Westminster Hall
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
COP29: UK Priorities
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK priorities for COP29.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I feel very lucky to have secured my second Westminster Hall debate as a brand new MP, and on this very important subject. I am also delighted that members of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change are here today and I look forward to hearing contributions from hon. Members from across the House.
It sometimes seems from the TV or the internet that the climate emergency affects other people. Floods, droughts and food shortages are certainly becoming more common, but the threat is often seen as only hitting those in far-flung places. But when I knock on doors in my constituency of Ealing Southall, as I do regularly, people tell me that they are worried about the climate emergency and the damage being done to nature, our environment and our economy right here in the UK.
Already, climate breakdown has seen more extremes of weather in the UK. Flash flooding is an increasing risk to homes, businesses and even lives. Food shortages are becoming more regular as UK and European farmers struggle with a climate that we can no longer rely on, and hotter summers have led to a health emergency, with an estimated 2,500 people in the UK killed by heatwaves in 2020.
My constituents in Ealing Southall are worried both about how climate breakdown is affecting them right now and how it might affect their children in the future. Given that more than half my constituents were born outside the UK, many are also concerned about friends and relatives at the sharp end of climate breakdown, whether from rain-induced landslides in Pakistan or heatwaves in India.
So what is the world doing? The COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan in November is a crucial moment for countries across the world to work together to prevent further climate breakdown and to try and undo the damage done so far. The conference will ask countries including the UK to sign up to new, more stringent targets to reduce harmful emissions that cause climate change.
The conference will also try to agree new funding to help developing countries pay some of the costs of reducing and adapting to climate breakdown—funding, primarily from developed countries like the UK, which have been responsible for so much of the historic emissions from industrialisation. It will also look at further steps to end our reliance on oil and gas, which are a big part of the causes of the climate crisis. It is vital that the new targets are robust enough to keep global temperatures down and that the funding agreement is fair to developing countries.
But we have been here before. In 2021, at the COP26 climate conference, the UK agreed to targets that we have not delivered. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee found that the previous Conservative Government only had plans in place to deliver about one third of the targets they had agreed to, with almost all targets off track. Although the UK agreed to pay £11 billion over five years to help developing countries, the former Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith resigned when it became clear that the Conservative Government planned to ditch that promise, having delivered just half of the money. On top of all that, despite signing up to start to end our reliance on oil and gas, the previous Government instead granted 27 new licences to dig for oil and gas in the North sea.
I am sorry to say that it is not at all surprising that the previous Government would make agreements that they did not intend to honour, sign up to targets that they had no plans to deliver, and shake hands on a funding deal that they did not intend to pay for. Their entire approach to the climate emergency is to stick their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.
For example, in the UK we have the leakiest homes in Europe—homes that are too cold in winter, but too hot in summer and cost a lot more money than they should to heat. We desperately need a massive retrofitting programme to insulate millions of homes, to stop so much precious energy being wasted as it escapes through walls and roofs, and to reduce energy bills as a result. However, the previous Conservative Government effectively halted home retrofitting programmes and completely failed to take the need to insulate homes seriously. They stopped the growth of renewable energy through a moratorium on wind farms—a self-destructive move that has only kept British families more reliant on Russian gas.
When the Conservative Government did not have their head in the sand, they lost their head entirely. Like headless chickens, they continually changed their mind and U-turned on key promises. They backtracked on the 2030 deadline to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and did similar with the phase-out of gas boilers. It is bad enough that our lungs will continue to be assaulted by toxic fumes for longer, but car and boiler manufacturers also wasted millions of pounds getting ready for a deadline that was then pulled out from under their feet. And guess who pays the bills—the consumer of course, so our first priority for COP29 must be to undo the damage done by the previous Conservative Government. We must showcase the clear evidence that under Labour, the UK can again be trusted to deliver on the international agreements that we make.
Where the previous Government failed, local authorities often stepped in. Ealing council has done amazing work in finding ways to reduce flash flooding by using natural solutions and more innovative approaches. Concrete verges have been replaced by wildflower rain gardens in many places across my constituency. In Dean Gardens—a small park in west Ealing—six street drains have been connected to a huge underground container, made of sustainable material, that is covered by a new wetlands area where water can slowly be released throughout the year. That should significantly reduce the regular flash flooding on Uxbridge Road. Work is currently under way at Lammas Park, also in my constituency, to create seasonal ponds that will help to protect properties around the park from flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. Ealing has also planted tens of thousands of new trees, which offer shade in summer and provide space for birds and other wildlife.
However, after 14 years of austerity, councils struggled to fill the gap left by a Conservative Government who had virtually left the stage, so there was a collective cheer across the country when this new Labour Government took power and immediately showed their commitment to taking action on what is the biggest threat to our health and prosperity. The new Secretary of State straightaway announced an end to our reliance on expensive and unreliable oil and gas and has backed that up by setting up Great British Energy. That will see massive investment in renewable energy, ending our addiction to fossil fuels, increasing our energy security and reducing bills for families.
Already, the new Government have doubled investment, resulting in 131 renewable energy projects coming forward to power 11 million UK homes, demonstrating that business has faith in Labour’s commitment to clean energy. That is a huge contrast to the situation a year ago when no energy companies at all expressed interest when the Conservative Government went out to tender. The new Government have ended the moratorium on offshore wind farms and we have gone even further—we have committed to becoming a world leader in floating wind farms. Our warm homes plan will see the Government work hand in hand with local councils to insulate leaky homes, and we will move swiftly to decarbonise public buildings.
Finally we have a Government who are serious about climate breakdown here in the UK, so a further priority for COP29 must be to develop new targets for reducing our own country’s emissions over the next five-year period. We have an opportunity to set the pace globally by making those as robust and stretching as we possibly can, and if we can sketch out our ambitions in advance of the November conference, we can establish a high bar for others to aim at. By February we will need detailed plans on how we will deliver on the targets, so that we do not repeat the Conservatives’ approach of promising everything and delivering little. It will be important to include detailed plans with local authorities and regions—key delivery partners on the ground that were often ignored by the previous Government. In fact, in 45 pages of targets agreed by the Conservatives, there were just six sentences on what local councils could do.
Finally, we need to come to an honest agreement on how much we can commit financially to repairing the damage done to many developing nations. I am confident that, unlike the Conservatives, this Government will stick to the agreement we make and will deliver it in full.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, particularly as we come up to COP29 in Azerbaijan, which I am looking forward to attending, and I congratulate her on an excellent speech. At COP28, a historic agreement was reached to establish a loss and damage fund for vulnerable countries. My heritage is from Pakistan, which, like Bangladesh, has contributed the least to the problem yet is among the most vulnerable to it. The compensation will only come into effect in 2025. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must work with allies to prioritise pushing forward on this fund, to ensure that countries growing more vulnerable to climate crisis have the means to protect their civilians and infrastructure?[Interruption.]
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind all Members to put their phones on silent.
Deirdre Costigan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes a good point. As I said, we had a Conservative Government who made promises that they had no intention at all of keeping. I am confident that this Government will come to an agreement that we will stick to and deliver in full.
The climate emergency is not something happening to other people in faraway places. If we do not act now, more people will be killed by flooding, drought, wildfires and extreme heat than by war. Millions of refugees will pour across borders as cities and whole nations become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. Our entire economy will be destroyed, and life as we know it will be changed utterly, as we lose access to basic commodities like food and water. That is the worst case scenario, if we do not take action. It is a scenario that the Conservatives were content to sleepwalk us into.
Under this new, Labour Government we have already shown that we can be world leaders in undoing the harm of climate breakdown and preventing further damage. If we get our priorities right, then this COP29 climate conference is our chance to fearlessly lead the way to a better future, both at home and abroad.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind members to bob if they want to speak, so we can work out the order of speakers and how long everyone has available to speak.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Thank you, Dr Huq, for reminding me of process and having patience with me during my first Westminster Hall debate. Thank you, too, to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for facilitating this debate.
At the end of a year of record-shattering temperatures and climate extremes, COP29 will prove a test of our collective willingness to respond to the climate crisis with the urgency and resolve it demands. We know that there is no room for new fossil fuel infrastructure if we are to have any chance of staying within safe climate limits. That is a scientific fact—one that the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and countless experts have made clear.
Historic progress was made at COP28, when the UK joined nearly 200 countries in agreeing to transition away from fossil fuels, marking a major breakthrough for international climate action. One year on, COP29 has the vital task of locking in momentum towards that promise. Yet despite the science and the consensus reached in Dubai, Governments around the world plan to produce 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with just a 50% chance of limiting warming to the Paris agreement goal of 1.5°.
About half of all planned oil and gas developments between now and 2050 will be sanctioned by five wealthy Governments who position themselves as climate leaders, one of which is the UK. With the COP29 summit being hosted in a country with plans to increase its fossil fuel production by a third over the next decade, there is an urgent need for other big polluters, such as the UK, to show better leadership. Unless the promise made in Dubai is seen as a clear instruction to quit fossil fuels, last year’s hard-won consensus is destined to fall apart. Rhetoric must be met with action.
In that context, the Government’s intention to consult on ending licences for the exploration of new oil and gas fields is a welcome relief from the previous Government’s dangerous obsession with maxing out fossil fuels. It marks a small step towards ending years of climate hypocrisy, which have undermined our position in international negotiations. However, it is only the bare minimum of ambition. To do what is necessary for both the climate and the UK’s credibility in international fora, the Government must move quickly to lock in their no new licensing position, and take the urgent next step of stopping development consents for all new oil and gas fields. That must be done alongside bringing forward a coherent plan to transition oil and gas workers into the clean energy jobs of the future, so that we can show other countries that that transition can and will be done in a fair and just way.
Let us take the example of Rosebank. Bringing that oilfield online would be catastrophic for our climate and our international reputation. Burning the oil and gas from that huge field would produce over 200 million tonnes of CO2—more than the 28 lowest-income countries combined produce in a year. The emissions created just by extracting the oil from Rosebank would see the UK’s oil and gas industry blow past its emissions reduction target.
Aside from being a climate crime, the new field would go against what is needed to strengthen the UK’s energy security—lower bills and a just transition. I welcome the Government doing the sensible thing and deciding not to defend in court the previous Government’s approval of new oil drilling at Rosebank, which makes it even more likely that the legal challenge against the field will be successful. If Equinor then seeks approval for the field again, the Government will have the opportunity to make a fresh start and a fresh decision on Rosebank. If presented with that opportunity, will the Government make the right choice, reject the field and mark the end of the road for climate-wrecking oil and gas projects in UK waters? Only then can we begin to rebuild our credibility on the global stage and reasonably look other countries in the eye at the negotiating table as we ask them to keep their own oil and gas reserves in the ground.
As a country with broad shoulders and historic responsibility for accelerating climate chaos, the UK not only has a duty to deliver the transition away from fossil fuels here at home, but must play a leading role in supporting those countries that are least responsible for, but worst impacted by, climate breakdown. Baku’s big test, therefore, will be the delivery of the new collective quantified goal on climate finance. This is a crucial opportunity for richer countries to contribute their fair share, following years of broken promises and failure to deliver the $100 billion on time.
At this COP, we must ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. That means agreeing a new goal that is not just a political deal but a real number, based on the needs of people in the global south and of vulnerable populations on the frontline of climate impacts. A black-box headline figure without clarity on how it will be delivered will not do. We must ensure that the goal results in funds that are genuinely new and additional, not double-counted from existing aid budgets—a reprehensible practice that has played a huge role in allowing the climate finance gap to widen over the past decade. Indeed, in February, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found that under the previous Government the Foreign Office reclassified around £1.7 billion of existing UK aid as international climate finance. The UK has one of the largest gaps between its fair share and the climate finance it has delivered. We are letting the world down—it is right there in black and white—so will the Government ensure that UK negotiators show up to COP29 with a mandate to champion an ambitious new climate finance goal, and will they unlock the necessary public finance in addition to private finance?
There is much more the UK could be doing, from tackling tax abuse and evasion by the extremely wealthy and corporations, removing subsidies for fossil fuels and looking at undertaxed sectors such as aviation, where the “polluter pays” principle is simply not being upheld. Justice requires that the nations most responsible for the climate crisis step up. That is our cue.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing such an important and timely debate.
The world has slowly come round to the fact that there is no net zero without nuclear. COP28 was a milestone for the industry, with the conference formally recognising for the first time the crucial role nuclear will play in tackling climate change. Twenty countries, including the UK, committed to tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
The recognition of the role of nuclear in tackling climate change was long overdue. Nuclear is the only large-scale, low-carbon energy source that can operate 24/7. Its ability to provide constant, reliable baseload power at scale allows it to complement more intermittent renewable energy sources, because we need the lights on, even when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow.
Nuclear also has a critical role to play in decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors of industry. As we approach the last two decades of our mission to reach net zero by 2050, the challenge of decarbonising sectors such as steel, cement and heavy chemicals will receive more and more attention in this place. We are also waking up to the fact that revolutionary technologies such as artificial intelligence, which will play such an important role in economic growth globally and here in the UK, will require vast amounts of energy. Those challenges will only increase the importance of nuclear and the sheer volume of low-carbon power and heat it can produce.
The Sizewell C project here in the UK is a great demonstration of what nuclear can achieve. Plans have been drawn up to use power from the station, when the needs of the grid have been met, to produce hydrogen, which can go towards reducing emissions by means of clean transport and machinery, and direct air capture, a critical part of Britain’s net zero road map.
Aside from clean energy production, nuclear plays a vital role in economic growth and provides high-quality jobs around the world. Here in the UK, the nuclear industry supports nearly 90,000 direct jobs, including 16,000 in my own constituency. It contributes nearly £6 billion in added value to our economy, and provides a pathway to a just transition that creates rather than cuts jobs.
With COP28 having been the moment when the world recognised the role that nuclear can play, COP29 needs to be the moment when we agree on how to make that happen. There are three barriers that need to be addressed, and the first is financing. Nuclear power plants have historically found it difficult to attract funding, given the upfront capital involved. The move to include nuclear in the EU’s green taxonomy is welcome, and the UK should seek to mirror it. Our own green taxonomy is still waiting to be published, after multiple delays under the last Government. The inclusion of nuclear, when it is published, is imperative to mobilise the capital needed to deliver our nuclear ambition.
Secondly, the conference needs to examine the role of regulation and Governments, ensuring that we keep standards extremely high and focus on speed in our planning processes. Despite their designs being exactly the same, Sizewell C’s environmental impact assessment was 30% longer than that of Hinkley Point C, reaching over 40,000 pages. Global co-operation on regulation and standards could unlock much faster roll-out of nuclear technologies. Regulators from economies with developed nuclear sectors, such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation in the UK and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the US, should be working together closely to cut the time it takes to approve new technologies and designs.
Thirdly, the Government should continue to focus on how they can support technologies such as advanced modular reactors and fusion programmes. Government support and global co-operation on research and development on those technologies can speed up economic growth and bring about research into their deployment much more quickly, as well as putting the UK at the forefront of such development.
I encourage the Government to include those considerations as part of their priorities for COP29, but I also encourage them to consider this: it is becoming increasingly difficult for Britain to be an influential, respected voice on nuclear energy, given that we have not allowed our nuclear sector to grow. Dithering by the previous Government has stalled our nuclear industry, and next year will mark 30 years since we successfully completed a new nuclear power station.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for bringing forward this debate. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) agree that constituencies such as mine, where the Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations provide good jobs and clean energy, are perfect locations for new nuclear projects, such as those he discussed? We have the skills, the ambition and the will, and we are ready, willing and able.
Josh MacAlister
I wholeheartedly agree. In the past 30 years, eight nuclear power plants have closed, and installed nuclear capacity in the UK has dropped by 25%. A decision is due in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) about extending the life of an existing reactor, and it will be important to secure that for all the reasons we have discussed.
By 2028, Sizewell B is scheduled to be Britain’s last remaining operational nuclear power plant, which should be sobering for all of us. Unfortunately, my constituency is a great case study of where things have gone wrong—and can go wrong in the future. In 2008, the Moorside land next to Sellafield was designated for new nuclear use. Now, in 2024, after 14 years of Conservative failure, we have not only stayed at square one, but actually moved backwards, with new disputes about how the land should be used. If Britain cannot demonstrate an ability to build new nuclear on land designated for it, in a community calling for it and with a supply chain ready to deliver it, how can we expect to be a serious voice at the table when it comes to pushing the world to accelerate the deployment of this crucial technology?
COP29 will be a moment to decide how we roll out nuclear, how it is financed and regulated, and how future technologies are developed and brought to the market at speed. The UK should prioritise playing an important role in those discussions, but we must recognise that unless we fix our own industry, our ability to have influence on the global stage will be limited.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Southall for introducing this debate. Last week, she talked about waste; this week she is talking about COP29, and it is pleasure to hear her speak on both those matters. I look forward to many more contributions from her in Westminster Hall.
The COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, will be the first “COP of peace”. We hope that will be the case and we will see how it goes, focusing on the prevention of future climate-fuelled conflicts and using international co-operation and green issues to help to heal existing tensions. In terms of our climate, and green success, there is still much to be done, so it is great to be here and talking about that subject.
Hon. Members who have made contributions have grasped that. I thought the balance that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) aimed for in his contribution summed up where I am as well. I hope to develop the idea of balance in my thoughts.
One of the themes of COP29 is that of an inclusive process for inclusive action, which is one of those statements we need to think about for a wee minute to see what it actually means. It aims to encompass the host’s plans to engage with international stakeholders to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On international stakeholders, does my hon. Friend agree that in taking the balanced approach which he and others have recommended, we need to ensure that the major polluters—those who are polluting more than all the other undeveloped nations together, such as Russia, China and so on—are persuaded and pressurised to reduce their emissions, because if they do not, many of the actions that are being promoted among developed countries are going to be of little or no effect?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and his as always wise and salient words. The big countries in the world, such as China, Russia and others, have a disregard for fossil fuel pollution and seem to wish to pollute the rest of the world from their own countries. There is a real need for them to do something.
I am really pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in her place. She sat on the Opposition side of the Chamber in many debates; she and I would have been alongside each other on many things, supporting the same objectives and the same targets. It is a real pleasure to see her today and I wish her well. It also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), in his place.
I always bring the Northern Ireland perspective to debates, because it is important that we understand—perhaps appreciate is a better word—things that are happening in Northern Ireland and how they contribute to policy at Westminster. In Northern Ireland, as a smaller nation of the United Kingdom, we are not shy to the feeling of being left behind, so it is important that efforts are made to engage with international stakeholders, which my hon. Friend referred to.
I will give an example. Climate Northern Ireland brings together members from the key range of sectors to share best practice and enable positive action to address the impacts of climate change. It is funded by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and aims to support the development and implementation of climate policy—it is really important, and core to the Department’s policy—by enabling the exchange of expertise and advice between Government Departments, public bodies and civil society. It brings them all together under one umbrella to pursue a policy that coincides and works alongside the one at Westminster.
I live in Greyabbey in Strangford and am a farmer there. I was saying to some people I met earlier this morning that I love to come here for the history, but I do not enjoy the concrete. I like to get back home to where the fields are green and where I can walk out and breathe the fresh country air, but that does not take away from where we are. Numerous neighbours of mine own farms themselves. It is really important that we have balance in this debate.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The hon. Member talked about peace and working together with international stakeholders. I would like to add to the calls on the Government for a special climate envoy nominated for our country, because all the things that are being said here today require diplomacy, negotiation and preparation before any climate summit.
I have 15 years’ experience of working in international climate negotiations, from the developing country aspect. I have witnessed how important the roles of special representatives, other climate envoys around the world and climate ambassadors are. Would the hon. Member, and the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) who introduced this debate, agree that the climate envoy should be nominated by the Prime Minister, so that it has the gravitas to put the UK back into a global leadership position, which the former Conservative Government trashed?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the work she did in her previous occupation. That brings a wealth of knowledge to debates here; we can all learn and be the wiser for that. The Minister might be able to respond to our thoughts. We are looking for a climate envoy, as the hon. Lady referred to. We should all recognise the justification for that. I look forward to hearing in the Minister’s response on how that is to be taken care of.
In the farming community where I live, we understand the huge significance of farming and agriculture for our climate, as well as the contribution to the local economy. That is why it is important to get the balance right. I work closely alongside the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union. I declare an interest that I should have mentioned earlier: I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and work alongside it on many policies. It has pledged support for issues such as measures on emissions. It is important to bring people along; it is important to bring along the farming community. It is important to understand the goals, then we can work together. That is what everyone wants but it is never easy to achieve. As I have said before, these things are hard to do without the commitment of funding for our Government. Maybe we can get some clarity from the Minister on the commitment to Northern Ireland.
The Minister’s interest in Northern Ireland has never been in dispute, but I would like to hear whether she has had an opportunity to talk with the DAERA Minister in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir, or with civil servants and Government officials, to see how we can work on this together. If we are going to do it, it is always better to do it together.
I understand the Labour Government have not yet published their priorities for COP29. I am keen to see what they are. When we reflect on the most recent policy document, that sets out a commitment to keeping 1.5 alive. Limiting global temperature increases is really important. Some people believe that is not happening but, as we look about us around the world, we know we have to address this key issue. Building resilience and reversing biodiversity loss were priorities set out in the Paris agreement. I understand that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has met current and past COP presidents.
Other roles are taken by local councils, stakeholders and small, medium and large businesses. Most importantly, I honestly believe our constituents want to do their bit, but they must be given the means to do so. My way of doing politics has always been to try to bring everyone with us. It is in the nature of life that we might not agree on everything but, when we have a joint goal, we can focus better together. We are always better together and have roles to play at councils, at the Northern Ireland Assembly, and at regional and Westminster level.
COP provides a fantastic opportunity for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pave the way in climate success, by being adaptable and showing that we are willing to learn as a collective. There is a lot to learn and a lot to do; let us do it together.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this timely debate. There seems to be an Ealing bias at the top. I look forward to working with her and others across the House as we tackle one of the biggest challenges of our time. I look forward to supporting the Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower, and ensuring that tackling global climate change is a focus for this Parliament. In my previous role, before I came to this place, I worked internationally with cities around the world to tackle climate change, using science-based action.
