Westminster Hall
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
Diabetes Treatments
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Bool to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered diabetes treatments.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. On 21 May 2021, my world changed forever when I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 33. While my diagnosis was a shock, given its late onset, the feelings of fear, disbelief and sadness are shared by all those diagnosed—young or old, with type 1 or type 2.
Diabetes is a complicated condition that has been done the great disservice of being stigmatised through misunderstanding. It is not necessarily that we have eaten too many sweets or not looked after ourselves. Type 1 is an autoimmune condition—we did nothing to cause it—and people can develop it later in life; Mr Speaker and I can attest to that. Type 2 is not just for the over-40s and the unfit; someone can be slim and active, like Sir Steve Redgrave, and still be diagnosed. That is why I have secured today’s debate. Breaking down the stigma and investing in early treatment of diabetes is so important to allow patients to live fulfilled lives, and to do so in the most long-term, cost-efficient manner for the Government.
Our understanding of how to treat diabetes has come on leaps and bounds since the discovery of insulin back in 1921, but there is still so much more that we can do. Some 5.6 million people in the UK are diagnosed with diabetes. That includes 4,329 people in my constituency of South Northamptonshire—more than 6% of the population. However, last year, just 54% of my constituents with diabetes received all eight of their essential checks, which are important for identifying and preventing complications.
The total cost of diabetes to the NHS is estimated at £10.7 billion, and 60% of that is spent on the costs of diabetes complications. Every week, complications from diabetes lead to 2,990 cases of heart failure, more than 184 amputations, 930 strokes and 660 heart attacks. Those should be preventable with the right education, the right support, and the right attitude from individuals and the Government.
There is so much that I could talk about on diabetes, but this is a short debate, so my initial ask of the Government, on type 1, is that we end the postcode lottery, with equitable treatment for those living with diabetes wherever they live in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I declare an interest: I am a type 2 diabetic. In our discussion before the debate, I informed the hon. Lady that, when I was first diagnosed some 18 years ago, believe it or not, I was at least 17 stone and probably getting bigger by the minute. I went on a diet because that was what the doctor recommended; I am down to a nice trim 13¼ stone.
I am thankful for the NHS and the treatment offered, but there is a clear disparity between the treatment offered in different areas of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Lady agree that diabetes does not have to be a death sentence, but does not have to adversely affect quality of life either? We must ensure that, no matter where someone is in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, they should get a level of diabetic care that enables them to live life to the fullest. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Sarah Bool
Absolutely. I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. It does not have to be a death sentence; it can even lead someone to No. 10 Downing Street, if they are Baroness May, so it should not prevent anyone from achieving anything.
Going back to my asks for type 1, we must also commit to greater access to technology for diabetes, such as hybrid closed loop technology, and increase awareness of the condition and treatments in schools and among the public. We also want to see the expansion of early testing for type 1 diabetes to identify children who are living with the condition and to make sure that they and their families get the right support.
I apologise in advance to hon. and right hon. Members if I suddenly start to beep during this debate, or in the Chamber in the future. They can be assured that it is not because I am some form of 21st century R2D2; it is because I wear an insulin pump and sensors. When my blood sugar is running low, it will alert me so that I can consume a lifesaving sugary treat. This hybrid closed loop system has dramatically improved the quality of my life with type 1. It does not just benefit adults with diabetes like me; there are parents of young children with a HCL who feel they can finally sleep at night without fear of missing a nighttime low blood sugar for their little ones.
Type 1 is also a condition that creates a serious mental burden on those who live with it and their loved ones. As a condition where someone’s pancreas stops working and no longer produces insulin, it requires constant thought and calculations alongside normal activities. Each day, a person with type 1 is assessing how many carbohydrates there are in their food and how much insulin they should dose, taking into account whether they have exercised, will be exercising, or generally rushing around; how hot or cold it is; how tired they are; how stressed they are, with public speaking adding to the mix for me; for women in particular, what their hormones are doing; and, when they have low blood sugar, how quickly they can access a sugar supply.
My insulin pump and sensor have ensured that many of those burdens have been eased. I just wish that more of my fellow diabetics had the same opportunity. I know of one lady from the south-west of England whose local integrated care board did not prescribe HCLs, so she had to move to London, away from her support network, just to access that vital technology. That cannot be right. As part of building an NHS fit for the future, Ministers should ensure that wherever someone is in the UK, they can access vital treatments for diabetes, such as the HCL.
There are other treatments that the Government should commit to fully exploring, such as early detection and new drugs. As with my diagnosis, more than 80% of type 1 diagnoses occur in people with no known family connection to type 1 diabetes. Many people are not aware of the four “T” symptoms that they should look out for: thirst, toilet, tiredness and thin. Early detection is vital in preventing complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis, which one in four children with type 1 are diagnosed with, and which can be lethal. Early detection can also identify people who would benefit from early intervention clinical trials and treatments.
The ELSA study is a programme funded by Breakthrough T1D that offers children between the ages of three and 13 a simple finger stick blood test to determine their risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The study is currently open to families across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with over 20,000 children having been screened so far. I ask that the Government work to have the programme expanded and implemented on the NHS nationwide, as it could drastically reduce the instances of future complications from type 1.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. One of the things that we have noticed back home in Northern Ireland is that even if someone gets a type 1 diabetes diagnosis early on, it does not mean that their life is over—they can still go on. We have a high prevalence of young children in Northern Ireland who have type 1 diabetes, and for them it is rather scary but also a fact of life. I have seen some of those young boys and girls growing up and the diabetes has not affected their life at all. It is important to know that those being diagnosed early with diabetes can have a normal life and family.
Sarah Bool
I absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman; people can live a fulfilling and fulfilled life, but they do need a little more help along the way. If we get that at the right time, it can literally transform a life so that they can live like everyone else.
One of the promising new treatments coming forward is teplizumab, which will delay the onset of type 1 in children by an average of three years. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US in 2022, it is about to start a technological appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In conjunction with the national early detection programme, teplizumab could drastically reduce the complications associated with type 1.
With the rise of social media, we have seen an ever-growing societal preoccupation with body image. Earlier this year Baroness May and Sir George Howarth released a parliamentary report into type 1 and disordered eating, also known as T1DE. T1DE is an eating disorder where someone might restrict their insulin to lose weight or experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia alongside type 1. Evidence suggests that up to 40% of women and girls and up to 15% of men and boys with diabetes experience some form of disordered eating, so we really must continue the work of Baroness May and Sir George in raising the profile of diabetes and its complications.
On type 1, I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government work with the NHS to increase awareness of the hybrid closed-loop technology, particularly among lower socioeconomic groups, and to fund its roll-out nationally; to provide comprehensive training for healthcare practitioners on HCL technology; and to establish a national diabetes registry to support technology adoption and track health outcomes.
Turning to type 2 diabetes, right hon. and hon. Members will have heard a lot about and might even have been tempted by Ozempic and Wegovy, known as the GLP-1 medications—seemingly magic solutions that have helped many in the public eye to shed unwanted pounds. However, that class of medication is an important treatment for those with type 2 diabetes as it is prescribed to lower blood glucose levels. My concern, and that of some of my constituents who have written to me, is that there is a real risk of a shortage of those medicines for type 2 diabetics while they are being prescribed for weight loss. It is therefore essential that the supply of those drugs is protected for diabetics. Will the Minister take action to ensure that everyone with or at risk of type 2 diabetes can access the medications that they can benefit from?
Alongside medications, we should ensure that newly diagnosed type 2 diabetics are given the right support. In some cases it is possible to put type 2 into remission, so it is essential that access to evidence-based services such as the NHS path to remission programme is increased for people in the first three years of their diagnosis. Likewise, people under the age of 40 with type 2 are at increased risk of developing diabetes complications, but are less likely to receive their essential care. The NHS type 2 diabetes in the young programme—T2Day—provides extra support for that group, including confirmation of diagnosis, additional checks, contraception and pre-conception planning, and assessment of cardiovascular risk. The Government must commit to sustainable long-term funding for the programme to ensure that the rise in type 2 diabetes in working age adults does not lead to a drastic increase in serious complications.
There are also inequalities across the diagnosis of diabetes. Those living in deprivation and people of black and south Asian ethnicity are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes but less likely to receive their diabetes care, and they go on to experience worse health outcomes. As the Government develop their plan for the NHS, they should use health inequality impact assessments for all diabetes-related policies to understand how reforms affect different groups.
As right hon. and hon. Members might have worked out by now, I could speak about diabetes all the way to the moment of interruption this evening, but I will draw my speech to a close. Acting as our own pancreas is hard and our illness requires 24-hour attention. Diabetes treatment is relentless, but so are we.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) to this place, as I have not had a chance to do that. I thank her for securing the debate and sharing her own personal experience. She spoke powerfully about her fear, disbelief and sadness at her own diagnosis.
More than 4.9 million people in the UK have diabetes and 2 million people are now at risk of type 2 diabetes. The impact on the health and wellbeing of the nation and on the lives of people with diabetes and their families cannot be overstated. The hon. Lady has put a superb case this morning. A central mission of this Government is to build a health service and care system fit for the future. As part of that, tackling preventable ill health such as type 2 diabetes is crucial. At the same time, we want to ensure that people with types 1 and 2 diabetes receive the best possible care so that they can live healthier lives wherever they live in the United Kingdom.
As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire mentioned, a central factor to people with diabetes living well is ensuring that they have access to annual diabetes reviews that cover the eight processes recommended by NICE. Annual diabetic reviews are associated with reduced emergency admissions, amputations, retinopathy and mortality. However, in 2019 only 42% of people with type 1 diabetes received all eight health checks, and that figure dropped significantly during the covid-19 pandemic. The NHS has worked hard to recover these services, and the proportion of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes receiving all eight care processes reached 43.3% and 62.3% respectively in 2023-24. Although that is an improvement, in order to drive faster uptake the NHS will invest £14.5 million over the next two years to support up to 140,000 people aged between 18 and 39 to receive additional tailored health checks from healthcare staff. That will include support to help break down any stigma associated with the disease and support people with diabetes management through blood sugar-level control, weight management and cardiovascular risk minimisation.
I want to draw attention to what the hon. Lady said about stigma, because it is important. My best friend from university was diagnosed in her early 20s, which was some time ago—she will not thank me for mentioning that. I have family and constituents who have type 1, and I have learnt a lot from them about how important it is to look after oneself and get the care that one needs. I also commend Baroness May and Sir George Howarth. They were a formidable duo in Parliament, raising awareness of what is possible. They were both great servants of their respective parties, and I know they will continue that work.
Technology also plays a critical role in helping people with diabetes to live healthier lives, and I am pleased to hear of the personal impact a hybrid closed loop system has had on the hon. Member’s life. As many will be aware, NICE has made recommendations on offering real-time continuous glucose monitoring and hybrid closed loop technology to adults and children with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The NHS is making progress, with over 65% of people with type 1 diabetes using glucose monitoring to help manage their condition, and I expect to see similar rapid progress for people with type 2 diabetes.
Following NICE’s final guidance in December 2023 on HCL systems, NHS England has developed a five-year national strategy with guidance for NHS providers on a phased uptake for delivering this life-changing technology to eligible diabetes patients. I am sure the hon. Member and others will be watching that roll-out closely. It started this April with an initial focus on children, young people, pregnant women or those planning to become pregnant, and adults already using pumps who want to transition to a HCL system. The longer implementation period is because of a need to build essential workforce competencies in specialist adult services. To ensure that patients are safe, NHS trusts should only provide HCLs if they have access to specialist, trained clinical staff experienced in providing insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors for type 1 diabetes. I know that waiting to access this technology is causing many people distress, and I assure the hon. Member that NHS progress in delivering these technologies is a matter of importance to this Government.
I also thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of type 1 and disordered eating. NHS England has provided funding for eight integrated care boards to support the development and establishment of type 1 disordered eating services in every NHS region. NHS England is drawing on learning from the existing services, other emerging evidence and the findings of a recent parliamentary inquiry to ensure that all areas of the country are supported to improve care for those identified as having type 1 disordered eating.
On type 2 diabetes, the hon. Member expressed concerns about access to GLP-1 medications, such as Ozempic. Following intensive work with industry, the broad supply position for GLP-1 medications in the United Kingdom has improved. However, global supply issues remain for specific medicines, including Ozempic. We continue to work closely with manufacturers and others in the supply chain to help ensure the continued supply of GLP-1 receptor agnostics for UK patients, and to resolve the remaining supply issues as quickly as possible, for example by asking suppliers to expedite deliveries.
I now turn to prevention and to the support available for people to put their type 2 diabetes into remission, which, as the hon. Lady outlined, is possible. In fact, I canvassed somebody last weekend who was very proud of their ability to do that. It is great work. Lord Darzi’s report on the NHS, which was published last month, noted the worrying increase in the prevalence of people with type 2 diabetes and the necessity of prevention.
The prevention of diseases, including diabetes, is a priority for this Government. The Healthier You NHS diabetes prevention programme supports people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes to make lifestyle changes, either through face-to -ace group programmes or digital services. The programme reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 40%. The programme has also been working to raise awareness among the diabetes healthcare professional community about the growing numbers of children and young adults with type 2 diabetes, and we have heard about that today.
