The Secretary of State for Education called the student loan system “endless” and “unfair” as recently as February. The Government’s own submission to the inquiry described the student loan system as “broken and unfair”. The Committee have made a number of recommendations. We heard in evidence from Sir Philip Augar that when he reviewed the system, he recommended that the split between student and taxpayer should be around 50%. Universities UK reminded us of the benefits of graduates to our wider society. For example, if we have an accident, we rely on people who have trained in medicine—paramedics, doctors and so on—to help. The Committee concluded that the split between the individual and the state should be 50%, but in their response, the Government said that their contribution is already in the region of 35% to 40% and that is enough. I can tell the Government that it does not feel like that to many of my constituents, and the constituents of my fellow Committee members. They can read the Government’s own forecasts of repayments, which that show that starting in 2024-25, the average undergraduate will be paying back their loan for 31 years, and the average amount that they will pay back will be well over £30,000. It is even worse for graduates in the top 30% of earnings: the Government forecast that they will pay back more than they borrowed. Members of the Committee understand that a national conversation needs to be had about how much society should contribute towards higher education, but our cross-party Committee, made up of representatives from the three main parties of the House, concluded that in the longer term, a 50:50 split should be the ambition, so that we can invest in the young people of today and our country. One of the most shocking elements of our inquiry was the evidence provided by the Department for Education about the advice given to students when they took out loans. As a result of seeing that, we recommended that much better information be provided to make it clear to students applying for a loan that the terms and conditions of the loan can change, even after it has been taken out. I am pleased about the Government’s response on this point. We said that “more can be done to support borrowers to understand the student finance system and that all information provided to borrowers should be fair, clear, unambiguous and as easy to understand as possible”. The Government have committed to a “transformation programme” that will “review the pre-application process to produce clear, relatable and trusted guidance that supports better decision making and financial planning. This will include making it more prominent that student finance is governed by legislation and that regulations may be amended by Government and Parliament.” These changes are well overdue. It is shameful that multiple Governments have not done that when it is very young people, mostly under the age of 18, who have been taking out loans. The Committee also recommended that student loans promotional materials should be brought in line with the requirements of the Financial Conduct Authority’s consumer duty. The Government have declined that in their response to our report, based on the fact that these are not commercial loans. However, the Government are the monopoly provider of student loans—students cannot go elsewhere for a loan of this sort. It is therefore beholden on the Government to treat student loans fairly, as the competitive forces that might maintain a higher standard of customer service in banking and other areas do not apply to student loans. We would like the Government to explain which elements of the Financial Conduct Authority’s consumer duty they feel that they cannot comply with, given they do not want to commit to doing so at this stage. We are disappointed on another point. In 2018, the predecessor Committee concluded that the use of the retail prices index should end and we should move to the consumer prices index, which is a lower level of inflation. Back in 2018, the Government responded that the flaws in the RPI measure of inflation are well understood, but they did not make a change. Over that time, Governments of different colours have sat passively by, and today the Government say that they will not make that change because it is coming in 2030 anyway. However, that means that students will have been charged at a higher interest rate for a longer period and we are disappointed by that response. One of the key things that we looked at was the change announced in last year’s Budget to freeze the threshold at which payments have to be made by students for two years from April next year. This seems to be changing the rules again when students are already experiencing pain. This is a cohort of students who already face huge pressures on housing costs and paying into pensions. They are the generation who are helping to grow Britain’s economy and working to deliver essential jobs in that economy. They are the generation who will pay for the NHS and the ageing population, and they will have the children who will be our future workers. Let us not forget that the birth rate has fallen every year in the past three years, down to 1.41%, so not investing in this generation is a real issue. It is a breach of trust to change that threshold and make students stick at a frozen level. This has been done by previous Governments, but there is an opportunity here. The Government have not absolutely said that they will not review the threshold, so there is a glimmer of hope. As they talk to Treasury colleagues ahead of the Budget, I urge Ministers to take the opportunity of a change of Prime Minister and a change of Government to show that we want to invest in his generation. It is a matter of intergenerational fairness. This cohort is squeezed. The Government need to consider the fairness of the student finance system for borrowers, taxpayers and the public finances, but it is important to note that the rules have been changed repeatedly for this cohort, particularly those on the punitive plan 2 system. We want to honour the promises that the Government made to student loan holders. One of the easiest ways to do that is to not bring in a threshold freeze next April. That is in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Budget. I hope that he and his colleagues are listening to this debate and to the 52,000 people who responded to our inquiry, including the many young people in their 20s and 30s who are suffering the additional burden of the punitive plan 2 loan system, and that they will reconsider freezing the threshold at the Budget in October.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
