5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.
We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step. Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.
We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others. Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Police contact form Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times. Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent. We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue. Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official. Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates. Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces? I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates. If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly. I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.
I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states: “The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.” We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?
I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld. I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have. Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk. I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.
Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge. The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.
I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024. In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful. Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.
The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation. I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.
No, I do not, because everybody knows that elections are coming up. If someone is at the stage where they cannot get the acceptable form of identification shortly before, my view is, quite frankly—tough. There is a system in place that allows people to get the necessary identification to vote. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—I sat next to him for two years at Clarion Housing when he was the director of comms and I was the director of public affairs, and he is a personal friend of mine—I know that, at 20 years old, he would have made sure that he got the right identification to vote. He would have never fallen into that trap. I contend that many people would be as honourable as him and as determined to go out and get the correct identification to cast their vote.
No. I absolutely do not take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as an insult to me. He is absolutely right; as young activists for our respective parties, and from some of our conversations at our desks, we could only be described as “odd”. I am sure that applies to pretty much all members of the Committee, as he insinuated. Again, we have a set election period. People who want to go out and vote will know the expectations of them in the current system. Therefore, the scenario the hon. Member described would be a very minor issue. My line is that, for the integrity and safety of the system, people should know what the system expects of them and there are ways to allow them to cast their vote.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who was even younger than me when he got into politics, and is even younger than me now, as a very young member of this House. He knew when he was expected to go out and vote. He is right that all political parties are able to put out in their literature the expectations of people and what forms of ID are available. The Government’s watering-down is disastrous for democracy and will weaken the integrity of the system.
I will give way briefly; then I want to finish my remarks. This will be the last intervention.
Of course I think that everybody who can cast a ballot in this country should be able to, but I am not willing to compromise the integrity, safety and security of the voting system to make it easier for people to vote. Of course I want the turnout to be higher, more people to be able to vote and, when the legislation has passed, 16-year-olds to go out and vote and be able to engage in the system—I still think the voting age should be 18—but that should not be to the detriment of the safety and integrity of the system. The hon. Gentleman may be willing to contend with weakening that to make it easier to vote, but the Opposition, or at least the Conservative party, as the official Opposition, are not. That is why we oppose these measures. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions because I want to finish my remarks on this clause. As I have outlined, we are concerned about the proposals, particularly on bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph, and the name displayed, often as vague as “Mr J. Smith”, does not provide sufficient assurance of identity or date of birth. That creates a real risk of impersonation, especially in communities with common surnames. Those concerns are heightened by the Government’s indication that pre-paid cards, which do not require credit checks, could also be accepted. Some companies, such as Suits Me, actively market bank cards that can be obtained without formal identification, often targeting individuals who are new to the country. Although such products may serve a purpose in enabling access to goods and services, their use as voter identification introduces a significant risk of electoral fraud. We should also reflect on the experience in Northern Ireland, where voter identification has been required for decades: paper ID since 1985 and photographic ID since 2003, when it was rightly introduced by the Labour Government of that time. Those measures have proven effective in tackling fraud and preventing the serious crime of personation, without reducing participation. Ministers at the time were clear that requiring photographic identification would make fraud far more difficult, while ensuring that honest voters were not disadvantaged. They emphasised that no one would be disenfranchised, and that such reforms would not have been introduced if it would mean large numbers of voters being unable to participate.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating new clause 19, but it is absolutely clear that three is too many. He may be willing to accept that there were three cases that were proven—as was the 2022 case in Eastleigh—but I do not think there should be any examples of voter fraud, and I certainly do not think that any responsible Government should make it easier for that to happen. I agree that it will be harder to impersonate somebody than it would be under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but photo ID shows the face and eyes of the person who is going to vote. Allowing the use of a bank card, which can have a different form of the person’s name, and has no date of birth or address, would make it easier to impersonate somebody. I have four bank cards in my wallet—probably because I am in so much debt. On each and every one of those cards, my name is written differently: there is “P Holmes”, “Mr P. J. Holmes”, “Mr Paul Holmes”, “Mr Paul John Holmes” and “Mr Paul J. Holmes”. They are all different, and a card would be the only thing that a volunteer at the polling station would have to adjudicate. I put it to the Committee, and I strongly put it to the Minister, as I did in the evidence session, that this is a retrograde, reckless step that will increase identity fraud and voting fraud. Every expert in the evidence session who was asked said that they had concerns about bank cards being used, and that it would water down the system. We strongly contend that that is the case, and we oppose the new clause. We obviously support amendment 30. The official Opposition think this proposal is a bad thing, and we vigorously oppose it. I urge the Minister to change her mind before we get to the final stages of the Bill.