Healthcare professionals need to understand the more aggressive nature of early onset type 2 diabetes, compared with older onset type 2 diabetes, to support earlier diagnosis. Further, given the inequalities in who develops type 2 diabetes and the poorer outcomes for those of south Asian and black ethnicity, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member, the NHS has established a focused engagement campaign, using social media and more traditional approaches to raise awareness and boost the uptake from those groups.
Living with type 2 diabetes is not inevitable if early action is taken to live a healthier life. As the hon. Member said, the NHS type 2 diabetes path to remission programme is a joint initiative between NHS England and Diabetes UK. It provides a low calorie diet and support to people who have been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who are living with obesity or are overweight. This year, the programme has been expanded to make it available across all England, enabling more people to benefit and to recover from type 2 diabetes.
The hon. Member asked specifically about the ELSA study, which I understand is recruiting 20,000 children in the UK, to better understand the potential benefits of screening for type 1 diabetes. I understand that the University of Bristol, in my home city, is also undertaking a similar study, looking at the risk of type 1 diabetes in adults. The Government look forward to seeing the outcome of both of those studies, to help inform future policy making.
By moving from sickness to prevention, the Government want to shorten the amount of time people spend in ill health and prevent illnesses before they happen. That is one of the goals of reforming the NHS, which is part of the Government’s 10-year plan. I know that the hon. Lady will contribute to the debate in the rest of this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
IPP Sentences
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were introduced in 2005 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are cruel, unjust and damaging to those who are still serving them. They were meant to be used to protect the public against criminals who had committed one of 96 offences and who were thought still to be a danger after the minimum term or tariff of the original sentence had expired. No level was set for that tariff by the legislation and the open-ended nature of the sentences led to some catastrophic results.
The House of Commons Library, in its excellent briefing paper for this debate, noted one instance where the courts applied an IPP sentence to someone who had served a minimum term of just 28 days. The misapplication of, and erroneous logic behind, IPP sentences resulted in widespread criticism and to the Government being challenged in court over restrictions on ways that IPP prisoners could demonstrate that they were no danger to the public.
Following a joint report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and HM inspectorate of probation that highlighted the low levels of IPP prisoners being released, as well as the unsustainability of IPP prisoners adding to the burgeoning prison population, a ministerial review was carried out. Eventually, after further court cases and public pressure, IPP sentences were abolished on 3 December 2012. By then, more than 6,000 prisoners had received IPP sentences. Fast-forwarding to the present day, according to Ministry of Justice statistics as of June this year there were 1,132 IPP prisoners who had never been released, and a further 1,602 who had been recalled for breaching their licence conditions, making a total of 2,734 IPP prisoners still in our prisons.
Criticism of IPP sentences has come from far and wide. In August of this year, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said:
“IPP sentences are inhuman treatment and, in many cases, amount to psychological torture.”
Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas described them as “morally wrong” and “inherently unfair”. Even Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were brought in, described their introduction as “the biggest regret” of his political career, which in some cases had led to injustice.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Blunkett on the media today saying that one of the alternative options should be secure therapeutic units?
Bambos Charalambous
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right, and one of the biggest impacts of IPP sentences is on the mental health of prisoners. I will come to that later. She makes a good point with which I agree.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I want to raise the case of my constituent whose son is serving an indefinite IPP sentence and suffers from long-term psychiatric conditions. She feels he is in the wrong institution, unable to access the specialist support he urgently needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases underline the urgent need for a review of IPP sentences, particularly given the crisis in overcrowded prisons?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is right. There is a special need for prisoners to receive support. Keeping IPP prisoners incarcerated for longer than they should be is adding further pressure on our already overcrowded prison population.
In a recent written response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister confirmed that there are still five serving IPP prisoners who were given a minimum term of less than six months but have served more than 16 years. There are a further 15 with a tariff of between six months and a year who have not been released after 16 years. There are in a further 47 in the same position whose tariff was between a year and 18 months.
Among the 1,132 IPP prisoners who have never been released is one of my constituents. Ongoing legal proceedings preclude me from naming him, although I can say that in 2006 he was sentenced to serve a minimum of 10 years for robbery under an IPP plan but has now served 19 years. He is now 42 years old and has missed the funeral of his grandfather, along with countless other family occasions. That has had a serious impact on him and his family.
The psychological harm experienced by IPP prisoners and their families has been well documented by the British Psychological Society, which refers to the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide that IPP prisoners face as a result of their hopelessness and their perpetual state of anxiety at the prospect of additional years in prison. The deterioration of IPP prisoners’ mental health is illustrated by the Royal College of Psychiatrists case study in which a 17-year-old was given an IPP sentence for street robbery of trainers and given a one-year tariff but spent 10 years in prison, during which time he lost both his living relatives: his mother and grandmother. His mental health deteriorated so badly that he had to be transferred to a secure NHS mental hospital.
Having spoken to some of the family members of people currently serving IPP sentences—I met them at lunchtime today, and many are in the Public Gallery—I have heard at first hand about the impact that this unbearable situation has on family members, but the impact on IPP prisoners is far more profound. According to the United Group for Reform of IPP, or UNGRIPP, which is campaigning to bring about change to IPP sentences, 90 IPP prisoners have committed suicide since the sentences were introduced, with nine of those suicides occurring in 2023. Considering that the prison population last year was approximately 87,000 and IPP prisoners were only 3% of that total, it is staggering that IPP prisoners accounted for 10% of all self-inflicted deaths in prison in 2023.
One example is the tragic suicide of Scott Rider in 2022. In 2005, he had been sentenced to an IPP sentence, with a minimum tariff of 23 months. Seventeen years later, he was still in prison. He was one of the longest serving IPP prisoners at the time of his death. Following a three-day inquest into his death, the senior coroner for Milton Keynes, Tom Osborne, said in his regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths:
“On any consideration of the circumstances of Mr Rider’s death one has to conclude that his treatment was inhumane and indefensible and that if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths occurring.”
He added:
“Mr Rider was one of many IPP prisoners struggling to progress”
and, at the time of his death, he had served 17.5 years and had
“given up all hope of release.”
The loss of hope of ever being released is certainly one of the big factors behind the high levels of suicide and self-harm among IPP prisoners. Even when IPP prisoners have been released on licence, the draconian licence conditions have led to prisoners being recalled for minor breaches of their licence, such as being late or missing an appointment. As I have mentioned, there are currently 1,602 IPP prisoners who have been released on licence but recalled.
I am sure that we all agree that the current situation cannot continue, so what is to be done? In September 2022, in its excellent report on IPP sentences, the Justice Committee, chaired by Sir Bob Neill, made several recommendations to remedy the damage done by the sentences. The three main recommendations can be summarised as follows. No. 1 involves a refreshed action plan for IPP sentences, better access to prison programmes to help IPP prisoners to progress and better support for prisoners who are suffering with their mental health because of these sentences. No. 2 involves better training for Parole Board members overseeing IPP prisoners’ parole hearings, more support for IPP prisoners in preparing for parole hearings, a reduction of the qualifying licence period and better support for prison leavers. No. 3 is resentencing. In paragraph 152 of its report, the Justice Committee said:
“Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals…This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.”
The Committee also noted that there is precedent for resentencing retrospectively, but that it would require primary legislation. Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas emphasised his support for this approach.
I acknowledge the steps that this Government and the previous Government have taken to tackle some of the problems caused by the licence conditions of IPP sentences. Particularly of note is section 66 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which creates an automatic termination process for IPP licences in certain circumstances, starting from this Friday, 1 November. At lunchtime, I had the pleasure of meeting a former IPP prisoner who will benefit from this measure, which means that he will no longer be on an IPP licence and will be able to be at large freely. The Act also allows for reviews by the Parole Board in certain circumstances from 1 February 2025.
However, resentencing would be the most effective way to deal with the legacy of IPP sentences. I am aware that it is not without its problems, but it is the only just and fair way to deal with this appalling situation, which, if left unresolved, will lead to more IPP prisoners self-harming and taking their own lives.
Prior to this debate, some of the IPP reform campaigners met Lord Woodley to discuss his private Member’s Bill on resentencing IPP prisoners, which reflects the Justice Committee’s recommendations on the matter. I hope Ministers will meet Lord Woodley to discuss his proposals, because there needs to be a review of IPP sentences, and all options need to be considered.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister advise me on what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in our prisons? What support mechanisms have been put in place to help IPP prisoners who are struggling with their mental health, including those who have been institutionalised, to help them overcome the barriers that may adversely affect their parole hearings and to prepare them for a return to life outside prison? Will the Government reconsider their position on resentencing IPP prisoners? At a stroke, that would rectify this injustice once and for all. Will the Government at least carry out a review to see what the barriers to resentencing are? That is the one thing that all commentators think needs to be done to resolve the injustice caused by IPP sentences.
I thank UNGRIPP, the Howard League—which runs an excellent advice line for family members of IPP prisoners —the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society. I also thank the House of Commons Library for its excellent briefings ahead of the debate. Most important are the family and friends of IPP prisoners who are incarcerated and those who have endured IPP sentences. Finally, there are those who unfortunately bow to the pressure of hopelessness, as there is no end to their sentences in sight, and, sadly, end their lives in prison. I hope that change will come and that IPP sentences will finally be gotten rid of from our prisons and confined to the dustbin of history, where they belong.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I expect to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.28 pm.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. I think I have attended every one of these debates over a number of years. I declare an interest: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers’ Association and a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, which contains the probation officers, the prison officers, PCS, representing the civil service, and others dealing with this issue.
Here is the tragedy: after every debate, expectations are raised that perhaps there will be some Government movement, but there has not been, so we have lost more lives and many more people have self-harmed. The briefing from the wonderful UNGRIPP shows that in 2023 there were 1,866 self-harm incidents among IPP prisoners. As my hon. Friend said, there have been 90 suicides. People see no hope in their future; they are the most insecure prisoners. Many prisoners I have dealt with know their sentence and know what they have to do to get out, and they do their best. There are others who think they will never get out, but at least they know the situation. With IPP prisoners, there is an uncertainty, which contributes to that lack of hope. Professional prison officers from the Prison Officers’ Association tell us clearly that it is almost impossible to help or manage these prisoners because they have no hope. They lose confidence in whatever rehabilitation scheme they have been placed on, because every time they go on them, they are still not released. As a result, they are simply returned to despair.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green said, His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation made clear recommendations about its concerns for these prisoners, and the Justice Committee set out a whole series of recommendations that I believe overcome the doubts that have been put forward by successive Government Ministers and which I hope we do not hear today. Ministers’ fear that if we release any of these prisoners and something goes wrong, the Government will get the blame.
The Justice Committee considered the issue from a political perspective, asking, “How can we manage this?” The idea was to go through that process, to ensure that there is support and preparation for rehabilitation and release; and that there is professional expertise, brought together on a panel, to examine case-by-case what needs to be put in place to secure the release of these prisoners so that they are safe and society is safe. Give Bob Neill his due—he worked really hard on a cross-party basis to achieve consensus among the Committee on a contentious issue; and the justice unions group and the POA completely endorsed and advocated its recommendations.
By refusing to act on those Justice Committee recommendations, which are so reasonable, the state is committing a crime and perpetrating an injustice against these individuals. It isn’t just me who thinks that; David Blunkett, who brought these measures in, said—if I remember rightly—that the situation was a stain upon our justice system and that there needed to be action. I commended the last Government when they reformed the licensing arrangements, and that move has benefited some people, but it has been of no benefit whatsoever to the 2,734 that are still locked away.
What we expect from this Government—our Government, I have to say to the Minister—is a programme of work that takes the Justice Committee’s recommendations and looks at the practical action that needs to be taken to achieve them. Part of that could be the Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill, which Tony Woodley has brought forward and for which I think there would be overwhelming support in this House. As a result, we might give some justice to those people who have suffered such significant injustice. We have had many cases before us where someone has committed a relatively minor crime and been sentenced to a year in prison, but 10 years later they are still inside. Many of these people are serving between 10 and 18 years, having been sentenced only up to four years for a crime they committed.
We have a responsibility on our shoulders to honour the recommendations from the Justice Committee—recommendations that that its members worked so hard on—and to implement them. There is a sense of urgency about this. I do not want to be here in six or 12 months’ time saying that we have lost more prisoners as a result of self-harm and suicide. What has happened to the families? The irony in all this is that, as prisoners tell us, it is not just the individual who is serving the sentence; it is their family as well. It is their children, their mothers, their fathers: their whole family is destroyed as a result. So for God’s sake—for humanity’s sake—let us address this matter now and let us do it as a matter of urgency.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on calling this important debate at the start of this Parliament. I also endorse the comments made about the Justice Committee, and its incredible work scrutinising this issue and coming up with workable recommendations. work scrutinising this issue and coming up with workable recommendations.
My constituent, who lived in York before being taken into custody in 2005—19 years ago—was given an imprisonment for public protection sentence on 22 January 2007. His original tariff meant that the Parole Board could have released him on 26 May 2009, but he is still there. It must be one of the most egregious cases in the system.
IPP sentences were introduced through the Criminal Justice Act 2003, despite warnings that they would be an affront to justice. They were reformed in 2008 and abolished in 2012, and a total of 8,711 sentences were imposed.
My constituent’s family have been superb and have met me, to keep me informed of the progress for my constituent—apart from that there is no progress, because we do not know what happens next. There have been incidents and consequences, but he is seriously unwell, because he never knows the date of his release or how the injustices he has now served will ever be undone. To incarcerate someone indefinitely comes at significant cost—it is beyond comprehension. My constituent’s mental health has significantly spiralled, as he cannot see an end to this nightmare.
