5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Mr Gregory Campbell will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, for the first time. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. Hon. Members will know that I am not the usual face to respond to a debate that sits with the transport team, but colleagues are busy discussing sustainable aviation fuel this afternoon, so I stepped into the breach. It has been an informative debate and I highlight the contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). The line that we are debating passes through my constituency. Hatch End station, although not served by high-speed trains, provides an opportunity for my constituents to see them go past and wish that they had access. I am familiar with the line, having travelled on it a great deal in my working life before Parliament. Hon. Members, sharing the pain that we have all experienced when stuck on a long-distance railway journey, set out a number of important and detailed points. I am sure that Ministers will consider those as they look for improvements while addressing the points made powerfully by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including how to ensure a high degree of integration between the line and the important population centres, economic development centres and other transport nodes that lie along the route. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) were here, I am sure he would highlight that the west coast main line is also an opportunity for those wishing to travel in the direction of Northern Ireland, and Strangford in particular, because of connections to lines across north Wales and over to Anglesey. Indeed, as an MP whose constituency not only includes that line but the HS2 line, I empathise with the points about why we did not start HS2 in the north and build it down in the direction of the south. That is a sentiment that my constituents would wholeheartedly agree with, because they are very much of the view that rail connectivity is about benefiting the whole country. Improving and investing in connectivity, including in the north and the midlands, is therefore vital, not only for improving standards of living and quality of life in those places but for taking some of the development pressure off London and the south. I will address a couple of points that were highlighted. It is striking to me, as a spokesman for the Opposition, that there is a high degree of consensus about the issues that exist around the west coast main line and about their possible solutions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made specific references to stations in her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury talked about her constituents’ need to access the west coast main line and all the routes it leads to via effective and affordable local public transport. Under the previous Government and now under the new Government, the concept of Great British Railways has been a key part of the strategy to begin to create a sense of coherence and integration and to make sure that the connectivity highlighted by a number of hon. Members is delivered in practice. Many hon. Members have spoken about the growth in rail demand. We know that our country’s population is increasing. The levelling-up agenda started under the previous Government, but it has been committed to— perhaps more in spirit than in word—by the new Government. There is also demand for increased rail freight capacity, which has been spoken about in the context of the work being done on the west coast main line. Having travelled on the line just last week to go to the Local Government Association’s conference in Liverpool, I know that, in striking comparison with some other rail lines, it is very visible infrastructure and it makes a considerable contribution to removing freight traffic, in particular heavy lorries, from the already busy motorway network. As I say, there seems to be a high degree of consensus about the investment required for stations, the public benefits that would be delivered through that investment, and the role that such investment would play in the economic development and opportunities that people across and adjacent to the west coast main line route can expect to benefit from. As an outer-London Member of Parliament, I am very conscious of how good-quality and reliable commuter routes are valued and the economic contribution they make, and therefore the extent to which the absence of such routes in parts of our suburbs acts as a drag on opportunity. That is not purely confined to the north of England or the midlands; it is an issue that affects all of us. We need to make sure that is properly considered as the Government look at the rail system and transport in the round. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those who served as Transport Ministers in previous Governments—would want me to draw attention to the fact that the sense of priority around the railways is reflected in the numbers. For example, maintenance spending on our railway network has gone up on average 3% every year since 2010. Previous Governments—both the coalition Government and Conservative Governments —therefore recognised that rail maintenance was a high priority. At the end of the last Labour Government, there was £7.4 billion of rail spending. In the last full year for which we have accounts, which was when the last Conservative Government left office, that figure had risen to £26.8 billion. Although there will always be some disagreement about whether the delivery was what it should have been, and about whether the optimal priorities were selected, there is no doubt that all political parties represented in this House have a strong sense that improving and upgrading our rail network is critical, alongside improvements to motorways and local transport, and that we need to see it being delivered. I will close by making two final points. The first is the value of learning—a number of hon. Members referred to the importance of open access—from the