Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Last night in the Strangers Bar, I bumped into a very influential Labour Back Bencher who told me with great authority that digital ID simply is not going to happen. That is good news, of course, because it is going to 1.8 billion quid we have not got, and it is deeply unpopular in the country. Why does the Secretary of State not give us all an early Christmas present and simply announce that she is ditching the policy today?
Will the Minister give way?
The Minister seems to have co-opted the amount of money spent on the Royal Air Force into his argument. Is he aware that absent the defence investment plan—it was promised in the autumn, and the House rises tomorrow—we have no idea about the size, shape and cost of the Royal Air Force, because the Government are late with their homework?
Ministers are making very big claims about the pharmaceuticals deal with America, to make up for the billions lost in life sciences investment under Labour. Life sciences firms are telling me that unless the Government reveal what is actually in the deal, those claims are completely hollow. Can the Secretary of State reveal—she could not tell us this two weeks ago—how much the deal is costing the NHS and when she will publish the full legal text, so that we know the details of what the most favoured nation mitigations actually are?
If we are making Christmas jokes, I think this deal is all tinsel and no tree. The problem is that Labour trumpets about these deals and is then completely sketchy about what has actually been agreed—just like the US-UK tech deal: we now find out from President Trump that he has put that deal on ice. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all the golden carriage action in September and the Prime Minister honking on about his negotiating skills, the Prime Minister has actually nailed down none of the key details on pharma, no zero-tariff pact on steel and no deal on tech?
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate on Government support for membership-based charity organisation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing such an important debate and for her opening remarks. It was apparent on hearing my hon. Friend speak just how important some of our national treasures are, what it is to be British, and how those treasures are entrusted to—and very often in the care of—membership-based charities. As someone who used to work for a charity for six years before entering this place, I know the amazing work they do in all aspects of life. Many charities, particularly those in the cultural and heritage sectors, continue to be some of the largest membership-based organisations in the UK. Museums, galleries and libraries also contributed over £1.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and employed nearly 100,000 people in 2024, while civil society contributed £18.5 billion and employed nearly 1 million people. However, many membership-based charities are now facing growing financial challenges because of impending regulatory changes, the knock-on effect of Government cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget and the continued effect of Labour’s increases to employer’s national insurance contributions. One of the most immediate challenges facing membership-based charity organisations is the impending changes to subscription contracts as a result of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—as we have heard—and the Government’s failure so far to close a loophole that was identified when that Act was taken through Parliament. The introduction of a 14-day cooling-off period jeopardises the future value of membership as a sustainable income as it will create a loophole allowing people to gain access to venues, exhibitions or creative content and then cancel their membership after enjoying all the benefits within the first 14 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport articulated that problem perfectly. Those cancelled memberships also mean that charities will lose their ability to claim gift aid on membership income. As I said, that problem was identified when the Act was going through Parliament and the last Conservative Government committed to solve it by introducing regulations to close that loophole. Multiple times throughout the year, Ministers in the current Government have announced their intention to amend Gift Aid rules to ensure that charities can continue to claim it on membership subscriptions after the DMCCA comes into force. However, it is disappointing that legislation to that effect is still yet to materialise a year and a half after the change of Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether new legislation will in fact be necessary? If so, when we can expect to see it? In July, some of the UK’s most prominent charities and cultural organisations, including the National Trust, the Tate, the Victoria and Albert Museum, Historic Royal Palaces, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts, wrote to the Prime Minister to highlight the impact of the problem on their valuable work. Has the Prime Minister replied to the letter, and what action have the Government outlined to remedy the issue? Although the Government have consulted on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime, the consultation closed almost a year ago and those who contributed are still waiting for a response. The uncertainty for charities and cultural organisations, which need to set their budgets and make plans for next year and beyond, is having a chilling effect on some of the most cherished organisations in our country. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government intend to waive the cooling-off period for cancelling a subscription for membership-based charities? When will they introduce legislation to do that if they consider it necessary? Shortly before the Chancellor’s jobs tax took effect—which the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warned would cost charities £1.4 billion—we in the Opposition warned about the crushing effect of these new taxes. It is disappointing that the Government chose to press on with them, which has forced charities to reduce their staff numbers and scale back their services. Ministers have so far declined to outline what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the effect of their tax increases insofar as they affect the charity sector. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to provide much-needed and long-overdue certainty for membership-based charities on how the Government will support them and ensure they are not taken advantage of as a result of the new subscription rules. I endorse all the questions put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport.
The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.
12. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the potential impact of a nationwide digital ID system on levels of digital exclusion.
The parliamentary petition against digital ID has been signed by more than 3 million people, including many in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. It is the fourth most signed petition in history. Why does the Minister think digital ID is so unpopular?