As we have heard, reports have shown that 90 people have taken their own lives while on an IPP sentence. There have been 1,866 incidents of self-harm; the figure is around 2,000 incidents of self-harm every year, across many years, among those on IPP sentences.
The nature of an indeterminate sentence is profound and we understand that denying somebody release has a huge impact. It is often denied as they are not engaging, as my constituent did not for some time, with psychiatric services. He just could not—yet that delayed his progress towards release. After getting a sentence of two years, four months and nine days, he has now served a sentence of 19 years, and his hope is diminishing as he continues to wait for the Parole Board to do justice. He was just 24 years old when a single incident occurred; now 43, having completed course after course after course, he is yet to be released.
The Justice Committee report highlighted the inconsistencies in the way IPP prisoners are treated, the failure of the Parole Board to properly stratify risk, and the conditions that prisoners have to satisfy in order to be released. As a result, we see people languishing in their cells without hope of ever getting out.
The Parole Board needs to be given the scope to properly look at this measure. That is why I support the recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report on resentencing. It is not just people who are incarcerated who are on an IPP sentence; on their release, people continue on that sentence in the community, and for the smallest misdemeanour can easily be recalled. There is no consistency. People may miss appointments and therefore be recalled. We heard in evidence to the Select Committee how small some of the misdemeanours were that meant people were recalled back into prison.
We need to find a way out of this situation. The report calls for resentencing and the reduction of the recall period to five years from the current 10 years. Will the Minister support that change? If not, I ask him to give us a full explanation as to why.
This all comes in the context of significant current pressure on the courts. Perhaps a specialist court is needed to review all these cases, to ensure that the decisions are expedited in the resentencing and ensuing release process. We need to ensure that people have the right support to go back into the community, given that the Probation Service is at absolute breaking point, not least as it is having to deal with early releases at the moment. Again, a specialist focus is required. For example, my constituent has been in prison for 19 years, so a lot of steps need to be taken to ensure that when he is released, he is safe to himself, that he gets the mental health support he requires, and that the family also get support over that period. We must recognise the huge vulnerability of these individuals at that time.
We also need to ensure that the process is robust and consistent—we have seen inconsistencies in the judgments of parole boards, causing further frustration for many people on the inside—and that there are allocated safe places, where people can start to rebuild their lives. My constituent is fortunate to have family who are prepared and a place to go, but many people do not have those associations because it has been so long since they were on the outside. We need to make sure that real expertise in this area is brought in.
When we hear places like the European Court of Human Rights deeming such sentences to be in breach of article 5, on the basis of protection of unlawful deprivation of liberty, the Government cannot sit on their hands. They must act swiftly; and being new in government brings the opportunity to ensure that they do.
How is the Minister is going to review the programmes that people on IPP sentences and others are placed on in prison? The Select Committee heard evidence that many are not fit for purpose nor evidence-based. How do we ensure that the focus of those programmes is on rehabilitating people ready for their future life, and that they are not just a process that prisoners have to go through, serving no benefit?
The Lord Chancellor and the Minister have to rebuild the criminal justice system—we recognise that. The most important thing is reducing the offending rate and ensuring that we do not continue to see the current levels of reoffending. There are some good models out there, including my local prison, Askham Grange, which has the lowest reoffending rate in the country. With that, there is a proper process in place so that the residents —as they are given the dignity of being called—are given support when coming out and going back into employment and civil society. That invest-to-save model needs funding and support. As we transition services, we need to ensure—particularly for those serving IPP sentences, but also across the wider criminal justice system—that the right support is put in the right place.
Ultimately, I turn to the matter of our psychiatric services, because my observation is that many prisons have now become a place where people with significant and severe mental health challenges have to be; it is a failure of our mental health services that they are there at all. Many on IPP sentences fall within that category. If there is a resentencing process, which I hope there is, can we ensure that we also look at mental health support? For many people, perhaps hospital is a more appropriate place than prison. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate, and it is an honour to follow the speeches so far. I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I am obliged to speak in this debate because IPP sentences have been raised time and again at our meetings by the trade unions, especially the Prison Officers’ Association and the National Association of Probation Officers. What those unions say is that their members, prison and probation officers, have been placed in an intolerable position because of IPPs. They are made to administer that sentence, which is tantamount to torture, to many of the most vulnerable and damaged people they manage, both in and out of prison.
If we are to be honest, we must first admit it beggars belief that we are still having to discuss this matter today. I will not reiterate the 2022 Justice Committee report recommendations, but it should be noted that the Committee recommended that the Government convene an “expert committee” to advise on any resentencing exercise. That point needs to be repeated—it has possibly been lost in recent debate—because it would of course be up to the Government to appoint such an expert committee, which would include a judge to explore resentencing, and to decide whether to follow its recommendations.
As explained by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, which I thank for its briefing, the expert committee
“could recommend, for example, a staggered release schedule to give probation adequate time to prepare, or prioritisation for those with the shortest tariffs or longest time served over-tariff, or even partial resentencing starting with those previously considered safe for release by the Parole Board.”
That last option would of course include prisoners who had previously been released but since recalled, often for no further offence. The expert panel might recommend any of those models or something else entirely, but—this is important—the Government would be free to pick and choose the option that is most palatable politically and manageable in the present crisis of prisons and probation. That is why the Minister has nothing to fear from a resentencing exercise along those lines, as suggested by the Justice Committee.
It is no wonder that the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, who I had the pleasure of meeting last year with the justice unions, has called for “adequate and appropriate reparations” for IPP prisoners and their families to compensate them for an “inhumane” punishment that
“often amounts to psychological torture”.
She also warned that
“citing public safety as the reason not to immediately resentence IPP prisoners…is misleading”,
because
“the UK, like any society with a strong rule of law, has measures to protect the community after prisoners are released.”
That is fundamental to a society that believes, as I am sure we all do, that that is how justice should be served. I therefore urge the Minister to listen to the UN and not to ignore such international opinions, as his predecessors were sometimes prone to do.
I also put on record my support for the private Member’s Bill introduced in the other place by Lord Woodley, the Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill, which is listed for Second Reading next month. The Bill, which mirrors the amendment moved by Sir Bob Neill to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the last Session, calls on the Government to set up an expert committee to advise on resentencing and then enact its advice. I urge the Government to back this important Bill or, if they find the full-fat version of resentencing too much to take, to move an amendment in Committee to make it palatable. I most certainly agree with commentators such as Peter Stefanovic that this is a matter of conscience, and that all parties should therefore allow a free vote on IPP reform.
Finally, I will say something through the Chair but directly to people serving on IPP in prison or in the community, and to their friends and families. I know that many of them are watching and listening to this debate, and I know that there are some in the Gallery now. When I speak to them, I want them to know that there are many of us here in Parliament who will not stop calling out this injustice. In both the Commons and the Lords, cross-party parliamentarians will stand up for them. On the left and the right, on the Front and Back Benches, they have politicians in Parliament who will not give up until the problem that Parliament created back in 2003 has been fixed. I do not want them to lose hope, but I do not want to give them false hope either. I do not want them to think that Lord Woodley’s Bill—I know that he will not mind me saying this—will in itself make resentencing a reality. No—the reality is that the power lies with Government, not with Backbench MPs, nor with Lords or Ladies or anyone who is not in government. It is up to the Government to change the law. I am not sure it really looks like the Government presently have the political appetite for resentencing, shameful though that may be.
We should not therefore think that resentencing is just around the corner, even when we consider the Prime Minister’s background in criminal justice and the comments from Lord Blunkett recently, but please do not give up hope now. Hope is a precious thing, and pressure from campaigners pays off. For example, we have licence changes coming into effect on Friday that will mark the end of a living nightmare for at least one person, who I thank for sharing his story with me earlier. I do not need to remind Members that it was a Labour Government who introduced this sentence, which is tantamount to torture, and a Tory Government who abolished it, albeit in a botched way. We have a golden opportunity to end this living nightmare for so many prisoners and their families once and for all. I urge the Minister and his new Government to take courage and do the right thing by justice. Diolch yn fawr.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for setting the scene so well, and all those who contributed.
We do not have this sentence in Northern Ireland, but I have met some of the groups that have been lobbying here, and they have given me some idea of the process. I want to make a few helpful contributions to this debate and endorse ideas that others have put forward.
There is definitely a need for reform and a review of the IPP sentence system. Others with much more knowledge than me—especially the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green—have outlined that well. In Northern Ireland, of course, some prisoners are in shockingly similar positions, so I want to add to this conversation.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He and I have been friends for many years. We were brought together not just because we are MPs but because we are Leicester City football club supporters; we were the Leicester City House of Commons football supporters club. There were not many of us—perhaps there are not many more now, but there are a few more Leicestershire MPs, so we have maybe half a dozen supporters now.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister—
Jim Shannon
The shadow Minister—absolutely. We sometimes forget that time has elapsed. It is nice to see him in his place too.
It is clear that IPP sentences remain an issue. The House of Commons Library prepared an excellent briefing for us, which helped us bring together our thoughts. As of 31 March 2024, there were 1,180 unreleased IPP prisoners and 1,616 recalled IPP prisoners in custody in England and Wales—a total of 2,796. Given the accommodation issues in prisons, it is clear that we must look at this integral part of the system and the process as we try to find solutions and move forward.
As of March 2024, all but 13 unreleased IPP prisoners had passed their tariff date. The pressure caused by those sentences on the system must be addressed, but we cannot ignore the need to ensure public safety. Although the system and the tariffs must be looked at, the safety of the general public is key, so we must ensure that anybody who is released is not a danger to them.
We could get into the whys and wherefores—the reasons our prisons are overrun. That is not what this debate is about, but I have heard them all from the concerned victims of crime when the perpetrators are released early. When I ask questions of the Minister in the Chamber, I always focus on the victims, and I wish to do that today. It is very important that we do not forget them as we try to find a solution for IPP prisoners.
The main issue behind the complaints is not justice, but fear. The victims are frightened, and the necessary changes and reform must have three foundational principles: justice, rehabilitation and the victims. They are on an equal footing, although I always focus on the victims.
I understand why we are having this debate. It is incredibly difficult to factor in unended prison sentences when planning the prison system, but we must ensure justice and listen to victims’ voices when we reform this system. When these people are released automatically, they must not be left in the midst of a community that has no way forward. Resettlement after prison terms have been served is an issue throughout the UK, so there are things to be done and put in place before anyone can be released from prison.
The Government need to make changes, but they must satisfy those three core principles. My plea for prison reform throughout the United Kingdom is that it must meet the principles of justice and rehabilitation. Importantly, we must listen to the voices of victims. It is not an easy task. The Minister has got a big task ahead of him. I am quite sure he will be able to respond to that, but these things have to be done correctly, wisely and sensitively. I suppose that is really what I am asking for. Now is the time to bring about those steps.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. The introduction of IPP sentences was well intentioned but in reality it has gone badly wrong. That is not only my view but the view of Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were introduced.
We know that two of the key failures were that IPP sentences were intended for only the most serious violent and sexual offences but in practice captured many of the lower level criminal offences and were applied to shorter sentences, and that the practical implications of the recall provision were not properly appreciated or considered at the time of introduction. From what I understand, we have cross-party agreement on that assessment and on the intention to correct it. I view today’s debate as being about how we can best and most quickly achieve that aim and address, as others have said, a gross injustice.
As a MP for only a matter of months, I am already acutely aware of the toll those sentences have taken, not only on the prisoners who are affected but on their family members. I have at least two constituents who are currently recalled to prison because of non-criminal breaches of their licences and who are dealing with post-traumatic stress and other mental health challenges. That is driven to a significant extent by the uncertainty about whether they will ever be released or even about when their next parole hearing will be. As I and others have mentioned, that also significantly affects the family. I am sorry to say that I have been made aware that one of their partners has committed suicide in recent days. Her family’s view is that her losing her partner and her main source of support, while he was on one of those sentences, has been a contributing factor.
I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are taking action to implement the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Government, and I really welcome that. The new automatic termination process and the presumption to terminate, and reducing the associated qualifying periods, will help a significant number of those currently on IPP licences. I ask the Minister to consider what additional steps the Government could take to accelerate the safe release of IPP prisoners who are still in custody, and to prevent the recall merry-go-round which many have experienced.
Recalled prisoners are a growing proportion of the total number of IPP prisoners in England and Wales. Many of the reasons for recall speak more to the need for mental health provision than for a recall to prison. For instance, one of my constituents was recalled for things he said to the police during a mental health crisis while intoxicated. Having served 17 years on an IPP sentence, he will now be in prison for an indeterminate length of time while waiting to be seen by the Parole Board, having committed no further criminal offences.
As far back as 2008, the chief inspectors of prisons and probation were highlighting the lack of resources necessary to rehabilitate IPP prisoners and the enormous strain IPP sentences placed on the prison system and the Parole Board. We know we inherited from the last Government a prison estate and a criminal justice system that is now in even worse shape. It is teetering on the edge and requiring the early release of some prisoners where it is considered safe to do so. I certainly welcome the action the Minister and his colleagues have taken to begin to clean up the mess.