I absolutely think it should be a high priority, because this generation is being so severely squeezed. The Government’s response to the Committee said: “The Government recognises the cost-of-living challenges faced by many graduates, including those with Plan 2 student loans, and understands concerns about the impact of repayment terms on borrowers.” The response says further that the Government “keep all aspects of the student finance system under review.” This is one change that is very simple to make and relatively cheap. I recognise that the Chancellor has had many challenges even since we put out our report, but this is an achievable change that could be done quickly and would make a big difference to this cohort.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
One good thing is that the Government have recognised that problem in their response to us. We are dealing with mostly teenagers under the age of 18. Sometimes those going to university for the first time do not have other people around them who can advise them about the impact of a loan, and many have no choice and have to take out a loan. The cohort now paying back under plan 2 is being further penalised by the threshold change, so more and more is being layered on that particular cohort. There needs to be more fairness in the system.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
The Committee certainly received some evidence on that issue. There is a logic to not paying back the loan until that point, because students are mostly not working, so there would be a real challenge in paying it back while someone is an undergraduate or graduate student. The hon. Lady rightly highlights that that has caught a lot of people unawares, as they were not aware of how much it ratchets up. There is layer upon layer of complexity, and the fact is that parents do not fully understand the impact. The hon. Lady says that she has children on plan 2 and plan 5 loans. The bigger picture, which I have looked at over many years, is that Governments of different colours keep changing the student loan package, and each package is more complicated than the last. Plan 5 is paid back over 40 years, but plan 2 is paid back over 30 years. Try keeping up with that! It is very confusing. The Government’s commitment to greater transparency is welcome, but it is only a first step.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
In that simple question, my hon. Friend raises a raft of issues. For most students, the only way that they can go to university is by getting a loan. There has been a big drive to get people to go to university who would not have been able to do so before, partly because they may be from poorer backgrounds. This Government have added in extra support through the maintenance grant and so on, but there are still huge costs on young people. It is really important that in making decisions, especially as they have committed to reviewing the student loans system, the Government really understand the impact on different cohorts.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
As my hon. Friend said, we looked at a number of ways of changing things. Once somebody has a plan that has been set up, it is very difficult to unpick different parts of it, but the threshold freeze was added on top of the plan 2 system. That is why it seems particularly invidious. There is an opportunity here—a simple lever that the Government can pull—because the freeze has not yet been implemented. If the Chancellor is looking for a quick win in the Budget, that is one of the easiest things to deliver, without causing more challenging ramifications. If he pulls that lever, it is done, and the biggest number of students would benefit from that.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work that she and her Committee do. We know that there is a crisis in the higher education system, but there is also a huge challenge for the graduates paying off these loans. It is a multifaceted picture, so I am pleased that the Government are looking at reviewing it, but people have just started plan 5 repayments, and a review that might see any changes is still a long way off. We need to have the national conversation that I mentioned about a 50:50 balance. Society benefits from most graduates. They are not just taking; they are actually giving back, and it is really important that we recognise that in our national conversation. Frankly, universities are really struggling in part because of the way in which fees are structured, meaning that they are not getting enough money, but they are still very expensive for students, so nobody is winning in this situation.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
When I looked at this issue in previous roles, before I was on the Treasury Committee, I found that one of the challenges is that the loan system is set up with lots of box-ticking and spreadsheets happening in Government Departments in Whitehall—a very long way from a 17-year-old who takes out a loan and starts paying it back after they graduate. We need to have them at the heart of the design. There will always be a discussion in government about where money is best spent and how much things cost in the short, medium and long term, but we need to ensure that the graduates paying back their loans are at the heart of that discussion, alongside the impact on further education institutions.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
My hon. Friend says it better than I could. There is a trust relationship, and in the case of student loans, students have nowhere else to go for that money. They signed up on certain terms, and those terms have been changed by successive Governments, and the latest threshold freeze is just another one of those breaches of trust between the Government and those who trust them in taking out a loan.