First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my constituency neighbour, for securing this debate. Housing and planning are among the issues I hear about most from my constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. I do not hear about it in the abstract or as a theory, but in the very practical terms of pressure on schools, GP surgeries, roads and the character of their towns and villages. As my right hon. Friend said, this debate is not really about whether we need more homes. Of course we do; it is about where, how and at what cost. Targets that ignore local reality do not solve the housing problem; they export it. In my constituency, which spans East Hampshire and Waverley councils, housing targets have more than doubled under the Government’s planning framework. Councils are left with a stark choice: rewrite their local plans at speed or have them overridden by the system. In East Hampshire, the annual requirement has jumped from around 570 homes a year to well over 1,100. In Waverley, it has risen from over 700 to nearly 1,500 homes a year. That is not gentle growth; it is a near doubling of development in a predominantly rural or semi-rural area. The consequences are entirely predictable. Schools are already full. GP practices are struggling to recruit. Hospitals are under strain. Roads designed for villages and market towns are now expected to function like urban arteries. Yet the infrastructure is simply not there. We are being asked to build the homes first and hope that the roads, schools and GP surgeries turn up later. What makes matters worse is the sheer imbalance in where this pressure is being applied, as has already been mentioned in this debate. In London, housing targets have been significantly reduced, in some cases by around half, despite London facing the greatest housing demand in the country. Cities are best placed to absorb growth—higher density, established public transport, major hospitals and universities, and the ability to scale infrastructure alongside development. By contrast, market towns and rural districts are being told to carry a disproportionate burden. That does not fix the problem; it just shifts it on to communities that are least able to cope. Take East Hampshire. Around 57% of the district lies within the South Downs national park, which means the remaining land outside the park is absorbing an ever-greater concentration of development. Places like Liphook in my constituency are being stretched to breaking point, and even towns that are ripe for development, such as Whitehill and Bordon, are under pressure because housing development is accelerating faster than services can keep up. Protected countryside on one side, relentless development on the other—that is not planning; it is pressure cooking our communities. If we are serious about meeting housing need, targets must be fair, realistic and aligned with local capacity. Growth should go where infrastructure already exists, not where it is weakest. There is also a serious issue of public confidence. Where councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the Planning Inspectorate almost invariably sides with the developers, regardless of the strength of local objection. In those circumstances, residents rely on their local authority to defend them robustly. I was deeply concerned when a controversial development in Haslemere was approved on appeal, despite well-documented objections and its location within the Surrey hills national landscape. What compounded that concern was the response of the Liberal Democrat leadership of Waverley borough council, which wrote to residents telling them to “move on” before all reasonable avenues to challenge the decision had been explored. That is simply unacceptable. When residents are fighting for their community, “move on” is not leadership; it is surrender. Labour’s new targets risk collapsing trust in the planning system, rather than restoring it. Councils that claim to stand up for local people must actually do so when it matters. We will not build the homes we need by riding roughshod over communities, overwhelming infrastructure and eroding faith in our local democracy. We need a planning system that is credible, balanced and rooted in reality—one that builds homes in the right places and at the right pace, with the infrastructure alongside them. If we fail to do that, we will not just fail to meet the housing need, we will leave communities paying the price for decades to come.
The Minister said in her statement that she did not want to look the other way, but in reality this Government are looking the other way when it comes to rural communities. I listened carefully to the answers she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but the fact is that, with the exception of adult social care, rurality has been taken out of formula decisions. Can she come to the Dispatch Box and say how areas such as Buckinghamshire, which I am lucky enough to represent, are going to be properly funded, given our rural nature?
It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction. Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world. One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality. At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs. There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.
The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals. The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely. If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the pathways puberty blockers trial.
I must first declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that we are talking about vulnerable children. The first and most obvious question is: why? Why have this Government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial in a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and the Select Committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it. Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete? Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock clinic, and many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? What assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data, when this is a study to safeguard children? And what of the trial itself? We know that 226 children will go through this trial. Is that a limit or a target? Those children will be randomised to get puberty blockers now or in a year’s time, and all will be analysed at two years. They will still be children. They might be only 11 years old. How can the results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group is not properly randomised, but chosen from the Horizon intensive trial group. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias? The criteria for getting puberty blockers in this trial require just one parent to consent and the clinician to think that it will benefit the child, but on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass review said that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria would recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be, so does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of children in this, his Streeting trial, who will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that the vast majority of the children in this trial are therefore being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications under his leadership?
The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?
The intentions behind the Erasmus scheme are unobjectionable, but £570 million is an awful lot of money, so I am very pleased that there will be a review after 10 months. Will that review include an assessment of the scheme against what happened in the past, which was essentially to provide a benefit for predominantly middle-class humanities university students, and will he ensure that the opportunity costs to further education, which is tasked with upskilling our young people from a different demographic, are adequately taken into account?
Will the Minister give way?
I am grateful to the Minister for arguing for more money for the Royal Air Force, and I very much hope that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are listening. We were told a little over a year ago that we had wiped the slate clean and that the Government would not be coming back to demand more money to fill various non-existent black holes. What has changed over the past several months that means he is now coming back to levy this very large sum of money?