Last week in the main Chamber we were told that IPP sentences would be excluded from the sentencing review announced by the Secretary of State. I understand the reasons why, but the actions that are being taken for those on IPP sentences and the new sentencing review must speak to each other, particularly where they are addressing common challenges such as the need to focus on rehabilitation and support in the community and to free up prison places across the prison estate.
Key to this will be the IPP action plan. We have a plan, but as yet no report to Parliament on its effectiveness. My understanding is that that was due in March, but was delayed to May by the previous Government and has still not been published. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward that publication as a matter of urgency, together with the annual report by the Secretary of State on steps taken to support those serving IPP sentences with their rehabilitation and progress towards release.
I also urge the Minister to consider the ways in which the IPP action plan could be improved, reflecting on some of the feedback on its inadequacy that has been highlighted by previous Justice Committees and other civil society organisations. We must understand the adequacy of the current support available to prisoners serving IPP sentences or who have been recalled and have clear measures of assessment. We cannot continue to have IPP prisoners languishing in our overcrowded jails.
As of March this year, 80% of unreleased IPP prisoners had been in prison for over twice their original tariff length. I previously mentioned that IPP sentences had been attached to offences other than the most serious offences that were intended in the original legislation. I note that around 190 IPP prisoners are still in custody more than 10 years after completing their original tariff of two years.
As the Justice Committee, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust have said, there are high rates of self-harm and recall to prison among IPP prisoners. That should cause us to look very closely at the adequacy of the support they are receiving, both in prison and when out on licence, and make improving it a priority for the new Labour Government. It is self-evident that those two things are linked, and that it will be very difficult for IPP prisoners to show that they no longer present a threat to the public if they are not receiving intensive support to deal with the psychological effects of believing they may never leave prison despite, for instance, having passed the end of the two-year tariff more than a decade previously. Lord Moylan has in the past described IPP sentences as
“a form of mental torture”,
as other Members have referenced today. I agree with him that we have a moral responsibility to administer justice to IPP prisoners, who have been neglected for too long.
Some Members have today raised resentencing. I know from her answer to my question in the Chamber last week that the Secretary of State is not in favour of resentencing. However, it is not clear to me why it could not be done in a way that balances the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender, as recommended by the Justice Committee in the past, via an expert committee that could correct any disproportionate sentences while considering public safety. A wide range of respected organisations consider that that could be done and I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on that point.
Just as I opened with words from Lord Blunkett, so I will end with them. He has described the current situation concerning recalled IPP prisoners in particular as “unequal”, “unjust” and “immoral”. The coalition Government took the right step in ending IPP sentences in 2012, but they left unfinished business. Those still serving IPP sentences, or who have been recalled, need a system that will be fairer to them and give them the necessary support to leave prison while preserving public safety. It is our issue to fix as the new Labour Government.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Vaz. I also thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate on a hugely important subject. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, I will start with a story that illustrates the issues that many have been touching on about people not knowing when their release date is going to be and how it can affect mental health.
Many Members will have heard of Tommy Nicol. He is a tragic illustration of what can happen when the mental health needs of IPP prisoners go unmet. Tommy was sentenced to four years for robbery, but he served six years without hope of release. The Parole Board then recommended that Tommy complete a course of therapy, but there were no services available. When he subsequently moved prisons to access better services, he self-harmed and set fire to his cell. That then landed him in isolation, where he became psychotic and inflicted more self-harm. Just three days after being moved into isolation, he tragically took his own life.
Despite the clear warnings that Tommy was psychiatrically unwell, no mental health assessment was ever carried out and there was zero mental health support during his time in isolation. The consultant forensic psychiatrist who gave evidence at the inquest said that the IPP sentence had contributed to Tommy’s death, as he had completely lost hope. Tommy had made a complaint a few years previously that his lack of a certain release date was the
“psychological torture of a person who is doing 99 years”.
We know that individuals serving IPP sentences often end up extremely unwell, with high rates of suicide and self-harm. It is hard to imagine being locked behind bars for maybe 22 hours a day without hope of release. Most of us here seem to agree with Tommy that that amounts to psychological torture.
Today we are focusing on the critical issue of IPP sentences, but to understand the impact they are having, it is worth considering them in the broader context of the state of our prisons. HMP Winchester in my constituency serves as a stark example of the ongoing crisis. Just last week, it was placed under the urgent notification process following an inspection by HM inspectorate of prisons. The findings paint a troubled picture: the years of underinvestment have left lasting physical and psychological impacts on both prisoners and staff. Resources for rehabilitation and education are severely lacking. That only perpetuates the high reoffending rates, which are bad for the prisoners and costs taxpayers even more in the long run.
If rehabilitation is the fundamental purpose of prison, how can we expect individuals to reform when faced with conditions like those reported last week in HMP Winchester? Consider these distressing statistics: 47% of prisoners report easy access to drugs; 41% return positive results on random drug tests; many are sleeping in cramped and dirty cells; self-harm and suicide have become normalised and prisoners spend up to 21.5 hours each day confined to their cells, with only 2.5 hours outside. Those conditions, marked by violence, isolation and pervasive drug use, paint a bleak reality that makes rehabilitation nearly impossible.
Individuals serving IPP sentences are suffering immensely, with mental health issues running high and suicide and self-harm rates elevated. IPP prisoners are two and a half times more likely to self-harm than those serving other types of sentences, and we know that prisoners in general are more likely to self-harm than the general population. Despite that, the recent independent sentencing review excludes IPP sentences entirely. It is profoundly unjust that some individuals with lesser offences are stuck in IPP limbo, while others who committed more serious crimes are being released early under the Government’s current policy. Reforming IPP sentences could alleviate prison overcrowding, improve mental health outcomes and enhance safety, yet those reforms remain absent.
The Lib Dems urge the Government to establish an expert committee to advise on how we can swiftly resentence individuals still serving IPP terms. Addressing the crisis in our prisons, at HMP Winchester and all the others, is essential. We must right the wrongs of IPP sentencing. If our goal is rehabilitation, we should be providing the resources and the conditions necessary for these individuals to re-enter society as productive citizens, not leaving them scarred by indefinite incarceration.
The Secretary of State has assured us that the independent sentencing review imposes no constraints, and yet a glaring oversight persists: the exclusion of IPP sentences. Nearly 3,000 individuals remain incarcerated without a defined release date, some for lesser offences than those who have recently been released under the current policy. Reforming these sentences is not only a step towards justice, but a practical partial solution to overcrowding. As mental health spokesperson, I am particularly concerned about the deterioration of IPP prisoners’ mental health. As the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned, we are worried about how that may affect any subsequent parole hearings. We ask the Government why they have chosen to exclude IPP sentences from the review, and whether that that decision will be reconsidered.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a privilege to speak in today’s debate. Doing so from the Opposition side of the Chamber takes some getting used to, though I fear I may have time to get used to it. I am very pleased to see the Minister here; I know him well and he is a thoroughly decent and able man, so it is a pleasure to see him back in the House after a brief absence from this place.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate on an issue on which there are strong and sincerely held views. I know the hon. Gentleman well. He spoke eloquently and with typical decency and humanity. Before moving to the substance of the debate, as a Leicestershire MP I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that he and the Minister might have another ally in their footballing cause in this House.
[Clive Efford in the Chair]
As we have heard, the IPP sentence has understandably been called a stain on our justice system, not least by my predecessor in office, the former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, among others. It is a sentence that can keep people essentially in limbo in what could be termed preventive detention, not because of something they have done, but because of something that they may do.
The sentence was brought in under the previous Labour Government by the then Home Secretary, David—now Lord—Blunkett. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for what he has done subsequently. He has become one of the greatest advocates for reform, which speaks of his integrity. It takes a big person to acknowledge the botched introduction of the legislation in 2005 and the error that was made; it speaks well of him that he has been willing to do so.
A decade on from the 2012 abolition, the Justice Committee report of September 2022 was hugely important in what it said and the look it took at this issue. It made a number of constructive recommendations, which the previous Government considered very carefully. I am pleased that in the final days of the previous Parliament, a consensus was reached that enabled the then Victims and Prisoners Bill to progress into legislation. I am grateful to the now Government for the constructive approach they took in those final days. Changes to the IPP sentence were a key part of that.
The hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) called for those changes to be enacted. That has already been done through that legislation, reducing the licence period from 10 years to a review at three years, reflecting what the Justice Committee said—although going a bit further than the five years it suggested—with the Parole Board then considering the termination of the licence. There is a presumption of termination, but it is a rebuttable one were there to be any other considerations to be taken into account. Were that not acted on after the three years, after a further two years the Secretary of State must terminate that licence, unless there had been a recall during that period. Those changes have already been made, and I believe the implementation was carried out relatively recently by the new Government.
That new test creates a presumption for licence termination unless public protection considerations mean that the Parole Board deems that licence to be needed. There is a hugely difficult balance to be struck, rightly, between the challenges the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green, among others, set out and the challenges that the sentence poses—to hope, and to the ability to see a way forward and make progress, for those serving way beyond the time that would be handed down under the current sentencing regime for the equivalent crime.
That must be set against public protection considerations, which must also be at the heart of the approach. Where the Parole Board has deemed it will not agree the termination of the licence, that is because the Parole Board has refused on the grounds of public protection. We have heard today of the huge impact that the nature of that uncertainty, lack of hope and clarity has on those serving IPP sentences.
That lack of hope has an impact on those people’s mental health. The nature of the sentence has a huge impact not just on individuals but on their family, friends and others. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) set that out very eloquently, as he does. I must always be careful in lavishing praise on the right hon. Gentleman, as it will probably not do my political career much good, but I found myself reflecting carefully on what he said because he made his point in a measured, and very human, way. This is why the changes contained in the Victims and Prisoners Act were needed.
However, although the Justice Committee recommended resentencing, that would potentially see those whom a parole board had very recently considered not safe to release on public protection grounds released immediately, even if that went contrary to the board’s view. Just last week, in her response to questions following the statement she made to the House, the new Lord Chancellor set out her view that His Majesty’s Government continue to oppose resentencing, as set out in the Justice Committee’s report.
The hon. Member for York Central highlighted the huge importance of progress—of people being able to see their progression towards release and the termination of their licence. Engagement and support is absolutely central to that. The changes to licence times, and the approach to licence termination, will help people progress, but it is important that we reflect, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, not just on those IPP prisoners but on the victims of those crimes, and it is right that we consider both in the round.
Before I turn to that, I think we are beginning to see some progress. When this matter was debated in the context of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the figures were that around 3,300 IPP prisoners were still detained; the latest figures from the House of Commons Library show that there are now just under 2,800. That is a degree of progress. Equally, it is important to remember that at that time about 1,200 had never been released or had the opportunity to make progress and be released, so more progress needs to be made.
I will put a number of questions to the Minister, and I expect he will respond in his typically helpful and constructive manner. Can he set out what progress is being made on the action plan? I think the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) touched on this, but my understanding is that, with the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act through Parliament, it was deemed that there might be an interaction between that and the action plan. That explains the delay: the plan would have been published earlier this year, but the changes made in the Act were—and are—significant. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), clearly and eloquently set out the importance of mental health considerations in this context. Mental health can have an impact both on those with an IPP sentence and on their families and friends, and there is a need for mental health support and care to enable that progression, both inside prison and on release so they can continue to abide by the terms of the licence. What support is available to IPP prisoners before they appear before the Parole Board to best demonstrate what they have achieved?
If victims anticipate a release date further in the future, they might well be concerned about what happens if a licence is breached, or if there is suspicion of that. How is that reported—to probation, or to the police—and how is it acted on? What action would be taken? Once a licence is terminated, would the victims’ understanding be right that at that point they have no further options, because that person is deemed to have served their time and to be a free citizen?
To conclude, Mr Efford, I am conscious that the previous Lord Chancellor continues to look very carefully at the issue. We saw the approach he took in the Victims and Prisoners Act, and he was clear that he would always continue to look carefully at any changes recommended by Committees or others, ensuring that balance between justice for IPP prisoners and addressing the concerns of victims and public protection. Will the Minister confirm that he and the new Lord Chancellor will continue to adopt a pragmatic and measured approach in considering this incredibly challenging issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. We have had a full and informed debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it and setting it off in such a positive way. He drew our attention to the issues and reminded us, as others did, of Lord Blunkett’s words about IPP sentences being the “biggest regret” of his political career. We all need to roll up our sleeves and work across the parties. I welcome the fact that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), recognised how we, in opposition, worked constructively with the Government. He is now doing the same. The problem belongs to all of us and we should put our shoulders to the wheel to resolve it in the best way possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green also drew our attention to the heart of all this: these prisoners often feel a loss of hope and that they are in a cycle of despair. It is our responsibility to do all we can to break that cycle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke with deep understanding and eloquence. He drew attention to the way in which prisoners often self-harm and the need for programmes to be focused precisely on the needs of individuals to bring about practical action. I hope that is where we are going now with the action plan and the dashboard behind it, which follows each individual prisoner so that the right approach can be taken for them and so that they and the prison authorities know what they have to do to allow people to move to the next stage so that there is, we hope, a positive outcome for everybody.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about people languishing in their cells without hope. That is a depressing picture and we all have a big responsibility to turn back the clock so that it is no longer the case. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I pronounced her constituency wrong but did my best, so I hope she will forgive me—drew attention to the comments of the special rapporteur. Lord Timpson met the special rapporteur yesterday, so we are taking those issues seriously as we try to move forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his usual warmth and passion. He drew attention to the important principles of justice, rehabilitation and the needs of the victims, and the need to balance them as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) focused on the words of Lord Blunkett, but also drew our attention to the way recall has been used in a way perhaps not anticipated at the outset. I hope that what happens later this week will help remedy some of that. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), gave us Tommy’s harrowing story. Sadly, there are many stories like that, and our job is to try to ensure that there are not more in the future.