My remarks will be restricted to setting out the need for the Government to prioritise making progress on phasing out fossil fuels at COP29 this October. It was a privilege to be at COP28 last year, alongside other hon. Members in the Chamber, including the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I welcome the Minister to her place. She was not a Minister at COP28 last year, so it is great to see her in position now. We were there to see at first hand the breakthrough moment for ending the fossil fuel era. Nearly 200 countries made an historic commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. For the first time ever, language on fossil fuels was mentioned in the final United Nations framework convention on climate change negotiating text. However, since COP28, there has been little progress in this area. Negotiations on the topic stalled at Bonn and, instead of generating momentum on delivering this pledge, the COP presidency, Azerbaijan, has made little reference to it beyond reiterating the original commitment. That should not be a major surprise to us, not just because global climate-negotiation spaces are often undermined by the presence of the oil and gas lobby, but because there has been an absence of genuine political leadership by countries, including our own—until recently—on this issue.
Just weeks after the United Arab Emirates consensus was signed, the previous Government issued new exploration licences to max out North sea fossil fuel reserves, with an attempt to ram legislation through Parliament to grant annual licensing for oil and gas. Just when the UK should have been increasing global ambition on moving away from coal, oil and gas, that Government were undermining confidence in the COP28 agreement and losing trust and credibility among key partners on the world stage.
More than half of the global population lives in cities, and urbanisation is accelerating rapidly due to climate-induced human migration, economic growth and demographic shifts, but many cities around the world are at the forefront of the triple challenge of tackling the climate crisis, building social licence and acceptance for climate action, and fighting the rising climate denial that is fuelled by vested interests.
During the last COP28 negotiations, the G77 president noted that new UK fossil-fuel drilling licences would contribute to failure of the COP28 agreement. The world cannot afford for this agreement to fail. We need Governments in each corner of the world to step up before and at Baku for success to be achieved. It is therefore an immense pleasure to see the reset that this new Government are leading. In under 100 days, the Labour Government have lifted the ban on onshore wind, introduced legislation to establish GB energy, acknowledged that the last Government’s approval of the massive Rosebank oil field was probably unlawful for failing to consider the climate impact and, just last week, secured 131 new clean energy projects to power 11 million homes—the most successful auction round ever. This change in domestic policy is helping to restore faith in the UK as a Government and as a climate leader that others can rely on, and it is providing us with new leverage to generate further ambition from others in phasing out fossil fuels at COP29 and beyond.
There is always more room to be bold. I encourage the Government to consider positive steps that would not just support the delivery of UK climate targets, lower household bills and boost energy independence, but support workers and accelerate a just transition away from global fossil fuel production at a time when climate change presents a code-red emergency for the planet.
First, we must end new oil and gas licensing. The 2024 Labour manifesto was arguably the most ambitious climate and clean energy manifesto that any Government have ever been elected on, and I am proud that it includes a world-leading promise which, when realised, will make the UK the first producing nation in the G7 to end exploration for new oil and gas. That is a huge and important first step on the path to ending oil and gas expansion and aligning the UK policy with meeting the 1.5 goal.
I understand that the Government will soon be consulting on how to implement that position, and it is my hope that they will lock it into law through a legislative ban. That would send an unmistakeable message that new fossil fuel projects are not welcome, provide much-needed certainty for the industry, and ensure that the move has longevity, surviving long into the future.
Secondly, we must engage in a just energy transition. The just energy transition is well under way, and the number of jobs supported by oil and gas have halved over the past decade despite hundreds of new oil and gas licences being issued in that period. Workers and communities were let down by the last Government. The transition must be managed fairly. To provide workers with certainty, we cannot pretend that new licences will provide them with secure employment. It is critical that we put them at the heart of the journey towards a clean-energy future. Unions, workers and communities must have a voice in the transition, and they are right to demand a detailed, coherent plan that uplifts their concerns and ensures that they benefit from the transition to renewables.
The UK can lead the way in delivering an energy transition that is just and fair for the workers and communities dependent on oil and gas if it puts those workers and communities at the centre of transition planning. If done successfully, the UK’s efforts to move away from fossil fuels can be a model for other coal, oil and gas producers—and if other countries adopt it, then this must be popular. Putting fairness at the heart of the journey is not only the right thing to do but key to making that happen
By the same token, the UK must work with climate-vulnerable countries to ensure they have the financial resources, technical expertise and ability to fairly transition. Indeed, some of the cities in the global south are absolutely leading the way in the best and fairest just transitions the world has ever seen. That is why supporting the adoption of a new collective quantified goal for finance is crucial at COP29.
Thirdly, the Government must include commitments to phase out fossil fuel production in its updated nationally determined contribution. The final thing for the Government to consider at COP29 is working more closely with others to put cities at the heart of the just transition. Cities are leading the way in climate ambition around the world, and they are reducing omissions at a faster rate than their respective national Governments. They are the doers, greening housing, planning, transport and waste, and preparing for the impacts of climate change. According to the Local Government Association, local climate action can achieve net zero for half the cost of a national approach, and deliver three times the growth in jobs, skills and health benefits. London has been a world leader, and has been acknowledged by the United Nations and the Secretary-General not only for its action but for its ambition.
At COP28, 72 Governments recognised the transformative potential of collaboration between national and local Governments by joining the coalition for high ambition multi-level partnerships, known as CHAMP, committing to integrate cities into their national climate planning and strategies. That is how crucial the next round of climate targets and NDCs will be in 2025. I hope the UK will consider joining CHAMP and following the number of Governments around the world working with their cities—as soon as we bring Britain back as an international climate leader.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I will call the first of the three Front Benchers by 10.28 am, and I want to allow Deirdre Costigan time to sum up. The last two Back Benchers were not on the list that was submitted to the Speaker’s office, but if they stick to five minutes each, everyone will get in.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this debate. I refer Members to my declarations of interests in respect of my former career.
Our world is facing dramatic change. Too little water, too much water, or water that is too dirty leads to floods, droughts and pollution in our rivers, streams, ditches, dikes, seas and oceans. Not too long ago, I did some work with the Rockefeller Foundation, Arup, the Stockholm International Water Institute and the University of Massachusetts, and with wonderful projects such as Living With Water. We looked at the 100 resilient cities around the world and found that for 60% of them the biggest shock or stress that could impact them at any one time was having too much or too little water—droughts or flood.
Of course, it is not just about the economy: it is about animals and people as well. The great legend that is Sir David Attenborough tells us that right now our animals are dying out at 100 times the normal evolutionary rates of extinction. When it comes to people, I think about some of the research I have seen. When children who have experienced flooding go to sleep hearing rain outside, they no longer dream about the wonderful things that could happen to them the next day, and playing with their friends in the playground—they have nightmares. That means they cannot sleep and sometimes then cannot go to school the next morning. During those nightmares they think about how they could lose not just their possessions but their mum and others as well. That is the kind of impact that climate change and flooding can have on us as people.
I spoke as a keynote speaker at COP26 and at the World Water Congress in the lead-up to COP27. I talked about how we need to think about a future that is all about co-creation—working with communities, families and schools to think about the future. We need to think about how we turn the world’s greatest threat into the world’s biggest opportunity, because that is what it is, and we see rays of light in every area of the country right now. For example, in my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, we have in Keadby the largest inland wind farm, owned by SSE, which I went to see the other day, and we have innovative carbon capture ideas. We also have youth parliaments and student councils, made up of passionate children who want to make a difference to our world, which is just amazing. We need to harness that passion. I even have residents writing to me who want me to come and work with them in places such as Westwoodside to try to solve some of their key flooding issues.
Now is absolutely the time to act; now is the time when we need to work with children and communities, because we need to create a sustainable future together. COP29 should not be called an opportunity: it is a must-do place to take action. It is a place where we can work together and co-create at a local, national and global level. We in this country can do that as leaders to facilitate a much better, cleaner and greener future for everybody.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly thank the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this debate on such an important topic.
In the spirit of focusing on what brings us together highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will not spend too long responding to the comments of the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) regarding the nuclear industry. Although I agree with him about other areas where he has policy expertise, in this particular policy area we need to focus on the quick, clean, green renewable energy investment that, luckily, his Government are driving forward. That should be our focus.
Will the Minister comment on three specific points? The first is related, actually, because although we talk about energy supply mechanisms, and the Government are taking measures in that area, the hon. Member for Ealing Southall highlighted the urgent need for us to upgrade the UK’s housing stock and to put our money where our mouth is in terms of energy efficiency, thereby reducing the need to generate more and more energy. That means both retrofitting existing housing and putting in place the new build housing standards that will mean every home is warm and affordable to heat, because it is not leaking heat. That will also help with the need to subsidise people’s heating bills. Will the Minister please assure me that she will work with her colleagues to introduce measures in the planning and infrastructure Bill to ensure that all homes are warm homes? We need to put our money where our mouth is and lead by example in this country, in this policy area as well as in others.
Secondly, will the Minister comment on whether the Prime Minister will attend COP29 to demonstrate the leadership that is so urgently needed? Will he show leadership, not followership, regardless of the outcome of the American election and regardless of what is happening in terms of policy elsewhere in the world, including in China and the EU? We need UK leadership on the global stage at COP29; will the Prime Minister provide that?
Finally, the new collective quantified goal that colleagues have referred to is urgently needed. Will the Government commit to increasing overseas development assistance back up to 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible? Will they commit to international climate finance that is new and additional to official development assistance? Will they also commit to putting in place the “polluter pays” fiscal mechanisms that are required to finance our nationally required contribution to recognising our historical responsibility for the global problem of climate change, and to putting in place the measures necessary to enable every country globally to reduce emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change that are coming down the road whether we like it or not?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate everybody who has contributed to this important debate. Many different points were made, and all were made well and passionately.
The new hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was absolutely right to say in her passionate opening speech that it is unacceptable when Governments make international agreements and then do not honour them. That is not only catastrophic for our climate action but it undermines our international reputation.
The hon. Members for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) were absolutely right to say that the UK has a huge responsibility to show climate leadership.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) made a strong plea for developing our nuclear capacity. I, too, am not entirely certain about his point, but I am sure the Government will be able to persuade us on that—or not, as the case may be.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who never misses an opportunity to speak in debates about net zero, spoke up for the nations that are being left behind and made the point that we need to bring everybody with us. I do not agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says about climate change, but we definitely agree on that point.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) asked the Government what progress we are making on energy efficiency in housing. She made her point well, and it has very much been heard by us Liberal Democrats.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her intervention, in which she said that we need, and should work towards having, a climate envoy at COP29.
Last but not least, we heard powerful points on the importance of water, which is becoming a massive issue with climate change, as water shortages will drive a lot of displacement. Those points were well made.
The UN is not a world Government, and COP can work only on a consensual basis. Effective diplomacy is therefore essential in coming to arrangements. Although the agreements made at COPs are not legally binding, we must not underestimate their importance in setting the global agenda on climate change. COPs are also crucial to getting polluters to engage with climate-vulnerable countries, many of which have been severely impacted by climate change and are on the brink of climate catastrophe.
COP28 resulted in countries agreeing to “transition away” from fossil fuels, using the strongest language ever used in respect of the phasing out of fossil fuels. This marked a significant step forward. Regrettably, despite excitement that the COP28 agreement saw the beginning of the end for fossil fuels, the actual text was undermined by loopholes and was flawed given the absence of timescales. That means there is even more emphasis on the upcoming COP29 summit, which will be more important than ever. Strengthening the wording on the acceleration away from fossil fuels must be the first priority. That will require rapid and sustained emission reduction, and increasing renewables will be crucial.
The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with the Green party about the focus on renewables. At COP28, a commitment was made to triple renewable energy. The commitment marks progress; now, action must follow. Climate finance must be increased if the agreements of COP28 are to be honoured.
Here at home, I urge everybody to support the climate and nature Bill. Nature is critical for effective climate action, and biodiversity is our greatest natural defence against climate change. The CAN Bill would require the Government to rapidly reduce our carbon footprint and protect and restore ecosystems, and would ensure that the Government take responsibility for the environmental damage caused by our supply chains.
Halting and reversing deforestation made it into the final text of a COP agreement for the first time at COP28, with Governments agreeing on the need to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. But forests continue to be decimated for crops. Reversing deforestation is also a responsibility for importing countries such as the UK, which must eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. Deforestation must be a big focus for COP29, and ideas such as a compensation fund for conserving standing rainforest should be part of the discussion.
No country should be left behind in our shared goal of halting warming. Article 6 of the Paris agreement is all about helping countries to work together to meet their climate goals through the voluntary transfer of carbon credits. At COP28, we were unable to finalise this; we look ahead to COP29 to make it easier for countries to collaborate on lower emissions.
Finalising the new collective quantified goal on climate finance must also be a focus. The NCQG aims to set a new financial target for supporting developing countries in their climate actions. The timeframe for the goal is crucial: a short goal will inspire a sense of urgency to get finance flowing where it is needed.
It is reassuring that the new Government have committed to ending licensing for exploring new oil and gas, and I hope Labour will take this promising start on to the world stage and negotiate for an agreement that goes further and faster than the agreement made last year. It is particularly important that the more developed nations remain the driving force behind the global journey to net zero, setting a good example and bringing the international community along with us.
At COP28 we understood that COP’s work was based on three pillars of action: mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. Mitigation is where we have made reasonable progress; adaptation is the next challenge.
The second pillar of climate change is adaptation. It is essential to adjust to climate change as it is happening. As we speak now, we see it everywhere. The Climate Change Committee has advised that the gap between the level of climate risk we face and the level of adaptation under way has widened in the past few years. Estimated adaptation costs in developing countries are five to 10 times greater than current public adaptation finance flows. At home, sea levels could rise by over a metre by the end of the century.
The more we put off adaptation measures, the more difficult and expensive it will be in the future. National adaptation plans or NAPs—another acronym—are a vital part of this. COP29 must focus on financial and technical assistance, and close the adaptation finance gap. Another part of the COP28 agreement that needs action is the overreaching global goal of adaptation. A long time in the making, that agreement is welcome, but its framework does not adequately address the financial support needed. The GGA requires quantified, measurable targets to mobilise finance.
The third and final pillar, and the one of most importance if we look around the planet, is loss and damage. The launch of the loss and damage fund at COP28 was a breakthrough: it marked an important step in Britian’s relationship with climate-vulnerable countries. However, the money that was pledged was miserable. It is shameful that we, a rich nation, could not come up with more. COP29 should establish long-term commitments from countries to make adequate annual contributions.
Under the previous Conservative Government, the UK’s contribution to the loss and damage fund came from pre-existing climate finance commitments and the foreign aid budget. Foreign aid is vital, but it is separate from climate action; it is about education, health and so on. To put the two together was either cynical or a huge misunderstanding; it makes a mockery of the whole principle. The idea of the fund is that richer nations should support poorer ones, no strings attached. Simply redirecting pre-pledged finances to the fund was a real dereliction of duty. COP29 is the moment for countries to stand by their pledges by announcing concrete steps to achieve them. The implementation of the fund must be led by the needs of countries vulnerable to climate change, rather than the interests of donor countries.
To conclude, national and international action on climate change is not a nice-to-have luxury, but an imperative to avoid the inevitable destruction of livelihoods around the world and the potential of large-scale conflict and mass displacement. The stakes could not be higher. We might have to reinvest a fraction of our wealth, but the benefits of that are immeasurable.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dr Huq, and to respond to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), who gave a passionate speech. I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, and it is a great joy to see so many new Members present for the debate and contributing to it. All the speeches so far have been by new Members, with the exception of that by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—a regular feature that new Members will get to know well. Parliaments need to refresh, and we have seen a great refreshment over the last election. It is a delight to respond to some very passionate and thoughtful speeches.
The hon. Member for Ealing Southall raised a point that we all agree on, and which is the most important thing to remember: all of us in every part of this House want to achieve net zero, become carbon-neutral and get to a point where we are not relying on fossil fuels; but at the end of the day, we have to look at how we achieve that. It is the detail that I suspect we will find ourselves disagreeing on.
As we discuss the future of our climate commitments, it is essential that we recognise the substantial progress that the Conservative Government made over the last few years. There have been a lot of speeches about how we have not done well, but I remind the House that we had some successes. From 2010, the Conservative Government led the way on climate change by making the UK the first major economy to legislate a 2050 net zero emissions target. We achieved a remarkable feat: the UK cut its emissions by 50% between 1990 and 2022, while growing the economy by 79%. That is a clear demonstration that we can achieve economic growth while reducing our carbon footprint—a very important point. It is worth putting that in perspective. During the same period, France reduced its emissions by only 23%, and the USA saw no change in its emissions between 1990 and 2021. The independent Committee on Climate Change affirmed that our net zero target was feasible, deliverable and could be met at the same cost that was estimated for our previous target of an 80% reduction.
Since the election, there has been much discussion on the plans to make the grid carbon-neutral by 2030, yet since coming to power the new Labour Government have been relatively quiet on their plans for net zero targets—something that I hope the Minister will change today. We are looking at net zero, not making the grid carbon-neutral, but if the Government’s plans to decarbonise the energy grid are anything to go by, we could face the risk of being over-ambitious. That means they may leave working families faced with the prospects of picking up the bill, and I hope the Minister today will be honest with the public about the costs and the trade-offs that will be involved.
The Opposition believe it is vital that the Government take a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach, to ensure sustained public support for our goals. That is an important point—we have to win the support of the public in doing this. Otherwise, the current Government may find—as we did—that if they get things wrong, there may be a change in Government and a different approach could be brought in by an electorate who do not necessarily understand the technicalities of achieving net zero.
Before I go into the latest rounds of negotiations in Baku in November, I want to reflect quickly on our global leadership, as well as the success we had at COP26 in Glasgow. It is worth mentioning that Alok Sharma, who was the president, took his seat in the House of Lords yesterday. He attended Cabinet in the last Government and acted as a quasi climate envoy—a point that a number of people have raised. So we did have somebody championing the climate in Cabinet, and he is now in the House of Lords and will continue doing so.
The historic Glasgow climate pact ensured that we kept alive the 1.5 degree commitment. Since the UK took over the COP presidency, over 90% of the world’s GDP is now covered by net zero commitments, and that is up from 30%. More than 153 countries have put forward new 2030 nationally determined contributions, which effectively amount to climate plans. Record levels of finance have been pledged to help countries adapt to the effects of climate change through the adaptation fund and the least-developed country fund, both of which were established under the UK presidency. Finally, after six years of negotiations, we confirmed the Paris rulebook, which sets out the instructions and products needed to fully implement the Paris agreement on climate change.
Looking ahead to COP29, we need to focus on balancing our ambitious climate goals with the realities faced by British families and businesses. As a Conservative Government, that meant that we were committed to practical adjustments where necessary, but British families still want to know where a Labour Government stand with the net zero plans. Will they stand by their manifesto commitment to reverse the extension on the ban of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035? Will they commit to moving homes from gas boilers to heat pumps? How will they help landlords in getting homes ready for their new minimum energy performance certificate requirements? How will they manage to maintain energy security and independence for the UK while banning the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea? I know that point has been raised on many occasions, and the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), raised a very important point about Rosebank and what is going on in the North sea.
While the hon. Lady was making her speech, I checked how the grid was using energy. At 9.45 am we were using about 30 GW of power. Wind accounted for 37.5% of that, which is fantastic, but gas was 17%, nuclear was 16% and solar was 7.5%. We were importing 16.3% from Denmark—where the state of green energy is fantastic—Norway, France, Holland and Belgium. The bottom line is that we all want to get rid of fossil fuels, but we do not want to be reliant on foreign fossil fuels. That is a vulnerability, and that is why we have to be pragmatic. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point about getting away from Rosebank, but we do not want to be importing from Russia. We want to have security as we transition to net zero. That is a really important point.
In his speech on nuclear, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) raised the most important point about this: what we need is dispatchable baseload power. We must have dispatchable baseload power, and wind and solar do not provide that.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman just said “dispatchable” baseload power, and that is exactly what nuclear is not. If we just have a baseload that trundles along, renewables will be the ones we turn off and the nuclear will keep going; that is a waste of a lot of renewable energy, and it already happens. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to rethink our idea about baseload as we move into a more flexible, renewable world?
Mark Garnier
Let me quickly respond to that point, but it is great to get a debate going. Dispatchability and baseload are crucial, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right: nuclear is baseload, but gas is dispatchable. It is important to be able to switch on and off, because one has to be able to take the wind when it is blowing.
Josh MacAlister
There is a reason why the last COP recognised the importance of nuclear—it was because of such debates among experts. It is not enough to will the ends of net zero goals without willing also the means and being prepared to deal with our reality. Look at the debate in Germany: ideological positions have been taken against nuclear, and some of the industrial processes and hard-to-decarbonise parts of the economy are exposed to that recklessness. I encourage those in the debate to keep that in mind when they make their points.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic chap, and we are absolutely agreed on this. I urge him and other Members to join my all-party parliamentary group for energy studies, where we are looking at exactly this stuff, which is incredibly important. This brief discussion illustrates that it is difficult to ensure that energy can be delivered in the way that it is wanted and when it is in demand. That is the problem with energy, and that is what we have to get right.
Mark Garnier
I will make progress, because I do not want to go round in circles.
Although is right that we continue to lead on climate action, it is also crucial to consider how the cost of these measures is distributed over the long term. We face significant indirect impacts, such as disruptions to global supply chains affecting trade, the rising cost of imported goods, and changes in migration from regions heavily affected by climate change, as we have heard from other Members. How will the Government weigh those challenges against the need to grow the British economy?