On 6 April last year, my constituent Jason Knight was cleaning the last window of the home of a regular customer in Westbury when he was electrocuted by 33,000 V from an overhead cable. He was blown 7 feet across the garden, waking up on a patch of scorched grass with catastrophic injuries. Found by his customer, he was airlifted to hospital in Bristol in 12 minutes and placed in a coma. He woke up surrounded by his distraught family. He was very lucky to survive. Jason was left with life-changing injuries. He has lost his left arm below the elbow, several toes, and a great deal of leg musculature. He has undergone over 20 sets of surgical intervention, suffered severe burns all over his body, and can walk or stand only with the utmost difficulty. Now he is losing his sight as a delayed effect of the electrocution. He is just 34 years old with three small children. He had started his own business that was growing and he was providing for his young family. He is a real doer, but his injuries are such that it is going to be extremely difficult for him to work again. What happened was this: 33,000 V leapt, without physical contact, about 2 metres from an overhead power cable to Jason’s telescopic water-fed cleaning pole. The Health and Safety Executive made inquiries, of course, but concluded there was no breach of regulations that warranted investigation. Indeed, an HSE spokesperson told the BBC that the overhead powerlines involved in this incident met national safety standards. In the UK, we tolerate high tension power cables that are slung surprisingly close to commercial and residential buildings. However, it was not the overhead powerlines that failed Jason; it was the cleaning pole. As Jason said to his father, John, shortly before he was taken to theatre to have his forearm amputated, “I don’t understand, Dad—I bought an insulated pole.” It should not have mattered that he was close to a power line, because the pole should have been fully insulated, but it was not. Jason was using a telescopic pole that could extend and retract. The handle section at the bottom was insulated, but the extended section was not. He was electrocuted when he reached up to retract the extended section. I have to say that before Jason came to see me, I knew very little about window cleaning. As he and John recounted the story, I assumed that it was the water from the water-fed pole that was the culprit, since tap water, being impure, conducts electricity perfectly well. Jason and his dad put me right: window cleaners, including Jason that day, use pure water, or what is often called “zero water.” This kind of water has been filtered to remove all or nearly all dissolved solids, so that it leaves no watermarks on windows after cleaning. Ordinary tap water does not have that property. At that moment, I realised why my own attempts at window cleaning at home invariably left the glass looking worse. The crucial point is this: pure water is non-conductive, so the water in Jason’s pole was not the culprit. What caused this accident was inadequate insulation in a tool designed to be used at height, even in proximity to overhead power lines. This is not a new, unforeseeable risk. The first water-fed poles, developed in the United States in the 1950s, were made entirely of aluminium. When window cleaners started to be electrocuted, the manufacturers simply slapped on some warning labels. At that time, the greatest hazard to window cleaners in Britain was falling off ladders, but when pole technology crossed the pond in the 1990s, its safety issues came with it. One British manufacturer, Craig Mawlam, head of Ionic Systems in Swindon—whose expertise I have drawn on extensively—recognised that danger early. He sought out non-conductive materials, developing composite glass-fibre and carbon-fibre poles. He prioritised insulation in the handle, and worked with the Health and Safety Executive to introduce training and guidance as the industry moved away from ladders and towards working from terra firma. Critically, however, this was voluntary, not required. There was, and remains, no mandatory British standard governing the electrical insulation of telescopic cleaning poles.
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. Occupations that are not predictable are particularly dangerous. Agriculture is clearly one, as is construction, and window cleaning is plainly another. The window cleaning industry, as its association will say, is a particular issue, because many in the industry are essentially start-ups. They are often one-man bands—they are usually men—and they do not necessarily undergo training. They are probably not aware of the need for it. That is why it is so important to make the changes that I am suggesting we make, and to engineer out the problem so that people are not exposed to the hazards that I have mentioned and to which, sadly, Jason has fallen victim. The omission of any recognition of the issue in British standards matters now more than ever, because the poles that I have described are no longer specialist equipment; they are used everywhere. They are used on residential streets beneath overhead cables; they are used near rail infrastructure; they are used in airports, hospitals, schools and industrial sites. They are used not just for window cleaning but, increasingly, for solar panel cleaning, gutter clearing, roof treatment, camera inspections, and building maintenance. They are available online relatively inexpensively, and they are available for use by amateurs and DIY-ers. Moreover, they are increasingly imported cheaply from overseas, especially from China, meeting no enforceable UK electrical safety standards at all. In 2011, a British standard was published that could have changed everything: BS 8020. This standard governs insulating hand tools used near live electrical conductors up to 1,000 V. It requires rigorous construction standards. It requires batch testing at 10,000 V, providing a 10:1 safety margin. It mandates clear marking and verification. As an example, it covers narrow bladed shovels that might be used close to where underground cables could be—they are the ones sold at builders’ merchants or DIY shops, typically with a yellow or orange plastic section in the shaft or handle. Some pole manufacturers chose to apply BS 8020 to the handle section of their poles. Since 2017, at least one UK supplier has done so as a matter of course: Ionic Systems in Swindon, Wiltshire. But here lies the problem: BS 8020 is not mandatory for cleaning poles, and it does not require insulation of the section immediately above the handle. That is why Jason Knight was injured. The UK remained free of fatal water-fed pole electrocutions until 2022. In that single year, two window cleaners were killed while working at residential properties. In 2024, Jason was very lucky to survive. Window cleaners now account for a significant proportion of overhead powerline electrocutions, yet unlike in agriculture, construction or scaffolding, there is no targeted awareness campaign, no mandatory training requirement and no enforced equipment standards for this trade. That is why I have brought this matter to the House. The Federation of Window Cleaners, the Health and Safety Executive, the British Standards Institute and representatives of the energy networks have begun discussions on what to do. Some suppliers have engaged constructively, but others have refused entirely. The manufacturer of the pole that Jason was using when he was electrocuted claims that its products are “tested to 5,000 V”, without reference to any recognised standard. That figure is arbitrary; it is meaningless without methodology, certification, or