That was perfectly short and sweet. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.
As you know, Mr Rosindell, I was not given any prior notice of your point of order. As you may or may not be aware, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, you have most definitely got your point on the record, and those on the Treasury Bench are no doubt busy scribbling away and will make sure that the appropriate Ministers have heard your remarks.
Once again, Mr Rosindell, that is not a matter for the Chair. Today’s debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee; the hon. Member may wish to make an application to the Committee, or ask the Leader of the House at the next business questions. I do wish him a very happy Easter.
Before we come to the Adjournment debate, I should inform the House that there are live inquests into the deaths of six babies, so those cases are technically sub judice under the rules of the House. However, Mr Speaker has issued a waiver for today’s debate to allow the cases to be referred to, given that the inquests have been adjourned for a number of months.
I, too, wish everybody, and especially my constituents in Sussex Weald, a very happy Easter. Question put and agreed to.
We still do not know how or what the Government want to achieve with state control of the railways. They say that there will be simpler fares, but the public are seeing simply more expensive fares. They say that passenger growth is necessary, but there is no target for that growth in the Railways Bill. They say they want to reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but in written answer after written answer, the Minister refuses to say how they hope to achieve that. Is this lack of a plan why the Secretary of State has been reduced to trying to claim credit for the work of others? She has been left red-faced and community noted after posting on X about the phasing out of the old class 455 trains on South Western Railway. She said it was down to the “progress...on your publicly owned railway”, when it was actually delivered under a Conservative Government and by a private company.
It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to agree with the Secretary of State, so I ask him whether he agrees with himself. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on 23 March, he said that “public ownership is expected to save taxpayers up to...£110-150 million every year...This is several orders of magnitude less than the costs of scaling up DfTO staffing in anticipation of establishing GBR”.
In September last year, the Secretary of State told the House: “I know the importance of the fuel duty freeze”.—[Official Report, 11 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1031.] That was when diesel and petrol were significantly cheaper than they are today. Why is Labour hiking fuel duty by 5p a litre this September?
Over the past few decades there has been a consensus in politics that disability should not prevent people from living fulfilling and successful lives. However, I recognise that, despite strong standards and the implementation of new measures by Governments of all stripes over previous decades, the aims set out by Governments of both main parties in order to improve accessibility for disabled people have not always met the standards that disabled people understandably expect. Governments should always strive to ensure that our transport system works for disabled people. As the Transport Committee report on accessibility recognised last year, this is not a simple issue. Disabled people use very different methods of transport. The report rightly points out that: “The support that people need to make journeys successfully and confidently varies greatly”. It has been great to hear from Members from across the House, particularly those with personal experience. In recent years I lived with one of my grandmothers for quite a long time, and I remember taking her around when she was much less mobile in later years. Hearing from hon. Members about the variety of challenges is important, because those experiences can inform our debate. It was particularly great to hear from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about changing places facilities. I have been campaigning for some in Basildon, and they have just been put in. They are important because they give people the confidence to get out and about and access our town centres, which benefits high streets as well as disabled people themselves. It was fantastic to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) about how looking at design issues from the start can make an important difference. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about floating bus stops—an issue that I shall return to. The variation in types of transport used by disabled people shows that we need to view the issue of accessibility in the wider sense. Accessibility for disabled people is not as simple as ensuring that technical specifications are up to standard and that there are enough staff. Although those things are obviously critical to the experience of disabled people travelling, we must consider the broader question of how Government policies can impact them as well. That is why I want to focus on one thing that is critical to travel for disabled people but is often overlooked in discussions on accessibility: the importance of cars. We know that cars are integral to the lives of disabled people. In 2024, the national travel survey showed that 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people were travelled in private cars, either as a passenger or as the driver. That is higher than the figure for non-disabled people. As the Select Committee noted, people with disabilities also travel in taxis far more often than non-disabled people. It is also important to recognise that, among disabled people, a far greater proportion of journeys are made for shopping, personal business and visiting friends. Those journeys are a clear indicator that accessible transport is not some abstract quality, but integral to people’s lives. Without them, people would be cut off, yes, from work, but importantly also from the essential activities and social engagements that are the indicators of a fulfilling life for anyone.