I also want to draw Members’ attention to the briefing published by the Local Government Association ahead of this debate. Local councils are directly responsible for 2% to 5% of local emissions, and they can influence up to 80% of emissions through their roles in housing, transport and energy. Their leadership in place-shaping community engagement is vital. From retrofitting homes and implementing active travel programmes to investing in flood prevention and creating green jobs, councils are actively working to address climate risks and promote sustainability. To empower local government further, the LGA has proposed a number of core initiatives for the new Government. Key to these are a renewed local climate action delivery programme to provide a clear framework for local and national collaboration on climate action. I hope the Minister will update Members on how the Government can work with councils and communities to deliver a grassroots net zero plan, not just one that is internationally driven.
We know that Baku and COP29 will be focused on climate finance and a vital new deal on the global response. I think all Members appreciate that developing countries are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts. They require significant support to transition to clean energy, build resilient infrastructure and protect their communities from the effects of climate change.
The new collective quantified goals on climate finance are set to replace the previous target of $100 billion per year. They rightly aim to provide a more ambitious and equitable finance network framework for developing countries. However, success will depend on clear guidelines, transparent reporting and inclusive negotiations that consider the needs of all countries, including those with emerging economies.
With that in mind, there are several key questions that I am sure Members would appreciate answers on ahead of the negotiations in Baku in November. The new collective quantified goal aims to provide a more ambitious financial framework for developing countries, but the UK Government need to clarify their specific financial commitment. How much will the UK pledge, and over what timeframe? How will that align with the financial needs identified by developing countries? Public finance alone will not be sufficient to meet the vast financial needs of developing countries for climate action, so what role do the Government see private finance playing in meeting our climate targets? Do they see an opportunity for the City of London to develop itself as a world leader in private finance for green initiatives?
Outside COP29, how will the UK advocate for reforms within international financial institutions such as the World Bank and development banks to channel more finance towards low carbon, climate resilient development in developing countries? With new nationally determined contributions due shortly after COP29, which diplomatic and strategic measures will the UK employ to encourage other nations—particularly major emitters—to set more ambitious and actionable targets for reducing emissions in line with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C?
I am sure that the new Government will continue the previous Government’s efforts to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in delivering net zero across the globe. The Minister will agree that it remains vital for the UK to meet the commitments set out in the Paris agreement. We must remain committed to reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, yet we must also be honest about the cost and practicalities of achieving these goals. In the previous Government, we were honest about the need for a pragmatic and proportionate net zero strategy that put British families first while maintaining our global leadership on climate action. Opposition Members will of course continue to hold the Government to account on these issues, and urge Ministers to ensure that climate policies are ambitious but achievable, balancing environmental, economic and social needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dr Huq, and even more of a pleasure to be standing here in the Minister’s place rather than on the Opposition Benches. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this important debate. She has certainly hit the ground running, as this is her second Westminster Hall debate—I think many new MPs are yet to discover where Westminster Hall actually is.
My hon. Friend was a powerful voice on climate issues as deputy leader of Ealing council and as its cabinet member for climate action. I acknowledge from the outset—it has been brought up by a few Members—that local government has a huge role to play in helping us to deliver net zero. As a Bristol MP I would be expected to say that; I have previously boasted about the many achievements of Bristol council on that front in this House. I will not do that today, but it is really important and we are looking at how we can make the local net zero forum work more effectively.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall and for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) mentioned the impact on diaspora communities living here, including on constituents of Pakistani and Indian heritages. As a Bristol MP, we have a significant Somalian community and we know that the Horn of Africa has been absolutely ravaged by droughts and floods. We are dealing with the consequences of climate change here in the UK, but some people are also dealing with the consequences where their families and friends are based. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall, and I am sure that she will continue to drive this agenda forward in Parliament. I also thank other Members for contributing to the debate and I will reply to some of their specific points later.
We are almost halfway through what is a decisive decade to halt climate change. As global surface temperatures continue to rise following 12 months of record-breaking warmth; as people around the world face the very real effects of this crisis with rising sea levels, nature loss and food insecurity; and as we see climate vulnerable countries devastated by extreme weather events, it is clear the decisions that we make now will define our planet’s tomorrow. If we want to leave future generations a world that is liveable and safe, we must stick to the Paris agreement and keep 1.5° of global warming within reach.
As we have heard, we are currently way off track. Last year’s global stocktake confirmed that emissions need to peak by next year and fall by 43% between 2019 and 2030 to reach the Paris goal, yet we are currently on course for global emissions to fall by just 2%. We need to increase climate finance at least fivefold, phase out coal seven times faster, and reduce forest loss at least twice as fast.
Here in the UK, the Climate Change Committee’s July report provided a wake-up call. It found that the UK is not even on course to hit our own 2030 target of 68% emissions reductions, and highlighted a slowing of pace and reversed or delayed key policies. I will not reply here in detail, but the Government’s response to that report is coming. We will address some of the specific criticisms about domestic policy, including on the new homes standard and energy efficiency. I hope that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) has heard enough about retrofitting and the warm homes agency in other forums. We will very much be announcing our policies across the piece.
Ellie Chowns
The whole point is that I have not heard anything about it. I have heard two speeches by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and she has not mentioned it at all, which is why I asked that specific question. I look forward to a written response, but I urge the Government to take the point on board, because even the warm words are not there yet, let alone the action.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Member will know that a consultation on the new homes standard closed in March and we are looking to respond to that. Obviously, we want to make sure that our housing stock is as sustainable as possible, as well as setting up the warm homes agency to retrofit the 5 million homes that we have made a priority. I am pretty sure I have heard her mention retrofitting and get an answer from our Department, but I digress.
We very much need to up the pace. We are determined as a Labour Government to get us back on track by becoming climate leaders at home and abroad. That means decarbonising our power sector by 2030. We have already taken ambitious steps by lifting the onshore wind ban, giving the go-ahead to major solar proposals despite opposition in some quarters and setting up Great British Energy. We will also ensure that every large company has credible 1.5°-aligned plans for transition. As I said, we will be revealing more details as we move on, particularly in terms of setting out the next carbon budget, but also in our response to the CCC report.
Demonstrating strong leadership at home will give us the credibility that has been sadly lacking in recent years to demonstrate strong leadership abroad. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), mentioned that we were in Dubai last year. It was quite a depressing experience, particularly when we met climate activists from climate vulnerable countries who pressed us on what the UK was doing—the country that led with the groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008 and then raised the ambition to net zero—and whether it had completely abdicated its sense of international leadership. That was a constant refrain.
That is why in my first few weeks in this role, I spoke with key climate organisations about how we could restore the UK’s global leadership. I also held a roundtable with non-governmental organisations to discuss their priorities on climate action, as I will do again before Baku. In fact, I will be holding a series of roundtables with various stakeholder groups.
The Energy Secretary hosted the COP29 and COP30 presidencies, as well as Lord Sharma, who presided with distinction over COP26 in Glasgow, at a recent event in London to discuss how we can ramp up global ambitions. He then travelled to Brazil to strengthen ties ahead of next year’s Amazon COP, reflecting that this is a sequence. It is not just about what happens in Baku; we are already looking ahead to COP30 as well.
As we prepare to head to Azerbaijan this autumn, it is worth reflecting on the progress that has been made by the UK delegation in recent years. I make it clear that, after a couple of months in the Department, I have no criticism of the civil servants. They are incredibly dedicated and hard-working, and it is down to them that a lot of what I am about to mention has got over the line, regardless of a lack of political direction.
In Glasgow, we saw the proportion of global GDP committed to net zero go from 30% to more than 90%. In Sharm El Sheikh, we agreed a landmark fund to support those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Last year in Dubai, we saw real progress on the pledges made in previous years. We welcomed 13 new members to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, including the USA and the UAE, meaning that 180 Governments, businesses and organisations have now committed to phasing out unabated coal power.
We were one of 123 countries to support the global pledge to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency by 2030. We expanded the breakthrough agenda, which is our clean technology accelerator. We announced £1.6 billion of new international climate finance projects. We agreed half a billion pounds to protect forests and the rural communities depending on them. We committed £50 million for loss and damage to help developing countries to deal with the impact of climate change, and we signed an international green public procurement pledge to boost the use of green steel, cement and concrete.
We are absolutely determined to build on those successes in Baku, so the Energy Secretary will be breaking with recent tradition and leading the delegation himself, demonstrating the importance we attach to international negotiations at this critical time. I will be accompanying him, and we will hear more in due course about whether other Government Members will be coming with us.
Going into this COP, we have three priorities. The first is increasing finance. COP29 presents the first opportunity in 15 years to agree a new post-2025 finance goal. It is critical that the new collective quantified goal addresses the needs and priorities of developing countries, and we stand ready to work with Azerbaijan and its COP29 presidency to make that happen. As I said, meetings have already been taking place with them.
The second priority is raising ambitions to speed up the global net zero transition. In particular, we want to use COP29 to build momentum for the new nationally determined contributions, which are due by February 2025. We have already started planning our next NDC and we will do everything we can to encourage partners to be ambitious and wide-ranging with theirs. We will also develop a clean power alliance to bring together a coalition of countries at the cutting edge of ambition. Every country must show domestic action to contribute to the critical targets agreed last year on energy, methane, forests and more.
Thirdly, we must deliver on existing commitments and continue to support people on the frontline of the climate crisis, championing their voices through initiatives such as the climate and development ministerial, which places developing countries at the heart of work to improve access to finance for climate adaptation. I know that the hon. Member for Bath feels strongly about that. We look forward to co-chairing the fourth climate and development ministerial in Baku later this year. We also want to encourage even greater action on deforestation, which accounts for about 10% of global emissions, and we are committed to co-ordinated action outside the main negotiations, including making vital clean technologies accessible and affordable through the breakthrough agenda.
I will quickly turn to some of the key points made in this debate. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow support what we are doing in the consultation on no new oil and gas licences. As they said, it is important that this is a just transition and that we take local communities with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) talked about the importance of nuclear to his constituency. He has already proved to be a real champion for that; nuclear is very much part of the mix.
I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that one of the first things I said when I got into the Department was that I wanted to make sure that the devolved Administrations were part of the conversation as we headed into COP, and officials have been talking to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; we know that we want to have those conversations. Members asked about the appointment of an envoy, which is under consideration—again, watch this space. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow talked about the role of cities, which I have already said is important. She will know that I recently met the head of C40 Cities, Mark Watts, and we talked about whether the UK can sign up to CHAMP—the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships—so that is on my radar.
I have covered the main points and I want to leave a minute for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall to reply. Although that was a quick canter through things, I hope that it has got across that we want to be in the driving seat when we go to COP. We can do that only if we have established our credibility at home, and I hope that we have done so.
Deirdre Costigan
Thank you for your excellent chairship of this debate, Dr Huq. I also thank all the Members who spoke in the debate for their valuable contributions. I do not have time to respond to all the points made, but I will pick up on a couple. I was very interested in the remarks by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on moving away from fossil fuels. I wonder, however, if she has spoken to her co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), who says he is in favour of clean energy and wind energy, but wants to block the only viable way of bringing that clean energy on to land and to the homes that need it.
I would also like to respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and thank him for his helpful words. He said at the beginning that people had voted the Conservatives out of power because of their lack of action on climate. That was refreshing honesty, and I thank him very much for it.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. At 11 o’clock, we start the next debate.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Winter Fuel Payment
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I remind everyone that this is a short debate, so everything is a bit squished, and most Members will not be able to make proper speeches. We have two Members down as intervening—we will seek clarity on the rest—and the Minister has 10 minutes to respond.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Winter Fuel Payment.
I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Charities, medics, academics, economists and constituents have evidence showing why the Government must ensure that mitigation is in place to protect pensioners in fuel poverty this winter. Winter fuel payments have provided a layer of protection, with £300 for the over-80s, which is insufficient for some, but excessive for those who need no energy support. Housing costs, food prices and energy costs have exacerbated the situation, leading to the hardest of choices for the 2.1 million pensioners in poverty—a legacy of the last Government. However, once people secure their home, they have to ensure that they can eat and keep warm, and we need the Government to provide an assurance that pensioners will have the help they need to stay warm and well. I know that the Government are working hard, but in 20 days the energy price cap will rise, and people are looking for answers, as am I.
Governments do not choose their inheritance, but they can determine the future. On discovering a £21.9 billion legacy deficit, the Chancellor was right to protect the economy and to prevent interest rates and mortgage rates from soaring in the way they did during the Truss-Kwarteng experiment. However, the winter fuel payment is in a different league.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward, and I suspect there is no one here who does not support what she has said. Does she agree that the way this change is being foisted on our constituents, with no time for them even to save towards winter fuel bills, is reminiscent of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign scandal, which the ombudsman said was a failing? Does she agree that the Government must consider putting off any changes until winter 2025, and that any changes should be targeted at those who can afford to lose the winter fuel payment?
Rachael Maskell
A Labour Government must always protect the poorest in our society.
The total saving for this year—£1.3 billion—is 0.1% of the total Treasury spend. However, when only 1.6 million pensioners not on pension credit need energy support, that drops to 0.04% of the Government’s budget, assuming that all get the top rate of £300, although most will get less. If we add in additional health and care costs, the saving shrinks again.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 will take up to £300 per household from two groups of low-income pensioners: those eligible for pension credit who do not claim it and those who are just over the pension cliff edge but still living on very little. As I understand it, pension credit take-up rate is around 63% and, at best, will be around 68%. The saving to the public purse is predicated on that basis, but the savings will be wiped out if everyone eligible for pension credit took it up, which surely should be the goal. Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal simply does not stack up?
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend has done the maths, and I think it speaks for itself.
The Chancellor cannot make this just an economic argument, because there is also a humanitarian cost. We need the capacity to find an “escape route”, as the former Chancellor, Ed Balls, stated, because people need a safety net. When Labour’s Gordon Brown came to power, he said he was
“simply not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating, even on the coldest winter days”.—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 780.]
Now, they are fearful. The winter fuel payment covered around a third of people’s bills, but it now covers only 12% to 17%. With the 10% rise in the price cap on 1 October, and without cost of living payments, pensioners are exposed to far greater risk. The average bill is £1,717, but older people are at home more, and more likely to live in homes that are less efficient, so they will pay even more.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important and timely debate—this is an issue of concern across all our constituencies. On the economics, is she aware of the savings credit available to over-75s who are not in receipt of pension credit but who do have a small amount of savings? This is a Government payment and gives people access to other benefits as well, operating as a gateway in the same way as pension credit. Does my hon. Friend think the Government should do more to publicise that payment?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing just that, and I trust that people will follow through.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing the debate, and I am sure she will agree with me on two points. The first is that it was the last Conservative Government, through their mismanagement of the economy and the nation’s finances, who got us into this financial black hole, and it is disappointing to see the Conservative particularly poorly represented in the debate. Secondly, does she agree that, as means-testing is introduced for the winter fuel payment as a result of that mismanagement, consideration should be given to pensioners in rural constituencies, such as my own in north Northumberland, who are living off-grid in energy-inefficient homes, and that we should target them through things such as the warm homes fund and the household support fund?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for that intervention, because the previous Government clearly cannot defend their record. I absolutely recognise that people in rural communities live in some of the draughtiest homes and, in Northumberland, some of the coldest too.
One constituent, who will just miss out on the winter fuel payment, has just been billed £34 more this month. He cannot pay it. That is how we know that things are worse now. As we have seen, pension increases are simply not covering the sharp rises in the cost of living as a result of things such as rent. This year in York average rents rose by 11.9%—or by 12.5% for a flat—exceeding the April pension triple lock rise by at least £382, and rents continue to rise.
Stripped of the winter fuel payment, the elderly poor will be exposed to greater financial risk. They have the hardest of all budgets to balance and no alternative choices. I welcome the extension of the household support fund, but the scale of demand means that it will be insufficient.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Constituent after constituent has written to me, including an elderly couple who have just recovered from cancer. They said that they will slip through the net and are considering going around on a bus in Harpenden and Berkhamsted to keep warm in the winter. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need carefully to consider those who are vulnerable and in need, so that they do not slip through the net, and that they should consider reversing their decision on the winter fuel payment?
Rachael Maskell
Real stories speak so powerfully, and that is obviously an issue we need to address. I will make some progress now.
I applaud the Work and Pensions Secretary for her mission to get 880,000 eligible people on to pension credit in time to receive the winter fuel payment. After people complete the 243-question application, there is a nine-week wait to process it. I know that the Secretary of State will change that in time, but it just shows what she is up against and how years of neglect have handed her a broken system. Charities say that that cannot be done in time. There is a reason why 37% of those eligible have not claimed pension credit: it is complex; there is pride; some people have dementia and complex needs; and others simply find the thought too stressful. But I ask people to please sign up.
With the winter fuel payment, people had some cover; now, they are exposed. Of course, many do not need it, but for those that do, it is a lifeline. According to the University of York briefing I had on Sunday, 47% of recipients spend it directly on their energy.
The Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary is again showing his leadership by driving down energy costs through his renewable sprint, with GB Energy and the retrofitting of homes. In the light of the report from the Committee on Fuel Poverty, highlighting how progress to achieve fuel security slowed under the last Government, he completely gets the opportunity of power. I simply urge him to achieve a social tariff, so that the oil and gas giants, profiteering to the tune of tens of billions, are made to help those wrapped in jumpers and blankets.
When we scrutinise the medical evidence, we see that the cost gets greater. The elderly cannot retain body heat. When the body is cold, it fights harder, causing hypertension, heart attacks and strokes. As blood pressure rises, hypothermia creeps in. As infection biomarkers show, viruses prey on the weakest, and respiratory illnesses are exacerbated by cold, damp air. If people choose heating over food, the lack of calories causes its own challenges. If a person has dementia, the situation is more complex, because some cannot judge their temperature. Other diseases, such as cancer, demand keeping warm.
All those issues create huge cost to the NHS, which is already in permacrisis. As the Health Secretary knows, the NHS is broken, and the only route out is prevention. In taking this protection to prevent fuel poverty, we need a safety net for those at risk. People should read the work of the chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, and of Professor Sir Michael Marmot, which says everything we need to know about why mitigation is urgently needed.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Member for securing the debate. I have more than 16,000 residents at risk of losing the winter fuel payment, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address it. In the light of her comments about the social tariff, does she agree that this announcement comes far too early and raises a great deal of concern for many of our residents? Should the Chancellor not have waited longer to address in her Budget the wider pressures she has identified, rather than putting so many constituents in fear of not being able to heat their homes this winter?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I will talk about the mitigation that absolutely must be there.
I talked to a director of public health this morning who said we should implement a warm homes on prescription scheme. Evidence from the Energy Systems Catapult and the NHS pilot in Gloucestershire found that such a scheme was value for money and helped people stay well. Government could really help.
Sadly, demand on GPs will rise, queues at A&Es will grow, more beds will be occupied in the NHS and social care will be placed under more demand. Tragically, according to University College London and the Institute of Health Equity, there were 4,950 excess winter deaths due to cold homes under the previous Government. I feel sick to the stomach each time I repeat that reality, because I cannot process how Governments past did not protect those vulnerable people—Labour must be different. We need mitigation, because we must protect those under our care. Otherwise, what is the point of power?
One constituent has had leukaemia. They need to put the heating on to keep warm, but they cannot afford to because it costs £300 a month. A recently widowed constituent, at the depth of their personal sadness, is now scared they will not survive the winter; they cannot afford their heating. Another constituent goes to bed at 5 o’clock to keep warm. One constituent told me he wears jumpers, a coat and a warm hat, but the air is still cold and damp. Then there is Rose, who is registered as severely vision-impaired and living alone, who said:
“I am a council tenant with no extra assets”.
She told me she was scared and “abandoned”—the winter fuel payment was her lifeline. I have many, many more accounts like that.
It is colder in the north, so costs are higher. The UK Health Security Agency recommends indoor temperatures should be at least 18°C. Some people need higher temperatures to keep warm. It is not just the physical impact that matters; people are anxious, tearful and scared each year.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Like many in the House, I have been touched by some of the tragic correspondence I have received about those who are being impacted. I am concerned about women such as Barbara, a carer in my constituency who looks after her husband, who has dementia. I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about the need to protect people who have a disability, ill health or chronic conditions, because we know that fuel poverty and cold homes exacerbate those conditions. Does she agree that we must urge the NHS, in its winter planning guidance, to do more to work with others to tackle fuel poverty, and to target vulnerable people so they do not go cold this winter?
Rachael Maskell
I welcome my hon. Friend’s expertise, and she is right: the NHS is where this issue will present itself. It is already under huge pressure, so we have to find a way out of this issue.
We have all had the emails, the handwritten letters and the people queuing up, pleading—I certainly have. These pensioners have worked hard all of their lives. Some have put a little bit aside; others have not. Winter is always a challenge. This Government must have the capacity to find another way. People put their hope in Labour because, like me, we believe that it exists to fight for working people, to protect the poor and to seek justice, equality and fairness. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), does too.
With the economic imperative shredded and the medical case so powerful, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has provided a path out. It is unconvinced that the measures should be pushed through so urgently and wants scrutiny. It highlighted that the DWP needs to assess the risks of those eligible and ineligible for pension credit. While the triple lock fails to provide protection, the triple hit of the energy price cap rising by 10% on 1 October, the Tory freeze to the personal allowance and the removal of the winter fuel payment, without the cost of living payments, leaves people exposed. The Committee says that the measures could be delayed by changing the trigger dates. Delay is still possible.
The Committee also highlights that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has a legal role in reviewing legislation before debate, will not meet until after the measures have passed. That means that MPs and Lords will not have the opportunity to debate its findings. We need these reports to debate the proposals. Furthermore, no impact assessment has been published.
As has already been said, according to academia fuel poverty is deeply rooted in inequality, disproportionately impacting on women and black and minority ethnic and disabled people, as well as the socio-economically disadvantaged. I have been contacted by many charities highlighting cancer, neurological conditions and others—and, of course, dementia too. Labour must always ensure that those with protected characteristics experience no detriment.
Our constituents are worried sick. They are frail and frightened. I see desperation in their eyes, and I hear it in their voices. As they grip my arm in the street and look at me, they know what I know—and if we are honest, what we all know. They are worried that they will be that statistic. Our duty is to take away that fear.