context. A pole tested informally to 5,000 V may be vastly less safe than one certified to British standard 8020 to 1,000 V but good for 10,000 V with a 10:1 safety margin, yet the higher number sounds more reassuring to a sole trader or DIY-er choosing equipment online. That is exactly why British standards exist, and why we need one for telescopic water-fed poles. This debate is not about banning water-fed poles. They have made the industry safer, because they have reduced the need to use ladders and to work at height. Nor is it about blaming workers, many of whom are sole traders operating on tight margins, without access to formal training or industry bodies. This debate is about designing danger out of tools in the first place, not just warning people to be careful while continuing to sell sub-optimal equipment. The remedy is simple, proportionate, cheap and immediately available. First, British standard 8020 should be amended or extended to cover telescopic cleaning poles explicitly, and to require that both the handle and the first telescopic section above it meet the insulation standard and are marked accordingly. That single change would ensure that an operator’s hands remain on verifiably insulated material throughout normal raising, lowering and operation of the pole. It would create a safe clearance of 3 metres to 4 metres in most real-world situations. Secondly, compliance with the standard should be mandatory, whether through regulation, conditions attached to limited liability insurance, or the procurement requirements imposed by major building occupiers. It is worth admitting that products would become about 70 grams heavier and slightly less rigid, but that is completely tolerable. On the flip side, glass-fibre insulation is cheaper than the carbon fibre it would replace. I am pleased to say that the British Standards Institution, after a bit of encouragement, has seen the merit of the case. Its director general, Scott Steedman, kindly wrote to me earlier this month to say that he is working up proposals that will determine if there will be an amendment to the relevant British standards, drawing from the guidance published by the British Window Cleaning Academy. However, I remain concerned that the right British standard is amended. BS 8020 is an equipment-based British standard. It appears to me to be the more appropriate target, rather than the BSI’s current suggestion, which is BS 8213, a British standard which deals largely with safe systems of work. It could be that both standards need to be amended. Nevertheless, Mr Steedman’s news is most welcome, as is his assurance that a draft of the proposed changes will be published for public consultation in accordance with the BSI’s normal practice. Britain has led the world in industrial safety by setting clear, enforceable standards. Given British manufacturers’ global exports, a UK standard in this could well become an international benchmark, saving lives, limbs and livelihoods across the world. Jason Knight, his father John and Craig Mawlam are not campaigners by choice. They have become campaigners because they do not want what happened to Jason to happen to others, and I pay tribute to them today. We cannot accept a system in which warning labels are seen as a substitute for a simple engineering solution that removes risk at source. I feel sure that the Minister will agree with all this, and I hope he will use his good offices to encourage the BSI and the HSE to bring forward the changes I have outlined as quickly as possible.
It is no surprise that the Government sought to sneak this consultation out with the minimum level of attention, proposed, as it was, for simply a written ministerial statement at the last possible second. We can all see that poverty is rising, driven by a shrinking economy and rising unemployment, combined with inflation running at 3.6% and higher energy bills. Rising business rates are crippling our businesses, and local communities everywhere are feeling the pressure created by this Government’s choices. How does the settlement help our councils to deal with all that? First, it assumes that working people—all people—will pay higher taxes everywhere. We should not misunderstand the Minister’s words on core spending power. The settlement enshrines an assumption that taxes will rise to the maximum possible extent everywhere, with fees and charges for parking, libraries and everything else following the same trajectory. Even if the inflation target of 2% is reached—which seems unlikely given that it is currently at 3.6%—the increase represents a 1% uplift for local government during the whole life of this Parliament, and that sector was left £1.5 billion worse off by the rise in national insurance contributions alone. Resources at a local level are going backwards. This is a settlement that punishes efficiency, with those councils that deliver the best value for money being raided to bail out the more spendthrift—and I am sure we can guess which parties tend to run those councils. It is a settlement that introduces new, higher taxes on hospitality—voted for by every party in this Chamber besides the Conservatives—bearing down on investment and opportunity. It brings in a homes tax on more expensive homes—money that goes to the Treasury, not councils. In the Red Book, that is estimated to cost the Government a net £335 million due to the damage it does to the housing market. Only this hapless Labour Government could bring in new taxes that actually cost the Treasury money—and here they go again. This settlement repeats the fallacy that poverty is the only driver of council costs. The average English local authority delivers more than 800 different services. Our rural coastal areas, and anywhere else with lots of retirees, face the high costs of adult social care but do not necessarily score highly on indices of deprivation, despite the costs being driven by statutory duties. The undertaker Prime Minister is ushering many councils towards their financial doom. As this Government hammer Wychavon and Stratford-on-Avon, they are also hammering Ashfield, Dartford, Burnley, Cambridge, Hyndburn, Lichfield and Bolsover, which are among the places worst hit by this financial settlement. The Government’s detachment from the consequences of their actions is striking, and all while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor dodge the new high-value council tax in their grace and favour accommodation. All this is behind the smoke and mirrors that disguise from our local authorities the financial impact. They have been required to carry out their public budget consultations without having had sight of the impact of this settlement. Let me conclude with some straightforward questions. Will the Minister tell the House when our locally elected brethren will learn the net impact of this settlement on their council tax budgets? When will we debate the impact of the Government’s cuts to SEND capital funding? When will the House have the opportunity to scrutinise their decision to impose exceptional financial support or higher council tax rises to bail out the consequences of their decisions? When will they provide clarity on the impact of their SEND proposals on council budgets? How will the Government use the budgets allocated to the new devolution areas and now snatched back to mitigate the impact of their decisions? Will the Minister admit to the House that this is a tax-raising, job-destroying, housing-hobbling, rate-raising, service-slashing, community-crippling, election-cancelling settlement that fails even on its intended purpose of shunting resources to politically favoured areas?