- Hansard source
Student Loans
It is not only my hon. Friend, I and the Committee who agree on that—it is the Government too. The Secretary of State for Education herself has said there are problems and previous Ministers have called it a broken system. There is a long way to move from a broken system to one that is fair, and the focus of our recommendations is on those who are currently paying back a loan. It is difficult to right all the wrongs for those people, but we think pulling back on the threshold freeze would be an important step for them. I absolutely agree that there needs to be proper long-term thinking about how we fund education and how the loans book is structured, and we need to provide information to people. As it is now, the system is not working.
- Hansard source
Public Accounts Committee
I am pleased to see this report. Back in January 2024, I asked the Comptroller and Auditor General if the NAO would examine compensation schemes. I looked at a number of them during my more than a decade on the Public Accounts Committee, and different Departments would set them up and they would have different foundations. My hon. Friend will obviously be waiting for the Government’s response to this report in the relevant set of Treasury minutes. When the Committee was doing its thorough work looking into the schemes, with witnesses in front of them as a comparison, were there a couple of good lessons that the new body, if the Government agree to set it up—I hope they do—could take forward, whether that is an exemplar or even one of the better compensation schemes?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, last week I met some of my constituents who were part of the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance lobby of Parliament. Unfortunately, when they were present, they overheard a passholder making negative comments about trans people. I am sure that you would agree that this House, the mother of Parliaments, should be welcoming to all people, particularly when they are on a mission to lobby their Members about issues that directly impact them. Is there any comment that you would wish to make about how we can ensure that passholders—we cannot control everybody—are reminded of the importance of courtesy and that this place is a place of debate and discussion, not for negative comments about groups of people?
- Hansard source
Sepsis Awareness Month
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on securing this important debate on the Floor of the House of Commons from the Backbench Business Committee during Sepsis Awareness Month. I also thank him for his tireless advocacy on sepsis as the co-chair of the APPG. In his excellent opening speech, he spoke very movingly about his own experience. He said that consultants gave him a 10% chance of survival when he was ill with sepsis, so the odds were that he would not be with us today, but I am very grateful that he is and that he is looking so well, and that he can be such a strong voice in this place on sepsis. I also compliment Lord Mackinlay on the work that he carries on in the other place. Like the shadow Minister, I remember the standing ovation he received when he returned to the House of Commons after battling life-threatening sepsis in 2023, resulting in four limb amputations—what a brave and decent man! Many tributes have been paid to him across the Chamber this afternoon. I will refer to some of the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituent John, who fought sepsis and is a quadruple amputee. He talked very movingly about how the community had rallied around the family to provide support, but also spoke about how we need to do much more to support people like John in the post-recovery period. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke eloquently about her mum, who she lost to sepsis last year—I hope she will accept my condolences—and also her constituent, Kelly Pattison. She reminded us that sepsis affects people in different ways and how important it is to remember that. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, highlighted the particular risks that people with cancer face from sepsis. I will certainly take back to the Department the concerns that he has raised today. Sepsis is a devastating condition. It also costs the NHS significant sums of money—more than £1 billion between 2024 and 2025. During Sepsis Awareness Month, I pay tribute to the charities, such as the UK Sepsis Trust and Sepsis Research FEAT, that do so much to support families, raise awareness and fund research. Their contribution to the new sepsis modern service framework was invaluable, and they acted as a megaphone for so many people whose lives have been devastated by sepsis. My deepest condolences go out to everyone who has been affected, not least Merope Mills and other campaigners, but I know that people are not seeking my sympathy today; they want the Government to support the case they are making. Turning to the sepsis modern service framework, we worked hand in hand with patient representatives, clinical experts, professional bodies, NHS organisations and charities to build the framework. It has entered the history books as the first-ever large-scale engagement process for improving sepsis care. The framework spells out this Government’s commitment to transform sepsis care by 2035. It sets out priority actions to improve prevention, recognition, treatment and recovery while accelerating innovation. I completely understand that people will say, “Okay, you have now got the framework. What happens