Mitigation is still possible: from delay to a social tariff or social prescribing, where consultants and GPs can authorise payments. I want to know what work the Government are doing in these areas. What measures are they looking at? What mitigation is possible, and by when? The household support fund will simply not be enough. The pension increase is insufficient. We need more, and we need it urgently.
I want this Government to do much better than the last, and I believe that, over time, we will, but winter is upon us now and we must reassure the fuel-poor pensioners that they will have the support they need. My constituents plead that I do something—my goodness, I am trying, but the Minister must too. Please, let us mitigate. Let us give people confidence and the comfort and care they need—the help and protection to keep them safe, warm and well this winter. If that cannot be done, then delay these measures. I rest my case.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I see that there is another name down to speak. We have actually run out of time for that, but the Clerk is advising that Neil Duncan-Jordan can intervene on the Minister—that is a possibility. I call the Minister, Emma Reynolds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, so thank you, Dr Huq. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for providing the opportunity for this debate, and thanking her and others for their attendance.
The previous Government left us with unfunded and undisclosed spending commitments. It is very surprising that none of them is in their place for this debate. I may not know some of the new Conservative MPs, but I see empty places opposite me, although elsewhere there are hon. Members from other parties. Hon. Members are acutely aware of the £22 billion black hole in this year’s public finances left by the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that that represents
“one of the largest year-ahead overspends against…forecasts outside of the pandemic years”,
and the Chancellor only discovered this after the election. She has been clear that the decision about means-testing the winter fuel payment was not one that this Government expected or wanted to make, but given the in-year overspend that we uncovered, it is a necessary one. While protecting the poorest pensioners on the lowest incomes and with the greatest need, it is the right decision given the tough choices that we face.
To be very clear, I have spoken to a number of the hon. Members present about the Government’s decision, and there is actually fairly widespread agreement that the benefit should not be universal. Plenty of very wealthy pensioners who do not need it are getting transfers of £200—or £300, if they are over 80—into their bank accounts. It is right that we target the support at the poorest pensioners.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the problem is that wherever we draw the line, there will always be those just above who end up being poorer because they do not gain the benefit and do not get the passported access that gaining the benefit gives? Those individuals end up being worse off than the people who do claim. That is one of the problems with the means-tested system.
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. For those just above the threshold, we have extended the household support fund. I urge hon. Members to work with me, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Deputy Prime Minister, who have written to local authorities to encourage them to ensure that those just above the threshold who are struggling get the support they need with bills. Obviously, that is discretionary, but we encourage local authorities to use that.
In addition, the Minister for Energy Consumers has met with the 15 largest energy providers and urged them to give all the support they can to those who are either likely to get into debt, or who are already into debt on their fuel bills. Support is available. There is also the warm homes discount, which is available to a larger cohort than those on pension credit. That will go live in October; again, I encourage hon. Members to join us in urging those struggling with their bills to apply for the warm homes discount, which is worth £150.
There are measures that the Government are taking. We are absolutely determined to boost the uptake of pension credit. It is a national scandal that up to 880,000 eligible pensioners are missing out on pension credit thanks to the previous Government. That is worth on average £3,900 per year, but obviously depends on personal circumstances. If people apply for pension credit and are successful, it passports them to all sorts of other benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) rightly said that pensioners eligible for the savings credit part of pension credit are also eligible for pension credit, and therefore will be passported to receive winter fuel payments. It is quite a complex area, because it depends on whether someone is on the old or new state pension. Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, introduced the savings credit precisely to help the cohort of people that hon. Members are concerned about. George Osborne, on taking office, cut that benefit and made it unavailable for younger pensioners, so the cut off is 2016. That is something that we have been left; as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, it is not a legacy that we have chosen. I hope to work with all hon. Members present, who are clearly concerned about their constituents, to boost the uptake of pension credit.
Andy McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree that the Minister has inherited the most dreadful legacy from the absent Conservative party. Could she clarify for me the issue of take-up of pension credit? It currently sits at 63%; the ambition is 68%. What would happen to the proposed savings of £1.4 billion if pension credit was successfully rolled out to everybody entitled to it? Would those savings not disappear?
Emma Reynolds
The savings we have estimated—£1.4 billion this year and £1.5 billion in the next financial year—take into account a boost in the uptake of pension credit. We are absolutely determined to see an increase in that uptake, so the Secretary of State and I have already engaged with charities and local authorities. The Secretary of State spoke to Age UK and Citizens Advice about how we work together.
Last week was Pension Credit Week of Action. I encourage hon. Members to look at my X, although I know it is not so fashionable with everyone these days, for a video of a visit I did last week precisely to raise awareness of pension credit. Pension credit is not a simple process—we are looking at how to simplify it—but charities such as Age UK and Citizens Advice will help pensioners to go through it online. The online version is much simpler than the paper version, believe it or not, as the paper version has lots of questions that will not be applicable. We are also delivering a major campaign in print and broadcast media, including for people to reach out to retired families, friends and neighbours to urge them to check if they are eligible.
We will write to all pensioners about housing benefit; this is a question that one of my hon. Friends asked me yesterday. He had a constituent on housing benefit who was concerned that that would be taken into account as a form of income when the Government looked at his eligibility for pension credit. I confirm that that is not the case: housing benefit is not taken into account with regard to income. Please, I urge pensioners on housing benefit, who will be receiving a letter from the Department, to apply for pension credit.
As a Government, we are looking to merge the administration of housing benefit and pension credit to make that much simpler for people. The previous Government promised they would do that—some years ago, in fact—but were not going to until 2029. We think that that was slow decision making, and we are seeking to do it as soon as is operationally feasible. It is not a simple exercise, but it is something that we should do.
Calum Miller
I congratulate the Minister on the speed with which you have got up to speed in this fiendishly complex area. That in itself demonstrates a point. Do you not agree that this has been a premature decision, which has left many of our constituents deeply anxious about how they will heat their homes this winter? If you as the Minister are telling us that it is complex and not straightforward, and a difficult set of issues to navigate, how can we expect people worrying about illness, caring for their partners, or living on the poverty line because they are just above the pension credit limit, to get through this winter? Do you not agree that it would have been better to consider the issue in slightly slower time?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. The Clerk always reminds me that Members cannot use “you” because it means me, even when used with “Minister”. We have had it all morning.
Emma Reynolds
Dr Huq, I am sure Members will soon get used to the bizarre ways of this House.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for his question. As I set out, the Chancellor was not expecting to do this but had to do it urgently because of the £22 billion black hole in our public finances. The black hole is in-year. What if we did not tackle it? Look at what happened under the previous Government, with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget: they put forward unfunded tax cuts and sent the markets into turmoil. Interest rates increased, putting mortgage rates and rents up, and that led to higher inflation.
People on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, would really suffer were we not to secure economic stability. Economic stability is the foundation of all that we want to do in Government. I say to pensioners and others across the country: this is a necessary step to make the improvements that we want in our NHS, bringing down waiting times, and in our schools, ensuring that we have the highest standards.
Emma Reynolds
I am afraid I cannot give way at this point, because I only have a few seconds left, but I thank my hon. Friend once more for providing the opportunity for this debate.
Unfortunately, given the fiscal inheritance, we have had to make some very difficult decisions. We made other decisions in July as well, such as pausing the hospitals programme to review what we will do with it. There are other decisions to come. However, it is right that we take the difficult decisions to protect our economic stability, and to drive growth in our economy, higher tax receipts and improvements in our public services. We are absolutely determined as a Government to deliver a better NHS, with waiting times down, and better public services, which will benefit pensioners and people across our economy and our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Illegal Immigration
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered illegal immigration.
I must start by saying that our numbers in this debate are more select than they might otherwise be, were it not for the fact that many Members are taking part in the vital debate on the Government’s decision to take the winter fuel payment away from 10 million needy pensioners.
Since 1971, it has been a criminal offence for a person who is not a British citizen to knowingly enter this country without leave to do so. Yet since the start of 2021, more than 125,000 people have come to the UK illegally in small boats—about 94 people every day. In the period since Labour came to power alone, about 8,400 people have come—about 137 every day. Of course, people also come via other illegal routes, and, for obvious reasons, it is difficult to estimate the total number of people in the country illegally. However, the numbers are clearly significant. A 2020 report for the Pew Research Center estimated that at the end of 2017, 800,000 to 1.2 million people were already living in the UK without a valid residence permit, which is about 1.2% to 1.8% of the whole population.
Illegal immigration is unfair on those who have played by the rules and come here legally. It undermines attempts to get the kind of high-skill, high-wage migration that all politicians say they want and it blows a hole in our attempts to keep dangerous people out of the country. It is a huge issue.
Many of the people coming here in the small boats are, in reality, economic migrants—not all, but many. At present, the No. 1 country of origin is Vietnam, which is a friendly and peaceful country. However, as the University of Oxford Migration Observatory pointed out, it is also a country where there are lots of strong connections to organised crime for those crossing from Vietnam, or being trafficked from there.
Most of the people in the small boats are young men—nine out of 10 are men, and about three quarters are aged 18 to 39. Few have any documentation, with only about 2% having passports, which makes it difficult to prove who they are or where they are from, and, coached by the people smugglers, most destroy any evidence —pocket litter, SIM cards and the like—that would tell us where they are from.
The overwhelming majority of these people will claim asylum. They know that if they can make it to the UK, they will be able to stay by one means or another—most will be granted asylum, and, of those who are not, very few will be removed. Looking at the period 2019 to 2022, we see that only about a fifth of applications were refused, and only one in 20 people was actually made to leave the country through enforced or voluntary returns.
Asylum grant rates have steadily climbed in recent decades, from less than a third in 2004 to around four fifths now, while the proportion of people who are ultimately removed has dropped sharply over the past 10 years. Previously, around a quarter of those who claimed asylum were returned; now, the figure is only around one in 20. Many of those who are not granted asylum simply disappear. In November 2023, the Home Office admitted that it does not know the whereabouts of around 17,000 asylum seekers whose claims have been discontinued. Those coming in the small boats know the bottom line: if they can get to the UK, they can stay. As long as that is the case, more and more people will come.
The Government say they are trying to address the issue in a variety of ways, which I will work through. First, they are trying to process people faster, which, in practice, means granting more people asylum more quickly. That means that the costs of the asylum system disappear into the costs of the wider welfare system, but, of course, the costs in the real world do not go away. A number of local councils are concerned that people will shift from asylum accommodation to presenting as statutory homeless and in need of council housing.
These trends are quite difficult to get a handle on in the UK, because, while lots of other Governments are publishing more and more data, we in the UK are publishing less and less. The Department for Work and Pensions has stopped publishing data on welfare claims by nationality, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has stopped publishing tax paid and tax credits received by nationality. The Home Office will not answer questions on the immigration status of prisoners, such as whether a prisoner is here illegally—although it has the data, it does not publish it—and it does not collect data on the nationality or immigration status of those who are arrested.
When asked basic questions such as how much it spends, on average, per night on hotel accommodation, the Home Office says such information is commercially confidential. When asked about spending programmes such as the refugee integration loan scheme, the Home Office says it does not know how much it has spent, it does not know how many loans it has made, and it does not know how many have been repaid. That is a pretty shocking way to handle taxpayers’ money and it all breeds huge mistrust, meaning that we cannot have a sensible debate about the costs and benefits of different migration policies. The first question that I hope the Minister will answer is this: will she publish the data, so that we can at least have a sensible discussion about the facts?
The second thing that the Government say they are trying to do is to increase deportations of those who should not be here, which is obviously an idea I welcome. In some ways, however, this is surprising because when the Prime Minister was campaigning to be the leader of the Labour party, he signed a letter calling for the suspension of a flight to deport 50 offenders to Jamaica and the suspension of all such future charter flights. In total, 151 Labour MPs and peers signed that letter.
Among those who escaped deportation that day were Ikiva Heaven, a heroin dealer who had already served four years in prison and who went on to be jailed again in May 2021 for dealing cocaine and heroin. If that was not bad enough, one of the other criminals who Labour Members so generously campaigned on behalf of, Ernesto Elliott, went on to commit murder.
The Prime Minister has previously claimed that there is a
“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”.
None the less, I take it on trust that a new leaf has been turned over and that the Government really do want to increase deportations. However, we need some clarity about exactly what the Government’s target and promise are. The Home Secretary has said that she will
“reverse the collapse in removals that has taken place since 2010”. —[Official Report, 22 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 386.]
As the Minister will know, I was quite critical of the last Government on this issue so I would welcome an increase in deportations. However, my question to the Minister is this: what will the Government achieve, by when? Are we talking about enforced returns or all returns? By when will we reach what level of deportations? For background, the number of enforced returns was 21,425 in 2004; by 2009, that figure had declined to 13,938. It declined further to just 9,236 by 2018. It then ran at about 3,000 a year during the pandemic, when no one was flying—fair enough. However, it then went back up to 7,119 in the year ending June 2024.
What is the Government’s ambition regarding enforced returns? Is it only to bounce back to pre-pandemic levels? If so, that would leave the figure substantially below 2010 levels and at about half the rate that we had in 2004. That would not be very ambitious. Will the Government figure also include voluntary returns? If that is the case, the Home Secretary’s recent announcement that she wanted to raise levels up to the “highest level since 2018” involves a very odd target, because returns have already increased to above that level. In 2018, they were 24,938; in the year ending June 2024, they were 29,551. She could go backwards and still hit her target, which is hardly a stretching ambition. The second question that I hope the Minister will answer when she responds to the debate is about what exactly the Government are promising, by when, and on what kind of deportations. We urgently need clarity.
That brings me to my third question for the Minister. For some countries of origin, such as Albania, we have already secured returns agreements; that has been very effective. Given that the number of people coming from Vietnam is now very high, I am sure that the Government will quickly secure a returns agreement with that country. However, what do the Government plan when it comes to countries that will not take their nationals back or countries that the Government will not want to send nationals back to—such as Afghanistan, Iran and Syria, which account for a very large share of illegal immigration to the UK? I take it that the Government will not negotiate returns agreements with the Taliban, the ayatollahs of Iran or Assad in Syria.
To solve the problem, Governments across Europe are negotiating deals with safe third countries. Last week, we got the news that a senior Minister in Germany was looking to take up the relationship with Rwanda that the Labour Government have rashly abandoned without putting any alternative in place. It is not just Germany that wants to do this; two camps will be built in Albania to house migrants rescued at sea by Italian boats while Italy processes their asylum claims. The EU has ruled that that is legal under European law. Denmark passed legislation allowing for the processing of asylum claims in third countries in 2021. The Chancellor of Austria praised the last Government’s agreement with Rwanda, saying that it was a
“pioneer for us being able to put asylum proceedings in safe third countries”.
In May, 15 EU member states wrote to the European Commission to back the creation of centres in third countries. The signatories included Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania.
Lots of Governments are looking at this issue and responding. In a recent letter, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission President, noted that
“Many Member States are looking at innovative strategies to prevent irregular migration by tackling asylum applications further from the EU external border”.
She promised to look at the issue during the current European Parliament cycle.
The use of safe third countries is not a new idea. Outside Europe, Australia has been intercepting boats at sea and putting people in safe third countries since 2001. Here, Tony Blair’s Government worked to get a deal with Tanzania to send failed asylum seekers there, and that Government also worked to get a deal with other EU member states that would have seen asylum processing in third countries—an idea that is clearly coming back again. Of course, there are differences between the schemes: between sending failed asylum seekers to other countries, processing asylum claims offshore or doing both the processing and accepting of asylum claims in other countries. They have different merits, but all stop failed asylum seekers from remaining here illegally.
It seems certain to me that this Government must and will end up negotiating similar agreements with third countries of their own, which is why it was so rash of them to trash the Rwanda scheme with no alternative. My third question is: having rashly handed over all the work we did with Rwanda to Germany, will the Government now U-turn and start working on third-country deals of the kinds that many other countries now have or are setting up?
I have already mentioned Australia’s policy of intercepting boats at sea, and my fourth question relates to that. What will the Government do to ensure that people intercepted at sea are towed back to France rather than the UK? That is an increasingly important point because the small boats crisis has entered a new and more dangerous phase. The average number of people in each boat has been increasing, and partly because of the success of the last Government in increasingly intercepting engines—the most difficult element of the people smugglers’ kit—we are seeing very large and increasingly overcrowded boats putting out to sea with really small engines. Those things are death traps by design; they are not even intended to get across the channel but purely to get a few miles out to sea and then rely on being rescued. Other innovations by the criminals, such as taking the hard floor out of the boats, have already had deadly and tragic consequences.
The legal argument has always been made that, under the law of the sea, those things are by definition a risk to life at sea. It has got even stronger, which shifts the argument for us to turn more of them back to France. I know that the French have occasionally allowed those boats to be towed back to France when the circumstances have been acute enough, but the argument has got stronger. Will the Minister commit to doing just that? Everything we do at every stage to disrupt the people smugglers’ business model helps to make it unviable and to stop this evil trade.
That brings me to my final question for the Minister: what will the Government do about the underlying reasons why people come from safe third countries to the UK? I said at the start that people know that, as long as they can make it to the UK, they will be able to stay. As long as they know that, they will continue to come. Successive Governments since 2018 have worked with France and other allies to improve enforcement. There have been some results from that, but on its own, it is not going to be enough. We need people to realise that crossings are futile so that they do not step into a deadly boat in the first place.
Some people think that we can solve the problem by just granting more visas for people to come here legally—so-called safe and legal routes. They are saying, “Just make illegal immigration legal, and the problem is solved”. The problem is that, unless we are prepared to have completely open borders and to impose no limits at all, there will always be people who come illegally. For example, 2,233 people from India have come on small boats. India is the world’s largest democracy with a booming economy and an impressive space programme, but we have given—over the same period that the boats have been operating—1.3 million non-visitor visas to people from India. There are loads of opportunities to come here legally from India, and yet thousands of people have still come here illegally. That shows us that we can never solve this problem by having slightly more or slightly bigger safe and legal routes.
It is true that we have created, quite rightly, a number of additional routes on top of the asylum system. Through those humanitarian routes, plus the asylum system, we have taken about half a million people over the last five years; some of them lived in my house—I had Ukrainian refugees living in my house. But sadly, we cannot have an unlimited scheme for every country in the world that is poorer or more oppressive than the UK, because that is a very large share of the world’s population. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, about 16% of all adults worldwide say that they would leave their own country permanently if they could—that would be about 900 million people. They are not wrong to want to move to a richer country, but we simply cannot take all those who would like to move here. Doing things that simply increase the acceptance rate in the asylum system to “clear the backlog” is likely only to increase the pull factor and encourage more people to take that dangerous journey across the channel.
If we look at the countries of origin that account for most of those crossing the channel, we can see that the grant rates have been increasing dramatically over recent years. Even on initial, first-round decisions, acceptances from Vietnam have gone up from about 20% to 60% in recent years. From Eritrea and Sudan, the rates have gone up from 20% to about 100%, and from Afghanistan and Syria, they are about 100%. The figures on final decisions, and on the proportion of people who are actually removed, are even starker. The share of those coming from Vietnam who are returned has declined from about two thirds in the mid-noughties to just 1%. For Turkey, it has gone from 0.5% to 1%. From Iran, from one in five to just 1%. Even for friendly countries like India—booming economies, superpowers in the making—it has gone from half to just one in 10.
There are multiple reasons why someone’s chances of remaining in the UK having come here illegally have increased so much over time. Case law has gradually broadened the definition of groups that are at “risk of persecution”, allowing more and more people to come to the UK if their own countries do not meet the very high standards of western liberal norms. The expansion by the courts of the concept of persecution has left immigration officers facing almost impossible questions of judgment: is someone really a member of this political party or this religion, do they practise their lifestyle or faith openly or quietly, or are they a prominent target? Often there is variation within countries and between time periods.
In some cases, people are not being persecuted in their own country, but they argue they would be persecuted if they returned. For example, military men from Eritrea who have left without permission can be made to do military service, which is then used as an argument to stay in the UK. Should we have to accept any young man who comes here from Eritrea for that reason? I do not think that just because someone’s country is poorer or more oppressive than the UK that gives them a right to come to the UK, but that is the direction that judicial activism has taken.
To create some accountability and transparency around this, I have pushed for the decisions of the first-tier immigration tribunal to be published rather than kept secret, as at present, but that still has not happened. Hand in glove with judicial activism, the Shaw review and the decline of immigration and detention have made the practicalities of deporting people much harder.
Far and away the biggest legal change is the growth in case law associated with the European convention on human rights, signed in 1950. While the 1951 refugee convention had no court or enforcement mechanism at the start, the convention of course has its own court in Strasbourg. Unlike Germany, the UK has a dualist legal system, meaning that treaties do not directly apply, so historically it was able to ignore rulings of the European court. However, in 1998, the Blair Government incorporated the convention into domestic law, meaning people could use their ECHR rights in the domestic courts, directly. I think Tony Blair regretted that very quickly, because in 2006 the courts ruled on the case of nine Afghans who hijacked an airliner in Afghanistan and held its occupants at gunpoint for four days at Stansted airport in 2000. The court granted them leave to remain in this country in a claim heavily based on ECHR rights.
Case law has shifted the meaning of some of the very vaguely defined rights in the convention in a way that would have stunned the original signatories. As an example, a Government consultation listed some cases showing how the balance has shifted. I will mention some of those in this debate. Take case X, a foreign national who had leave to remain in the UK, who committed a series of crimes including common assault, battery, destruction of property and grievous bodily harm. The immigration and asylum tribunal found it would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s rights to deport them, given their relationship with their child. If we take case AD, a Turkish national who was convicted of an offence of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment, in September 2019, the first-tier tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation on human rights grounds. After protracted litigation relying on his period of lawful residence and marriage to a UK national, the upper-tier tribunal allowed the appeal on article 8 ECHR grounds.