A lot of the history has already been dealt with, so I will not go back over what has been covered so well by others. The Government recognise the challenges faced by those serving IPP sentences, and it is absolutely right that the sentence was abolished. More than 5,000 people are still serving IPP sentences. For those serving the sentence in prison, the Government are determined to give them the support and opportunities they need to make further progress towards a safe, sustainable release. For those serving the sentence in the community, an end to the sentence is now within their grasp.
The debate is timely, as I was pleased to meet the IPP Committee in Action with Lord Timpson today—I see members of the group in the Public Gallery—in what I felt was a positive meeting. That does not mean that everything was where we wanted it to be, but it was a constructive, positive meeting, as we tried to work with people with genuine concerns and experience to get better outcomes.
This Friday, we will implement the first phase of changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which we supported in opposition, and we are determined to implement those vital provisions at the earliest opportunity. We will also publish an updated IPP action plan shortly, which will continue to focus on the rehabilitation of IPP offenders through frontline delivery in our prisons and in the probation service. It remains the case, however, that supporting IPP offenders continues to present a number of challenges, particularly when it comes to those who have never been released. In addition, we must never lose sight of the paramount importance of protecting the public, which the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston spoke about so sensibly.
The changes to the IPP licence in the Victim and Prisoners Act will mean that this Friday those who were first released at least five years ago—or four years ago for those convicted when they were under 18—and who have spent the last two on licence without recall to custody will have their licence automatically terminated on 1 February 2025. The qualifying period for when the Secretary of State must refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination, which is currently 10 years, will be three years, or two for those convicted when under 18. Commencing the new measures means that the IPP licence will end automatically for around 1,800 people on 1 November. In addition, 600 people will be referred to the Parole Board to consider licence termination on 1 February 2025. We anticipate that the changes, once fully implemented, will reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two thirds.
I recognise that the changes will not automatically result in any change to the status of those serving IPP sentences in prison. For that reason, the Government are determined to give those people every chance to make further progress in reducing their risk and eventually obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board in a way that prioritises public protection. As hon. Members have said, there is a responsibility on us to provide hope, but also to ensure that hope is realistic and proper.
The IPP action plan is one of the first steps in delivering that. The refreshed plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked for, places greater emphasis on effective frontline delivery in our prisons to ensure that prisoners serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans that they are actively engaging with, and that they are in the correct prison to access the right interventions and rehabilitative services. Lord Timpson, the Minister for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, is determined to use his role to achieve that, including by ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. Lord Timpson would also remind us that in the Timpson business he had 30 IPP prisoners as good, effective colleagues, so he has lived experience of working hard to deliver for people in this area.
Those efforts will ensure that IPP prisoners can get to the right place to pursue the programme of intervention that they need to reduce their risk and make further progress towards a future release by way of the direction from the Parole Board. Around 30% of IPP prisoners are not currently in the correct prison to start the next formal intervention specified in their sentence plan. We are clear that that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, notwithstanding the challenges brought about by the current population pressures, which the Government are taking decisive action to tackle.
Rachael Maskell
My constituent has been waiting 17 years for release. Can the Minister provide a timeframe by which my constituent can expect to hear what the justice system further expects of him before he gets that release?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Each case is different, so I come back to the importance of individual plans for individual prisoners, and the fact that they need to know, from conversations with the prison authorities, exactly where they are and what intervention is there, and they can see themselves progressing positively towards a positive outcome. It is impossible to give a timeframe on each individual case, but I would hope that each individual would have a feel of what the timeframe might look like for them.
Every prison now has a dedicated full-time neurodiversity support manager, and each has attended a bespoke awareness session on the IPP sentence and its impact on those serving it. Those managers are working with frontline staff to help them improve their support and communication with neurodiverse IPP prisoners, fostering good relationships and effective support for improved prospects of progression. We will continue to focus on delivering good education training and work opportunities in prison to build skills, alongside support for IPP prisoners to access employment and accommodation on release.
The IPP action plan is reviewed annually, and the Government will continue to scrutinise thoroughly progress made. To increase accountability, next summer the Lord Chancellor will be laying before Parliament the IPP annual report, which will detail the activity that has been undertaken to support those serving the IPP sentence, and hopefully address the points that have been made about where individuals lie in relation to confidence and assistance. If the anticipated progress is not being made, we will then consider what more we must do to drive the progress that we are determined to see. We will not accept no progress; we expect and demand progress, and that is what we will be looking for.
I appreciate that those still serving the sentence in prison will consider that they have not really benefited from the previous IPP action plans—there is some scepticism. This Labour Government will not allow that to be the case in future. We will robustly drive meaningful actions to deliver actual changes to how well IPP prisoners are protected and supported. That includes supporting those who have never been released, and those who have been recalled to custody. Recall remains a vital function in managing the risk of released IPP prisoners. The thematic review from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation highlights the fact that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary, and that must continue to maintain public protection.
The Government’s overriding priority remains the protection of the public—I was pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, reiterated that in his comments—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, that needs to be robust and consistent. It is vital for public confidence and protection that those serving the IPP sentence in prison are released only following a thorough risk assessment that finds that their risk has reduced to the point where they may be safely managed in the community. That is a judgment for the independent Parole Board, which has also recognised that a greater focus on the IPP cohort is necessary. The board has set up a dedicated IPP taskforce so that IPP cases are handled and reviewed by Parole Board members with the appropriate knowledge, experience and expertise of the IPP sentence.
Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence would result in most of them being released automatically—we are coming on to the issue of resentencing, which I know is an issue of huge contention and concern—but, in many cases, the Parole Board has repeatedly determined that those individuals are too dangerous to be released, not having met the statutory release test. In those circumstances, sadly, public protection has to take priority.
The alternative would be resentencing via the court, which would likely result in most offenders still in custody being released without any licensed supervision, despite the Parole Board having assessed in the past two years that those individuals should remain in custody for the protection of the public, having not met the statutory release test. Either approach, sadly, would pose an unacceptable level of risk to members of the public, and, in particular, to victims. I am especially concerned that resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community.
John McDonnell
I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend, but that is a distorted reading of the Justice Committee report. It actually saw resentencing as enabling a refocusing on these particular prisoners, and an expert panel was to be involved to ensure that there was not a mass release in that way; there would be a staggered release, with all the expertise and support available. I think that the Minister has misread the Justice Committee report and should revisit it.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I will very happily revisit the report as my right hon. Friend advises, but the reality is that we need to crack on with this. We need to get things to a better place as quickly as possible, and that means having the right support available to support each individual, to move them on their way. There may be a way of resentencing happening, but it is complicated and it has significant risk, which is why we are not going there. People released in those circumstances would not be subject to any licence conditions, including those that protect victims, for example by prohibiting contact with victims and enforcing exclusion zones. I do not accept that that is an acceptable position for victims.
On IPP offenders in the community, a resentencing exercise would also halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes significant changes to the IPP licence period and allows for the termination of the IPP sentence in a safe, sustainable way, ensuring that the public and victims are best safeguarded. It is about balance, and I recognise that there are very strong arguments— and good arguments—for the balance to be elsewhere, but this is where the Government want to place the balance at the moment.
Rachael Maskell
The big issue, which I think all colleagues across the Chamber have been raising consistently in this debate, is people’s mental health. Continuous uncertainty will continue to mean people having very poor mental health, including self-harming and, tragically, losing their lives. Will the Minister ensure that he puts time frameworks around what he is talking about, so that people can start planning in their mind what their future looks like? At the moment, they are still looking down a very dark hole.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Each IPP prisoner should know what they need to do in order to make progress through the system or towards the community, and each IPP prisoner should also know what the system should be doing to support them. That is the question, really, and I look towards friends and family because they are a massive resource in this respect. If individual IPP prisoners do not know what they should be doing in order to move on the journey towards release, or they do not know what the system should be doing to support them on the journey towards release, which includes support on mental health and other support of that kind, then there is an issue that we need to focus on and deal with. That is my answer to that point.
I will come on to the questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, about what progress is being made on the action plan. I hope I have managed to cover off in my response the fact that the action plan is central and progressing in the way that we would wish. I have just mentioned mental health support. In relation to the licence breach, where the licence is still in force and victims become aware that an offender has breached a licence condition—for example, if they have entered an exclusion zone—they may report it to the police or their victim liaison officer. Where the licence is terminated, all licence conditions end, including exclusion zones.
John McDonnell
This debate has been helpful in expressing the concerns that people have. I am worried that we have been in this situation many times before, relying on an action plan that is never implemented effectively. I hope the Minister is saying that this one will be, but I must say that I have some scepticism, given the resources within the prison network and system at the moment. It is worth revisiting the discussion about the Justice Committee recommendations. Will he meet with a number of us from both Houses to talk through those and see whether, as we monitor this action plan, we can actually prepare a fall-back if it does not work?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend and colleagues across both Houses with Lord Timpson to discuss progress on this in broad terms, because we can work together. We all want improvements, and we want this long-standing injustice to be put right for the future, and if we work together we are more likely to achieve that. I thank everybody who has spoken in this most timely and helpful debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, who secured it.
Bambos Charalambous
I also thank colleagues who have taken part in the debate, which has been thorough and thoughtful. There have been great contributions from everybody. I also have an apology from the Justice Committee, which is in its first meeting right now so its members could not be present, but would have liked to attend, so we would have had more voices around this Chamber.
I welcome many of the comments made by the Minister, particularly those about the action plan and the dashboard for prisoners. They need to know what is happening, so I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that they need to be in the correct prisons in order to progress and the fact that they will have dedicated time to see support workers and get the right education and training to be released. I look forward to seeing the action plan when it is republished, and I am keen to see what progress it makes, because we want to see progress and ensure that IPP prisoners are no longer suffering and are able to get on with their lives. It impacts not just them, but their families. If this does not work, I certainly think we need to revisit the resentencing option.
One point made by numerous Members in the debate was about the recommendations of the Justice Committee, which talked about having an “expert committee”. It is about looking at and resentencing each individual case, which would be very time-consuming, but the right and just thing to do. We will see where we go, and we will monitor the progress made on this by the Government. If progress has not been made, we will come back and seek to look at other alternatives, but I welcome the measures put in place so far.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.
Lower Thames Crossing
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a new Lower Thames Crossing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I start by thanking the colleagues from neighbouring constituencies in Kent, Essex and the wider Thames estuary who are present in the Chamber. I also thank representatives of businesses across our region for joining us in the Public Gallery; there is an impressive number of people from Kent and Essex here to show their support, from the private sector, Government-sponsored boards and a variety of other organisations. They have come together in support of the lower Thames crossing, and the economic and skills potential that it would create for Kent, Essex and the UK economy.
I understand that the planning decision on the crossing is, as the Secretary of State for Transport has made clear to me, a quasi-judicial one, and that the Minister may not be at liberty to comment further than the written ministerial statement issued on 7 October. However, I am not here to talk about the planning process; we are here to talk about the merits of the lower Thames crossing proposal, the delivery of which not only is vital to my constituents, but will add £40 billion to our economy and be vital to the delivery of our Government’s core missions.
Before I come to the merits, it is worth reflecting on the impact of having only one crossing—a single point of failure—over the Thames east of London, effectively creating the largest bottleneck in the UK. It is nearly a given that every Dartford resident’s life will be disrupted in one way or another because of traffic gridlock caused by tailbacks from the Dartford crossing. The crossing operates continually over capacity, struggling daily with 50,000 vehicles on top of the capacity for which it was designed, so disruption is an everyday issue.
When the crossing goes wrong, as it did earlier last week, it goes disastrously wrong. Last Monday, a major technical fault at the tunnel left Dartford at a complete standstill for nearly 30 hours while repairs were made to one of the two tunnels. Trips that should have taken 10 minutes took four or five hours. That has a real impact on the lives of my constituents. It impacts residents trying to get to work, stifling local trades and businesses. Brian, a constituent I have been in contact with following Monday’s chaos, is a self-employed plumber from Swanscombe; the traffic meant that he could not get to his customers and lost out on a full day of work.
Children across my constituency are regularly late to school or lose out on extracurricular activity by being stuck in traffic. Rajiv, another constituent, wrote to me about his 12-year-old daughter, who arrived back in Greenhithe at 8 pm last Monday tired, hungry and confused, having left her school in Northfleet four hours earlier. For those unaware of the geography, that is a journey of 4 miles. A school bus service for children with special educational needs and disabilities was cancelled, which meant that those young people lost out on a full day of learning.
The disruption also impacts the health and wellbeing of residents. People miss out on GP and hospital appointments, and live in worry that, as it has before, traffic could cause a delay in getting to A&E should an accident happen. Another constituent of mine, a lorry driver with a pre-existing heart condition, made the decision to take a lower-paid job driving vans on one side of the river, as he was worried that if he got stuck in traffic and needed an ambulance it would not get to him on time.