improvements that have been delivered in recent years. Not everything has been a success. In particular, we know that the impact of people working from home during the covid years on our rail network, including on the revenue gained from ticket sales and ridership, was absolutely catastrophic. The consequences for the system that we had in place at the time were very significant and we know that the Government acted by nationalising some railway lines to ensure that the travelling public could access what they needed to access. There have also been strengths, however, such as the model on the east coast with Grand Central, which is often referred to positively, including by colleagues who use it to come to Parliament. We need to make sure that we do not simply assume that everything was a disaster and that we recognise those real strengths—not just the priorities for investment, but the things that have improved the quality of the service and that we can learn from and apply in the new model of Great British Railways. The second point is the need to enhance integration. It is clear that the UK is a very politically centralised country, so transport projects tend to be delivered and funded by central Government rather than in a decentralised manner. The devolution White Paper has landed with Parliament, so we will be considering the roles that the Government envisage within that for elected mayors and regional authorities in developing and improving the transport network, but it is striking how many hon. Members in this debate talked about the need for additional scope so that their constituents could benefit from the speed and capacity that exists on the west coast main line, or the need to invest in other forms of local transport, including affordable public transport, to make that process more straightforward. Coming back to HS2, it is striking that a huge quantity of the available investment has been sunk into very large national projects that are slow in materialising their potential benefits and that are creating huge cost overruns. All of the evidence appears to suggest that it is investment in locally-led transport—in the systems that make it possible for those who need to access trunk routes such as the west coast main line to do so—that produce the biggest economic benefit. That is something that many hon. Members have articulated, and I hope the Government will consider that as they look at their overall strategy for the United Kingdom, so that everybody can benefit from the additional investment that has been spoken of today.
To pick up on Mr Greenwood’s point about unintended consequences, at a time of increased international instability, the need to produce things domestically in the coming years has become more and more apparent. Do you think this will impact our traditional ways of producing those fuels that we will probably need in the UK? Paul Greenwood: First, from an energy security point of view, and as Gaynor rightly pointed out, a very significant amount of the road fuels in the UK are imported. They are imported rather than refined here, as it is not economic to refine them here, because of all the cost issues we face in energy, labour and carbon dioxide. That has effectively driven refineries to not invest or expand, and in some places, to go bust. That is the major driver here. If you are prepared to import 70% of your jet fuel now, I do not see why you need to increase local production of SAF. There is a very good reason for doing that—the creation of jobs—but there are unintended consequences in the costs and how you are going to pay for that, which need to be thought through seriously. I do not think this is an energy security issue, given the amount of product that you are importing into the country now. By layering cost on to refiners and fuel suppliers as you are doing now, you actually risk precipitating the decline and demise of the refining sector even more, which will mean importing significantly more fuel across the piece. To my mind, that is a quid pro quo. Gaynor Hartnell: We import about 85% of our road fuels. Lamentably, that figure is going to go up, because existing biofuel and renewable fuel production facilities are falling away. There was a Greenergy announcement last week about the closure of the Immingham plant, and two bioethanol producers are at risk of closure. They are linked into the UK in so many different ways, from CO2 production to the market for grain that does not meet the required grade for milling, so it has to be used as feed wheat instead. We will suffer the consequences of not taking care of our domestic industry. We need production in the UK. It is not just a question of saying, “We can simply buy it from overseas”. As Rob has pointed out, the SAF mandate creates a specific demand for waste-based SAF that is not specifically encouraged by any other mandate around the world, so we need this. If we are not going to make it, we cannot rely on other people making it, and the airlines and fuel suppliers ultimately rely on pulling that into the UK to avoid paying the buy-out for the mandate. Paying the buy-out for the mandate would be a really bad situation for everybody, so we need to safeguard against that happening. You also asked about the waste hierarchy and what could be done to encourage residual municipal solid waste to find its way to the best carbon outcome, rather than being used to produce electricity, which is already going on to a largely decarbonised grid. Adjusting the waste hierarchy to recognise the carbon benefits of this route for residual solid waste would be really helpful. At the moment, local authorities are in a situation where they have a reliable route through just sending it off to an energy from waste project, against prospects of hopefully SAF projects coming down the line in future, if all else goes well, then RCM comes along and they win contracts. There is a lot more risk involved in choosing the SAF route. That has to be specifically encouraged, and the waste hierarchy would be a way of doing that.