In the case of OO, a Nigerian national convicted of intent to supply crack cocaine and heroin and two offences of violence, in 2020, the first-tier tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation, again on article 8 ECHR grounds, and the upper-tier tribunal upheld these findings, relying on what it called OO’s “significant obstacles” to integrating back in Nigeria.
I do not think that any of these decisions were what Winston Churchill intended when he set up the Council of Europe. Jonathan Sumption, one of our leading jurists, is right to say that these incredibly vaguely defined rights are “dangerous for democracy”. ECHR rights are being used to block us from doing many of the things that we need to do to prevent people who arrive here illegally from lying about their age.
A recent freedom of information response released by the Home Office makes it clear that many people are lying about their age. We can now see that supposedly there are 50% more 16-year-olds arriving here than 18-year-olds, and there are also 50% more 20-year-olds than 18-year-olds, leaving a suspicious dip in the numbers around the age of 18. However, the medical examinations that would enable us to stop people lying about their ages are often barred by ECHR rights. We saw a tragic case of a dangerous person lying about their age with Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, who claimed to be 14 when he was 19, and went on to kill Tom Roberts, an aspiring Royal Marine. That awful and dangerous case showed in multiple ways how the system elevates the rights of dangerous people over the rights of people in this country who just want to stay safe.
Enforcement is very important, and I hope the Minister will let us know when the head of the new border security command is going to be appointed, as several months have passed now. It is essentially a rebadging of existing measures, but it is still not good that the post has remained vacant for so long. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that someone has finally been appointed.
There are, however, limits to what enforcement can do. Tony Smith, the former head of Border Force, has pointed out that just relying on enforcement alone is like playing whack-a-mole. One gang can be shut down, but another one will always pop up. That is why he calls the decision to scrap the Rwanda scheme “rash”. Those who come on the small boats know the bottom line. If they can get to the UK, they can stay. Until we change that, more and more people will force their way into this country illegally. That is not fair on British citizens and it is not fair to legal migrants to this country. It brings significant costs to the British taxpayer and lets dangerous people into our country.
During the election I met many people who were in despair about the small boats. They felt it was profoundly unfair, and that the rights of people who forced their way into this country were considered more important than their rights. They are right to feel that way. I was critical of the previous Government, but I am not optimistic about the current Government fixing any of these things. Perhaps the Minister will prove me wrong when she responds to the debate.
At the very least, I hope that the Minister will answer some questions directly. First, will the Government publish the data that the DWP and the Home Office keep secret? Secondly, will the Government set out a clear, measurable and specific target for removals with a date on it? Thirdly, will the Government U-turn and start talks to create third-country agreements of the kind that they have just abandoned? Fourthly, will they start to tow boats back to France, given the overwhelming risk to public safety and the clear legal arguments for doing that? Finally, and above all, will the Government start to address the deeper reasons why illegal immigrants and people-smugglers know that, if they force their way into the UK, they will be able to stay?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. Given the length of the opening speech, and the amount of time available, I will try to limit each Member to about five minutes, with the exception of the two Front Benchers. I call Fred Thomas.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Mark. I will not take five minutes. Like many of my neighbours and the people I represent in Plymouth, I served our country in the armed forces. We are really proud of the armed forces community. For us and our families, national security and the security of our borders is paramount.
We came into government nine weeks ago and inherited a dire situation from the outgoing Conservative Government. Unfortunately, they had lost control of our borders. I am proud that the Labour Government will regain control of the situation by creating the border security command, which will draw together the best of British security personnel, from the National Crime Agency, Border Force and the finest intelligence officers in the world. Together we will better protect our borders and, for the first time in many years, go after the criminal gangs that are facilitating and profiting from these crossings.
There is a huge human element that is often left out of these conversations. Last week, we saw a truly horrific loss of life in the channel. There were 12 deaths, including six children and a pregnant woman. That was one of many such incidents so far this year alone. We must never allow ourselves to become inured to that kind of tragedy and the loss of life, especially of children. Sadly, the one set of people who do not care about that loss of life is the smuggling gangs who are responsible for putting people on those terribly overcrowded boats. That is why, to tackle the small boats crisis at its source, we must smash the criminal gangs.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
We keep hearing this slogan, “smash the gangs”. Does the hon. Member not realise that when a gang is smashed, there are another 20 gangs ready to take that gang’s place and carry on the people smuggling? I am sure that he will agree that what we need in this country is a deterrent that stops people wanting to come here in the first place.
Fred Thomas
For me, the UK is the best country in the world; I do not think we should make our country a less good place so that fewer people want to come here. That is not the route to go down.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
I have worked for the National Crime Agency in the past, and also in a counter-terror role. There are ways we can deal with this. The fact is that what the previous Government set up only dealt with the processing of those who arrived. The new border security command can bring in not just enforcement but disruption, which will ensure that people are not even getting on to the boats. There is not just one way of cracking this nut. If we bring in the likes of MI5, with new counter-terror powers, tools and a culture of disruption, then it can have a massive impact. I have been part of that in the past and have seen it happen, so it can work and I have full faith—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I ask for interventions to be quite short. Those who are intervening are subtracting time from those who want to speak later in the debate.
Fred Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) for his intervention and his fantastic service to the nation. He worked in those organisations that keep us safe, and is not just commenting from the side.
The inheritance from the previous Government was dire. When Labour took office it was against the backdrop of record small-boat crossing numbers. The last number I saw for this year so far was 13,489; that is an astonishing number that represents a total loss of control. Of course we are not going to turn that around within nine weeks of being in office. Let us not forget the situation that we are inheriting.
Net migration has trebled since 2019. Meanwhile, the Rwanda scheme, which we have heard about today, has already cost taxpayers more than £700 million; we have sent four volunteers to Kigali—that is an expensive trip. Had the Conservatives returned to power, they intended to spend £10 billion over six years on the same failed policy. Will the Minister assure my neighbours, the people I represent and the armed forces community in Plymouth, that the situation is going to turn around under the new Labour Government?
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) for securing this important debate. It is a shame that there are not more Members here today.
I will choose my words very carefully in this debate, because words and language are important. We need to get tough in this place about the problem of illegal migration. I hear time and again that these people are fleeing war-torn countries—they are desperate people fleeing persecution. Well, let me say, I have been to France and it is quite a nice place. There is no war in France and they are not persecuted there. I served on the Home Affairs Committee for two years. I went to the camps in Calais, and the first thing we noticed was that it was all young men—there were no women, children or families. They were young men between the ages of 16 or 17 and 30. They all said the same thing to us: they would point at the white cliffs of Dover and say, “El Dorado”. They wanted to come to this country because they thought that the streets were paved with gold—and they are paved with gold, if someone is coming from a country such as Eritrea or Sudan.
The most annoying part for me was that there was a charity there called Care4Calais, which would attract those people. It would give them the co-ordinates in whichever country they came from, and it would take weeks or months for people to get there. Once they got to the camp, Care4Calais would set up a school to teach them how to speak and write English. It would give them new phones with data, give them shelter, and get them ready for the crossing to the UK. I take issue with the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, who said that once they get to England they are never leaving—it is once they get in the channel. Once they get in the channel they are picked up and ferried to our country. When they get to our country, they are placed in hotels—[Interruption.]
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division. We normally add injury time to debates such as this. As soon as everybody is back in the Chamber, I will be in the Chair and any time we have lost as a result of the vote will be recouped.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
With injury time, the debate will now continue to 4.15 pm. I call Lee Anderson to continue.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Sir Mark.
Once the illegal migrants—let us get the wording right: they are illegal migrants—get into this country, there is no way they are ever going to be deported. It only happens in very rare circumstances.
The most important thing for me is to get the terminology right. They are illegal migrants. They are young men coming into our country. Quite frankly—people can say what they want about me—I do not want these people in my country. They have broken into our country. They have thrown their documents away. They are undocumented. We do not know where they have come from. We do not know what they have been up to in their own country. We do not know whether they are criminals. We do not know what their intentions are when they get here.
We are a soft touch. These are illegal migrants posing as asylum seekers. We have heard some horrific cases over the past two years, with some of these illegal migrants being granted asylum status and then going on to commit horrific crimes—again, abusing our asylum system.
I get reports as a Member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues do, of young, undocumented men roaming around our town centres, intimidating people. That has to stop. Yet we see the non-governmental organisations, the lefty lawyers and the Labour party together encouraging these illegal migrants to come over the channel by using the same old slogan: “smash the gangs”. I am telling everyone in this room that that slogan is a complete nonsense. We have to stop the pull factor for people coming to this country.
Once these young men in northern France—I have to been to the camps—get into the channel, they are in this country. We may stop 100 boats a month, but those same people will get on to another boat and keep coming. Once they are in this country, they are going absolutely nowhere, and they are costing us a fortune. At the same time as we are waiting for the results of a vote to rob our pensioners of their winter fuel payment, supported by the Government, we are spending nearly £6 billion or £7 billion on illegal migration.
In the minute I have left, I will tell a quick story. In 1941, my grandad Charles William Waterfield left the Nottinghamshire coalfields. He left the pits before mining became a reserved occupation. He put a uniform on and went to north Africa. He left a wife and two children behind to fight for King and country. He did that. He did not run away. He did not go to another country and leave his wife and children behind, which is exactly what these young men are doing. They are leaving women and children behind in a supposedly war-torn country. Quite frankly, I do not want these sorts of people in my country and neither do the vast majority of the British public.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment to the Home Office. She won the lottery with that job.
The starting principle of a functioning immigration system is that it has to work in the interests of the citizens of this country and we must decide who comes here. Illegal immigration destroys this principle for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend in his speech. That is why we must have no tolerance for the channel crossings, and why we need a policy that breaks the link between entering the country illegally and staying here for good thereafter.
Just before the summer recess, the Home Secretary made a statement in which she set out the Government’s policy on illegal immigration, including getting rid of deterrents through deportation to third countries and scrapping the retrospective element of the duty to remove that was set out in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. She said that her policy was instead to consider the asylum claims of all illegal immigrants subject to the retrospective duty and admitted, in the impact assessment if not in her speech, that that meant granting asylum to up to 70% of them.
I will come to the cost of that decision, but I want to address the Home Secretary’s claim about the cost of the previous Government’s policy. She claimed that by making the change, she would save the taxpayer £700 million a year for a decade. Labour MPs are repeating that statistic, not knowing that they have been sold a pup, because the claim is clearly ridiculous. After that statement, word soon reached me that Home Office officials were appalled that it had been used. If any Labour MPs want to dispute that, I suggest that their Ministers speak to Home Office civil servants as often as I do.
I wrote to the permanent secretary on that news, and went through the impact assessment. The numbers were the result of what might be called the Reeves method, because they were a work of political fiction. We know, for example, that the Home Secretary’s calculation double-counted costs. On the one hand, Sir Matthew Rycroft in his letter to me said it included expenses for implementing the Rwanda policy, while on the other hand, the impact assessment assumed Rwanda would never be implemented.
Indeed, the impact assessment assumed not a single migrant would be deported under the Conservative policy and that migrants would have stayed in hotels for 10 years, which is clearly an absurd proposition. However, the Labour policy excluded massive costs from welfare bills and categorised them as housing policy, which it admitted as “significant” and that it
“could undermine…this impact assessment”,
yet the results of the impact assessment were presented to the House of Commons as unquestionable fact.
The impact assessment reveals the real Government policy: to deal with the huge number of claims by accepting them and to deal with the cost by hiding the numbers from the public in the welfare system. The Home Office admits that 63,053 illegal immigrants previously due to be deported will have their asylum claims heard instead, and up to 70% of them—that is 44,137 people—will be successful. But it also admits that, for those refused,
“the scale and timing of removals is highly uncertain”,
and that
“the Home Office may continue to support a number of”
them.
These figures are just the beginning, because they apply to only one cohort of migrants, with the duty to remove unlikely ever to be implemented by Labour. Unless the Minister corrects me by naming a start date, the Home Office admits its policy
“is expected to increase the number of asylum claims”,
which “consequently increases…costs”. Instead of facing deportation, hundreds of thousands more migrants will stay here for good. The policy is to shift migrants from the Home Office budget, the costs of which are published clearly, to the welfare and local authority budgets, the costs of which are not published clearly.
The impact assessment says:
“Any asylum seekers who are granted asylum will have full access to…the welfare system”,
and local authorities will also “incur costs”. So lacking in transparency is this approach that the impact assessment says the Home Office has
“not been able to establish a generally usable figure.”
That is obviously ridiculous.
We know from studies in Europe that the average channel migrant will be a net lifetime recipient of public funding, not a contributor. In a Danish Government study, immigrants from the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey were shown to cost a net £10,000 per year. A study at the University of Amsterdam calculated that, over a lifetime, the average asylum migrant costs the Dutch public more than £400,000.
On that basis, for those granted asylum in just this one cohort, the lifetime cost of Labour’s new policy is £17.8 billion, which is far more than the bogus £7 billion figure cited by the Home Secretary, which she said was the cost of the duty to remove policy. Hundreds of thousands more people will be claiming asylum here in the next four to five years, so the final cost of the new Labour policy will be many multiples more expensive than that. That is the reality of the Government’s illegal immigration policy—more illegal immigration, not less, and vastly higher costs. For that, we will all pay the price.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
I apologise for my late arrival after the vote, Sir Mark. My constituency is Dover and Deal, so I have been engaging on this serious issue for a number of years and it means a lot to my constituents. The Labour party has made it clear that what matters to voters matters to us, too, and that is why we are taking this so seriously.
In 2018, 299 people crossed in small boats. Since then, we have had 136,000 crossings. The asylum backlog reached record highs, which has cost £8 million a day in hotels. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) made the point that we will speed up the processing and therefore grant more asylum claims, but the alternative is to have a backlog of five years that costs £8 million a day. We will also deport those who should not be here, which the Conservatives completely failed to do.
Our plan is sensible and pragmatic. The border security command, as I touched on earlier, is not the same as what was previously in place to deal with those arriving at the borders. It will work upstream and bring in counter-terror powers. Let us give that a chance—we have had eight weeks, so I am surprised even to be having this debate right now. We have had 13 flights off the ground, one of which was the largest on record. That is a show of intent as to exactly how seriously we take the matter.
My final point is that the Labour party has strong values on this. We believe in secure borders, but we play the ball, not the player. Those seeking a better life are doing nothing wrong, but we will secure the borders and take out the smuggling gangs.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
The number of Members wishing to speak has dwindled slightly since the Division, so I will relax the time limit from five to six minutes to more like seven to eight minutes. Members will have a bit longer. I know that does not help those who have already spoken, but they spoke before the vote.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Mark. I hope to stay within five minutes, just about.
When we see pictures of boats entering Dover packed full of supposedly desperate asylum seekers, I want to ask, “Where are the women? Where are the children?” The craft are filled almost exclusively with men—young men. How did they secure the rumoured £5,000 to pay for the cost of their crossing? Even according to the Home Office’s own 2022 figures, 87% of these people were men. We must be abundantly clear and honest with the British people: these are foreign males looking to take advantage of our soft borders and our incompetent establishment. They are not, in the vast majority of cases, people genuinely fleeing war and persecution.
Now we are told we should refer to these people as “irregular migrants”. Language matters. The vast majority of these men are not “irregular”, or asylum seekers; they are illegal immigrants and should be labelled as such.
What have we done with these males who have illegally entered our country—unchecked, undocumented, unknown individuals? We have spread them across the UK, often putting them up in luxury accommodation—all at our expense—and damaging the fabric of our country, particularly in my constituency. They are free to come and go as they please. Why? If any reach our shores, they should be securely detained until rapid deportation can be arranged. Allowing thousands and thousands of foreign young men free rein across our country is pure, unadulterated insanity.
The public are furious. In no way does that justify any violence, but we must accept the reasons behind so much of the anger. Starmer has misread the room badly, and the fury will not dissipate until the crisis is taken seriously by the Government. The boats could be stopped virtually overnight with the correct will. Put the Navy in the channel, send the boats back to France, and ensure that no one setting foot here illegally stays. That means deportations, and lots of them.
The Australians deployed a zero-tolerance approach. It worked. We must do the same, and urgently. The first step to delivering that is to declare a national emergency. Send a clear message to the illegal migrants and the smugglers: if you come here illegally, you are not welcome. Until that happens, more and more will come.
Does the Prime Minister have the political will to tackle this crisis? The British public will not forgive him and his colleagues for failure to deliver now. Tony Blair opened the floodgates in 1997 via the Human Rights Act, and the Tories accelerated the process. The Prime Minister must now close them as a matter of urgency. Illegal migration is mortally damaging our sovereign nation. Given that the Department is having trouble maintaining its staff, as are most Government Departments of which I have experience, none of us believes that smashing the gangs has any hope of getting any traction.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for calling this debate. He must find it excruciatingly embarrassing how badly the previous Government dealt with this issue.
With my strong connection in Kent and Sussex with the commercial fishing industry, the angling trade and indeed the lifeboats, I started to feel in early 2020 that —after the odd boat had crossed in 2018 and 2019, as the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) mentioned—something big was about to happen. The gangs had realised that the chances of deportation from this country were very low. So I went out repeatedly from Dover into the English channel, filming boats and meeting face to face with boatfuls of the young men who have been described—in many cases, very aggressive young males.
I also got to the bottom of the use of the word “escorts”. I kept being told that escorts were crossing the channel. I was not quite sure what that meant, to begin with, but then I understood that it was the French navy—that the French navy literally escorted boats across the English channel and handed them over to Border Force or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution —so I made a bit of a fuss about the whole thing. I said that unless something was done, huge numbers would come. I said that there might even be an “invasion”, a word that got me in very big trouble. Given that we are pushing up towards 140,000 who have come, I do not think I misused the word.
The efforts of the last Government to deal with this were frankly pretty pitiful. Rwanda might have worked in theory, but of course in practice it was not going to work. All the while, we are subject to that Court in Strasbourg, as we saw that evening. More interestingly, the incorporation of the convention into British law means that actually British judges will always rule in favour of the ECHR, so we have to face up to that reality.
I also believe that what we are facing is a national security emergency. When ISIS boasted in 2015 that it would use the Mediterranean to get its operatives into Europe, perhaps the European Union should have taken it more at its word. It was interesting to note that Sir Keir Starmer himself used the phrase “national security emergency” during the general election, so he is going to have to act accordingly.
Appointing a new border chief commander? Yes, we may get some better intelligence—fine, but the French, whom we have given hundreds of millions of pounds, already stop a lot of dinghies from crossing. They put knives in the dinghies, but the problem is that the prospective illegal immigrants just hide in the dunes and come back the next day. So that is not going to work.
Smashing the gangs? Well, I don’t know. What I have been hearing for the past 30 years is that we are going to smash the drugs gangs in this country, and yet there are more class A drugs being taken today than there ever were before. A good operative gang, working out of those sand dunes in northern France in a reasonable week of weather, can expect to make at least €2 million. The financial rewards are very, very high.
Really, what this comes down to is two things. No. 1 is political will. Successive Australian Prime Ministers attempted to deal with the problem; they all failed. They tried offshore processing and so on, until in the end Tony Abbott just towed the boats back to Indonesia. There was international outrage from the UN, the EU and indeed the Foreign Office.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Can I just say that if somebody intervenes, you should sit down?
Nigel Farage
Just a few weeks ago, for the first time, Border Force did an emergency pick-up on the other side of the line. Rather than bringing the people back to this country, as previously Dover lifeboat and Dungeness lifeboat had done, it actually took them into Calais. That is the way we do it. Yes, these are far flimsier vessels, but the principle of taking people back whence they came is the point that I am trying to make.
We can do this. We can do it under the international law of the sea. I ask the Minister to say that, given the money that we have given to the French, we will no longer accept escorts from the French navy. The day after 12 people died in the channel, a French naval vessel escorted a dinghy from a couple of hundred yards off Wissant all the way to our 12-mile line. No more French naval escorts—I think that is vital.
We need political will. The Germans, of course, are now showing it. The Germans will ignore the ECHR; the Germans, by the way, sent a plane full of young men back to Afghanistan the other week. With political will and by leaving the ECHR, we can solve this.
I promise the Labour Government one thing. This issue caused great pain to the Conservative party, and it had an impact in the general election. This issue of illegal migration and the crime that it leads to, which is a conversation that has barely started in this country but that in France and Germany is now very big, will do massive damage to Labour’s electoral chances. You are going to have to get tough, and I am afraid your leader is going to have to rethink his position on the ECHR.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Before we move on to the Front-Bench contributions, may I remind some of the newer Members, who have been saying “you” or referring to other Members by name, that the convention is to refer either to the office that a Member holds, such as Prime Minister, or to the seat that they represent?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this very important debate. As he says, people are arriving here confident in the belief that they will get to stay, and that must change. The cost to the taxpayer is increasingly beyond scrutiny, and we have yet to see the targets set out by Labour.
I echo the comments of colleagues about the concerns associated with illegal immigration, which are undoubtedly incredibly serious and shared by many of those we represent. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) talked about the real and horrendous human cost of this issue, as we have seen in recent weeks, which is one of the many reasons we need to work urgently to get a grip on it. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) talked about the bizarre creative accounting put forward by the Government in an effort to defend the scrapping of the deportation deterrent, and the fact that moving the cost from one Department to another will not solve the problem.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) made valid observations about the nature of the many people arriving and their motivations. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) asked why it is that people are fleeing from France. He talked about the important need to stop the pull factor that draws people to get into the small boats. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told us of his learnings about escorts and the issues created by the ECHR, which have been debated many times in this place and will continue to be debated in the coming weeks, months and years. He talked about the concerns that those issues rightly pose for national security.
With the other business going on in the House today, it seems apt to start by looking at the cost of illegal immigration. Asylum accommodation is costing the taxpayer over £8 million a day and now looks set to keep rising. We have seen this Government grant an asylum amnesty to 100,000 arrivals, without any proper costing in their impact assessment. Government is about priorities. This amnesty is seeing the Government pulling up a chair for people who have entered the country illegally, at the same time as turning off the heating for our pensioners.