On Sunday at Arlington cemetery, I will have the honour of joining the families and friends of many of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988—the worst terrorist atrocity in the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, especially after all these years, those families and friends deserve both truth and justice, and will the United Kingdom Government continue to do all they can to bring about that outcome?
It would be wrong not to commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on this announcement as he has always been such a strong advocate for jobs at Grangemouth. Indeed, owing to his willingness to speak out against his Government, he lost the Labour Whip. I noted from the photographs issued around today’s launch that workers at Grangemouth did not seem overly happy to see the Chancellor. Perhaps that was because they know that her policies, which continue to attack the oil and gas industry—particularly through the windfall tax—are leading to the undermining of the oil and gas industry across Scotland.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the cumulative impacts of housing development. It is good to see you presiding once again, Mr Twigg. Let me start with the obvious statement that in this country, and in all of our localities, we need more housing. There has been population growth, and in our constituencies we want there to be customers for shops and people to work in them, and places for people growing up locally to be able to move into. We also recognise that people move, which is important for labour mobility. Part of the population growth is about net immigration, but a big part is about increasing longevity—people living longer—and part of the need for more housing is the tendency of people to live in smaller households. Overall, the record of housing delivery for both Labour and Conservative Governments has had its ups and downs. Both Labour and Conservative Governments suffered from major disruptions—in the case of Labour, the crash of 2007-08, and in the case of the Conservatives, covid-19. However, the peak of the modern era in net additions to housing was the 249,000 achieved just before covid under a Conservative Government, against the peak of 224,000 under Labour just before the crash. The target the new Government have in place is one that has not been achieved since the 1970s, and they are falling far short right now. The provisional number for 2024-25 is 209,000, which is a 6% fall on the previous year of 2023-24. There are aspects of what the Minister outlined in his announcement yesterday that could help to address the shortfall, but I believe that it is inconsistent with the way that the formula currently skews development towards rural areas. What do I mean by that skew and how does it come about? Overall, the Government require a 50% uplift in housing numbers, but in the 58 mainly or largely rural local authorities, the average increase was 70%. In East Hampshire, which I represent, the target doubled, from 575 a year to 1,100. Meanwhile, urban and major conurbations saw a much lower increase, at around 16% to 17% on average, and quite a few places saw a fall, including much of London and Birmingham. To be clear, that is not correcting a historical imbalance. Looking back over 20 years, the proportionate addition of dwellings per 1,000 households has been greater in predominantly rural areas than in predominantly urban ones. We also know from analysis by the Resolution Foundation that tilting development towards cities is good for economic growth. Why is it a problem to have a skew towards rural areas? First, let us acknowledge that when we talk about rural land, this is not land that is typically sitting there doing nothing. It is not idle; often, it is farmland. Of course, these days we are more acutely conscious than ever of the necessity for food security. It is also the home for nature, and important to biodiversity. The countryside is an amenity for everyone, whether they live in the countryside or in a town. We will be back in Westminster Hall tomorrow to debate the legacy and significance of Jane Austen. The countryside of the constituency that I represent is what inspired Jane to write her great novels, and it still brings many people to the area. Yes, there are protected areas of countryside, but it is not only about areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks—the majority of rural areas are not in one—nor is it about the green belt. In East Hampshire there is a lot of green, but there is no green belt. We have a further complication, in that the district of East Hampshire is shared in Parliament between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). The South Downs national park represents 26% or 27% of pre-existing housing and population in the district, but represents only 15% of housing completions in East Hampshire since it came into being. That creates extra pressure just outside the national park, in places such as Alton Holybourne, Four Marks and Medstead, which I will come back to, and in Horndean, Clanfield and parts of Rowlands Castle. The Minister and I have had an opportunity to discuss this issue previously and I am grateful to him for his constructive engagement with it. I think that East Hampshire district council is right to assume that in the future there will be a split in housing development, reflecting where the pre-existing population and housing were. There is a 74% and 26% split. However, the council cannot do that for affordability. Unaffordability is significantly more acute inside the national park than outside it. However, I am not here today to talk about the national park primarily, because the bigger problem that is driving these issues is the total target. We now also have effects of the duty to co-operate. It is possible that even with that split between 74% and 26%, the part of East Hampshire that is outside the national park might still get asked by the part that is inside the national park to take on more of its burden, and it is obliged to engage in those discussions constructively. However, we also now have other nearby authorities asking East Hampshire, and by the way a couple of other more rural authorities, to take on more of their housing numbers. So, we have this crazy situation whereby, with all the targets having gone up, people are looking to a district such as the one I represent to take more of their housing. But I should also say that none of those authorities have had an increase in their housing target as large as the one that East Hampshire has had. We also have looming over us the effect of local government reorganisation. I think that some people see local government reorganisation—the merging of districts and boroughs into larger unitary authorities—as an opportunity and a way to address some of these problems. I fear that that might be a false hope. In fact, the creation of these large authorities might deepen or even embed some of these issues, with more housing being moved into countryside that will then be lost forever. I will briefly give a case study of one area; it is not the only area where this situation applies, but it is a particularly striking example. It is Four Marks and Medstead. There is a grouping called Four Marks and South Medstead—it is called that in the planning document—and it is in tier three in the settlement hierarchy. It has already had a great deal of housing development. In the 2014 local plan, Four Marks and South Medstead had 2,030 houses and the target in the plan for the period to 2028 was 175 houses. The total number of new houses that have been built since 2014 is in fact 592, which is three times the original