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will add, though, that disabled people often choose to use a car, if one is available, because it is the most convenient means of getting around; it means that they can travel at times that suit them. I totally agree that we want to ensure that all our public transport is as accessible as possible, but I do not want a system that restricts the ability of disabled people to move around by car. As such, I implore the Minister and his colleagues to speak to the Treasury about the fuel duty issue. With 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people travelled by car, increases in the price at the pump will inevitably deter people from making journeys and harm both the personal and professional lives of those who rely on cars more than anybody else. We all know that it is a tax on transport at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. It is a further tax imposed by this Government, who I feel often treat drivers and passengers as a cash cow to fund their other decisions. I hope that this debate sharpens the Minister’s focus and reminds Treasury Ministers, who rather shamefully dismissed our concerns on this issue last week, that vehicles are not merely a means to extract money and taxation from the public, but a lifeline for everyone—particularly those with mobility issues, given that they are so much more dependent on vehicles than the population as a whole.
I think the hon. Member should reflect on the fact that he voted last week for a policy that hammers those rural transport users more than anyone else, not at some theoretical time in the future but from September this year, increasing in December and again in March next year. These are not policies that may or may not happen in the future, but policies he has voted for that are hurting disabled people from this year. He should reflect on the impacts that policy will have and speak to Ministers about how those impacts will play out right across the system. Unfortunately, the ability of disabled people to travel is constrained not only by the cost of driving but by prohibitive motoring policies. We acknowledge that the Government have made some progress—for example, by creating a more accessible railway network, including through the railway road map—and I welcome some of the announcements made by Ministers in recent months, which have rightly focused on policies that Members across the House support. It is also great to see that some Access for All projects are being progressed. However, it is disappointing that many disabled people will remain worried about their ability to access stations, given that some of the projects set out by the last Government have been paused and have a question mark over them, or are not being pursued. I do not doubt that the Minister believes strongly in improving access for disabled people. My concern is that the Government are comfortable using the language of accessibility but, when faced with decisions that directly impact disabled people—whether that is making stations more accessible or making driving a car more expensive—they are not on the right side. Time and again, Ministers have been made aware of the physical impediments to disabled people in our towns and cities, in particular floating bus stops. During the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Government said that they intended that the guidance for floating bus stops “will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2025; c. 183.] The acceptance of Lord Blunkett’s amendments in the House of peers gave the impression that we might see real improvements to floating bus stops that would allow blind people to access bus stops without fear of being struck by bikes while crossing bike paths. It has been great to see floating bus stops removed from scheme designs in some parts of the country; I had an exchange recently with my county council in Essex, which is removing floating bus stops from a large new property development. However, despite the promises to this House and to those representing blind and partially sighted people, the Government’s proposals in January were pitiful. You do not need to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: a spokesperson for the Royal National Institute of Blind People said that the new guidance simply does not address the problem. Meanwhile, the street access campaign co-ordinator at the National Federation of the Blind of the UK said: “It does not address the concerns that blind and visually impaired people have and it’s totally insulting to think that we’ll accept this.” Those concerns are clearly reflected in the data. According to the RNIB, nearly 40% of blind and partially sighted people avoid using these bus stop bypasses and instead go to other bus stops, increasing their journey