Q Following on from the shadow Minister’s questions about scalability and production, Ms Haywood, you talked about the globally distributed nature of this technology sector. With international supply chains becoming more contested and the view that traditional production methods will be scaled down and SAF will be increased, where do you see the biggest blockers to growth and scalability, and how do you balance that against energy security? Sophia Haywood: That is a great question. In terms of the international value chains, as I said before, all eyes are on the UK. For a lot of projects that are developing globally, even if they are being developed in countries significantly further away from here and Europe, we are going to see a lot of opportunity for product to be moved over to the UK, at least until other mandates in other countries are put in place, and then we will start seeing shifts in where this goes. Instead of a blocker, perhaps, I would phrase it more as an opportunity about things that we could maybe do slightly differently. One example that we have just had is a project in Japan that we have done. We had a large amount of funding. It is quite similar to the advanced fuels fund principle, but a lot larger in terms of the quantity of funding that is available, albeit with a smaller number of participants. That has enabled a much larger-scale project in partnership with one of Japan’s largest oil companies to develop a SAF project. This is a transition, and they are going to move at the same pace as one another. As much as we can support investments on existing sites with existing infrastructure, such as both of our projects in Teesside in terms of the regeneration, I think more activities like that could be a great opportunity for the UK. The steps that have been taken so far with Project Willow are a good example of how that could be taken to the next level. The project is looking at opportunities on the site of the former refinery at Grangemouth; maybe this could be a similar example, where you could take it to the next level. However, we will see increasing competition globally. Coming back to the points around planning and electricity connections, anything that could help us to bring investments to the UK, where we have some of the highest energy costs, would be welcome. We saw a commitment in the industrial strategy to reducing electricity costs, which is fantastic. We would welcome greater clarity as to whether SAF can definitely be included in that. I saw that it is an extension to an existing scheme, which is why I am asking that question. These are some of the things that help us to compete better globally.
Q That is a very good answer; I am happy with that, and it is obviously coming from a company’s perspective. In terms of Government engagement, how many conversations have been had with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero around energy security and your production capability? Sophia Haywood: It is not something that we have had great levels of conversation about, particularly when it comes to energy security. It is a really important part of energy security. Coming back to the point about access to locally produced bioethanol, I see it as another great example of something that would be sustainable, affordable and secure, if we are able to take wheat that is produced locally by British farmers, and convert it in local facilities and then at a SAF facility. With all the additional benefits on things such as CO2, that is a great opportunity on energy security, but speaking more broadly it has not been a huge part of the interest in SAF. Noaman Al Adhami: I will focus more on scalability. When it comes to scalability, allowing all the routes to SAF and not focusing on one route will potentially enable SAF production to be scaled up. Green hydrogen will also potentially be there in large quantities with an affordable price, and that will contribute. For example, we could utilise green hydrogen to triple production if it were available, but currently it is not. We are also designing our plant to utilise multiple types of feedstocks. It is mainly solid waste to SAF. I would start with a less challenging feedstock to prove the line-up and then explore much more difficult feedstocks, such as MSW. Even sewage sludge, chicken manure and grease, for example, could be used to co-fire the gasifier, so we think the supply chain will potentially build once it sees a home for their waste. We will start with a safe option for the feedstock, but our objective is to explore all other potential feedstock and increase capacity. We have plans for at least phase 2. Our site in Teesside can accommodate phase 2 and we are already planning for that. Hopefully, once we reach FID, we will announce phase 2 of the project.
Q I think it is fair to say that the international supply chain is becoming more constrained and that there is a more protectionist international global economy. Can you give us a flavour of some of the economic and logistical challenges that you would face, importing SAF into the UK? As a follow on, if there is a requirement around energy security to set up shop in the UK, given the known knowns, would you look for subsidies from the current Government to set up production in the UK? Ruben van Grinsven: I am afraid I cannot fully answer that question because it is not the part of the business that I am in. I am not importing SAF to the UK, so I do not know how trade limitations are currently impacting SAF supply. I would have to ask a colleague and come back to that question. It is also hard to predict what the future is going to bring for global trade and how protectionism will impact the global free trade of all types of fuels. If you produce domestic fuels, that is, of course, going to be helpful if you want energy security. I must say, though, that if you look at the volumes that we are talking about today, the energy security element in the early days is going to be limited because of the volume of the fuels involved.