With stories like those, it is no wonder the lower Thames crossing has such strong support in my community, with over 70% of those consulted backing the new route. It has huge support from business, with 73 organisations nationwide, including the Port of Dover, the British Chambers of Commerce and some of the UK’s biggest retailers, saying that the crossing must go ahead. There is clear support for the crossing. The need for it is clear to residents and businesses, and it has been for a long time.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I will keep my intervention brief; suffice it to say that my constituents perhaps do not support the lower Thames crossing quite so wholeheartedly as he does. Does he agree that the crossing will mitigate the problems he has set out for only five to 10 years at most, and then we will be back in our current situation?
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. All the calculations indicate that on the day the lower Thames crossing opens, there will be a 20% reduction in vehicles using the Dartford crossing, and that after 15 years that reduction will still be at around 14%. The crossing should also help to cut some traffic on the A13 in her constituency and from junction 30 of the M25, so there are advantages for her constituents as well as a clear advantage for mine and for the UK economy.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; a lot of people across Kent and Essex are very invested in the issue. I will use a number that he gave to make my point. A 14% reduction in roughly 10 years’ time, when the current traffic volume is around 200,000 vehicles, is a reduction of 30,000. We are already 50,000 over capacity, so we will be spending £10 billion to be 20,000 vehicles per day over capacity. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making an important point and something needs to be done, but does he agree that the crossing is not ambitious enough, given its tremendous impact on the way of life in Essex and its limited impact on the actual problem?
Jim Dickson
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the lower Thames crossing project, which would take 20% of traffic out of the Dartford crossing and retain 14% of that reduction after 15 years—to get the figures right—should be bigger and wider. That is certainly a point of view. I am happy with the proposals as they stand. I would rather not make the crossing bigger and wider and therefore potentially create additional disruption and environmental impact. All those things are under control with this project, and I would not like us to go back to the drawing board and start the process again; that could take another 15 years.
This is a long-term project. The last Labour Government identified the need for a lower Thames crossing 15 years ago and the project has been in conception since, but, broadly speaking, it has been sat on for the last 14 years. The route has been subject to lengthy consultation—three separate consultations, to be precise. After years of engagement, legitimate concerns have been worked through, and the crossing is the best solution to the lack of road capacity across the Thames, which costs our economy £200 million a year in lost time alone.
As a Government of growth, we now just need to get on with the job and get the crossing delivered. Why? Because it would add £40 billion to the economy—it is precisely the kind of long-term project that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is talking about—and there are arguments for how it will contribute to all five of the Government’s missions for change. I will briefly list them. The crossing will be critical in kick-starting economic growth in the south-east of the UK. Once built, it will double capacity over the Thames east of London, creating another direct connection between channel ports, the midlands and the north. That will mean another road route for goods to flow to and from Europe, whereas right now, unlike nearly every other European nation, we have only one.
The project will also reduce the number of vehicles using the Dartford crossing, as I said in response to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), by around 20%, with 13.5 million fewer vehicles using the crossing each year, vastly improving journey times and reliability. It will also improve resilience across the major road network, providing new junctions with the A2, the M25 and other roads. There is also an opportunity to kick-start further progress in the Government-backed Thames estuary growth area, creating 1.3 million new jobs and £190 billion-worth of growth by 2050.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the vision of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s that took the area of Docklands and transformed it into Canary Wharf. There have been similar attempts over the years to do that with the Thames estuary, because there is such enormous economic potential; it would be transformative for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, for mine and for the entire region. It would reflect a dearth of ambition if we did not see the same level of effort and ingenuity going into this project, because the project would be transformative. This is not just about daily problems for our constituents; it is about that economic transformation, which would have a lasting impact for our country.
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is completely right. The project has the potential to really kick-start the growth in the Thames estuary that has started but needs extra investment in order to succeed. In addition to the points she makes, we should think about the Thames freeport in that context; it could generate £2.5 billion additional growth and attract £4.5 billion in public and private investment.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I want to focus on the merits of the lower Thames crossing for Gravesham, where one in five people have no qualifications and two in five live in relative poverty. Is my hon. Friend as outraged as I am by the announcement that the skills hub for the south part, in Kent, is to be in Maidstone, and not in Gravesham, where it could address some of those issues?
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The skills element is absolutely critical. The skills hub will be in Maidstone, but will be available to everyone across the region. The further education sector has come together as a consortium to make sure that 16-plus residents across the region benefit. I have spoken to at least one major construction business today that has been looking to start a skills hub in my hon. Friend’s constituency and would be very happy to do so upon the announcement of the start of this programme. There are lots of opportunities, both in Maidstone and in her constituency, for new jobs and new skills opportunities for residents. That is an extremely important point.
The crossing has already been through the planning process and a delivery team is ready. That means that the project is shovel-ready and could be under construction shortly after decisions on planning and funding are made. We could be reaping the benefits very soon after a May 2025 decision.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the lower Thames crossing has the potential to boost skills and economic growth not only in Dartford, but across Kent, and in particular in Medway, the area that I represent? In recent years, I have had many helpful conversations with the lower Thames crossing team about ensuring that opportunities for skilled jobs in construction, in green industries and in steel can be accessed by my constituents in Rochester and Strood. Some 192 businesses in Medway have already registered on the lower Thames crossing supply chain, so this is potentially a huge opportunity to boost skills and economic growth in the region.
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for her efforts to bring skills and opportunities together with the investment that we hope to see from the lower Thames crossing. She is absolutely right that there are numerous opportunities, including a dedicated T-level, apprenticeship and graduate set of schemes. Through the lower Thames crossing team, we are also developing the first green workforce in the estuary and helping the estuary in north Kent to become a high-skills economy, in contrast to the situation at the moment, where some parts do not have those skills and opportunities.
Speaking of a green-skilled workforce, the lower Thames crossing will play a vital role in Britain becoming a clean energy superpower. It is leading the way in cutting carbon out of infrastructure, with its contractors already committed to reducing carbon by 50% with measures such as low-carbon concrete and steel, and eliminating diesel from the construction fleet. The crossing will replace up to 20 million litres of diesel with clean hydrogen power and ensure that its heavy machinery is powered in that way. The scale of hydrogen purchases will kick-start development of a hydrogen ecosystem in the Thames estuary, which the Thames Estuary Growth Board says has the potential to attract £2.2 billion of investment, create 9,000 new highly skilled jobs and 5,300 jobs in downstream automotive manufacturing, and boost the economy by an extra £3.8 billion. These clean energy initiatives will help transform our construction industry into a world leader in delivering low-carbon infrastructure.
Jen Craft
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way a second time. I want to clarify the claim that the lower Thames crossing is a piece of green infrastructure. Does he agree that the more roads we build, the more people will use them? That will lower our air quality, particularly in Thurrock and the surrounding areas. It also flies in the face of our commitment to net zero, given that more people will be using vehicles that cause pollution.
Jim Dickson
We cannot address a bottleneck such as the one at Dartford, where the air quality is terrible, simply by allowing the situation to continue. We need additional capacity to spread that vehicle movement across more than one part of the Thames. That is what this proposal is about. There are many plans within the lower Thames crossing project to mitigate any environmental impact, such as by more than replacing the trees that are lost. The hydrogen economy means that it will be a low-carbon project. The new habitats that are created as a result of the replanting will be bridged, and will therefore be able to spread across the north and south banks of the estuary; that will ensure that they are preserved.
The lower Thames crossing will also create safer and stronger communities by increasing skills and job prospects, and it will contribute directly to the Government’s mission to reduce the cycle of crime and prioritise rehabilitation. Just last week, the lower Thames crossing, north Kent’s own Gallagher Group and Flannery Plant Hire launched a new skills hub—an initiative designed to tackle our construction skills shortage by engaging new people through pilot courses. The first pilot has started. The 20 individuals involved include six prisoners who, upon their release, will have a guaranteed interview in the construction industry. The aim is to expand that skills hub throughout the build. Think how much of a difference this project can make to a local community when it is actually engaged in the construction.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend very much for securing this really important debate. I have spent far too much time snarled up in traffic between my constituency, Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and Dartford, so we need a big change in the north Kent transport networks. Given that this proposal has been around for a long time, what changes does he think need to be made to it to get it over the line now? We have a bit of time before it comes up for full consideration in the spring. Given that it has struggled to convince everybody, what beneficial changes could be made to it?
Jim Dickson
At the moment, the project is attempting to receive a development consent order from the Government; that will be adjudged in May. The project is a result of three separate consultations and something like 350,000 pages of a planning application, so it really is not for me to suggest changes, but it is important that local people not only feel the benefit in goods and vehicles flowing north and south more freely, but in skills and investment in their local communities.
Finally, on the Government’s five missions, the lower Thames crossing will create a healthier and happier local population. In the long term, the growth generated will support our vital public services such as the NHS. Its impact in reducing congestion drastically will be felt by my Dartford constituents, who will not experience the everyday disruption to their lives that they do right now—
Jim Dickson
I would like to make progress, because the Minister needs to speak.
The project will tackle the air pollution, the missed hospital and GP appointments and the strain on wellbeing that being in constant gridlock brings. The case for the lower Thames crossing is compelling, and the merits are huge. It will relieve the congestion in Dartford, which has affected the local community and held back local trades and businesses—it simply cannot continue. The project has overwhelming support from the business community, as can be seen today. I am happy to confirm that, alongside the businesses represented in the Public Gallery today, I have formed a business consortium, which is working closely with the local community to do everything we can to get spades in the ground.
Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present her first Budget to the House, with growth and infrastructure at the fore as key themes—as, rightly, will be the financial challenges our Government face and the importance of leveraging private capital where we can. The Chancellor said last week that we need to:
“invest in things to get a long-term return for our country and for taxpayers”
when it comes to infrastructure. The previous Government spent 14 years talking about this project, for which there remains huge and increasing support. As a party of growth, Labour now needs to deliver. I and the consortium of businesses stand ready to work with the Government to get this vital piece of national infrastructure built as soon as possible.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am aware that there are a number of people who have asked to speak. This is a half-hour debate. I will call the Minister now and if she gets through her speech she may be able to take interventions. There is no other way to do this, I am afraid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Thank you, Mr Efford. It is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) on securing this debate on an issue which I am well aware is of great importance and interest to him and his constituents.
It is great to see quite a number of those constituents here today, to see other hon. Members, and to see very many people in the freight and logistics sector too, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has spoken with great passion. I would also like to thank him and other hon. Members here today for their engagement on this matter so far, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). I know that they are working very hard on behalf of their constituents.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has written to my Department several times on the issue of congestion at Dartford, as well as on progress on the application for a development consent order for the lower Thames crossing, a nationally significant infrastructure project connecting Essex, Thurrock and Kent.
The application for the lower Thames crossing development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008 by National Highways, submitted to the planning inspectorate in October 2022, and accepted in November 2022. The appointed examining authority began its examination in June 2023 and concluded it in December 2023. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s recommendation report on 20 March this year, with a statutory deadline of 20 June for a decision. Following a written Ministerial statement in May, the statutory deadline was extended to 4 October due to the general election. The deadline has since been further extended, to 23 May 2025, to allow more time for the application to be considered, including any decisions made as part of the spending review.
As with all nationally significant infrastructure projects, this is a complex scheme. There can be detailed matters that need to be worked through even after an examination has closed to ensure a legally robust decision is made. The Government recognise that transport infrastructure is vital for growth and acknowledge the critical role that roads play in our national transport system, facilitating the movement of people and goods that underpin the UK economy.
Lilian Greenwood
I am afraid not. I am very short of time.
Decisions on development consent orders are made as quickly as possible, including ahead of any statutory deadline when appropriate. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has made regarding congestion at Dartford and the very significant impacts on the lives of his constituents. I am aware of the incident that caused the closure of the Dartford tunnel on 20 and 21 October, and National Highways have assured the Department that a full investigation is continuing.
As my hon. Friend knows, I visited the Dartford crossings myself recently and I appreciate how quickly queues can build and the impact those have on local people and businesses. National Highways are clear that the purpose of the lower Thames crossing is to relieve demand on the existing Dartford crossings, to improve connectivity between our ports and the rest of the UK, and to provide development opportunities across the Thames estuary in Essex, Thurrock and Kent.
However, it is also important to acknowledge that large schemes such as this have the potential to impact on a significant number of people as well as on the environment. There will always be a wide variety of views, and I note the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). May they be assured that the final decision on the application will be based on a full consideration of the evidence presented by all parties.
While I am not involved in the decision on the development consent order for the scheme under focus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has acknowledged, given the decision on the application is currently under consideration in the Department, I cannot take part in any discussion on the pros and cons of the proposal, however tempting that may be. That is to ensure the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties.
I note, however, that much focus has been given recently to the cost of delivering large-scale infrastructure projects. The planning system plays a vital role in ensuring the right scheme is delivered. The Government are absolutely committed to reforming the planning system to support the transformation of transport infrastructure to work for the whole country. Streamlining the delivery process, reforming compulsory purchase compensation rules, improving local decision making and increasing capacity in the system through the planning and infrastructure Bill will all help to accelerate the delivery of the critical transport infrastructure that this country needs.
I recognise the importance of the issues raised today and the request that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made to discuss funding. I will certainly speak to my Treasury colleagues, and I hope I can help to facilitate the meeting that I know he would want.