Journeys by small boat across the channel are illegal, dangerous and unnecessary. They are unfair on those who are in genuine need, and the country’s finite capacity is taken up by people coming into the UK from a place of safety in France. Furthermore, they are unfair on the British public, due to the huge impact that they have on public services. Thanks to the measures brought forward by the last Government, migrant returns in the year from June 2023 to June 2024 rose by a fifth, enforced returns rose by a half, irregular arrivals fell by 26% and there was a 36% reduction in the asylum backlog. Most importantly, the previous Government changed the law so that when people arrived here illegally, they should not have been able to claim asylum in the UK and so they could be returned to their home country or a safe third country.
We need a deterrent to discourage people from paying the criminal gangs of people smugglers who profit at the peril of others; to prevent people from leaving the safe country that is France, on the assumption of a soft-touch approach here in Britain; and to protect our already overburdened public services and housing supply. This Government’s first act on illegal immigration was to scrap that essential deterrent. It is a deterrent that the National Crime Agency says is essential to tackling the issue, a deterrent whose removal the former chief immigration officer says will create open season for small boats, and a deterrent that is now being looked at by 19 EU countries.
Lee Anderson
I thank the shadow Minister for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that if the previous Conservative Government had had the political backbone and courage to get that first Rwanda flight off and ignore the ECHR, it might have stopped this?
Matt Vickers
The hon. Gentleman has walked through the Lobby with me and has been as frustrated as I have in trying to look for a solution to this problem. With the removal of the deterrent, we are basically doing a U-turn on everything that we have put forward and everything that looked as though it could make a difference. We have seen what is happening in Ireland as a result of it. The deterrent would work. If people can arrive in this country and know that they are never going to be sent back, we are going to have a problem.
Just this week, Germany asked the EU if it could use the accommodation that we—British taxpayers—have built in Rwanda, so that it could send asylum seekers there. It is clear that the Conservative Government were making progress on this issue and that Labour is behind the curve. Labour has wasted taxpayers’ money on scrapping this deterrent, and now the EU wants to copy the UK’s scheme. Usually it is the Labour party that wants to copy the EU. The reality is that the new Government have no plan to stop the boats and nowhere to send asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Where are they going to return the people from countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Syria? If it is not Rwanda, is it Romford? Is it Richmond? Is it Redcar?
Labour got through this election talking tough and saying that it would smash the gangs, but it is quickly realising that it is not a workable policy. Over 8,000 small boat arrivals have landed in the UK since Labour took office, and it still has not even appointed a head of its new border command. More press releases and warm words simply will not cut it now that Labour is in government. In recent months, most people in this room will have knocked on thousands of doors and heard real concerns from residents about what uncontrolled illegal immigration can mean for their community, the pressure on public services and housing, questions around integration, and the tough choices that have to be made about public spending.
When the Minister gets to her feet, will she finally tell hon. Members when the new Labour Government formally told the Rwandan Government that the Rwanda scheme was scrapped? What advice has she received from the National Crime Agency about the need for a deterrent? How many more small boats will cross before the Government appoint a new border command? Will asylum hotels be reopening in the autumn? Where does she plan to send asylum seekers who cannot be returned home?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) on securing the debate—he made it here with 30 seconds to go, after taking part in several very important votes. We were wondering whether the debate would be able to start on time, but he managed to make it, although somewhat out of breath.
Listening to the debate—I am sure it will be the first of many we will have in this place and other places—it struck me that there are some things we agree on across all parties. First, we have to stop irregular immigration and deal with the appalling gangs behind the small boat crossings. Those gangs care only about the profits they make, which fuel other criminal activity, and are careless, to say the least, of the lives they put at risk in these dangerous crossings. In the recent past these gangs have grown increasingly violent; they have attacked the police and those on the beaches in France whom they have promised to transport to safety. It is therefore vital that we dismantle the gangs and strengthen our border security—I think all of us can agree on that.
The crossings have increased hugely in recent years, and the boats are becoming more and more crowded, unseaworthy and dangerous—a point made by several hon. Members.
Lee Anderson
The Minister is making some good points, but does she agree that while the Prime Minister is smashing the gangs, it will be more difficult for boats to get into the sea, so more people will clamber on to the boats and we will have more deaths in the channel?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have to do what we can to disrupt this trade. We have already seen that the boats are becoming more unseaworthy and that more people are getting on them. Just because that is happening, it does not mean we should do nothing to get in the way of the supply of boats and engines that criminals use to facilitate this trade. Even though they have not agreed on the wherewithal, all Members in the debate have agreed that we should be doing our best to stop this trade. No Government would not want to be in control of their external borders—I think we all agree on that. It is therefore important that we take a much more sophisticated and integrated approach to dealing with these increasingly integrated cross-border gangs.
We must not leave the gangs to flourish or organise, reaching even deeper back into places such as Vietnam, but instead harass and disrupt them and their financing. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) was spot on to say that this has been done before in different contexts, particularly drugs and international crime, and it can certainly be done with this trade. We should try to be a bit more optimistic about the potential for concerted, cross-border action among states to deal with the issue.
A different approach must be workable. We believe it must respect international law, which is why the Government scrapped the partnership with Rwanda. The Opposition, and particularly their Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), have been acting as if the Rwanda deal was somehow a deterrent, but from the day it was agreed to to the day it was scrapped, more than 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. That does not sound like a deterrent. Since it was scrapped, the number of small boat arrivals has gone down 24% compared to the same period last year, and down 40% compared to the same period in 2022. If it was a deterrent, it worked in an extremely odd way.
Nick Timothy
Can the Minister explain why, in calculating the figure the Home Secretary presented to the House of Commons—as part of the claim that scrapping the retrospective element of the duty to remove would save £700 million a year for 10 years—the impact assessment assumes absolutely no deportations to Rwanda at all? In a letter to me, the Home Office permanent secretary said that the cost of removing people to Rwanda is included in the number.
Dame Angela Eagle
I have not seen the letter to the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to write to him if he wants a further explanation. We must remember that in its three years in existence, the Rwanda scheme cost hundreds of millions of pounds. We were going to pay £150,000 per person deported to Rwanda; that was part of the agreement. In those three years, only four people were sent to Kigali, and they went voluntarily, so I do not think the Conservatives’ view that the Rwanda scheme was an answer to all their problems and prayers was borne out by the experience of it. Scrapping it has not made a blind bit of difference to some people’s desire to get into this country.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
On the Rwanda scheme, does the Minister agree with the comments, reported in the press, of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly)? When he was Home Secretary he clearly understood that it would never work, when the Leader of the Opposition was Chancellor he clearly thought it would not work, and in the three years of its existence it did not work, so the fact that Conservative Members are still clutching on to it does not bode particularly well for their prospects of coming back to reality.
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend’s observations. Rather than clutching on to something that was clearly very expensive and has not worked, the important thing is to get down to doing the day job. While the Rwanda scheme was being developed, the Home Office stopped doing a lot of other things that it should have been doing. Returns completely plummeted: the Illegal Migration Act 2023 made it impossible to process a range of people, so they were literally sitting in hotels, costing £8 million a day.
There are no easy answers—I am not the first Minister for illegal immigration and asylum to say that there are no easy fixes, and I will not be the last—but we have to be able to administer the system, deal with returns and do all the things we have to do to make asylum system outcomes meaningful. If a person’s asylum application fails and their country is safe, they should be returned; there should be a consequence to the asylum decision. The Government have a duty to speed up the asylum system and make it fair, but there must be a consequence if the outcome is not what the asylum seeker wants.
Neil O'Brien
I want to press the Minister on the question I asked about third countries. Tony Blair has advocated third-country agreements, and many other European countries are signing them, although there are countries that we would not, for obvious reasons, want to return even failed asylum seekers to. Are the Government ruling out any such third-country agreements?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am unsure what sort of third-country agreements the hon. Gentleman is talking about. There are various agreements that might be relevant, such as the return agreement with Albania, and hopefully work we are doing with Vietnam to return people. Returns for failed asylum seekers and those who have no right to be here are an important part of ensuring the system works properly. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is going down another path, so I will give way if he wants to come in again.
Neil O'Brien
I thank the Minister for giving way again; it is kind of her. The question is not about return agreements but about third-country agreements, whereby those seeking asylum in this country are sent to a third country that is not their home country if their application fails or to have their processing done. That is the kind of agreement that Tony Blair argued for. The Italians, for example, already have one up and running, and many European countries are setting them up.
Dame Angela Eagle
At this stage, eight or nine weeks into the job, I would not want to rule out any such thing, but tests would have to be applied to it. It would certainly have to be in keeping with international law, and we would have to ensure that it provides value for money and has a reasonable chance of working. I do not want to come here at this stage of the Government’s life and rule anything out, but we would have to think about certain issues—such as schemes according with international law and being good value for money—which would apply to any such potential scheme. However, the Government’s key priority at the moment is to deal with the channel crossings in small boats. That is why we are focusing on creating the border security command, which will help us to get a grip on this difficult but important issue.
Border Force maintains 100% checks for scheduled passengers arriving into the UK and facilitated 129 million passenger arrivals last year. The UK is recognised as a global leader in the use of automation at the border, embracing innovation to simplify processes for legitimate travellers, including families, alongside improving the UK’s security and biosecurity. As part of the ongoing development of the entire system, we will extend the use of automation, such as passport gates and e-gates at the UK border.
However, we also need to stop those who come here in an irregular manner. Border security command will bring together our intelligence and enforcement agencies, with hundreds of new cross-border police, investigators and prosecutors. It will be equipped with new powers to disrupt and dismantle criminal networks upstream and to prevent the boats from reaching the French coast in the first place. That will be led by a new border security commander, who will provide cross-system strategic leadership and direction across several agencies. That includes the National Crime Agency, Border Force, policing, our intelligence community, immigration enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Work is advancing on the planned border security, asylum and immigration Bill, which will be introduced to this House at the earliest opportunity—I am sure I will see some hon. Members here taking part in the Bill Committee and other processes as the Bill makes its way through this place.
The Sandhurst agreement, signed by the last Government, is important, and we have always supported it, but it does not go far enough. It focuses on the French beaches, but we should be stopping the gangs and the boats long before they get that far. This issue is a threat to our security, and that should be reflected in our approach. Our co-operation with key international partners must be as robust as it is for terrorism and other security threats. We will therefore be looking for closer partnerships, with different and better ways of making these criminals pay.
We have already spoken to the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, and to interior Ministers in Italy, Germany and Turkey, about how to strengthen operations against criminal gangs. We have begun supplying other European countries with more intelligence gathered by the UK on people-smuggling into their countries. We also support Italy in its Rome process, and irregular arrivals to Italy decreased by 17% in the year ending June 2024 compared with the previous year. But we lack important information and are seeking much stronger data-sharing agreements with partner countries. That is how we can actually ensure that the intelligence we share deals with some of the cross-border threats.
Those with no right to be here must be removed. The Government have established a new returns and enforcement programme to ensure that asylum and immigration rules are properly respected and enforced. By the end of the year, more of those with no right to be here—including foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers—will have been removed than in any other six-month period over the past five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal said, we have also had 13 bespoke return flights, which have been chartered since 5 July, returning individuals to a range of countries, including Albania, Poland, Romania, Vietnam and Timor-Leste.
Neil O’Brien
Can I press the Minister on my specific question about what the Government’s target is? The hon. Lady talked about getting to the highest six-monthly rate by the end of this year. What is the Government’s longer-term target? If we were to believe what the Home Secretary said when she was the shadow Home Secretary, they are going to reverse and get back up to the level of deportations we had in 2010—that is the logical reading of what she said. Is that the Government’s target? Are they going to get deportations back to 2010 levels?
Dame Angela Eagle
We certainly have the ambition to do so. If we have a look, returns plummeted during the period when the last Government were in office. In 2023, 3,225 returns were made; in 2010, we returned 7,157, and of course, in the meantime, levels of illegal immigration have grown exponentially, so we certainly have the view that we want to return to those kinds of levels and do much, much more to ensure that if someone gets to the end of the asylum system and they have failed, there will be consequences and they will be returned.
We have also, at the same time, been taking some time to invest in intensive immigration enforcement operations. Over the last few weeks, we have targeted rogue businesses suspected of employing illegal workers. More than 275 premises have been targeted, with 135 receiving civil penalty referral notices for employing illegal workers; 85 illegal migrant workers were detained for removal. We are rapidly expanding this kind of work and certainly have the ambition to continue to do so. We also have voluntary return schemes, which we will continue to use.
In order to reduce the foreign national offender prison population and support the Ministry of Justice in alleviating current prison capacity issues, we are also focusing on those who are serving custodial sentences and on maximising returns directly from prison. We are taking rigorous action against foreign national offenders living in the community by actively monitoring and managing cases and resolving barriers to removal. So it is our intention, I emphasise again, to make certain that we can do a lot better than the previous Government did in removing foreign national offenders, which is why immigration removal centres, which can play a vital role in controlling our borders, need to be strengthened and we are increasing our estate capacity to ensure that we have enough detention space for swift, firm and fair returns.
The Government are working at pace to optimise the use of the current immigration return estate in the immediate term, and expect to deliver an extra 200 male beds by the end of September. A further 78 beds are expected to be delivered by March 2025. Alongside that uplift, we are increasing vital ancillary provision such as healthcare, legal services and welfare facilities, so that we can expedite returns.
I think this is probably the first of many such debates we will have. Actually, I think there is quite a lot we can agree about in terms of the requirement to secure our borders. I can see the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston leaping up and down, so I am happy to give way.
Neil O'Brien
The Minister is kind to give way in the middle of her peroration. I just wondered whether I could press her on the point about towing more of the boats back to France. The legal arguments are so strong: the chances of us saving lives at sea are so strong that the legal arguments are absolutely crystal clear. Is it the Government’s ambition that a greater share of these boats will be towed back to France rather than towed to the UK?
Dame Angela Eagle
Well, it is difficult—a difficult thing to do. I think that part of what we need to do in our relations with France is do things in co-operation. It is quite difficult to try to work across the border if you alienate the people that you are working with, so any such things have got to be done operationally with agreement. The co-operation from that point of view is crucial, as is, obviously, saving life at sea. If there is any danger with respect to towing boats, it is very, very difficult to intervene in what is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, in a context where the boats that are being put to sea at the moment are extremely flimsy and are actually falling apart in the water and often, as we saw tragically last week, contain people with no effective lifejacket and no way of staying afloat. So we have to be very, very careful.
We have to work with our colleagues in France and co-operate operationally on where we take those in the water; many are returned to France, as it happens, when rescues happen in French territorial waters. It is a balance. I will certainly keep it under review, and I am happy to keep the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston in touch with thinking as it develops.
I was on my peroration when I was interrupted very politely by the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him once again on securing this debate, and congratulate and thank all Members who have contributed to it. I know this is an issue to which we will return.
Neil O’Brien
I thank all Members who have taken part in what I thought was a good-tempered and interesting debate, in which many made good and important contributions. I actually agree with many of the things that the Minister said, such as her point about the powerful link to wider criminality from the criminal gangs that operate the illegal trade across the channel. Her comments also give me the opportunity to thank our European partners with whom we have been working intensely, over the last couple of years, particularly in Bulgaria, to stop the flow of boats and engines to the criminal gangs. This is a shared European challenge and it can only grow over time, because of the growth of the population—particularly the young population —in the countries of origin. So there are things we do agree on.
We got some interesting answers to the five questions that I asked. I am afraid we did not hear much on data. There are lots of interesting pieces of data that the Government really should be—but are not—publishing at the moment. I encourage the Minister to start publishing things that the public really deserve to know. On the deportations target, which has the ambition to get back to 2010 levels, I will support anything that will increase levels of deportations. It was interesting that the Minister did not rule out signing third-country agreements of the kind that other European countries have. I encourage her to get on with that, and to go as fast as she can towards doing that. On the question of towing boats back to France, the Minister said it was tricky and that she was thinking about it. I encourage her to really go for it, because that will help us profoundly to disrupt the people smugglers’ business model.
However, what we did not really get into—I thought this was interesting in some of the comments made by Labour Members—was the point about the underlying causes, pull factors and reasons why so many people come, which is because they know they will be able to stay. There were some interesting and important contributions on enforcement, but I encourage the Members present to listen to three Tonys: one is a Labour politician, one is a Liberal and one is a civil servant. One is Tony Smith, the head of UK Border Force, who said that enforcement on its own will never be enough; he is right about that. He has said it is rash to scrap the Rwanda scheme. The second Tony we have to listen to is Tony Blair, who was trying to set up third-country agreements. I hope that will persuade Labour politicians that they need to be doing the same thing—even Tony Blair agrees that it is the right thing to do. The third is Tony Abbott, the former Australian Prime Minister, who pioneered interception at sea and ended Australia’s small boats crisis by towing the boats back to third countries, as we should be doing here between the UK and France.
There are things we can agree on. But I think there are things the Government say about enforcement that imply that no one has thought of enforcement before, and that we have not worked with lots of European countries before—we have; we have been doing this for years. However, that on its own is not enough. At some point—perhaps it has already happened—the Minister will realise that is the case. I hope that when she does so, she will join us in thinking about how we can tackle the underlying reasons that so many people are getting into these deadly boats and putting money in the hands of dangerous criminals to risk their lives crossing to this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered illegal immigration.
Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
We are running a bit late, obviously, because we had a Division earlier.
I will call Alberto Costa to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. However, I understand that there may well be one or two interventions.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange.
I will call Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange the HNRFI from now on.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on what is an incredibly important matter, not just for Leicestershire but indeed for our country.
I also thank colleagues who have joined me in Westminster Hall for this important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who has worked alongside me on this important matter, because, as we will hear, the proposal would have as great an impact in his constituency as it would in mine.
I start by informing the Minister that I cautiously welcome the news today that the Secretary of State is minded to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation that she should withhold consent for the proposed HNRFI. The Planning Inspectorate has carefully considered the views of local stakeholders about the HNRFI and recommended against its proposal. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government chose, just a few hours ago, to delay making the final decision until March 2025.
What we really want to ascertain is this: what do the Government hope to achieve by pausing or extending the time available to make this decision? At the outset, I will say that one of my principal asks will be to meet the Minister or any of her colleagues, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, to discuss the process of the matter. I appreciate that she cannot in a meeting discuss the specifics of the case, because she has a quasi-judicial role, but we would appreciate a follow-up meeting after this debate to discuss process.
The Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation gives this new Labour Government the opportunity to respond to local people’s concerns and frankly, if I may put things colloquially, calm the nerves of literally thousands of people in and around Leicestershire who will continue to anxiously await confirmation that this wholly inappropriate development will be rejected.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I, too, have constituents who are grossly concerned about this matter. Although it is, I say cautiously, good news that the decision has been delayed, part of what the Secretary of State seems to be saying is that the impact locally outweighs the benefit to the nation. That is what I myself and all the organisations and local people involved have been saying. Therefore, the question remains as to why a delay will change that position. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts as to what the reason might be, and on what we can do to get an answer before the end of March?
Alberto Costa
My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this matter over the months—in fact, years—during which this unwelcome proposal has been introduced. In answer to his question, what we can do is say, as I put it to the Minister, Labour are now in charge and I should be very grateful if she would meet both of us, to explain why there has been this decision, which is not the normal decision in these processes. When the Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation, more often than not the recommendation is approved. And for the Planning Inspectorate to reject a proposal, or consider withholding consent for it, is very rare in such cases; usually the Minister does that. So, a meeting with the Minister might help to answer my hon. Friend’s questions.
The proposed 440-acre site for this development sits between the M69 and the Leicester to Birmingham railway line at the heart of a cluster of rural communities, all of which are within two miles of the site and in some cases less than a mile from its boundary. It is important to mention the communities, which include Aston Flamville, Barwell, Elmesthorpe, Earl Shilton, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton, Sharnford, Burbage, part of Hinckley and the long-established Traveller settlement of Aston Firs. Those communities are within both my South Leicestershire constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. So, too, is Burbage common and woods, which is a site of special scientific interest and a beautiful 200-acre area of woodland and grassland that lies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Many people have their home in this area and would be affected by this development were it to be given consent—of course, we are hoping that it will not be. According to the Stoney Stanton Action Group, over 92,000 people stand to be directly impacted by this development: an enormous number of people.
Under the current system, Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough, Conservative-run Blaby district council and Conservative-run Leicestershire county council are statutory consultees in the process. All the stakeholders voiced serious concerns about the HNRFI, as did Labour-led Rugby council, Warwickshire county council and National Highways, which raised concerns over
“missing or deficient transport documents and statements of common ground.”
Dr Evans
For me, that was the key deficit when we made our appeal to the inspectorate. It seems like that has been upheld because, although there are the environmental and infrastructure impacts that will hurt our communities, the fundamental premise of what was being put forward was faulty because the information simply was not there and there was a hostile approach from some of those statutory bodies that made getting information out really difficult. Does my hon. Friend believe that that is the reason why this should not go ahead? We cannot even make a judgment call on that basis, and that fits with what the Planning Inspectorate has come out to say—that this should not go ahead.
Alberto Costa
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and there is no surprise in that—both of us have worked so assiduously over the years on this matter, particularly behind the scenes when we have highlighted to previous Government Ministers the very issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I pay tribute to the many individuals and stakeholders—there are too many to name—who have closely considered this application, raised legitimate concerns on behalf of their communities and meaningfully contributed to the six-month Planning Inspectorate hearing process. I am glad that the Planning Inspectorate has taken on board their views.
I am pleased to name just a couple of local Blaby district councillors who are observing this debate closely —Ben Taylor and Mike Shirley. I put on the record that they have worked tirelessly for their constituents to voice concerns over this proposed development, as has the leadership of Blaby district council. There are many local groups too, such as the Friends of Narborough Station, the Stoney Stanton Action Group, the Save Burbage Common group and Elmesthorpe Stands Together—to name just a few. They have brought their unique expertise and local knowledge to help illustrate why the proposal is wholly inappropriate.