Q If British money is being spent on British technologies, and if you are leveraging capital to go on those SAF programmes, where is that money coming from? Is the investment attitude right in this country toward green technologies and SAF? Which countries are quite front-footed in their approach to investing in these technologies? Josh Garton: We are most active here in the UK and Europe with sustainable aviation fuel and the investors that are interested. We deal with commercial banks, private equity and other investors, and they are all very enthusiastic about the prospect. Unquestionably, they want to deploy capital into this space, but they will not be throwing out their investment rulebook when it comes to their risk-return profiles and the way that they assess risk. For that reason, we need things like this revenue certainty mechanism in place to provide confidence that investors, when they deploy capital in this space, will get the returns they need to justify their investments, or that lenders providing debt capital into this will get the returns they need within the regulatory frameworks in which they operate.
Q You did your independent report in 2023. Obviously, the world has changed rapidly in the past couple of years. We are seeing global economic change, with tariffs, international supply chains becoming more contested, and increased conflicts and volatility. How have the conclusions that you drew in 2023 changed, and where would you say that delta is? Philip New: I think the key change has been in the United States. When I wrote that report, it was in the context of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The concern was that we might be out-competed by investment in America, and we would end up being a net importer of stuff from America, not just in first-generation SAFs but in second-generation SAFs. They have lower energy costs, which are very important in these sorts of industries, and their build costs are about 20% less than ours. That was a real worry then. Especially coming out of the big, beautiful Bill, America is out of the game. That is kind of a good thing at one level, because it means that, particularly with the way the mandate is designed around second-generation SAFs, we now have a globally unique position. We could therefore become an incubator for a series of technologies that will have to play a significant role in aviation decarbonisation over the next couple of decades. The bad news is that if we fail to get this new industry kick-started, I do not think we can hope to rely on imports from somewhere else to get us out of trouble. It will mean that we will not meet our mandate targets.
Q Just a small follow-up, if I can. You are saying that the biggest change is the US pulling back from innovation and production of SAF. Is that in direct response to what the Chinese are doing? Philip New: No. For most global markets that have started to look at SAF, the preferred mechanism has been to impose some form of mandate—even China has put in place the beginnings of a mandate mechanism. None of them are as ambitious as those in Europe and the UK, but that is the normal mechanism. The reason for that is simply that SAF costs more than aviation fuel. Left to its own devices, an airline in a very competitive industry is unlikely to voluntarily buy more SAF than it needs to buy. If it has big corporate clients that want to offset some of their scope 3 emissions and are willing to pay a premium to have their flights decarbonised, that is fine, but there is a real limit to how big, dependable and investable that market will be. That is where America is right now, and it is because of the structure of the other incentives in the American mechanism. A critical part of that was a change in the big, beautiful Bill, in which the premium given to SAF producers was removed completely. They now get no more money than those making diesel for ground transport use, but it costs more money to make SAF. The airlines do not have an incentive to buy SAF because there is no mandate, and the producers do not have an incentive to make SAF because it costs more to make and they get less credit from the American mechanisms in place to support renewable fuels.
Q Mr Maynard, thank you for being with us. In your role within the aviation policy group, have there been any conversations with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence about the Royal Air Force potentially using SAF and the international logistical challenges of getting SAF into the UK? You raised some concerns earlier on. Geoff Maynard: We have had some discussions around the edges with the RAF, if I can put it like that. They recognise the need that, at some point, they perhaps ought to be using SAF. It is certainly possible for them to do so, albeit not necessarily to the same percentage that you can use it in commercial jets, as I understand it, because the engines have not been designed for it. There are some issues to resolve before they can use it in the way that the commercial sector does. Does that answer your question?
Q It does. Do you see this developing in the private sector far faster than in military environments? Geoff Maynard: Yes, because the use is much greater. There is a lot more SAF to be used in the commercial sector than there is in the military sector.