next?” We are going to make real progress, and by doing that, we are going to raise our game in a number of areas, including science, technology and data. The National Institute for Health and Care Research, working with academia, industry and other partners, will develop a national research and innovation action plan for sepsis by March next year. That will include research calls that cover sepsis improvement priorities, whether it is vaccination and screening, faster and more accurate diagnosis or innovative treatments. It is true that the most recent data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that sepsis deaths went down in 2024. However, the data is incomplete and inconsistent. That is due to changes in awareness, diagnosis and recording, making it harder to understand variation and improve care. Without that data, we do not have a full picture, and that is why the framework commits to collecting better sepsis data and why NHS England is commissioning a national infection and sepsis audit. That should give us a clearer picture of mortality, underlying causes and which groups are most affected. Turning to understanding, it is right to say that Members have highlighted that sepsis is a complex condition that is difficult to recognise because of the variation in symptoms. Many people are unaware that sepsis can develop from common infections, such as urinary tract infections, and few can recognise the full range of symptoms. That is precisely why raising awareness is so important. As we have heard from Members across the House today, the work of campaigners has had a huge impact across the NHS and wider society. The NHS now has a planned, targeted public communications campaign to improve awareness of sepsis symptoms and the actions to take.
- Hansard source
Sepsis Awareness Month
I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We are working all the time on maintaining good public campaigns on issues such as this, and we are reviewing what works and the best methods to use. A campaign of this kind should not be limited to one point in time; it must be ongoing. The NHS has got better at recognising and responding to all causes of deterioration, including sepsis, since the introduction of the national early warning score. This system helps to identify patients who are seriously ill through clear, scored measurements that are routinely recorded by their bedsides. It is used by every ambulance trust and 99% of acute trusts in England, and the sepsis modern service framework will improve the consistency of its use. To further support the way in which we identify sepsis, the framework prioritises advances in faster, more accurate diagnosis to improve outcomes and the correct use of antibiotics. It will support better access to rapid tests in urgent and emergency care to tackle the problems that occur with the services that are often under the most pressure, where sepsis can slip through the cracks. In the longer term, the Government are promoting wearable health technologies as part of our 10-year plan. The framework will also explore new point of care tests that can determine exactly what kind of infection someone may have, alongside the use of those wearable technologies to support the monitoring of high-risk groups. No one knows a child better than his or her parents or carers, which is why listening to patients, carers and families is vital to supporting sepsis recognition and escalation. Too many cases have shown the devastating consequences when deterioration concerns are not heard. The death of Martha Mills was an avoidable tragedy, but I hope that her parents take some consolation from knowing that Martha’s rule is saving lives and helping thousands of patients to benefit from changes in their care. I thank them for their tireless campaigning in Martha’ memory, and the real change that it has brought. Let me remind the House that Martha’s rule means that patients, their families and staff can request a rapid review from a different team if deterioration concerns are not being recognised. Between September 2024 and June this year, nearly 17,500 Martha’s rule calls were made, 5,000 of which were made when a family feared that their loved one’s condition was deteriorating rapidly. Of those, 60% required changes in treatment, with 13% leading to transfers to intensive care and 47% leading to other care changes, including investigations and procedural interventions. Today, Martha’s rule is being rolled out in all acute hospitals in England. As Members have pointed out this afternoon, it is important to note what happens to people who survive sepsis. They may experience a range of long-term physical, psychological and cognitive health consequences. As the Secretary of State has said, the NHS is cradle to grave, and that means everything in between. It is not acceptable that when someone has been through the worst experience of their life, they are just left to get on with it. That is why we are committed to improving access to post-discharge support and rehabilitation, with priority actions set out in the framework. Of course, the best way in which to stop sepsis is to prevent infection. Vaccination and infection prevention and control are fundamental. As was mentioned earlier, the outbreaks of meningitis B in England this year demonstrated how quickly infection can lead to sepsis and death. Those outbreaks highlighted the importance of prompt treatment and the benefits of vaccination. The one-off NHS menB vaccination programme has successfully delivered nearly 250,000 first doses to eligible young people across England since its launch on 20 July 2026. I encourage everyone who has not yet come forward to do so, and to ensure that they obtain both doses of the vaccine for proper protection. The framework commits to improving vaccine access. The shadow Minister put a number of questions to me. I will respond in writing, as I am conscious of the time. The framework also recognises the tension between prompt antimicrobial treatment for sepsis and the risks of unnecessary antibiotic use, and it complements initiatives within the antimicrobial resistance national action plan. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire raised a specific question about funding. I want to make it clear that the immediate and short-term actions will be delivered within existing funding under the current departmental allocation, following the 2025 spending review. Longer-term funding is subject to future spending reviews. The Department and NHS England are committed to prioritising funding for sepsis in future spending bids. The framework is a 10-year plan. I do not pretend that we will deliver everything overnight, but it sets clear targets to reduce deaths by a quarter over the next 10 years. That is a clear metric by which to judge our success and to hold Ministers to account. Implementation will be overseen by the National Quality Board. In conclusion, it has become a bit of a cliché to say things like, “World Sepsis Day is marked once a year, but our work continues all year round.” However, I can assure hon. Members that the sepsis modern service framework is doing just that. For every single day over the next 10 years, the framework will keep pushing us to do better. Let me end by again thanking the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for securing the debate and for his leadership of the APPG. I look forward to working with him constructively going forward.
- Hansard source
Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy
It is absolutely right that local communities get to decide whether to introduce this levy—that is a key part of devolution—but I am concerned about the pressures already on the hospitality and tourism sector, which is a very important part of my Brighton Kemptown constituency. We have already seen the closure of two iconic LGBTQ bars—the Charles Street Tap and the R-Bar on the seafront—and, frankly, I am worried that more face closure. Will the Minister reassure me about the action the Government are taking to support the sector? Would he also consider taking a trip to the seaside with the Secretary of State to meet local businesses and people in the local hospitality sector and to hear what more this Government can do?
- Hansard source
Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy
I was going to start by making a joke about always being picked last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have ruined it by picking me early on—thank you for that. I will try it anyway. I am used to getting picked last in this place, but I was picked first when the new Prime Minister visited Harlow and my local pub. There, he had the opportunity to talk to Mr McMullen, the head of McMullen’s breweries, who said that this Government are doing more to support the pub trade than the previous one did. To change the subject, though, may I ask the Minister about how this tourist levy has been put in place in other G7 countries—where it has been very successful—and what he has learned from other countries?
- Hansard source
Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline
We live in an interconnected world, and the events in Saudi Arabia have a direct impact on my constituents in Harlow, who are concerned about the rising price of their energy bills. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we are not reliant on international fossil fuels? We have to accept that green energy is part of the solution. May I also ask the Minister to do as much as much as he can to help residents in my constituency of Harlow to bring their bills down?
- Hansard source
Prison Improvement: Digital Technology
10. What steps his Department is taking to use digital technology to improve prisons’ processes.
- Hansard source
Prison Improvement: Digital Technology
My city of Edinburgh is a world centre for innovation in digital technology, including in areas with applications in prisons. For example, the company VisionRF produces tech that monitors signs of self-harm in prisons, preventing suicides and deaths on the estate. What role does the Minister expect technology to play in improving long-term performance of prisons, and will officials engage with Edinburgh researchers? Although justice policy is devolved, tech and innovation learnings can be applied to all parts of the UK.
- Hansard source
Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy
The Edinburgh festival fringe in my constituency is a world-class tourist attraction—I know that the House understands this, because I bumped into about half of my fellow Members in August. Edinburgh is the third biggest ticketed event in the world after the FIFA world cup and the Olympics. This summer, Edinburgh became the first place in the UK to implement a city-wide visitor levy of 5%, which will raise £50 million to invest in the local economy, benefiting tourists and locals. Despite its implementation, we saw ticket sales increase by 8% this year. It is still a work in progress, but will the Minister meet me and officials from Edinburgh to understand our learning from the visitor levy? We are happy to invite any sceptics as well.