time, or do not make the journey at all. The Mayor of London has supported the floating bus stop policy using all sorts of strange figures, which he has had to row back on. I was recently down on Chiswick High Road in Hounslow with Councillors Joanna Biddolph and Gabriella Giles, looking at some of the most egregious examples of floating bus stops. The next decade will offer opportunities for advances in accessibility. New technologies such as autonomous vehicles could transform opportunities for disabled people. Demand-responsive transport could also provide additional services that are not currently available. If the Government use the powers available to them, such as those in the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 passed by the last Government, we could see really significant improvements in accessibility options for disabled people. As I noted at the start of my speech, there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by the disabled. This is a multimodal problem crossing both public and private forms of transport, with disabled people facing specific challenges in addition to those faced by everyone else. Where people are unable to travel by train or plane, they understandably feel ostracised from the travelling experience of non-disabled people. This cannot be solved overnight. As Members have suggested, it requires an approach that is applied to all forms of transport. To achieve that, we need to listen to the experiences of disabled people, and when we do promise change, as the Government have done on floating bus stops, we have to deliver it. Excluding disabled people by increasing their costs is also not acceptable. Transport should be there to improve people’s lives, not to raise revenue or increase the cost of living.
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 7, line 16, at end insert— “(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a budget which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.” This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State. Good morning, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again as we move on to clause 3, which concerns the proposed new Defence Housing Service and associated matters. I will speak to amendment 17 in my name. There are no Liberal Democrats in the room yet, but I am sure they will be joining us at some point. We have been assisted in examining this topic by our very helpful evidence sessions with Mr David Brewer, the putative head of the new Defence Housing Service, and Ms Natalie Elphicke Ross, a former parliamentary colleague of ours on both sides of the House, who has materially assisted the Government with their review and the creation of their new plan. We acknowledge her efforts. We also had a very informative Defence Infrastructure Organisation briefing during our visit to Portsmouth, where we visited a number of dwellings in a military patch outside the wire. That included houses representing both before and after, as it were: those that had been refurbished to an obviously good standard, and those that were still awaiting that work. I place on record our thanks to members of the DIO and to the Clerks for what was, as I hope the whole Committee will agree, an extremely informative visit. Before we get into the meat of the debate, I will take it as read that all members of the Committee share the same objective: an improved quality of service family accommodation for our valued armed forces personnel and their families. Again, for the record, we thank them for their service. We would also like to see good-quality accommodation for senior service personnel. The debate is therefore not so much about the objective, which I think we all share, as about the best way of achieving it. That is where we may have some genuine differences of opinion this morning, but hopefully for the right reasons. Amendment 17 focuses on the budget for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. Its essence is that the Defence Housing Service’s budget should be clearly set out in any defence investment plan published by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Good morning! The Liberals are now with us. There is an obvious historical context for the amendment. I think it is fair to say that down the years, under Governments of both colours—three colours, if we include the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015—there has been a constant tension in the funding of the defence housing estate. On the one hand, there has been a desire to provide capital to upgrade it; on the other hand, there have been general pressures on the defence budget. It has not been unknown for capital expenditure to be deferred from one year to another to free up resourcing for other operational priorities that were deemed more pressing or urgent by