target. However, with further permissions and applications, there could be a great deal more houses. Indeed, there could be up to eight times the target and a two-thirds increase in the size of the settlement, and we even hear of further applications on top of all that. What are the effects of that extra development? It takes a lot for a single housing development to change a local environment, but cumulatively a number of smaller developments can change the whole character of an area, which is at odds with paragraph 187 of the NPPF. And this is not just about character and landscape. It is also about practical matters, such as the A31 and being able to turn right on to it, or the capacity of the waste water treatment plant and the electricity substation at Alton. I have talked about Four Marks and South Medstead. In the other part of the parish of Medstead, Medstead village itself and its surroundings are in tier four in the settlement hierarchy. There was no specific target for it in the plan, because Medstead village was put together with other villages. However, I have seen speculative applications for a number of sites in that area, particularly in the new land availability assessment. So why is cumulative impact not being considered in all these developments and proposals? The main time that cumulative development is taken into account is, of course, at the time of plan-making. With speculative developments, when the cumulative effect is not considered, there is a risk that the developments do not meet the economic, social and environmental objectives set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF. The East Hampshire district local plan was adopted in 2014 for the period up to 2028, and the update process started in 2018. There have been some delays, including most notably as a result of covid. The key point is that under the old, pre-2024 housing targets, East Hampshire had a five-year housing land supply and the 5% buffer. We then got a rapid doubling of the housing targets. There is now no five-year housing land supply—there is a 2.9-year housing land supply. Given that we have doubled it, the only way we could still have a five-year land supply is if we had previously had a 10-year land supply, and I doubt that many local authorities can say that. That is why, although I am talking about East Hampshire, other colleagues may mention other areas; East Hampshire is clearly not alone. Since the big increases in a number of the targets for different areas, I understand that most councils do not have both an up-to-date local plan and the five-year housing land supply. Speculative development is therefore probably happening in lots of places around the country, but it is especially concentrated in our rural areas, because they have had the biggest increases in targets. East Hampshire is currently developing its new local plan. It expects to reach regulation 19 stage in the summer of 2026 and for the plan to be operational in August the following year. Until the local plan is finalised, the tilted balance principle means that the council is required to approve sites unless they can be said to be not sustainable development—a high bar indeed. Each application can be considered only on its own merits and in relation to its individual impact on traffic, sewerage and the rest of it. The council cannot consider the cumulative effect of, say, five smaller developments that might together be the equivalent of one big one. It cannot say, “Because we have already allowed these four, we are not going to allow the fifth.” While I have the floor, I want to mention something that I have mentioned in passing to the Minister before: that the way the formula works does not encourage a change in the housing mix towards more actually affordable homes. To be clear, in areas like mine, we want more affordable homes. When I say “affordable”, I mean it in both senses of the word. What I call “capital-A Affordable” is the sense known to the public sector: social rent and part ownership. There is also “affordable” in the common English sense of the word—the affordability of housing as it is often expressed to us by our constituents in our surgeries, which is to say homes that young families can afford. Although not everybody does, most aspire to home ownership; I would wager that most hon. Members in the Grand Committee Room today had that aspiration to become home owners and did so.
I know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency quite well—he is my mother-in-law’s MP. I know what a fantastic and beautiful area it is, as well as some of the challenges with the local economy. He makes a very good point.
Of course, I agree. It is sometimes frustrating to talk to people who say there is no link between aggregate supply and the price of housing. Of course there is, but there is also the question of the mix, which is what I want to come to. Other things being equal, the best returns for developers tend to be on larger, costlier homes, and new builds are generally more expensive than the existing stock of housing. In East Hampshire, the median price of the current housing stock is an expensive £430,000, but the median price of new houses is £530,000. With development and the increase in stock at a local level, median house prices therefore go up. The formula then calls for more of the same because of how it measures and treats affordability, so it becomes a cycle in which we still do not get the lower-cost homes we need. It could even be said that developers have an incentive to keep the unaffordability ratio increasing, because that extends the pipeline further into the future. I ask Ministers to look again to create incentives for quality, lower-priced housing. I have three straightforward, reasonable asks of the Minister. The first and most important is, of course, to rebalance the formula away from rural—not so there is no rural, but so the balance is right and we do not have targets that mean an unrealistic amount is put into the countryside. It is about having that balance, which requires changing the formula. I asked that of the Minister yesterday, and he was good enough to give me a pithy and clear single-word answer, which was no. I get that, unless and until it changes, the policy is what the policy is, so the answer is no. However, I ask him to reflect further and think about it, not to conflict with Government policy but to complement and support Government policy. A change in the formula—moving back towards the urban, from the rural—would actually support what he is trying to do, including the spirit of what he outlined in yesterday’s statement. My second ask is to change the way the formula works on affordability, to remove the perverse affordability factor I mentioned. Affordability looms large in the overall formula, as it has had its weighting increased, but this is specifically about removing the perverse effect I just mentioned, whereby building more actually makes an area more unaffordable in the eyes of the formula, which therefore increases the target. I think the Minister will say that local authorities can do that in their plan making, but we need it to be systematised to find a way to require a change in the mix of housing so that we get homes that are more in reach of people growing up in rural areas. Finally, in the meantime, as the targets have increased so much and so quickly—the five-year housing land supply in many areas could not possibly have increased nearly so quickly—we have a lot of speculative development. Therefore, pending the change in the formula, will the Minister give guidance stating that local authorities should consider the cumulative impact of all developments together?