- Hansard source
Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate—its importance was reflected in the urgency and tone of his remarks. I thank him for his comments, particularly those on the importance of the Union, with which I agree. That is why I would like to start by very much refuting the hon. and learned Member’s assertion that it is the policy of this Government to enable Northern Ireland to step out of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he does not fully mean that, although he is clearly very concerned about these issues of trade. I acknowledge those concerns, but the situation is more complex than his remarks have perhaps allowed for. Clearly, if there were a simple solution to this that would deliver all the benefits he has described for Northern Ireland, the Government would want to move to that solution, but it is more complex than that. Through my remarks, I will try to address the many points that he and other colleagues have raised, and I will perhaps be able to elaborate on some of that complexity. First, I will address the hon. and learned Member’s point about unfettered access. The Government remain fully committed to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I also want to be clear about the importance of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in that market. The Office for the Internal Market highlights the importance of the internal market and of the sales to the rest of the United Kingdom, equivalent to around a quarter of Northern Ireland’s economic output in 2021. In 2024, which is the last year for which we have published data, Great Britain accounted for 52% of Northern Ireland’s trade in goods, and that figure is broadly the same as it was in 2018, indicating the robustness of Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market.
- Hansard source
Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He raises concerns around bureaucracy and paperwork, essentially, for small businesses, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentioned our own House of Commons gift shop as well for low value items. I very much want to come on to this point in my speech, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I will start by talking about the general performance of Northern Ireland trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland’s goods exports within the UK and with the European Union have been strong. In fact, Northern Ireland’s exports to the European Union have outperformed the rest of the United Kingdom, increasing since 2019, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom, exports have decreased in that period. It is therefore important to note that Northern Ireland does benefit from being a fundamental part of the UK internal market and having unique access to the EU single market. Of course, I do recognise—and the point was made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim—that this experience varies across sectors, companies and individual constituents, which is why this debate is so valuable. I will go on to talk more about that. I understand the challenges around this, but public authorities have a statutory requirement to have special regard for Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. That guidance gives real statutory power to ensure that policymakers within the United Kingdom actively consider Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market when they are implementing the Windsor framework or making policy involving the movement of goods in the United Kingdom. Where that is the case, the statutory guidance ensures that those policymakers must have special regard for Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Most importantly, one part of having special regard means the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of streamlining trade between the two, and maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. The guidance ensures that policymakers must give that special regard considerable importance and weight above other factors in policymaking. That represents how this Government have implemented a key commitment in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper published under the previous Government to ensure that proper process is in place to always consider both Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Members have spoken in detail about the Windsor framework and the challenges it brings. I would like to stress that the Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. The framework supports the peace and prosperity brought by the Good Friday agreement, one of the proudest achievements of our last Labour Government, and it plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members. It is clear that the Windsor framework is delivering benefits and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have already noted how the Northern Ireland-Great Britain supply of goods has been maintained through the implementation of the framework. Over 15,000 traders are now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and the Northern Ireland plant health label. Northern Ireland traders are benefiting from these facilitations, and businesses are choosing to invest in the dual market access that Northern Ireland uniquely offers. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is concerned about the level of investment and believes that businesses will not wish to invest in Northern Ireland for that reason. On my recent visit to Northern Ireland, however, I saw significant investment from Boeing, Airbus, Navantia and many other businesses. It is clear that this is not a uniform experience across all businesses, but it has been possible for Northern Ireland to attract significant inward investment.
- Hansard source
Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Far from trying to ignore issues, I am trying to explain that it is quite a complex situation. I have already acknowledged that there are concerns in particular sectors and with particular companies, but as I have said, I think it is important to take a more balanced approach. Overall, in my view and the Government’s view, and according to the economic numbers that I have presented, the Windsor framework is in fact having a net positive effect on the economy in Northern Ireland. For example, the company Evri has invested in Northern Ireland being home to the new EU gateway. In Lisburn, PRM Group, which is a major chilled and frozen food distributor, has said that this influenced its investment decision, as well as the growth of its business. Businesses in other sectors, from medical devices to advanced manufacturing and consumer goods, have made a similar call. I recognise that if businesses and consumers are to benefit from the Windsor framework, they must have access to clear advice and guidance. In our response to Lord Murphy’s review, the Government committed to strengthen our offer, and we are taking action in that regard. We are building on the comprehensive support available through the free trader support service beyond 2026, and work is under way to progress the £16.6 million regulatory support service, which will provide clear and targeted support to help businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. I am personally grateful to businesses and civic stakeholders for their engagement on this project as we design and build the new service.