Ministers at the time. The aims and objectives of the new Defence Housing Service are rightly ambitious, which raises questions about how to secure the money and what safeguards there are, if any, against any future Government raiding that substantial pot of cash for other priorities should the circumstances arise. Both Mr Brewer and Ms Elphicke Ross were very clear in their evidence on the subject on 4 March: they said that after considerable discussion with the Treasury, a sum of some £9 billion had been put aside to create the Defence Housing Service and enable it to achieve its objectives laid out in the Bill. Nevertheless, during the same evidence session, it was established after some detailed—indeed, forensic—questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East that the money had not been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. That is because the sum is currently included in the defence investment plan, which itself has not been signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. As we all know, the defence investment plan has not been published, although Parliament was initially promised it by last autumn. I do not intend to labour—no pun intended—the point this morning, as we debated it at some length in the main Chamber on Tuesday evening. Suffice it to say that when the Government published the strategic defence review in July last year, they deferred many of the crunchy equipment and capability decisions to a subsequent defence investment plan. We were promised that it would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised that it would be published by Christmas. We were then absolutely promised that it would be published fairly shortly thereafter. Here we are on 26 March, the day on which the House rises for the Easter recess, and still it has not been published. That leads to an additional problem, including for the Defence Housing Service. Part of the DIP, presumably including service accommodation in Scotland and Wales, could be affected by the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections, at least indirectly. If the DIP is not published extremely shortly, it is likely to be caught by the purdah rules on those national elections. The putative date for the King’s Speech seems to be settling on or around 13 May. That means that the DIP is unlikely to be published until the second half of May, nearly two months from now, by which time the Defence Housing Service is meant to be under way. In essence, we are debating a plan based on a long-term budget that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury because, bluntly, the Ministry of Defence is at war with it. That is why the DIP has not been published. It is conceivable—although, for the record, I hope that this will not be the case—that whenever final negotiations are eventually concluded, the Treasury may insist on further reductions in the DIP, which in turn could lead to further reductions to the £9 billion currently allocated for the programme. That is why we tabled amendment 17, which states that the budget for the Defence Housing Service must be very clearly set out in the defence investment plan, whenever it is published, not least so that in subsequent iterations of the plan we can see whether the funding allocation is being reduced or increased. Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that, as of 26 March 2026, the £9 billion in the forward programme has been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury? In other words, can he guarantee that it is ringfenced in the DIP? If he cannot, can he at least tell us when the DIP will finally be published? A fortnight ago, I said privately to a Labour peer that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot. He replied, “Yes, Mark, but at least Godot finally turned up.” Will the Minister answer those questions so that the Committee can take a view on the surety of the funding on which this admittedly very ambitious plan undoubtedly rests?
I am not saying that in 14 years we got everything right, but we never ended up in a situation in which we could not put a destroyer to sea, to a NATO exercise, with three months’ warning. It was never that bad. I was told at a dinner last night that the Secretary of State or other Ministers have not allowed this Minister to see the defence investment plan. Surely that cannot be right: he must have seen it. For the avoidance of doubt, could he just pop up and tell us that of course he has seen it, and he has seen the detail of it?
We all know how this works. That was what, in “All the President’s Men”, they would have called a non-denial denial. I am afraid we have had no satisfaction, so we will press amendment 17 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.” This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.