Q Professor Maslin, thank you for being with us today. You talked powerfully about the international nature of this technology set. If a country or business is not going through a good time, that technology might not come through the supply chain. From a UK perspective, where are the main weaknesses with the international supply chain? As a follow-on, are any hostile states actively trying to weaponise elements of that supply chain? Professor Maslin: The first thing is that we have to work out a way of being self-sufficient in SAFs. If you want the mandate and the Bill to work, we have to have that self-reliance. The problem that is the quality, quantity and supply of SAFs around the world are highly variable. They are not as good as you think they are. We therefore need to be able to protect our own regulations by having a homegrown community. On weaponisation, no, I have not seen any evidence that hostile states are going after SAFs at the moment, because they are a very small percentage of the aviation mix. At the international level, it would be helpful if the Chicago accords could be renegotiated so that you could tax aviation fuel internationally, even if the tax was small—$1 per tonne, or something like that—to shift the balance away from aviation fuel and towards SAFs being more accountable. I doubt that will be possible in these interesting political times, but that is the problem we have. We are able to tax aviation fuel internally but not internationally. Therefore, at the moment, there is no aviation fuel tax on international flights, which would be a really nice mechanism. Of course, you can see that as weaponising against the fossil fuel industry.
It has been a very good debate, and I am very grateful to all hon. Members across the House who have contributed. It is still no clearer to us what the Government think or intend to do about the two-child cap, but it has been very good to hear so many strong voices from the Opposition Benches for and against the two-child limit. Of course, we do not really know what the Prime Minister himself thinks. He campaigned for the Labour leadership on a promise to scrap the two-child limit; then, in order to win the general election, he campaigned to keep it. Now, under pressure from his Back Benchers—once again, I pay tribute to the real powers in the Labour party—he is hinting that he will scrap it after all at a cost of £3.5 billion. Add to that the £4.5 billion the Government have to find because they abandoned their welfare reforms and the £1.3 billion they lost when they U-turned on the winter fuel payment, and the Government will have to find £9.3 billion this autumn.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recitation, much of which was Conservative policy now rebranded by the Labour Government and the rest was further spending commitments. The Government are incapable of cutting spending, so we know where this is headed: tax rises in the autumn. There will also be tax rises on wealth. We know what wealth is: it is the product of economic success. It is what happens when people risk their capital and make things that people want. Wealth means more jobs, higher wages and more tax revenues. It means that we can reduce debt and invest in more businesses. And wealth taxes, which are coming, will mean less of all that. That is the Labour way—circling the drain and then going down to national bankruptcy. That is where a wealth tax and welfare spending lead us to, and the rest of the House seems to support that plan.
I will come in a moment to the matter of child poverty, and I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I was just referring to the fact that all the parties except ours—indeed, it is unclear what those on the Government Front Bench think—seem to support lifting the two-child cap. The Liberal Democrats cannot seem to see a spending opportunity without grabbing it with both hands. Their spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), spent £4.5 billion just in his speech earlier this afternoon. Then we have the SNP Government, who have presided over higher economic inactivity and lower employment than in England, have missed all their targets for child poverty, and still clamour for more money for welfare. Then there is the Reform party, which is sadly absent today. I do quite like the Reform party and I agree with its Members on lots of things, but there is a problem: they would spend money like drunken sailors. I can see what is happening and I am very worried about it—they will end up in an electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats with a joint ticket to protect welfare spending. I do not know how hon. Members feel about the anticipated alliance. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and others, particularly Members on the Government Benches, have cited widening poverty rates over the past decade or more, and they repeatedly raised the issue of 4.5 million children, but they are talking about relative poverty. The fact is that relative poverty increased under the previous Government because, overall, the economy grew, as more people became more prosperous. As the median income rises, more people come under it; that is how it works. If relative poverty goes down under this Government, it will be because they shrank the economy. That is highly likely, but it is not an achievement to boast about. Relative poverty is not a measure of anything except the operation of the law of averages. Therefore, what we need to look at is real poverty, absolute poverty. As we rescued the public finances and grew the economy, absolute poverty went down under the Conservatives. On children, the percentage of children in absolute poverty after housing costs fell between 2010 and 2024. We pulled 800,000 people out of absolute poverty and averted over a million more people falling into absolute poverty. We had more people in work, a higher employment rate, and fewer workless households than since records began. We should thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for that. Mention was made of Wilberforce and Disraeli. One day they will add the name of Duncan Smith to that great record.