Dr Sullivan
Gravesham is going to suffer from poor air quality, a lack of housing through workers coming into the area, increased congestion and loss of ancient woodland. Yet there is a lack of investment in training and skills in the area affected most by the crossing. Does the Minister agree with me that Gravesham residents deserve to be fully supported and the effects mitigated?
Lilian Greenwood
It is important that the views of my hon. Friend’s constituents are considered alongside those of all people in any decision about a scheme of this sort.
James McMurdock
I recognise the points being made and I do not want to speak against them for the sake of it. However, I am conscious that with nearly 15 years of planning, five years of construction and, with the Minister’s numbers, another five years until we have a 14% reduction at best, which would still put us over capacity, is that not a quarter of a century of wasted opportunity? Given the scale and cost, does she agree with me that we have to get this right?
Lilian Greenwood
I certainly agree that we have to get this right, and that is the purpose of the process, which I know is a frustratingly long one.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we also need to look out for businesses in my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford? Currently, when there is congestion, they end up travelling 28 miles—instead of six miles—to the Blackwall tunnel and back again, and a 10-minute journey ends up taking them an hour. We therefore need to look at options for river crossings through both south London and Kent as we move forward.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has very effectively put the views of his constituents on the record.
Finally, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is reassured that my Department fully appreciates the importance of the proposal to his constituency and that it is being thoroughly considered. I thank him for securing an opportunity to discuss the issue and all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Zero Emission Vans
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the transition to zero emission vans.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Vans are the workhorses of the UK economy, with one in 10 workers, across a range of industries, relying on a van for their job. From engineering to construction, and from food delivery to emergency and rescue services, many of these industries are part of the backbone of our economy, and we must support them as we make the journey to net zero.
Currently, emissions from vans are increasing year on year, which contributes to the detrimental impacts of climate change across the UK and globally. In my constituency of Tamworth, residents have been hit by flooding for centuries, but it is in recent decades that extreme flooding events are becoming more common, and the flooding season is now lasting three months instead of one, putting a huge strain on our rural economy’s farmers and on our food security. Those floods, which have left people in our rural villages isolated and trapped, have been a key issue, blocking routes for vans and HGVs, with fleets forced to do 15-mile diversions to get back on track. The devastating effect of climate change is impacting both residents and businesses, and we must take every step we can to reduce emissions.
We must do that by using zero emission vehicles. Since 1990, emissions across the UK fleet have risen by 63% via the increased use of diesel vans. In our bid to reach net zero, we must explore the challenges within this sector and address the limitations on infrastructure, including the hurdles and higher costs. We must move some of our most polluting vehicles off our roads and move towards cleaner, more environmentally friendly vans. We cannot do that unless there is a step change in the approach to investment and infrastructure, and we must ensure that we do not leave small and medium-sized enterprises behind in the process. In this debate, I shall argue that the 4.25 tonne e-vans should face the same rules and regulations as the 3.5 tonne diesel vans, and that more should be done to deal with the ad hoc installation of the electric infrastructure needed to lay the foundations for our transition towards a net zero economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on introducing this issue. I spoke to her before the debate, and I understand that she is bringing forward something that we all need to endorse, right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should encourage local councils to deal with the vans that they have, and ensure that they move towards electric fleets. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government and the Minister might need to be involved in some way to ensure that there are incentives to make that happen, whether through low finance deals or grants? If we can get the councils to do it, that makes it easier for the rest of us to follow.
Sarah Edwards
Absolutely. It is incredibly important that we involve councils, because they can help and go a long way in ensuring that that infrastructure is there, and they can actually fund some of the changes. I think that is a well-made point, so I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.
While the move to zero emission vans is vital, it does not come without challenges. Currently, the target for zero emission vans is about 70% by 2030, and operators need support with that. Small and medium-sized enterprises are already struggling with the weight of increasing energy costs. In order to support them through this transition, there must be targeted incentives and a roll-out of suitable infrastructure, but there is no protection for businesses from energy costs.
Businesses in my constituency and across the country have seen their bills increase fourfold, with many going under as a result. Their energy rates are linked to credit ratings, and new businesses often do not get the best rate until year three and onwards. Without those bills receiving the scrutiny that residential bills have had during the energy crisis, many business owners simply do not have the capital available to invest in greener solutions. If and when they do, they find that it is not just the cost but the time for the grid upgrade to take place, and in some cases businesses have been told that they cannot draw the power that is needed.
On my recent visit to Brakes in my constituency—the UK’s leading wholesaler, responsible for 70% of the food delivery to businesses and organisations, including hospitals and care homes, which operates 365 days a year on a just-in-time operation—it cited progress on installing chargers for its 7.5 tonne refrigerated vehicles, but it wanted to go far further in its bid to go green. Battery technology at present is not able to provide enough power for both refrigeration and long distance, limiting the types of vans and trucks that can be used by the industry. The company is unable to install additional green infrastructure due to the roof being unsuitable for solar installation, and would struggle at present to draw the power needed from the grid for its ambitions. The grid upgrade simply is not possible, so that business ambition is being stifled by the lack of infrastructure that it can tap into.
The challenges of infrastructure regulation, affordability and availability of suitable projects is holding back businesses in their move towards e-vans, which in turn slows down the laudable goal to reach net zero. A giant leap is therefore needed to move the market from the 5.9% of e-van sales that we saw last year for the UK to meet its emissions targets.
The average e-van costs around 50% more than a diesel option, which is a huge financial burden for a small or medium-sized enterprise that is keen to move towards greener ways of working, but is struggling to bear the upfront costs of the new vans and the uncertain energy costs. Diesel options are outperforming the e-vans currently on the market. From range to charging speed, operators are paying more for less. Although running costs can be lower, these are being undermined by the huge costs of charging at public charging stations.
My constituent, David Furnell from Evolution, explained that the installation of EV chargers often requires upgrades to power supplies, which can be costly and take months and in some cases years to complete, to bring a power supply up to the standard ready for installation for EV charging. There are limited incentives for small businesses to install this type of infrastructure, with larger private companies often bridging the gap and getting energy supplies up to the standard needed.
At present, schools are receiving a higher incentive for the installation of charging infrastructure, whereas commercial premises are receiving a much smaller incentive through the workplace charging scheme. Schools can get 75% off the cost of a buy-and-install charge point up to a maximum of £2,500 per socket. In contrast, the EV infrastructure grant for small and medium-sized enterprises gives them money off the cost of wider building and installation work, which is needed to install multiple charge points. The grant covers 75% of the cost of the work, up to £15,000, and they can get £350 per charge point socket installed and up to £500 per parking space enabled with supporting infrastructure. Although that grant is a good step, it is not considered large enough to incentivise SMEs to accept the risk and financial burden of installation and transition to net zero.
If we are to move towards the widespread use of zero emission vans, we must ensure that infrastructure such as charging facilities is available and affordable and, crucially, in the right places. The burden of cost for both the installation of EV chargers and the upgrade to power for e-vans falls at the feet of small and medium-sized enterprises, which is no way to drive our journey to net zero and grow our economy. We need a spatial strategy to assist with this, and one which does not rely upon solely the private sector and those who may have the capital to invest.
In the 2023 Logistics UK van report, a third of respondents cited power supply infrastructure as one of the biggest challenges for fleet electrification. A large percentage of van users do not have access to a home driveway to charge, and often public charging bays are not physically designed for vans. There are also nitty-gritty challenges, such as a lack of standardisation of payment methods and the inability to pre-book specialised bays. As a result, there is uncertainty for businesses regarding their ability to keep their vans on the road and moving. Many businesses, particularly our SMEs, need the highest levels of confidence that their vans will be on the road and earning throughout the day.
Many businesses, particularly our SMEs, need the highest levels of confidence that their vans will be on the road and earning throughout the day. For those fortunate enough to access private charging options, the cost of grid connection upgrades, the complexities of landlord sign-off and planning approval processes can cause issues. Both access to power and its cost are key challenges in this debate and can be difficult obstacles to overcome.
Those challenges are not limited to the transition for zero emission vans. The logistics industry is essential to our economy, and many companies operate fleets with vehicles of varying sizes, providing different coverage for different parts of the business operation. The heavy goods sector currently accounts for just under 20% of UK transport CO2 emissions, yet only 0.8% of heavy goods vehicle fleets are zero emission. For HGV fleets, there are limited options for the heaviest vehicles, and those that are available are expensive. The Road Haulage Association anticipates that the overall cost of decarbonisation for HGVs will likely exceed £100 billion. Electric trucks are at least three times the price of an equivalent diesel. The RHA also estimates that up to £2 billion of investment in energy infrastructure is needed to power zero emission vehicles. Since 2014, the logistics sector has invested an additional £2.2 billion in new HGV fleets to reduce their nitrogen oxide pollution. It seeks to replicate that for CO2 emissions, but there is a lot of work to do when the target for phasing out new diesel HGVs below six tonnes is 2035 and the target for all HGVs is 2040.
Regulation is also a big challenge in this transition, particularly regarding the weight of vehicles. A battery is heavier than fuel, and for e-vans to be able to perform like diesel vans they will be heavier. E-vans, weighing 4.25 tonnes, also face HGV MOTs, because their weight tips them into the next category of commercial vehicle, and this regulation places significant burden and additional expense on operators, impacting their downtime. It also means that there is less choice and flexibility, as fewer testers are qualified to do an MOT on an HGV. Logistics companies argue that 4.25 tonne e-vans should face the same rules and regulations as 3.5 tonne diesel vans. They are delivering the same amount of goods, but their battery puts them outside current legislative parameters. The vehicles are now classed as HGVs, meaning that they must be driven in a fleet with an operator licence and those driving them must have HGV qualifications, which cost money and time in training and must be kept up to date. No one wishes these safety requirements to be removed for HGVs, but the technical point of the weight difference between the e-van and the standard diesel van should be reconsidered as a large financial barrier to what looks externally to be an identical vehicle. It is important that these issues are considered by hon. Members and noted as a policy that has limited the transition to zero emission vans.
Various countries are successfully leading the way in the transition to electric vehicles. The Netherlands’ e-van share is more than double that of the UK. Its clear policy framework for urban logistics has introduced a number of zero emission logistic zones, starting from January 2025, and as a result the wider policies supporting its transition are leading the way among European countries for electric van uptake. We see a similar use of policy in the US, which is supporting the transition to electric vehicles under the EV acceleration challenge. Since 2021, electric vehicle sales have tripled in the US, and the number of publicly available charging ports has grown by more than 40%. The US’s Inflation Reduction Act 2022 has added and expanded tax credits for purchases of new and electric vehicles by taxpayers, and provides a $7,500 tax credit for every new green vehicle weighing up to 14,000 lbs, which equates to approximately 6.3 metric tonnes. Above that weight, it is $40,000 per vehicle. The UK could consider whether, in order to get growth, we need additional support for businesses that assist the Government in their ambition for a greener economy that promotes growth throughout the UK. If we are to transition successfully to zero emission vans, we must consider the blueprints in other countries and their successes and failures as the UK plans for growth.
Although we can incentivise businesses to move towards the use of zero emission vans, we must ensure that sufficient infrastructure, legislation and policy are in place to support that. The challenges around charging facilities, cost and infrastructure are large but not insurmountable, especially when the earlier we invest, the earlier the payback begins. The new partnership between this Government and businesses could help to transform the van sector, tackling a huge environmental impact and growing our economy. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate and the Chamber for its consideration of this important topic.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Back Benchers that if they intend to speak in the debate they should stand in their place, to give the Chair a chance of knowing who intends to contribute. I call Chris Bloore.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for securing the debate. My remarks will be brief, as she covered much of what I was going to say. I want to be clear on the point about making it easy for us to have the infrastructure in this country for businesses to take advantage of electrification. We must make it easier, quicker and cheaper to install charging points that are suitable for vans. In the Logistics UK van report 2023, a third of respondents cited power supply infrastructure as one of the biggest challenges for fleet electrification. The physical layout of public charging spaces is often designed for cars, not vans, meaning that, even if there is a charging point, most van users miss out.
I welcome the consultation over the summer on the first electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy for Worcestershire. That will set out how my county council and its partners intend to support the transition to electric vehicles. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do more to encourage small businesses to install charging points that are fit for the future.
We have heard from many colleagues about the vital role that vans play in businesses across the country, and the contribution that electrification would make to meeting net zero targets. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assessment of the country’s current charging infrastructure and its ability to meet electric fleet and e-van business operations in the future.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, the current state of the electric van roll-out is simply not good enough. We are way behind what is needed to meet the target of 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035. Currently, less than 2% of light goods vehicles are electric, while so far this year, little more than 5% of new registrations are electric. That is behind not just the Government’s zero emission vehicle mandate of 10%, but what is being achieved in comparable European countries, including, as we heard, the Netherlands, Germany and France.
Things are not improving, with worrying signs that the industry is stagnating. Since July, new electric van registrations have fallen every month. As the Climate Change Committee outlined last week, urgent action is needed for us to meet our national defined contributions under the Paris agreement. There is no time to delay. Transport is still the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the UK, responsible for 26% of the UK’s total emissions in 2021. Decarbonisation of the sector is consequently critical to meeting our targets.