The purpose of amendment 14 is to make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. I will attempt to give credit where it is due. For context, the quality of service quarters, and in particular the maintenance of those quarters—especially maintenance of boilers and heating, dealing with mould, and suchlike—has been a constant bugbear for many service personnel and their families for decades. It is something that I went into considerable detail about in the “Stick or Twist?” report in 2020, to which I shall refer in more detail later this morning. The previous Conservative Government entered into a new housing management contract—the future defence infrastructure services programme, or FDIS—prior to the last general election. It is probably fair to say that there were quite a number of teething problems when that contract went live. Indeed, I expressed a number of reservations about FDIS in the “Stick or Twist?” report before it came in. However, the information I have is that after persistent pressure from Ministers—initially Conservative Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and now Labour Ministers, including the Minister on the Committee, to give credit where it is due—the performance of contractors under the FDIS contract has improved. We heard as much from the families federations—from the customer side of the equation, as it were. It can also be seen in the ratings, which are recorded annually in the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which allows us to track customer satisfaction with the quality of maintenance of SFA. There is a specific question on that every year. Again I give credit where it is due for the introduction of a charter for the homes of service personnel and their families. Of course, it is the families who have to put up with the frustration of any failures, particularly if their loved ones are deployed away from base for any operational reason for any period of time. The families back home have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis, so if it is getting better, that is clearly to be welcomed. Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the Defence Housing Service and its functions, including “(a) improving the supply and quality of defence housing, (b) managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes, (c) securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and (d) supporting in other ways— (i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and (ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.” I am sure that no one on the Committee will object to any of those objectives. But given the history I just outlined, the essence of amendment 14 is to introduce a fifth objective: “improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.” Although I have no doubt that those who came up with the proposed Defence Housing Service fully intended to do this, the aim of the amendment is to place that objective firmly on the face of the Bill and, in so doing, establish it as an additional, clearly defined objective of the Defence Housing Service. Then, with the customer charter and assuming that we continue to ask similar questions in the armed forces continuous attitude survey every year, it should be possible to use that objective as an accurate metric to establish whether or not the Defence Housing Service is actually meeting one of its declared functions. If we amend the Bill as I am suggesting, we could use it to hold the management of the Defence Housing Service and, I dare say, Ministers to account for the performance of the new service. It seems to us that this is quite a common-sense way to proceed. Therefore, I rather hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment without my having to divide the Committee.
I declare an interest: in the 1990s, I was the acting chairman of housing on what was then Basildon district council—so I was a housing specialist, but admittedly back in the last century. Incidentally, Basildon was once described as the only local authority in Britain where, at council meetings, councillors actively heckled the public gallery. From serving on the council, I can say that it is half true. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of features of the decent homes standard. What in his opinion are the critical two or three parts that, if we were to support his amendment, he would have the Government and the Defence Housing Service ensure above any others? What are the key two or three bits that he would like to press the Government on this morning?
This might seem like a point of detail, but it is important. I will come on to “Stick or Twist?” later, but one thing that came out very clearly is that many families wanted what used to be known in old money as “patch managers”, often a retired senior NCO who lived nearby, who knew the patch and all the quarters intimately. He knew that No. 23 had always had a slightly wonky boiler or whatever. He was someone that all the families knew, and who the wives could get hold of if their spouse was away on deployment. We have named housing officers, but at what level do they operate? Do we have one per patch, per garrison or per region? How close to ground level are these named housing officers?
I am grateful for that detail. I agree that it is a step in the right direction, so it would be churlish not to welcome it. To give credit where it is due, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was a Minister in the Department, he invested several hundred million pounds in what was known as the mould action plan. Its aim was to get after the problem not just with temporary fixes, but with long-term work on properties with a persistent mould problem. As I have tried to be fair to the Government this morning, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that my hon. Friend put quite a lot of effort into that issue in defence housing. There has subsequently been some success, has there not?
I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. None the less, we feel strongly about amendment 14, so we will press it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).” This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access. My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit. This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister is replying. I have learned to take his word. Just so he does not think that we have a blanket policy of voting on everything this morning, if he gives me his word that he will take the issue back to the Department and the people setting up the DHS and look very seriously at how we might do a bit better, in return I shall not press the amendment. Can he give me that comfort now?
I will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the Minister for his kind offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
It may assist the Committee to know that when I looked at this in “Stick or Twist?”, we realised that we were talking about two slightly different propositions, and that some of the challenges in single living accommodation are a bit different from those in SFA. For the record, in “Stick or Twist?” we said we would start with SFA—we were talking about a housing association—and learn lessons from that and then go on to SLA. We realised there is a bit of an air gap between the two, so our work was concentrated on one and then maybe moved on to the other. That is, in some ways, similar to the spirit of what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is saying, if the Minister will accept that.