It just doesn’t flow as well, but yes, apologies Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. Member’s archaeology in finding my previous quotes. Many things did get worse over the last decade and a half—of course I recognise that. But much of it was as a consequence of the global financial meltdown that his party presided over. We spent many painful years fixing the deficit that Labour left us. I want to quickly cite the previous Government’s record on young people. Labour Members have boasted of the new Labour years, but in 1997 youth unemployment stood at 650,000, and by the time Blair and Brown had finished in 2010 it was up a third to 940,000. When we left office 14 years later, we had almost halved it down to 560,000—lower even than in 1997. That is the Conservative record. I will conclude shortly, but I first say to those across the House who want to lift the child benefit cap to consider what they are asking. They are asking working people who pay more in tax than they receive in public services—and who themselves have had to take agonising decisions about whether or not they can afford to have another child given the taxes they pay—to fund the benefits for other people who receive more from the system than they pay in.
The difference is that child benefit is paid to everybody. Child benefit is a universal entitlement. We need to ensure that we are not adding to the incentives in the system to live a life on benefits. I fully recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. When I say that some people receive more from the system than they pay in, I am not trying to stigmatise those people. That point has been thrown at us, but it is not the case. I am not stigmatising people who receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. Life is not all about whether someone is a net fiscal contributor or not. I agree with points made by some Members that we should think more about social structures than fiscal transfers, but when it comes to fiscal policy there is a limit. Reciprocity matters, and when we are talking about money, it is right that people living on benefits face something of the same realities as people who pay for themselves. We still have too many families trapped in welfare. What we need is more families and, yes, larger families supporting themselves through well-paid work. We need a tax system like that in Europe, America and across the world, which recognises families. The previous Government made an important step with the changes to the high-income child benefit charge, which was scrapped by Labour. The best thing we can do for families is to get the tax system and, crucially, the wider economy right, so that we have good growth, good jobs, higher wages, flexible childcare and strong communities.
The story of the last 14 years is quite easily told. In 2010 there was a budget deficit of 9%, and we had almost fiscal bankruptcy. We spent 10 years very painfully restoring the public finances at great cost, and I totally understand that. Then we were back down to a balanced budget. Then covid hit, and we spent the last five years trying to recover from that. On welfare, we have a very proud record of reducing unemployment and making work pay. Since covid we now have this great problem of disability and sickness benefits. That is the challenge that we were undertaking to fix as we left office and that the Government have now completely failed to conclude. It is not too late. I am glad to see the Minister for Social Security and Disability in his place. His review should not wait until next autumn; we need it this autumn. We need proper plans to fix the welfare system, not just to increase spending as the Government are now doing. I urge hon. Members across the House to support our motion. Let me be clear: every Member who does not is voting for welfare dependency and national bankruptcy. Only the Conservatives have a plan to fix this.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, as a result of that Bill, one of the things that is most shocking is that in due course it will actually pay someone more to be on welfare than to work full time on the minimum wage?