This development was unpopular from the outset; I issued a survey to constituents living within the vicinity. Of nearly 6,000 surveys sent, I had a very high response rate of 27%, and an overwhelming 94.5% of respondents opposed the proposals. Many of the villages closest to the proposed site are rural in nature and there are widespread and legitimate concerns that local country roads will become too busy with traffic, leading to gridlock in village centres and causing a safety concern, as has been correctly highlighted by the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant did not give enough consideration to that issue, in part because of poorly conducted traffic assessments, incorrect modelling and inadequate mitigations.
While the proposed location of HNRFI is in the so-called golden triangle, constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth and in South Leicestershire frequently write to their respective MPs to raise concerns about what is frankly gross overdevelopment of commercial areas. This is not a question of nimbyism. If she looks at the map of this part of Leicestershire, the Minister will see an enormous amount of housing and commercial development. Indeed Magna Park, a huge logistics park —at one time the largest in Europe—is only a few miles away from this proposed development, and it is shortly to regain the title of one of Europe’s largest logistics parks. It is currently doubling in size, with 13.1 million square feet of floor space across 47 enormous warehouses.
Would the Minister agree that over-development, not nimbyism, has gone too far in constituencies such as South Leicestershire and the adjoining area? I politely ask whether the Minister can expand on why the Secretary of State requires an extension when there is overwhelming evidence, as the Planning Inspectorate report seems to suggest, that the development should not go ahead.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made some fantastic points. One of the key points is the Planning Inspectorate report. Many members of the public felt that the development was a done deal and something being done to them. Can I thank the Planning Inspectorate, which is now minded to refuse consent? Our communities have been heard. We know the deficits, have seen the deficits and have now proved those deficits. I hope that that will go some way towards the Secretary of State making the right decision. But there is anxiety now, given the very unusual delay of several months. Minister, how can we allay fears that this will all be ridden roughshod over, given the unusual nature of what we have in place?
Alberto Costa
I entirely agree, which is why it was important to put on the record at the outset that there is still anxiety among thousands of Leicestershire residents, who are asking why consent has not been withheld when the Planning Inspectorate have said it should be.
I would like to assist the Government. The draft national policy statement for national networks states:
“Whilst there is likely to be a natural clustering of SRFI proposals in the distribution heartland of the nation…consideration should be given to proposals for SRFIs in areas where there is currently lesser provision.”
Developers argue that purportedly tens of thousands of jobs can come with SRFIs. Why not put these in areas where there is less provision? Will the Minister outline what consideration the Secretary of State might give to putting SRFIs in areas with less provision?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I generally support appropriate commercial developments in our constituencies. However, as we have said, South Leicestershire and that part of Leicestershire as a whole already take a fair share of large scale commercial developments. Indeed there is another unwelcome proposal, put on the table just a few weeks ago, for enormous warehousing to the east of Lutterworth, under what is called Lutterworth East Commercial Area. It is not just the rail freight interchange; I appreciate the Minister does not have responsibility for that which I have just mentioned, but the point I wish to highlight is that there is ongoing gross overdevelopment in that area.
We already have Daventry international rail freight terminal just 18 miles away from the HNRFI site, four national rail hubs within 45 miles and Northampton gateway rail freight interchange just 31 miles away. Having looked at the record, I think it is important to analyse the damage that having a cluster can actually do.
Local planning is one of the most contentious issues that any MP deals with in their casework, as the Minister will understand. It is also the one in which we as MPs have the least power or authority. We have no formal role in the planning decision making—rightly so, because most planning decisions are made by locally elected and locally accountable councillors. However because the Hinckley national rail freight interchange is categorised as a nationally significant infrastructure project, these matters are ultimately decided by the Minister and her team. In other words, unlike most planning decisions, which are approved or rejected at local authority level, these matters ultimately go to senior Ministers to decide.
One of the key national objectives of rail freight interchanges is to get freight off the roads and on to rail tracks, and reap the environmental and cost-saving benefits of doing so. I am sure the Minister and I would agree that that is something to welcome, but it is very important that we do not have the wool pulled over our eyes, and see rail freight interchange proposals as a fig leaf for just another excuse for enormous warehousing.
I want to quote Dame Andrea Leadsom, the former MP for South Northamptonshire. She stood in this Chamber less than a year ago and said:
“SEGRO took over the development of the site and—lo and behold—as the site neared completion last year, it applied for a development consent order waiver, asking the Department for Transport to overturn the condition requiring the rail link to be completed so it could start to fill up its warehouses and flood local roads with HGVs even before the rail link was established.”
She added:
“It seems clear to me that this project was always about forcing more warehousing into the heart of England to take advantage of motorway access from south Northamptonshire and never about making it easier to move freight off the road and on to the rail network.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 22WH.]
I say to the Minister that the case of the HNRFI is the same.
What would I suggest that the new Labour Government could proactively look at? The issue is the lack of a proper framework policy, which colleagues and I have raised many times before. Such a policy would help the Labour Government to identify appropriate sites where these forms of logistics parks should be located.
The first area that a national framework should address is site selection. The current nationally significant infrastructure project regime is developer-led, with developers responsible for justifying their site choices. At present, there is only general guidance in the national networks national policy statement, with no formal national level framework guiding the Government or local authorities on where SRFIs should be located.
A national framework could assist the Government by helping them to prescribe specific location criteria for SRFIs, such as proximity to major freight corridors and alignment with regional logistics hubs. Such proactive planning could avoid unsuitable locations and, importantly, minimise planning disputes from the outset. That could help ensure that SRFI proposals are not only appropriately located but are also in line with whatever the Labour Government’s policy would be.
I would also welcome measures that ensure that SRFIs actually serve their purpose and handle sufficient rail traffic, rather than just becoming another excuse for gargantuan logistics parks. That would ensure that freight really does end up off the road and on rail, while providing clear expectations for developers, which would, in turn, promote confidence from stakeholders.
The most critical point I want to address is strategic co-ordination. As it stands, the nationally significant infrastructure projects process is largely reactive, led by individual developer proposals, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While there are broad goals to shift freight from road to rail, which I support, there is no comprehensive national strategy that specifically addresses the planning of SRFIs. That results in inefficiencies, regional imbalances and in our particular case, not nimbyism, but the grotesque—I choose the word carefully —overconcentration of SRFIs and enormous logistics housing in our region. With a national framework drafted by the Labour Government, we could ensure that logistics facilities are distributed more evenly across the country, balancing the benefits and impacts across the nation.
In summary, while the UK’s current NSIP regime provides a structured process for approving SRFIs, it remains reactive, fragmented and developer-driven. A national framework would change that by introducing greater consistency, strategic oversight and national level co-ordination. I think that is exactly what the Labour party said during the recent general election campaign that it wants to do when it comes to planning. That is the future I propose that this Government pursue.
I hope that the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, takes the opportunity in her new role to come up with a national freight strategy, so that the whole country can share the burden and benefit of these developments and so that local communities can buy into these developments and not have them forced upon them. I urge the Minister and her team to speak carefully with the Secretary of State to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation to withhold consent to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, and to make the decision in a timely manner.
Only by doing so will the Labour Government show the people of Leicestershire and the surrounding area that they really do listen on planning and that they do have a plan to share these nationally significant projects across the country. At a local level, that would help alleviate any anxiety that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have over this proposal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing today’s debate. I would also like to thank him and others for their engagement on this matter. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is temporarily not in the room. I am aware that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire wrote to my Department and has previously tabled other debates to express concerns about this scheme, which is a nationally significant rail freight interchange infrastructure project, located partly in his constituency in Leicestershire.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I should let the Minister know that the Member concerned did apologise that he had to leave urgently.
Lilian Greenwood
Absolutely. I have also noted the relevant contributions made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire in the King’s Speech debate on planning, the green belt and rural affairs on 19 July this year and on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill debate on 29 July. I am also aware that the hon. Member participated in the examination of the application as an interested party. I thank him for the contributions he has made in that respect.
The concerns that the hon. Member has raised include the impact due to the proximity of the application site on the local Fosse villages of Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Potters Marston, Croft, Huncote, Thurlaston and Wigston Parva; impacts from an increase in heavy goods vehicles on the local road network; the lack of a national strategy for the location of logistics parks; the proximity of other rail freight interchanges; public engagement on the application; the impact and delays at Narborough railway station and level crossing; impacts on Burbage common and woods nature reserve, located in the neighbouring Hinckley and Bosworth constituency; and the impact on local amenities as a result of increased job opportunities. I am also aware of the petition which the hon. Member presented to Parliament in October last year on behalf of local residents of the constituency of South Leicestershire. Both he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have again represented their constituents’ concerns very effectively today.
The application for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008. Under that Act, the Secretary of State for Transport has a quasi-judicial role in issuing decisions of applications for development consent orders for strategic rail freight interchanges, provided that they meet certain threshold conditions set out in the Act. Following the examination of the application by the Planning Inspectorate’s examining authority, the Secretary of State received the report containing its recommendation on 10 June this year. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the Secretary of State issued a “minded to refuse” letter this morning, having carefully considered the examining authority’s report. Her letter sets out that, while she is minded to agree with the examining authority’s recommendation to refuse the application, she first wishes to gather further information on certain matters. The Secretary of State requires further information on the safety concerns raised in respect of M1 junction 21 and M69 junction 3, and the lack of adequate transport modelling at that junction; the increased highway safety risk at Sapcote identified by the examining authority; the concerns raised by the examining authority on the impact on Narborough level crossing, particularly on people who might find using a stepped footbridge difficult; and any measures that might avoid or mitigate the potential harm identified by the examining authority to the occupiers of the Aston Firs Travellers’ site.
The Secretary of State’s letter also invites comments on the revised sustainable transport strategy, the suggested amendments to the heavy goods vehicles route and the management plan strategy, and specific submissions in respect of noise impacts referred to in her letter. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire said, a written ministerial statement was laid in Parliament this morning to extend the statutory deadline for a decision on this application to 10 March 2025. I appreciate that the extension is unwelcome to him and his constituents, but my understanding is that this is not particularly unusual.
The extension to the deadline is required to allow for the submission of further information on the issues I have just mentioned before the Secretary of State takes a final decision on the application. The extension will also allow time for all interested parties to comment on that further information. The final decision will be taken as soon as possible, but it is important to allow time for those issues to be properly considered by all parties. The extension of the deadline means that the application remains a live planning application. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire understands that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the application while it remains live.
It would also not be appropriate at this time for me to elaborate on or add to the reasons set out by the Secretary of State in her letter. That is because, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the decisions by the Secretary of State on applications for development consent orders are quasi-judicial, and the decision is a matter for the Secretary of State alone. It would not be appropriate for me to take part in any discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal. I know the hon. Member understands that we must ensure that the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties.
The examining authority’s recommendation report, which was published today alongside the letter from the Secretary of State, covers many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and I encourage him and his constituents to read the report alongside the letter from the Secretary of State—I am sure he has already done so. Should he or his constituents have any further issues they would like to raise, I encourage them to write formally to the Department when invited, as part of the next-steps process for the application. The process going forward is outlined in the letter from the Secretary of State. I am loth to decline a meeting with hon. Members, but it could be perceived as bias if the Department meets objectors, but not the applicant and supporters. I understand that we have declined requests for other meetings.
I highlight the need for nationally significant strategic rail freight projects more generally. The Government’s view is that the economic and environmental potential of rail freight is significant, and they are fully committed to supporting its growth. Under its plans to deliver the biggest overhaul of the railways in a generation, Great British Railways will have a duty and target to grow the movement of freight on our railways. I am sure it will be interested in the comments that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire made on ways that might be done.
The Government support the development of an expanded network of SRFIs to facilitate the modal shift of freight from road to rail. Rail freight offers substantial economic and environmental benefits, as well as helping to reduce congestion on our roads and cost to industry. Strategic rail freight interchange projects are a key element in reducing the costs of moving more freight by rail, enabling goods to be efficiently transferred between transport modes, which is important because many rail freight movements cannot provide a full end-to-end journey.
The sector also delivers economic and social benefits through cost savings to industry, creating employment and reducing congestion. Industry estimates that a single rail freight service can remove up to 129 heavy goods vehicle movements from our roads. Moving goods by rail results in about 7 million fewer lorry journeys each year. In 2018-19, it is estimated that rail freight contributed £2.45 billion in economic and social benefits to the country, 90% of which were likely to accrue to freight customers and wider society outside London and the south-east.
Rail freight also offers benefits to the environment. A diesel-hauled rail freight service produces 76% less carbon dioxide per tonne of kilometre moved compared with road. Recent improvements using longer, heavier trains and alternative low-carbon fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil are reducing rail freight’s carbon footprint even further, making it one of the most carbon-efficient ways to move goods over long distances.
Having said all that, it is of course important that every application for a new strategic rail freight interchange is carefully assessed to ensure that its benefits outweigh its impacts, including those on the local environment that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire described. I know, however, from his contributions to the debates on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that he does not oppose rail freight interchanges per se. He made that point again today in calling for a national strategy.
Finally, I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State, in making a decision, will take into consideration the content of the examining authority’s report, the relevant policies, responses to her consultations and any representations received after the close of the examination. I assure the hon. Member that she will listen to the views of him and his constituents. I thank him and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for the opportunity to debate this matter today.
Question put and agreed to.
Exempt Supported Accommodation
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered exempt supported accommodation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am pleased to have secured this debate on exempt supported accommodation. I start with thanks to a number of people with whom I have worked during the course of this campaign: Jane Haynes at Birmingham Live, Birmingham City Council, the Local Government Association, the HMO Action Group in Birmingham, my local police, and the many residents I have worked with over the years, including my constituents on Carisbrooke Road and Fountain Road.
Since my election in 2017, issues with exempt supported accommodation has been a long-running problem in parts of my Birmingham Edgbaston constituency. I have called this debate because, after years of inaction and stalled progress under the previous Government, I am keen now to see fit-for-purpose regulations introduced to finally deal with this issue. Ministers have been left with no shortage of housing challenges by the previous Administration, whether it is the failure to build enough houses, homelessness, cladding removal or years of inaction on renters’ rights. Exempt accommodation reform should have pride of place among the new Government’s packed agenda, because there is a great deal on the line for vulnerable residents in communities such as mine.
As I am sure the Minister knows, Birmingham has the most units of non-commissioned exempt accommodation in the country, with nearly 28,000 exempt claims across more than 9,000 properties. Exempt accommodation is a type of supported accommodation often used for people with very few housing options, such as prison leavers, rough sleepers, those experiencing substance misuse issues, and so on. It is exempt from the local housing allowance cap because an element of care, support and supervision is supposed to be provided to claimants—although often it is not. As a result, organisations that provide this type of accommodation can charge very high rates, and that has unfortunately led to unscrupulous providers coming into the market. It has had the unintended consequence of distorting the local housing market in Birmingham, given the buying up of family homes to be converted into exempt provision. Quality concerns are rife among the properties, and in recent years several of the city’s largest providers have been issued regulatory notices by the Regulator of Social Housing.
Over the past few years, I have worked closely with providers, residents, the police and community groups with on-the-ground experience to get to the bottom of why the sector has almost trebled in our city since 2018, and why so much of the accommodation is substandard and poorly managed. The causes are multifaceted and complex, but it is the view of me and my constituents that the new regulations to be introduced by the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 are well overdue.
My closest experience of the sector was in 2021, working with the council, police and community to shut down Saif Lodge in my constituency, which had become infamous in the area as an epicentre of crime. It was the first case in the country of an exempt property being shut down, after residents and I presented extensive evidence of incidents of prostitution, drug dealing, aggression and other antisocial behaviour. We found vulnerable residents with substance abuse and mental health issues being let down by filthy, cramped, poor-quality accommodation, and a dire lack of support.
I had been aware of some of the issues of Saif Lodge since I was elected, but after my constituents alerted me to the shocking rise in crime surrounding the property I carried out a spot check with the police to see for myself what was actually happening. I was shocked by what I found: housed there were 25 men and women, including ex-offenders, with several issues ranging from addiction and substance misuse to mental health problems. There was just one solitary support worker on duty, who told me that the hostel was manned only on weekdays, with residents otherwise left to their own devices. The conditions were utterly substandard: cold, filthy and cramped. The downstairs toilet was broken, flooded and left unfixed; the smell was hair-raising. Access to the property was via a code that was regularly shared with strangers who were always in and out. The communal spaces were in a state. It is no wonder that residents were frequently found spilling out and loitering outside. It was not a place where any of us could happily live, let alone get a life back on track following a crisis.
As part of the campaign, I set up an exempt campaign group with residents, and conducted a number of spot checks of such properties in my constituency. Through that work, and working with the council, MPs, providers and community groups across Birmingham, I got to see up close how poor much of the provision can be across my constituency and Birmingham city. In the case of Saif Lodge, we were successful in securing an order for it to be shut down. Good, we might think—but substantial time and resources went into the campaign. It took more than a year to see it through, and it is only one example among many across Birmingham that have been letting people down. That is why councils and the police need powers to address the ongoing concerns in the exempt sector. Saif Lodge was a symptom—a feature of the system, not a bug.
It is telling that since Saif Lodge was boarded up it has been found to have been turned into a cannabis farm housing marijuana with a street value stretching into the hundreds of millions of pounds. The owners even applied to change the use of the property to provide support for women and children. Clearly, they should never be allowed to provide any supported accommodation. I have always contended that organised crime has been attracted to the sector, and this situation has reinforced my suspicions that some people are targeting it for all the wrong reasons. With the regulations Parliament agreed to last year, that must change.
In the previous Parliament I campaigned strongly for a new regulatory regime to be introduced to clamp down on poor-quality exempt provision. That regime should include the introduction of minimum standards of support; changes to housing benefit regulations to include a definition of the minimum standards of care, support and supervision; and new powers for local authorities to manage their local supported housing market better and ensure that rogue landlords cannot exploit the system.
I was pleased to see many of my recommendations in the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s excellent report on this issue. Some were subsequently translated into law in the Support Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which requires local authorities to review and develop strategies to deal with exempt accommodation in their areas. It also gives the Secretary of State power to introduce national support standards and consider a new planning use class for exempt provision, and give councils powers to create local licensing schemes. It is an important piece of legislation to clamp down on those private providers that have opened large buildings that purport to provide support for people but are at best accommodation, and at worst dangerous places to live for the vulnerable people placed there.
A year since the Act was passed with cross-party support, we still do not have the operating regulations or even the consultation promised by the previous Government. A consultation on the regulations was first promised in early 2024; it was delayed to March, and then delayed again by the general election. I would therefore be grateful to the Minister if she would set out the new timelines for when she intends to begin consultation and lay the new regulations.
After the previous Government’s failure to get on with this matter, I know that councils will be listening closely to this debate, seeking more clarity on what to expect over the coming year. The delays have left councils with few means to challenge poor providers other than through housing benefit claims, which are of course problematic for residents. They have also left councils that are in receipt of funding through the supported housing improvement programme facing a cliff edge in support. With funding due to end in March 2025, a gap in funding between SHIP funding and new burdens funding for the Act could mean that many councils have to let go of skilled staff members, which I am sure the Minister would agree would be completely unsatisfactory.
Birmingham city council used its funding for a programme of inspections of exempt accommodation in the city, and what it found is genuinely shocking. It discovered more than 10,000 category 1 and 2 health and safety hazards in exempt properties since 2020, 97% of which have now been removed. In that time, thousands of support plan reviews have been completed and overpaid housing benefit of more than £7.23 million has been reclaimed. I am sure the Minister will agree that the SHIP funding has been a valuable investment, and I seek her reassurance that it will continue while we await the new regulations.
What is most revealing is what the inspections programme has revealed about the state of the sector and why regulation is sorely needed. Through its work, the council has seen an increase in social issues around community safety and poor-quality support. It decommissioned 73 properties and reviewed over 2,000 support plans for adult social care. Some 88 adult safeguarding reviews were initiated, and more than 2,600 claims were cancelled due to the care, support or supervision failing to meet the council’s more-than-minimal threshold. That really is saying something considering how weakly it is defined through the so-called more-than-minimal test.
I remember that when I visited Saif Lodge I talked to the security guard and asked whether they were the support worker. They were not, but if a resident asked them for support, they said they would simply make a phone call to refer the resident or signpost them to a service. That was their version of care, support and supervision. That is what the uncapped housing benefit was paying for while the property’s owners raked in the profit. In addition, the council states that, from inspections, it has logged thousands of community safety incidents connected to such properties. There have been more than 1,700 investigations, leading to 544 evictions and 48 arrests.
A key concern of mine is how people are referred to and placed in the properties. Members can imagine the chaos when it comes to assessing compatible residents and placing them together. Indeed, many residents are not properly assessed at all. I have heard cases of vulnerable women being put with men who have serious issues, and alarming cases of women being assaulted in the properties. That is why the regulations are so important: clear operating guidelines are needed for councils now.
Despite the good work done through the supported housing improvement programme, for which I give the previous Government credit, until we have regulations councils will remain unequipped to enforce the minimum standards of care, support and supervision that vulnerable residents need and deserve. In turn, I have no doubt that regulation will improve the levels of antisocial behaviour and other forms of crime that have sprung up around some of the exempt provision in my constituency and caused considerable grief for the residents of Fountain Road, Gillott Road and other roads leading off Hagley Road. I think everyone in the supported housing sector, councils and my constituents will welcome clarity from the Minister.
Let me move on to some specific questions. I remember a meeting in 2022 at which Government officials remarked that they were too light on data to get on with reform at that point. I found that a startling admission, and I sincerely hope it is not the case now. The Government previously committed to improving the data that they collect on the sector; will the Minister provide an update on that work? Will she also update us on the progress she has made on developing national support standards, including in respect of what constitutes a minimal level of care, support and supervision? It is vital that such regulations are put on the statute book.