The Minister is very good to give way; I thank him. To be clear, when I was talking about the mix, I was not talking solely or even mainly about the tenure mix, but about the price points and the way that the formula works—he gets the point.
I will write to the Minister in more detail—but if, in adding to the stock, we raise the median house price, that has an adverse effect on affordability. We get this ironic situation where the more we build, the less affordable it looks.
I thank the Minister for his considered remarks and for his constructive approach to date—the cumulative effect, one might say, of the Minister’s approach. However, I hope that after today he will think further. The Government should issue guidance to local authorities to the effect that, at least in circumstances where they face huge increases in their housing targets in short order, and it is not viable or realistic to suddenly have a five-year land supply available, they should be able to consider the cumulative impact of speculative developments that come along. The Government should also change the way the target itself is set, so that we get the affordable homes we need, but with the totals rebalanced among local authorities—back towards urban areas and away somewhat from rural ones—so that we end up with reasonable and realistic targets for East Hampshire and areas like it. That would be entirely consistent with—indeed supportive of—what the Government are trying to do on overall housing supply, but it would be a sustainable way of providing the services and infrastructure that people need, fostering community, promoting economic growth, and maintaining the public amenity and productive capacity of our countryside. I conclude, as others have, in the spirit of the season by wishing you, Mr Twigg, all colleagues from across the House, and House staff a very happy Christmas. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the cumulative impacts of housing development.
Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Membership organisations play a central role in protecting and enhancing the things that we consider important to our national character. The great British countryside is maintained and safeguarded for future generations by conservation charities such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust. The most iconic landscapes, sold around the world as the backdrop of British soft power—reminding visitors of the iconic settings for Jane Austen, Dickens and Harry Potter, as well as the paintings of Constable and Turner—are kept open to the public by membership charities such as the Youth Hostels Association and the Canal and River Trust. Speaking of Turner and Constable, membership charities are the stewards of our country’s heritage. They look after the artefacts, artworks and architecture that make us proud to be British. Between them, charities such as the National Gallery, Tate, the National Trust and English Heritage have millions of members. If I were to ask everyone in this room and in this building whether they have ever been a member of one of these charities, I would be surprised if anyone could say truthfully that they had not. The National Trust, for example, has nearly 6 million members. English Heritage and the RSPB have 1.2 million each. Those are numbers that political parties can only dream of.
The hon. Gentleman has done beautifully to put that on the record. He is absolutely right that these incredible membership charities preserve our national heritage. If we were to ask people why they support such charities, I expect they would not say that they do so just to get access to some of the venues and the fantastic historic treasures they promote. They would probably say that they value the mission of those charities, whether conserving the countryside, protecting our heritage or serving the vulnerable. They want to support those missions; they are members because they value what those organisations do. In doing those things, the charities provide significant benefits to the Government. All told, the voluntary sector delivers £14 billion of public services to the Government and directly contributes £70 billion to the UK economy. Much of that is delivered by membership organisations. All that is without mentioning the indirect benefits that many membership-based charities provide: for example the health benefits to the public of maintaining hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, the demonstrable mental health impact of engaging with arts and culture, and all the educational enrichment they offer. But all that is under threat. Charities are under more strain than ever. It is a question of time and money. Telegraph readers were recently outraged that the National Trust, in order to save on costs, is replacing homemade scones—however one prefers to pronounce them—at some of its properties, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, or the jam on top of the cream, depending on which way one prefers one’s scones. Billions of pounds of additional financial pressure has been put on charities at a time when the demand for their services is rising and income streams are drying up. The biggest impact, as we know, is through national insurance contribution changes, which have collectively added £1.4 billion to the charity sector’s bills, but our art institutions are set to see huge rises to their business rates as well, and many heritage organisations have seen the cost of maintenance far outstrip inflation. Meanwhile, so many are seeing demand for their services skyrocketing. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for example, tells me that rescues are operating at 120% of their capacity, and Cats Protection says that, in the last three years, it has seen a 71% increase in the number of cats being abandoned. The wider trend is clear. Around 83% of charities recorded an increase in demand for their services over the last 12 months, but even those pressures might be bearable were it not for the fact that the stability of the funding model itself is being called into question. Fewer people are donating to charity, and while the average donation is increasing, this highlights the narrowing of the base from which membership charities can secure funds. Those donations are not coming from the places one might expect, such as the wealthy London constituencies of Kensington and Bayswater, Chelsea and Fulham or Holborn and St Pancras, all of which form the three least generous constituencies as a percentage of their income in the UK. In real terms, the amount donated by British businesses has declined as well, with the number of FTSE 100 companies donating more than 1% of their profits falling by 14%. Money is not the only thing that charities rely on; they rely on people donating their time. However, long-term trends in hours spent volunteering are in decline as well—from 45% in 2013-14 to 28% in 2024-25. People put that down to a whole range of things, such as the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in volunteering and the cost of living pressures that people are under. I will not attempt to understate it: this is a full-blown crisis in the charity sector. It is no wonder a majority of charity leaders say they would not be confident that they would be able to cope if they saw a decline in their income streams. However, and I know the Minister is aware of this, a decline in their income streams is exactly what we will discuss today, and it is why I asked for this debate. Membership charities at the moment are able to claim gift aid on memberships that are currently deemed donations by the Government. That settlement is a direct expression of the way that charity members regard their relationship with charities. It is one of the supports that people can give to the aims and the work of the fantastic charities, many of which I have already discussed. They are not private services; their work supports the public good and, in many cases, saves a lot of money for the Government. I know that the Government