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of online providers of fertility and certain ancillary services by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and for connected purposes. Having a child is variously viewed as one of the most life-changing, exhausting, expensive, thankless, frustrating and ultimately magical and rewarding things we ever do in our lives. My two sons sometimes drive me round the bend, but I quite literally love them more than anything in the world. For many people, having a child requires a form of fertility treatment; in fact, one in six couples in Britain is affected by infertility problems. More than 52,000 people accessed fertility treatment in 2023—the most recent year for which statistics are available. For perspective, that is up from 6,000 in 1991. In the past 25 years, the proportion of children being born by in vitro fertilisation has doubled. The regulator for the fertility industry, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, reports that there are now enough children born by IVF for there to be one in every classroom around the UK. That is for a number of reasons. It is worth celebrating that since 1991 social attitudes towards women getting into and staying in work have progressed even further; there are now 10% more women in employment. Sometimes, however, building a successful career can make it harder to build a family. One in 10 fertility treatments are undertaken by single women, and the average age of those women is slightly older, at 36. Although the proportion of young adults in the UK who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual has doubled in the last five years, the Government amended the law that regulated fertility access to remove the barriers for female same-sex couples for the first and only time in 2008, and that is what we are here today to discuss: apart from that one change, regulation has remained static while industry, attitudes and lifestyles have raced ahead. The Human Fertility and Embryology Act 1990 regulates fertility clinics, and despite the fertility landscape constantly modernising and moving with the times, that piece of legislation has remained largely unchanged since it was passed 35 years ago. The failure of the regulatory regime to oversee adequately the uniquely high-stakes world of modern fertility treatment was thrown into sharp relief recently with the unexpected closure of Apricity Fertility. Acting as a hub that connected parents to the very complex web of fertility services, it was effectively a digital concierge service, linking women with partner clinics and offering advice and support, yet not providing any of the medical services itself. Just days before Christmas, on 20 December, Apricity Fertility notified customers that it would cease all operations from 1 January. While families across the country were opening their Christmas presents, hundreds of Apricity customers, including women who were just about to start their IVF injections, were opening emails that would ruin their Christmas and leave them in limbo at a very crucial point in their fertility treatment. Patients scrambled to seek confirmation from clinics that they could continue with their treatment, because as we know, even a month’s delay can massively affect the chance of a successful cycle. In many cases, having already spent every single penny that they had in the world in the pursuit of having a baby, some were told by their insurers that they would have to pay thousands more up front to continue their treatment. We know that IVF is a physically demanding and incredibly emotionally fraught process. IVF cycles are more likely to be unsuccessful than successful, but Apricity boasted an above-average success rate of 46%. As IVF.net stated, therefore, for hundreds of couples, Apricity’s closure was “more than a logistical hurdle—it is a devastating emotional blow.” Even worse, families who had signed up Apricity were not offered the peace of mind that a regulator provides, because it was not regulated; it was an unlicensed online clinic. That means that the health and advice on offer could have been complete rubbish and could have been backed by no expert knowledge at all—and such online services are expanding in scope and number. The HFEA has warned: “For some time a range of activities marketed as fertility treatments have taken place outside of HFEA licensed clinics in a variety of settings, including ‘wellness’ clinics. More recently, the fertility market has started to move online, in settings which are outside of the regulated scheme”. More people are accessing the fertility market and treatments than ever before, and particularly in that way. Though the HFEA cannot put an exact number on that, precisely because such services fall outside its regulatory scope, given that 73% of IVF cycles are funded privately, it is likely to be a very large proportion. In recognition of the changing landscape, and with patient trust and safety in mind, the HFEA recommended in 2023 that the 1990 HFE Act “should be revised to accommodate developments in the way fertility services are provided.” I know that Health Ministers have met the chair of the HFEA to discuss updating the regulatory regime around fertility treatment, but such change will require primary legislation. I have had no firm commitment that the Government are seeking a change in the law, but the case of Apricity has underscored the urgent need to safeguard patients’ rights to their data, their eggs and their sperm. This is a classic case of regulation just not keeping pace with modern life. It is criminal that organisations that are in the business of making dreams come true can just disappear, along with people’s money and their hopes of starting a family. The Chancellor has made it clear that she is no fan of regulators, but in the field of medical treatment and specifically the process of IVF, a strong regulatory regime is absolutely vital to ensuring confidence and security, so I urge Ministers and Members across the House to support my Bill, to bring in the recommendations of the HFEA and to support women and families at one of the most important stages of their lives. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Dame Caroline Dinenage, Katie Lam, Liz Jarvis, Aphra Brandreth, Sir Ashley Fox, Joe Robertson, Christine Jardine, Jim Shannon, Sarah Champion, Florence Eshalomi, Samantha Niblett and Wendy Morton present the Bill. Dame Caroline Dinenage accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 284). Business of the House (Today) Ordered, That, at today’s sitting, business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition shall be treated as being taken on an allotted day provided under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business); such business may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for up to six hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.)
My hon. Friend talks about tough choices. Does she agree that families that are in work make tough choices every single day, about what they can afford and how they spend their money, and that those who receive benefits should really have to make the same tough choices?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State tried to argue yesterday that he is a climate change believer and everybody else who disagrees with him is a denier, because he does not want to engage with any legitimate criticism of his policies. He is offshoring British industries—in other words, replacing British goods with dirtier imports with higher emissions. Can the Minister confirm what the scientific evidence is that doing so will help to tackle climate change?