I am sure the Minister is aware that, in the absence of the promised regulations due to the aforementioned delayed, some councils are pre-emptively setting their own standards. From their point of view, they will prepare the sector for the introduction of new standards, but from the supported sector’s perspective, they risk creating policy inconsistency that may have negative consequences for smaller providers that are otherwise doing a very good job. Does the Minister agree that the repeated delays to the consultation on and development of the regulations promised by the previous Government have created a lot of uncertainty, which is ultimately unhelpful to the good providers of supported housing in the sector and the residents they protect?
It is welcome that Birmingham city council has its own quality standards scheme, but without regulations it can only be voluntary, and thus only 45% of providers currently engage with it. That is a huge challenge to all of us who want to drive up standards in the sector and do not want a continuation of the race to the bottom that we have seen over the past 14 years.
I seek the Minister’s view on creating a new planning use class for exempt accommodation, to help councils to identify exempt provision at an earlier stage and therefore better manage it in parts of the city where exempt accommodation is already saturated. That is part of the problem with crime hotspots in my patch, which have an incredibly negative impact on my constituents who live in them. I am sure the Minister agrees that the Government’s commitment to restore community policing will help in that respect. My constituents know keenly the value of a local officer who knows the community. We need to see more of our officers on our streets.
New regulations to tackle poor provision in the exempt accommodation sector are desperately overdue. Birmingham now has an excess of 28,000 exempt units, and the number continues to grow. Since reforms to the supported housing system were shelved in 2018, the exempt accommodation sector has ballooned. A freedom of information request from Crisis revealed a 62% increased from 2016 to 2021, so the longer we delay, the greater the challenge when new regulation inevitably comes.
Over the past decade, too many bad landlords have been getting into the sector for precisely the wrong reasons. They have exploited under-regulation, a Conservative housing crisis and an epidemic of unmet need after years of council cuts. There are fantastic providers that also operate in Birmingham that try to do the right thing, but they are being undermined by those seeking to profiteer and short-change vulnerable people in their care. That is bad for the supported housing sector as a whole.
My one ask of the Minister today is for her to make sure that the new Government get on with the urgent task of reform after the previous Government dithered and delayed, and to ask whether she can set out a refreshed timeline today. Survivors of domestic violence, prison leavers, care leavers and people with mental health and substance abuse issues deserve a supported housing system that supports their transition to happier, more independent lives; our communities in Birmingham deserve neighbourhoods that are peaceful and safe, not epicentres of antisocial behaviour; and the taxpayer deserves to know that their money is going to support people who need it and is not lining the pockets of rogue landlords. I thank the Minister in advance for her response to the debate.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech, in which she highlighted all the difficulties that we knew existed in this sector. She also provided some real colour about what those difficulties mean for residents of exempt supported accommodation units, for local residents who are impacted by some of the bad-faith actors, and for local communities. I do not want to go back over some of the ground that has already been covered, because she covered it so well, but I am afraid that I will have to. Before I go any further, however, I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
In 2022, I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) as a private Member’s Bill. It was an important step forward that had cross-party support from the then Conservative Government, the Labour Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches, because the issue had become so severe.
The system of exempt accommodation was well described in the October 2022 report by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee as:
“a complete mess. There are many good providers, but in the worst instances the system involves the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. This gold-rush is all paid for by taxpayers through housing benefit.”
That is a sorry state of affairs.
The then Government supported the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East, because it was seen as a good way to deal with the situation that was described by the Select Committee and by the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston today. In response to the Select Committee’s report, in early 2023 the Conservative Government said that the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 would address most of the concerns that had been raised in the report, because it would introduce national standards for support and give local authorities the powers they need to set up licensing schemes to tackle poor-quality supported housing in their area.
The Act provided for local authority supported housing strategies to review the situation in their area and the availability of and need for supported housing, and those strategies were to be renewed every five years. It also required the Secretary of State to set up a supported housing advisory panel to provide information and advice about supported housing; it allowed for the Secretary of State to set standards for the support provided in supported housing; and it allowed for regulations to be made to establish licensing schemes, which would include consideration of the condition of the property, the adequacy of the care and support provided, interactions with other licensing schemes, the costs, the financial penalties and all the things that needed to go with a properly functioning licensing scheme
The Act also required the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as it is now called again, to formally consult on elements contained within it, including the licensing regime, standards and any additional measures for securing compliance with the standards. As we have heard, however, much of that has not yet happened, despite the Act going through Parliament in 2023.
The Act provided for better planning regulations; it said that somebody would not be treated as intentionally homeless if they left supported accommodation; and it provided for information management and sharing powers for those involved in the provision of supported housing. All in all, it seems to have been a pretty good piece of legislation, and the problem that we are experiencing now, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston described in great detail, is that those provisions have not been enacted quickly enough. Today’s debate is about urging the Minister to bring forward the actions that are needed now to make sure that we improve the sector.
The LGA is supportive of that legislation and has been a main stakeholder working with the Ministry to ensure that the Act works for councils, providers, and most importantly, residents in supported accommodation. But the LGA has raised significant concerns about the time taken to implement the Act and about the fact that councils have limited means to challenge poor providers, other than through housing benefit claims, which is problematic. We heard from the hon. Member that Birmingham city council has actually been able to challenge providers, so it would be interesting to find out from the Minister whether that is likely to be a model in future or whether better mechanisms will be put in place.
As the hon. Member said, the delayed implementation of the Act is a problem for councils that have used the SHIP payments to improve supported housing in their area. The gap in funding between the SHIP payments and the new burden spending that comes with implementation of the Act means that councils will potentially have to let go of their skilled workforce and people with good experience of dealing with the problems and social implications of poor housing.
It seems that in every debate at the moment, we must talk about the funding crisis for all councils. They need long-term funding arrangements with ringfenced support for housing, because the increased pressure on council budgets from that sector means that not only are we letting people down who have an acute housing need, but we are letting down everyone else whose services are impacted by the exorbitant cost of providing housing across the whole of England, particularly in communities where the sector is out of control, as the hon. Member alluded to.
The calls of the LGA are, as always, very sensible. We need to review the current funding regime for supported housing. We also need to recognise the savings to the public purse that will come from not giving those unscrupulous providers limitless amounts of public money for a very poor service that will not realise any of the benefits that supported housing should realise for its inhabitants and wider society by providing the support they need.
We need to ensure that the SHIP funding is there in the interregnum between now and the new burden spending, so that councils can continue the work that they are already doing, and crucially, can retain the skilled officers who are experienced in dealing with this situation. We also need to acknowledge that a licensing scheme and its enforcement, with improved standards for supported housing, will require proper funding. Otherwise, councils will be unable to deliver on the statutory requirement that we are about to place on them.
The funding is so important. I know that the Government are dealing with a financial crisis, that they have extremely difficult choices to make, and that almost all Members will standing up in every debate to ask for more money—it is a difficult position to be in—but I urge the Minister to consider that, as taxpayers’ money is wasted so flagrantly on these unscrupulous providers, it would be a good use of public money to establish a proper licensing scheme. That would mean that we were not wasting taxpayers’ money and were instead putting it into support for the individuals who have had a crisis, hopefully turning their lives around, and costing the taxpayer less in future. That would be a wise investment of taxpayers’ money.
On the important issue of resource, many councils are having to let staff go because of funding pressures. We cannot enforce and practise a licensing scheme without the right people in officer roles in councils, so the recruitment and retention of those critical staff is also extremely important. I honestly do not think that I have added much to the hon. Member’s excellent speech, but I hope that I have added my voice to her cause on regulating the sector properly.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing today’s debate. I must draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because, like the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), I am also a member of the LGA’s parliamentary team of vice-presidents.
I recall from my work on the Kerslake review into the governance of Birmingham city council that it has the highest proportion of residents needing to access social care during their lifetime of any local authority in England. The level of need is patently particularly acute, which is why one of the five pilots introduced following the “Supported housing: national statement of expectations” in October 2020 was in Birmingham.
Anybody with local government experience will be familiar with these challenges, which go back many years. They often result from reforms, such as those in the 1980s with care in the community, those in the late 1990s with the fair access criteria, and the introduction of extra care housing supported living. They all had a high degree of cross-party support based on the idea of improving the level of independence and autonomy that could be provided to people who need extra support through a combination of housing and social care.
All Members’ inboxes will contain at least some examples of concern about abuses in the market; some examples where the quality of care provided is not reaching the appropriate standard; and, of course, some examples where the quality of care is exceptional and supports our constituents to enjoy the fullest, most autonomous life and the greatest degree of independence in pursuing their interests. As we have heard, in response to the abuses that were identified in the market, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), brought forward a private Member’s Bill, which was adopted by the Government and enjoyed cross-party support in the last Parliament, with a view to bringing a clear legislative and regulatory focus to the sector.
As we know and have heard in the debate, the combination of challenges around resourcing the implementation of that measure—for example, the ability of local authorities to make good use of feedback from residents who may be extremely vulnerable, and ensuring that that new regulatory environment is enforceable when it sits outside of the planning system to a great degree, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston identified—remains significant.
When we consider recent work, it seems that the Minister has a great deal to build on. As has been highlighted, there has been a good degree of cross-party support for improved measures to address the issue, and, following the publication of the “Supported housing: national statement of expectations” and the implementation of the five pilots, an evaluation was published in the last Parliament, around April 2022. A written ministerial statement from the then Minister, Eddie Hughes, set out the future plans and funding aimed at implementing the regulation that those pilots had identified as being necessary. That work led to and fed into the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 and interacted with the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. The issue was also the subject of a Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee inquiry in 2021.
The debate and discussion in Parliament has significance only in so far as it can be implemented at a local level. Both the Select Committee inquiry and the learning from those pilots was very clear that local authorities need to have sufficient resource and flexibility to implement it at a local level. I welcome the fact that, in the previous Parliament, the Government provided a £20 million fund to begin ensuring that all local authorities could learn from that and had a degree of resource. However, it is clear from the level of wider need, and in particular, from the emerging evidence of market abuse not just in this sector but in areas such as children’s homes and care homes, where significant rip-off fees are being charged by some providers for a service that is simply inadequate to meet the needs of those residents, that further work is needed. Clearly, the Minister has taken office at a time when the Department has accumulated a high degree of evidence as a result of the pilots, the debates and the work done in the previous Parliament. I hope that that will be enormously useful in ensuring that the expectations set out in that Parliament can be fulfilled.
I would like to add my support on this matter. I do not think that this Minister is responsible for planning, but the point that was made about how we support the identification of exempt accommodation through the planning process is important. I think we all recognise that this is a marketplace in which we have a combination of local authority providers, private providers, charities and voluntary organisations, and we do not wish to place undue impediments in the way of those who wish to convert existing buildings—for example, houses in multiple occupation—to provide additional support to residents who may be able to make the most of it. At the same time, in all communities, in order to avoid the problems we have seen—with particular settings, for example, requiring a high degree of police and law enforcement input—there needs to be that earlier identification process.
As the Government bring forward their proposed review of the planning system, I hope the Minister and her colleagues will give some consideration to how changing the use classes that relate to exempt accommodation or making that part of a wider review—for example, of change of use of residential accommodation to become children’s homes, houses in multiple occupation, care homes and so on—would enable the earlier identification of sites and input to be gathered from the likes of police and NHS services. That would then influence the planning committee in deciding whether a location was appropriate in order, for example, to avoid the clustering of problem locations. As we have seen in the past with local authorities at the coast, we may find a combination of bail hostels next to children’s homes next to asylum accommodation, all of which can create a very challenging social mix for a local authority and other local authority services to deal with.
This has been a very helpful debate. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston. I hope that the Minister will be able to build on the constructive work done in the last Parliament and that we will see that feed into a significant change in the experience of the most vulnerable people, who need to access exempt accommodation, but also in the communities in which it is located and their experience of it in the coming years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this important debate and thank her for the work she has already done to tackle the poor quality of supported accommodation schemes in her constituency.
Housing is a priority for this Government. We are already committed to building 1.5 million new homes, and that will include good-quality supported housing to ensure that residents have the right home to meet their needs. But as we have heard, we need to make sure that the supported housing that already exists is delivering good outcomes for its residents. As the Minister responsible for supported housing, I am determined to tackle the problems discussed in today’s debate. I know how important it is to get this agenda right, because my constituents suffer just like those of my hon. Friend and a number of other Members who have been very active in campaigning to improve the quality of supported housing.
My hon. Friend highlighted the many serious issues—as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan)—and the suffering caused by poor-quality supported housing where residents receive little or no support and landlords charge huge rents paid for by the taxpayer, with local authorities lacking the powers to challenge that.
Of course, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are not speaking about all providers. The majority do a fantastic job supporting their residents to live fulfilling and independent lives, and I commend them for the work they do. We want to see more of those kinds of providers and to help them continue to give their residents the best support they can.
However, in the worst examples I know of, there are harrowing stories of residents being left with no support at all, of criminal gangs taking advantage of vulnerable residents and of women who are fleeing domestic violence and domestic abuse being housed with sex offenders. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there are also examples of lack of support, criminality and dangerous situations for residents, who are put into accommodation by landlords who simply do not care about them. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. As my hon. Friend highlighted, that is a serious and growing problem in Birmingham, but it is not unique to the city and is an issue in other parts of the country.
The Government will take firm action to stop rogues who continue to exploit vulnerable residents and rip off taxpayers by charging excessive rents, which are met by housing benefit. Those abuses have gone on for far too long, and this Government will act to put a stop to them. I look forward to working with colleagues in the different parties, building on the consensus from the previous Parliament.
Poor-quality, expensive and ineffective supported housing was first highlighted in Birmingham in 2018 by the Housing and Communities Research Group, working with the Birmingham Safeguarding Adults Board. The then Government tested ways to increase the oversight of supported housing in a number of areas, including Birmingham, through the supported housing oversight pilot, followed by the expanded supported housing improvement programme, known as SHIP. I agree with my hon. Friend, who was quoted at the time as saying that the schemes were welcome but fell far short of the action needed.
I am pleased to say that the 26 local authorities involved have been reporting good progress against their delivery plans since the start of the initiative. Over 2,400 properties have been inspected, over 8,000 reviews have been undertaken of the support provided to tenants and over 9,400 benefit reassessments have been carried out. My hon. Friend asked about the decision on further funding for SHIP, which is, as she will be aware, a matter for the spending review.
I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and other colleagues on the work they did in getting the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 on to the statute books. As we have heard, implementing the Act will equip local authorities to go further and to finally put an end to this appalling problem. The Government are determined to get these measures implemented as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston highlighted the lack of data under the previous Government. I am pleased to say that the data position is improving, and an initial research phase looking at supported housing in Great Britain—covering the number of units, the cost, and estimates of need and future demand—has been undertaken on behalf of the Government. A report setting out the findings will be published soon.
I want briefly to set out how the Government intend to address these important issues. As I have mentioned, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East, is central to our plans. To be clear, the Government will implement the measures in the Act as soon as possible. These problems have been going on for far too long and action is long overdue. As required by the Act, I will shortly issue a statement to the House about progress on implementing the measures in it, but I am grateful for the opportunity to inform Members of the way forward today.
Work will shortly resume on appointing the supported housing advisory panel. I am grateful for the applications the Department received prior to the general election, and I hope to be able to inform applicants shortly on the next steps.
The Government are finalising a consultation on national standards and plans for a licensing regime for supported housing schemes in England, as well as on the new planning use class that was called for during the Act’s progress through Parliament. We will publish the consultation as soon as possible.
Local supported housing strategies are another vital part of the Act and will ensure that the needs of vulnerable people can be met in the future. Work on them is progressing, and the Government will work closely with local authorities and other stakeholders to develop the comprehensive guidance needed.
The 2023 Act proposes a licensing regime that will give local authorities proper control over who delivers supported housing in their district, and greater powers to intervene when things are not right. We will shortly consult on a locally led national licensing regime that will enforce a set of national support standards in England, and will add further conditions to ensure that rogue providers cannot continue to operate. Conditions will include a fit and proper test for licensees, conditions relating to the condition and use of the accommodation, and a condition requiring all residents to have had their needs assessed. Those conditions will ensure that only good-quality supported housing is licensed and allowed to continue to operate. Providing unlicensed supported housing will be an offence. The Government want to implement these changes carefully to avoid any unintended impacts on the much-needed supply of good supported housing, so it is critical that we consult both the statutory consultees, as set out in the Act, and wider stakeholders and residents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston asked about progress on developing the national standards. As she and others will be aware, the Act enables the Deputy Prime Minister to set standards for supported housing. While some regulation applies to supported housing, it is not specifically aimed at the support services provided to residents, and applies either to the provider or the physical condition of the property.
It is clear from the problems in supported housing that the current regulations are not enough and that there needs to be specific regulation for this type of housing. That is why the Government will be setting standards that, combined with supported housing licensing, close the gap in regulation and clearly set out what good support services look like and how they must be delivered.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for saying that, because I was going to ask her to touch on the national minimum standards. Can she give us a timeline? My worry is that the funding is ending in March 2025 and councils do not have the operating guidelines they need. There are also all the issues she raised in terms of making sure that councils understand how many units they have—let us not forget that Birmingham has the most units in the whole country, which is why I was encouraged that the previous Government included it in the pilot. I think the pilot has produced an evidence base showing why this issue is important: we will save money in the long run, whereas at the moment the taxpayer is almost paying twice. Unless the council intervenes and closes some of these properties, where support is not being provided, it will continue to be extracted from wider council services, which these providers are not paying into. Local government is no doubt listening to this debate, so I urge the Minister to give us a clear indication of what the timeline looks like.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points, and I fully appreciate her desire to see action being taken at pace. I want to reassure her that, with colleagues, I have hit the ground running two months into government. I hope she can see that we are making progress and that we want to ensure the consultation resumes as quickly as possible. That is the first step towards making the change that is needed, and it is important that we get it right. We must make sure that local partners —local authorities—are integral to that consultation and that there are no unintended consequences. However, I hear my hon. Friend loud and clear on the need for working at pace, and that is very much the spirit in which I have been working with officials in the Department.
We must give confidence to providers of supported housing that they are doing the right thing and, more importantly, set out to residents what they should be able to expect from their accommodation. My hon. Friend and other speakers have highlighted the urgency of ensuring that that happens. As I have said, we will consult on the standards before publishing guidance and we will continue to work with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that work on defining “care, support and supervision” is aligned.
The Government action that I have spoken about is very much targeted at poor-quality providers and is intended to put a stop to those that cannot or will not improve, and to help those that are well intentioned but are falling short in raising their game. It is equally important, however, that we recognise the fantastic work that providers are doing in the sector more widely in supporting vulnerable residents day in, day out. The reforms that we make as a result of the Act must be implemented with great care to ensure that good providers are not overburdened by bureaucracy and the cost of obtaining a supported housing licence.
In conclusion, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston once again for securing today’s debate and for speaking so passionately about the impact this important issue has had on her constituents. Her campaigning and work will benefit people up and down the country because she, along with other hon. Members in the previous Parliament—including the hon. Member for Harrow East, who successfully managed to change legislation—is going to make a significant difference to people’s lives. The Government’s position is clear: we are determined to take action to put a stop to this appalling problem that has blighted communities and put vulnerable people at risk of harm. We need to put a stop to it. This Government will deliver the improvements in supported housing quality—the previous Government made some progress, but we need to do much more. I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members on both sides of the House as we consult and go on to lay regulations that will finally put an end to these issues and ensure that every resident in supported housing is supported in a way that this Government would expect. I look forward to getting that serious work under way as soon as possible.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Opposition spokespersons —the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —for their very thoughtful contributions in this debate. It is really good to see consensus on the introduction of these regulations and I hope we can work together to get this right. There was a lot of cross-party consensus and joining-up previously in understanding both the issue within the exempt provision and what is really required. Fundamentally, it is about how this can be implemented in practice by councils—that is where the difference is going to be felt. I am really encouraged by the Minister’s response and I hope that we can keep in close contact following this debate on the progress that the new Government are making on this issue. I really look forward to her statement in the House on the timeline and the commitments.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly included a number of recommendations in the Bill he brought to the House, and I am sure that local government will want to voice other things they are finding more widely. I thought that Birmingham’s response was quite telling on both the SHIP funding and being able to have a team that can go out and do the inspections—I know the Minister has talked about that more broadly. The findings are concerning—the very fact that the council has been able to recoup £7.23 million in housing benefit overpayments makes it clear that much more joining-up is needed between the DWP and housing. We must be good at how we do that, how we have the advisory board there to support some of the thinking and how we implement that practically.
There are councils that do this better, but I think simply the size of Birmingham is the challenge. It is sad and shocking that a lot of people who cannot be placed elsewhere are being placed in Birmingham. They are vulnerable people and, even more worryingly, they do not have local links, which makes a difference to the level of exploitation—someone’s level of vulnerability increases as a result. We have to think about where we place people, especially if they already have good links in areas that they know and with services that they know. Otherwise, we are just shifting the problem from one place to another, exacerbating the issue of resources and services in Birmingham more broadly.
The Minister is welcome to visit Birmingham city council and our city to see some of the exempt accommodation at first hand. I think that that would help her to get a sense of what the new regulations will need to look like. She could meet the organisations. As she has mentioned, there are lots of good providers and good provision. It is important to get the balance right. Equally, lots of providers are exploiting the situation. The very fact that the Regulator of Social Housing has had to intervene tells us the state of the situation.
This is about protecting the small providers. No one wants to see endless bureaucracy; however, regulations are important. We already have HMO licensing schemes, for example, and we are able to manage and ensure that certain areas do not become saturated, which can simply blight them. Residential accommodation in residential streets should be exactly that—somewhere people feel safe and secure, and not wondering who lives next door, worried about the level of antisocial behaviour or crime, which does spill out on to the streets.
That is exactly what my constituents had to deal with. It should not have taken more than a year and a half of my resource, and the residents, the council and the police working together to build the case and the evidence to take the cases to court. A lot of the providers can pay for good legal advice and representation, and councils just do not have the capacity to be challenged constantly when they are trying to put in place necessary measures. Only through reform can we create a system that is better for housing benefit claimants, residents and our communities alike. That is what we want to see change.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered exempt supported accommodation.