- Hansard source
Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The hon. and learned Member did indeed raise the issue of diversion of trade and I was just about to address it directly. He gave some figures, but there is a more complex picture and perhaps I can just illustrate some of it. Great Britain and Northern Ireland trade remains robust, with over £17 billion in goods moving into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 2024. The independent monitoring panel confirmed that the internal market guarantee—that 80% of Great Britain-Northern Ireland freight moves as “not at risk” goods—was met in 2025, and the latest figures confirm that 96% of goods moved under freight did so within the internal market system. We expect the panel’s next report shortly.
- Hansard source
Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman heard me outline some of the measures that the British Government are taking to enable businesses in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to trade freely with one another. As we are in the dying seconds of this debate, I hope that Members will not mind if I do not take any more interventions, because I want to confirm some final statistics that I think are important. Sales from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK reached £10.9 billion in 2024, and that figure was up by 0.8% on 2023. The UK internal market is expanding, not shrinking. As I have set out in detail, the importance of the Union and the many ways in which this Government are committed to maintaining and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland run through all the points that we are making about how we interact with the Windsor framework. To conclude, I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for raising these points. Hopefully, he has heard from me that the Government are committed to the internal market, and that we are committed to the Union and the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
- Hansard source
Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation
I am struck that the hon. Member used the phrase “collective national response” to start his remarks. As a Scottish MP, I am conscious that this is a UK-wide endeavour, but four different Governments could be looking at it. If work is accelerated in one part, pressure can be put on the resources available in another. Does the hon. Member agree that the collective national response has to be considered in a UK sense, not just under the relevant Department in Westminster? The Public Accounts Committee looked at this issue on 21 March 2025. One of our conclusions was: “Given the lack of progress to date and the remaining challenges ahead, we are sceptical about the adequacy and achievability of MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan.” Does the hon. Member share that scepticism?
- Hansard source
English Whisky: Single Malt Definition
I share the surprise of distillers in my constituency, including Glengoyne, Deanston Tullibardine and the Stirling distillery, about this decision, which seems as though it will cause longer-term problems for distillers in both Scotland and England with regard to consumer confidence, but that should not undermine the fact that this Government are a friend of the Scotch Whisky Association. Could the Minister outlines some of the things he is doing to support the 41,000 jobs in Scotland and the 25,000 jobs across the rest of the country, and to make sure that this continues to be one of our best exports for Brand Scotland and, indeed, Brand UK?
- Hansard source
Student Loans
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work and that of her Committee. We want our young people to have confidence that their Government will stick to their promises. Does she agree that the approach to student loans from successive Governments has dented that trust and that Government colleagues should reflect on that?
- Hansard source
Public Accounts Committee
I thank colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee and at the National Audit Office for their work on this report. Groups representing victims expressed concern to our Committee that the Government do not do enough to advertise and promote schemes, leading to some victims missing out, and the amount and type of evidence required of victims when they submit a claim can make the process difficult and retraumatising. Does my hon. Friend agree that more care needs to be taken when designing schemes in order to ensure that the process is not overly complex and burdensome, and that those schemes need an outreach plan to maximise take-up?
- Hansard source
Fracking Ban
There are those in my constituency who work in the oil and gas industry and those who are pushing for more solar and other renewables, but I am struck by the fact that fracking is the one area where both sides are likely to find agreement. It is not wanted and it is not supported. Does my hon. Friend also find that common ground around fracking in his constituency? Is it evident that no one wants it there either?
- Hansard source
Fracking Ban
If such a decision were devolved and, even in a devolved world, the entire country said, “We do not want fracking in all of our devolved places,” how would the hon. Gentleman feel about it then?
- Hansard source
Fracking Ban
My hon. Friend makes a good point about renewables at Grangemouth. Does he agree that the regional economic potential of the Forth valley, which includes my constituency, has Grangemouth as a key component? It is huge. Fracking is not the future that Grangemouth, the Forth valley or the wider country wants or supports.