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said I was hiding when I was, in fact, with my six-month-old baby, who I know he is aware of. On behalf of all young mums who face those kinds of comments in their first few weeks back at work, may I gently suggest he reflects on those remarks? I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: is £82 higher or lower than £72?
I do not know whether the Secretary of State does not know or does not want to say, but £72 a megawatt-hour is what electricity cost last year, and £82 is the price he has paid for offshore wind, and he is set to do the same this year—and that is before the extra costs for the grid for wasted wind and back-up, which are going through the roof, thanks to his policies. Yesterday, he committed to radical honesty. In that spirit, will he admit either that he cannot add up, or that his policies cannot bring down bills?
Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that interventions must not be his speech read out at speed.
Order! May I please urge people to make interventions short and pithy and not pre-prepared and read out.
Order. That should have been “the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green”.
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.
Before I put the Question, I will just remind the Minister that, like the shadow Minister, he should not be referring to Members by their name in the Chamber but by their constituency. Question put.
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendment. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Order. I am not sure that the British people were seeking to get rid of me.
Order. The Chief Secretary is the third Minister or shadow Minister to refer to a colleague by name. It seems to be a bad afternoon for it.
Order. The right hon. Member has set the tone with his speech length. If all Members could stick to around six minutes, everyone will get in. I call Joe Powell.
When businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency make people redundant, do those employers explain to his constituents that they have to do that for the good of the NHS?
Earlier this month, the House witnessed the Government lose control of swathes of their own party. They have had just more than a year in office, and yet the cracks could not be clearer. In the last year, the country has had to endure U-turns, tax increases and a stagnant economy, and yet the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been pushed by their disapproving Back Benchers into the inevitable: they will have to break their fiscal rules and manifesto commitments. The OBR has warned of an up to £12 billion cost from the watered-down welfare reforms. Labour promised to stop the chaos and support business through a stable policy environment. That was in its manifesto, yet employer national insurance contributions increased in April—another pledge disregarded. We have seen the national insurance exemption for Indian workers transferring to the UK, which the Indian Government said was a competitive advantage for them. The Leader of the Opposition opposed such a deal as Business and Trade Secretary, yet the Government continue to sell out British workers. Whose side are this Government on? Deals and decisions like that explain why 73% of voters believe that the Government do not have things under control.
The Government have not seen a success. Where we have seen tariffs imposed on the economy, the Government have not reduced them. There is a competitive disadvantage as a result of what we are seeing in the global economic climate. When Labour governs, Britain suffers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is absolutely spot on. The message to the Government is clear: they cannot tax their way to prosperity.
I will not; I have been generous with interventions. More than half of business owners nationally are planning to, or have made, further cuts to staff numbers in response to increased employer national insurance contributions. In May, 109,000 jobs were lost in a single month. When we tax jobs out of existence, the fiscal rules are not merely stretched; they are shattered. The Chancellor will have either to break her campaign promises and raise taxes, or admit that her rules are broken. Either way, it means that working families and working people across the country will pay the price. A fortnight ago, the Government rejected calls to protect those whose only income is the state pension from paying income tax. This retirement tax will hit 1 million of our lowest-income pensioners. This is not wealth; they are modest, often meagre incomes relied upon to heat homes, buy food and see a doctor. One in five single pensioners has no other income beyond the state pension and basic benefits, yet to fill a fiscal hole that they have created, the Government resist the plea of their most vulnerable citizens.
I will not give way; I have been generous in taking interventions. As the Chancellor grows increasingly desperate to save the sinking ship of her fiscal rules, there is now rumour of a wealth tax to compound the Government’s contempt for not only working people, but industry leaders and innovators. That is not conjecture. Only last week, Lord Kinnock said that Labour should be “willing to explore” such disastrous measures. Let us be honest: a wealth tax really means a tax on hard-working people. It means an attack on pensions and on people who have done the right thing and want a sense of fairness, and anyone who has accrued anything will pay the price.