There is no doubt that the Government have inherited a mess. Broken promises and mixed messages from the previous Government discouraged businesses from the investment needed to transition to electric vehicles. Not only did the Conservatives roll back on some of the commitments they made, but they failed to keep the commitments they retained. In March 2022, the Government of the day set out a target for 300,000 public charge points across the UK by 2030. By the end of their term, only 60,000 had been built, way behind the rate of growth needed to meet their target.
However, the new Government cannot simply blame their predecessors. If they are serious about meeting our international commitments, urgent steps must be taken now. Currently, the charging network—particularly rapid charging—is too poor for many businesses to feel confident in investing in electric vehicles. That is exacerbated by the current market, with very few vans—less than 20% of the models available—having a range in excess of 200 miles. Even basic models cost far more than their petrol or diesel equivalents.
Admittedly, the Government cannot dictate to the market, but surely they can take steps to help the situation. Increasing the charging capacity across the network, with an increase in both on-street points and ultrafast chargers at service stations, is vital to increasing business confidence in EVs. Rapid chargers, in particular, are vital for businesses, which cannot afford to waste hours waiting for vehicles to charge.
We also need clarity on what support will be given to businesses converting to electric vans in the future. The Government currently give a plug-in van grant of up to £2,500 for small vans and £5,000 for larger ones, but the subsidy is due to end next year. Will the Minister confirm that the scheme can be extended?
Vans are vital to our economy and employment, with one in 10 people relying on a van for their everyday work. In order to meet our climate commitments, the Government need to put their foot on the accelerator and work with businesses in transitioning to electric vehicles. Urgent steps are needed, and I hope the Minister will confirm that they are finally coming.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and well laid-out speech, covering a range of really important issues. The way she has brought this debate is a credit to her. In that spirit, I hope the Minister and I can have a positive interaction and try to get some answers.
I know we can all agree that vans play an integral role in our economy, and if the UK is to decarbonise successfully, vans will need to play a central part. Any measures in service of this welcome transition must offer a pragmatic and reasonable way forward, which the hon. Lady outlined so well. It is key to remember that too speedy a transition to electric vehicles can present challenges that we may not yet be ready to address.
It is probably no surprise that I want to draw attention, first, to the measures taken by the last Conservative Government and the manner in which they did so. They spent over £2 billion to transition the UK to zero emission vehicle use, and as of November 2023, the plug-in van grant alone had supported over 40,000 electric vans and HGVs across the UK. The previous Government also acknowledged the challenges presented by battery warranty requirements and amended battery warranty capacities, which was a welcome move. In 2023, the Department for Transport took the welcome step of announcing that the additional five-hour training requirement for drivers would be removed, and that it would make changes to towing allowances for electric vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. Again, the hon. Lady touched on some of the very important issues facing the industry.
I urge today’s Government to continue this work and to listen to the sector. Specifically, I ask the Minister whether the Government intend to retain the changes that I mentioned and whether she will commit to the renewal of the plug-in van grant, which is set to expire at the end of March 2025. It is critical that this Government continue on the route established by the previous Government and that they do not get too tied-up in any longer-term reviews that may hold things up. I know that the Minister is widely experienced in transport from her previous role and that she will be across these important issues.
The industry and drivers would appreciate more certainty about what measures the Government intend to retain and what action they intend to undertake. I hope that the Minister will offer some specificity. I also hope that the Government will commit to engaging with the industry on a range of issues, including MOT testing and drivers’ hours to further understand how the Government can pragmatically remove barriers to aid decarbonisation for fleets.
As the hon. Member for Tamworth rightly mentioned, infrastructure is crucial. As of May 2024, the Government, in collaboration with the industry, supported the installation of over 61,000 publicly available charging devices. That included more than 10,000 rapid-charge points.
The hon. Lady spoke about being able to charge the vehicles, and the infrastructure involved. That is very important, but we also need to be able to generate the electricity if the infrastructure is in place. Does the Minister intend to have a wider conversation with the Energy Secretary about how quickly the building of new turbine-run power stations will be up and running so that we can try to meet the current demand, as well that of the infrastructure that needs to be put in place? To reach 300,000 chargers by 2030, the number of public charge points installed annually must continue to grow by around 30%. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to maintain that growth year on year?
Finally—but of central importance—given that the Government have confirmed it that they are moving the date for new petrol and diesel vehicles back to 2030, can the Minister provide clarity on the timeline for vans? Changes must be pragmatic. I think the hon. Member for Tamworth will not be aware that I sat on the Bill Committee for the Energy Act 2023 in the last Parliament, and that I made the point then that we need a pragmatic approach that takes the public with us. In that spirit, I ask the Minister to reflect on how that can be achieved, communicated and properly undertaken. I ask her to consider how the concerns about the potential costs that might be put on businesses will be addressed through new employment laws, and whether that is one of the unseen consequentials after the Budget that may stop some of the investment. I am requesting that she looks holistically at all the different aspects relating to where small businesses, in particular, may look to invest in this area.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the questions I posed, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth on a very well thought-out speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, and so soon as well. I am delighted to respond to this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) recently passed her first anniversary in this House, and she is proving a great champion for the people of Tamworth. I congratulate her on securing the debate and on setting out the challenges of the transition to zero emission vehicles so succinctly. I also thank other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken and made important contributions.
I will summarise the actions that this Government are taking to address some of the issues that have been raised. The transition to electric vehicles is crucial to achieving the UK’s net zero target by 2050. As well as the environmental benefits, including lower carbon emissions, better air quality and reduced noise, the transition will help us to kick-start the economy and make Britain a clean energy superpower. Transport remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. The domestic transport sector produced a staggering 28% of the UK’s total emissions in 2022. Road transport is responsible for 89% of those emissions, and vans are responsible for 19% of road transport emissions.
The challenge of eliminating that carbon and shifting to clean, green vehicles is immense, but it is also a huge opportunity for British manufacturers. Zero emission vans will be at the heart of the global economy, and making them in Britain will deliver well-paid green jobs for generations to come. To achieve that, we must ensure that there is certainty for industry and consumers, so that manufacturers have the confidence to invest and build vehicles here in the UK and consumers have the confidence to switch. When I talk about consumers, I mean not just individual drivers, but fleets and operators.
To provide certainty, we have stated our intention to phase out the sale of new cars solely powered by internal combustion engines by 2030, and we will set out further details on reducing emissions from vans in due course. All new cars and vans will need to be zero emission by 2035 and, of course, that is no change from the plan under the previous Government. There is a clear plan to get us from where we are today to where we need to be in a decade’s time.
The zero emission vehicle mandate sets annual targets for vehicle manufacturers for the registration of new zero emission cars and vans. Those targets provide a clear investment signal to vehicle manufacturers and the charge point industry. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, will be aware that the mandate is being extended to also cover Northern Ireland.
The targets for vans rise annually from 10% this year to 70% in 2030, and were determined in close consultation with vehicle manufacturers. The Government recognise that the ZEV mandate targets are particularly challenging for vans. Industry figures for the year to September suggest that zero emission vans account for 6.2% of sales, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that they have remained steady at around 5% across 2023 and 2024. Clearly, we have further to go. That is why vans receive additional flexibilities under the ZEV mandate compared with cars.
Van manufacturers in 2024 can defer 90% of the target for this year to later years, meaning they can choose to sell fewer zero emission vans this year in exchange for selling more in future years as demand reaches critical mass, more models are available and prices potentially—hopefully—come down. Manufacturers can also use the carbon dioxide conversion flexibility, which allows them to sell fewer zero emission vans in exchange for reducing average emissions across their new non-zero emission vans, producing ICE vans that are less polluting. Vehicle manufacturers can therefore meet the requirements of the mandate without incurring fines, even if they do not achieve 10% of new van sales this year. However, we want to help industry to reach those targets, which is why the Government provide incentives to support the uptake of zero emission vans and trucks.
The plug-in vehicle grants, which help to reduce the up-front purchase cost of vans and trucks, have supported more than 110,000 vans and heavy goods vehicles across the UK since 2012. Although the plug-in grants are kept under review, and the Government have been clear that they will eventually end, I am constantly looking at the matter to ensure we can achieve our aspirations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth also mentioned HGVs. The phase-out date for new non-zero emission trucks is 2035 for vehicles up to 26 tonnes and 2040 for those above. The Government remain technology neutral, investing in both hydrogen and battery electrification, which is why we are providing up to £200 million as part of the zero emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator programme. The programme will build sector confidence in the capabilities of the heaviest HGVs—40 to 44 tonnes—by supporting hundreds of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell HGVs and kickstarting the deployment of the charging and fuelling sites. I got to ride in a battery electric HGV on a recent visit to Scania—these vehicles are here. They are not in a test phase; they are very real and available for deployment. My driver was very enthusiastic about the experience of driving an electric HGV, which, as anyone who has driven an electric vehicle will know, can accelerate really well, which is important for safety when pulling on and off roads.
We are already acting to make it as easy as possible for operators to make the switch to zero emission vans, and flexibilities are already in place on driver and operator licensing to align regulations for heavier electric vans with their petrol and diesel equivalents; as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said, they look exactly the same. Standard licence holders can already drive alternatively fuelled goods vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes, rather than the usual 3.5 tonnes, provided the driver has completed five hours of additional training.
Alternatively fuelled vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes are also exempt from the need for operator licences, which place additional operational requirements on organisations operating vehicles above 3.5 tonnes. As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said, a previous consultation sought views on the removal of the additional requirements for alternatively fuelled vehicles to access the driving licence flexibility, which included the additional five hours of training, the types of vehicles eligible for the flexibility and the towing allowance. The consultation also sought views on limiting the flexibility to zero emission vehicles only. Responses were mostly in favour of the changes, and the Government are now considering options to make it easier for both drivers and operators to move to zero emission vans. We are continuing the work of the previous Government in that respect, and reviewing options for amending roadworthiness or MOT testing, as well as drivers’ hours, tachograph and speed limiter rules for those heavier zero emission vans. The Government take road safety very seriously, and reducing the number of those killed or seriously injured on our roads is a key priority. Road safety is therefore a primary consideration in assessing any changes to regulatory weight thresholds.
Let me turn to the issues about charging infrastructure. We recognise that van and fleet drivers are likely to rely on public charging infrastructure. Their needs can differ from those of private drivers because of several factors, including shift work, long journeys and the need for flexibility—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said, some of the vans require refrigeration units too. There are already 70,000 publicly available charging devices in the UK, which is a 42% year-on-year increase. The challenge is to continue to deliver at that rate.
For drivers who park near their home, the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund is delivering over £380 million in capital and resource funding to support local authorities to deliver the roll-out of tens of thousands of local charge points. They will support van and fleet drivers without off-street parking, helping them to charge close to home. The local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth has been allocated more than £5 million of local electric vehicle infrastructure funding. That will help Staffordshire to work with industry to transform the availability of charging infrastructure for their residents without off-street parking, including those who need to charge a van outside their home.
Cross-pavement solutions also provide a permanent option to safely charge an EV on the street outside a driver’s home. We are looking at how we can support local authorities to help people access these solutions. Eligible van and fleet drivers who wish to install a cross-pavement solution can benefit from the Government’s electric vehicle charge point grant. To pick up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) about charging spaces not being appropriately set out for vans, we are continuing to communicate with charging providers about the importance of their being accessible for van drivers. Our work with the British Standards Institute on accessible charging infrastructure will also support larger bays.
Charge point provision along the strategic road network—our motorways and A roads—has significantly improved in recent years. Those charge points are essential to support drivers making long-distance journeys. There are now more than 960 open-access rapid and ultra-rapid charge points at motorway service areas across England and many more on or close to our key A roads.
The quality of charge points is also improving. The Public Charge Point Regulations 2023 were introduced in November last year, and already require all charge points to provide clear and consistent information to enable customers to compare prices easily. Additional requirements from the end of November of this year will enable van drivers and all consumers to get free up-to-date information about charge point availability, access a 24/7 free helpline and expect 99% reliability across each rapid charging network. The contactless payment requirement will simplify payments at many public charge points, including all rapid charge points, eliminating the need for drivers to use multiple apps. The regulations will improve the charging experience for all drivers, particularly commercial drivers, who spend the most time out on the roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth asked about the workplace charging scheme grant. That continues to provide support for businesses, charities and public sector organisations to install charge points. Since 2016 it has supported over 55,000 workplaces and offers up to £350—capped at 75%, as she said—towards the purchase and installation of charge point sockets. However, the Government know that in order to give the public confidence in making the switch to electric vans, they need to feel confident in their ability to charge those vehicles, whether at home or depot or on the road. We recognise that more needs to be done and that is why we have committed to accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We are currently considering the most effective way to do this, and we will have more to say in due course.
We recognise that grid connections continue to be a major obstacle for those wishing to make the switch to electric vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth illustrated the challenge by giving the example of a business in her constituency. We know there is a need for significant reform to the grid connections process, which is why we are working with Ofgem and the network companies to make it easier. Of course, there is also a need to increase electricity generation more broadly.
The Government have a plan to deliver the UK’s transition to zero emission vans by maintaining our ambitious but achievable ZEV mandate targets, reviewing measures to make zero emission vans as accessible as possible, and accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We will continue to work closely with fleet operators, individual organisations and their trade associations to understand the barriers to their uptake of zero emission vans and identify solutions to help overcome them.
I once again thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate and I also thank the other hon. Members who contributed.
Sarah Edwards
I ask that the House approve the consideration of the transition to zero emission vans.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transition to zero emission vans.