see it that way too and the Minister will tell me how much he values the work of membership charities and how much store the Government put into that value, but the truth is that the Government have been very slow to tweak well-meaning and necessary consumer protection legislation despite the imminent impact of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 on membership charities’ cashflows. Fundamentally, the Act alters the way that membership charities process memberships and the benefits of them, leading to a potentially huge loss in revenues at a time when charities’ finances are already overstretched. The provisions of the Act move us away from a place where we view a charity membership as an expression of support. If, for the purposes of the DMCCA, refundable memberships are no longer considered to be donations due to the Government insisting on applying a 14-day cooling off period, the result is that gift aid can no longer be claimed. Let me provide a bit of perspective on that: national insurance contributions added more than £10 million to the National Trust’s wage bill. That has been devastating. Gift aid is worth five times that for the National Trust. The story is the same for English Heritage, on which I must declare an interest as I am a member. While it has seen a £1.7 million cost increase due to national insurance contributions, the impact of losing gift aid on their memberships would be more than five times that—valued at around £10 million. I am no fortune teller, but I have an idea of what the Minister might say. She might say the Government have issued guidance that means membership charities will continue to be able to claim gift aid. But the fact is, as things currently stand, that is not what the law says, and that is creating confusion not just for the big players but for the small ones as well, because charity practice is currently at odds with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and at odds with consumer law. Due to the widespread confusion of three very conflicting pieces of legislation, the Chartered Institute of Fundraising has written to the Department for Business and Trade. I know that is not the Minister’s Department, but I hope that she will convey this message. The institute has written to the Department offering to draft legal advice for small charities so that the Government can just sign it off, but it has had no response to that letter. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to chase that up, please, because small charities are very worried? Perhaps the lack of response is because there is no clarity about who is affected. The CIF has told me that even it does not know the exact number of membership charities that could fall foul of the change. What is concerning is that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believes that only primary legislation can really sort out the legal contradiction between current consumer law, charity practice and the provisions of the DMCCA. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but I expect she might tell me that the Government have committed to passing legislation about this in the future. However, we know that the wheels of Government can move quite slowly, so when she says that, she probably means establishing certainty for charities by 2027 at the earliest, but it needs to be sooner than that. So, working with colleagues across Government, can the Minister find a suitable legislative vehicle to provide the certainty that the Government say they want? I am not asking her to do anything the Government have not already articulated a need for. And that has to start with reconvening the roundtable of membership charities that was cancelled due to the reshuffle. I would welcome that being reconvened, and I know the sector would, too. Will the Minister commit to that today? Membership charities have told me that the best possible solution lies in classifying charitable memberships as excluded contracts in secondary legislation. In recognition of their unique nature, their charitable membership should be placed in that category. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that today if she can. It is not unprecedented. Streaming subscription services, for example, have been given waivers from the 14-day cooling-off period. Membership charities should at least be able to expect the same support as users of streaming subscription services. I will give an example of how this could work perversely for membership charities. Why should someone buy membership of something like the National Gallery? It has sell-out exhibitions such as the very popular Van Gogh exhibition. We could potentially buy ourselves membership, skip the queue, be able to get into sell-out exhibitions, receive a discount for the ticket while we are at it, and then cancel the membership once we have seen the exhibition and received an almost total refund. The same could be said of the National Trust or English Heritage sites. As things stand, I could purchase membership, visit half a dozen sites for free over a week’s holiday, and then cancel my membership for almost a total refund. English Heritage told me that its membership works out at around 22p a day. Is that the rate at which the membership charity should reimburse a departing member? Will the Minister say on what basis she wants charities to offer proportionate refunds in such instances? If not, maybe she could commit to giving membership charities the freedom to calculate themselves what a proportional refund might look like. The National Trust believes, for example, that based on current guidance alone, every 1% of its membership that takes advantage of the loophole will lose it £3 million. Even if a tiny number of its members takes advantage of the new loophole in the law, that is a huge and significant impact on its finances, and that means less money spent on its core mission, which is to conserve our heritage. We expect our charities to do so much. They provide so much for our nation and they do it really well. But membership charities need a vote of support from the Government now. They need this albatross removed from around their necks. And in light of the billions of pounds of tax rises that charities have already seen, there is an incentive for the Government to provide legal clarity. I hope that that is what the Minister will be able to provide in her remarks today.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to her for advocating on my behalf, and on behalf of membership charities, with the Department for Business and Trade on the issue, which we have been wrestling with today, of trying to get clarity about the roundtable and the response to the letter. The Minister talked about the Government carefully considering, but what the sector needs is action. It needs certainty and clarity, and it needs them fast. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will start impacting them next year, and they cannot wait till 2027 for this to be solved. They are facing a perfect storm: the real unintended consequences of the national insurance rises, which are impacting charities and the amazing work they do, and now the impact of the Act. The Government say that they care deeply about this issue, but they need to follow up those words with action. I am grateful to the Minister for helping to try to deliver that action. When she advocates for us with DBT, she needs to be in the room. The silos of Government and things falling between the stools are one of the biggest issues in trying to resolve these issues for charities, which our constituents and our country depend on. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations.
I remind Members that the knife will fall at 7 o’clock.
Order. I will make exactly the same point I made yesterday. Yesterday’s debate was about the Finance Bill, and this debate is on the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. It is not on the two-child cap or on spending commitments.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.