House of Commons
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
We know that prolific offenders represent only 10% of offenders but account for nearly 50% of all sentences. That clearly cannot continue, which is why I have specifically asked David Gauke to look at this issue in the independent sentencing review, to ensure that we have fewer crimes committed by prolific criminals.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for her answer. Can she tell the House what data her Department holds on the nationality of prolific offenders, and what steps she will take to deport those who are non-British?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member will know that we retain data on foreign national offenders, and this Government are on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than in the previous year. I obviously want to make further progress on this issue, and I hope that there will be consensus across the House so that we remove those who commit crimes in this country and who have no right to be here.
Joe Robertson
The Government’s early release scheme has an impact assessment for it to run for 10 years. For however long it does run, will the Government confirm that no prolific offenders will be released early?
Shabana Mahmood
The impact assessment is done over the usual period of time, but I have committed to review the policy 18 months from the moment it was brought in, which is a commitment that we will keep. I recognise that we have a problem with prolific offending. It has gone up over the last decade or so, which is why I have specifically asked the sentencing review panel to consider the interventions that we should make to cut the cycle of prolific offending.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Retail workers in my constituency tell me that they can predict, almost to the week, when somebody will arrive at their store to begin shoplifting again after their oftentimes all-too-short sentence. Does my right hon. Friend agree with them that the solution to hyper-prolific offending must be longer sentences in certain cases?
Shabana Mahmood
The length of sentences, and how to deal with the problem of prolific offending, will be looked at specifically by the independent sentencing review panel. My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot pre-empt the findings of that review, but he will note that this Government are committed to scrapping the effective immunity for some shoplifting, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, by removing the £200 threshold. That shows that we are determined to clamp down on the sort of shoplifting he describes.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
We know that one of the key ways in which we manage prolific offenders is through tagging—both GPS tagging and home detention tagging. The Secretary of State has assured us that the problems with early release tagging have now been resolved, but I understand that problems persist for thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Can she assure the public that everyone who is being released, and who should be getting a tag, is being tagged on time?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes. The specific problem that the hon. Gentleman refers to, which relates to Serco’s performance and the two tranches of SDS40 releases, has now been resolved. The backlog has been cleared, and Serco’s performance is now back to where it should be. Of course, we will continue to monitor Serco’s overall performance and keep the contract under regular review.
Dr Mullan
The House will have heard that the Secretary of State did not answer my question. I acknowledge that the problems with the early release scheme have been tackled, but I am told by many people working in the criminal justice sector that there are many other delays with the thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Again, can she assure the House that the thousands of prisoners who are due to be tagged are being tagged on time?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes. There are no additional issues in relation to tagging or the process by which the tagging takes place with Serco, but where there is contract failure by Serco, we will not hesitate to take action. We have already imposed financial penalties for the things that went wrong with the SDS40 releases, and we will keep this issue under regular review. The Prisons Minister in the other place discusses these matters directly with Serco on a regular basis, as do my officials, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The prison estate conditions survey programme is a live assessment of the condition of our estate, but there is still much to do. Approximately 4,000 cells were lost to dilapidation under the last Government. That is why we are investing £220 million in Prison and Probation Service maintenance in 2024-25, and up to £300 million in 2025-26.
Bobby Dean
A constituent who is now a prisoner of HMP Coldingley wrote to me recently about the appalling conditions in his prison. He spoke about the prevalence of drugs, violence, discrimination and denial of access to healthcare. In his most recent letter to me, he said that the conditions had got so bad that he made an attempt on his life. Another report on Coldingley has described the conditions as “inhumane”. Can the Minister tell me what urgent work is being done to ensure that all our prisons have humane conditions for prisoners?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
This Government are determined to ensure the best possible conditions in our prisons. We have inherited a crisis in our prisons, I am afraid, but if the hon. Member wishes to write to me about that particular issue, I will be happy to write back to him.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The condition of our Victorian prisons in particular is not conducive to rehabilitation or preparation for life on release. The Government are pressing ahead with the construction of 20,000 new prison places, which their predecessors failed to honour. What thought has been given, in the design and operation of these major new prisons, to the training, education, addiction and mental health needs of inmates, for whom prison is currently little more than a human warehouse?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
These new prisons will be built with all the things my hon. Friend mentions taken fully into account. The Government are determined to put in place 14,000 more prison places.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Last week, this Government introduced domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas. This will improve protection for victims of domestic abuse, including non-physical abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. We have also committed to fast-tracking rape cases through the courts in order to deliver swift justice for victims of this abhorrent offence.
Elaine Stewart
I recently visited South Ayrshire Women’s Aid in my constituency as part of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Will the Minister join me in praising the hard work of Women’s Aid in supporting women and girls who have suffered violence? Does she agree that we need more support for these organisations up and down the country, particularly in respect of reliable funding?
Alex Davies-Jones
I wholeheartedly echo my hon. Friend’s words about the vital work of organisations such as Women’s Aid, who do such brilliant work in empowering women and children to rebuild their lives after experiencing domestic abuse. This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. That is why I have decided to protect violence against women and girls victims spending in the Ministry of Justice by maintaining the current funding levels for sexual violence and domestic abuse support for the next financial year.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
In August 2008, Alan Jermey brutally murdered Kirsty Wilson, strangling her and setting her body on fire while their two young daughters slept upstairs. He has now been recommended for transfer to an open prison, which could allow him unchaperoned access to the community within six months. His daughters, now 18 and 23, are my constituents, and they are terrified by the thought of encountering him, or worse, of him coming to their home, as he knows their address. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and these young women to discuss their fears and ensure that this transfer is stopped?
Alex Davies-Jones
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to discuss the case.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of increased reports of internet image abuse and the rise of deepfake pornography. What is her Department doing to ensure that women and girls are safe online and that this modern form of abuse can be prevented?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government share the concern that more needs to be done to protect women from this appalling form of abuse. That is why we made a clear commitment in our manifesto to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults, and I look forward to setting out our position on this in more detail soon.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Four schoolgirls suffered sexual abuse by their headteacher, Neil Foden, who was sentenced in July to 17 years with a two-thirds tariff. The Crown Prosecution Service now tells me that Foden will instead spend half his sentence in prison, because the most serious of his crimes can only be sentenced to 14 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how to safeguard the victims, whose abuser was in a position of trust, because they live in fear of his early release?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am aware of the appalling case that the right hon. Lady mentions. It is horrific and all my thoughts are with the victims of those crimes. If she wants to write to me with more details, I will happily look at the case. As she knows, sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but I will look at the case and meet her to discuss it further.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We are mandating careers advice in prisons and introducing a life skills curriculum. All released prisoners have access to an employment advisory board that can connect prisoners with work, and banking and ID administrators are preparing prisoners for life after prison.
Paul Davies
The UK faces a major labour shortage that is costing billions of pounds annually. Lacking prospects, many ex-prisoners return to a life of crime. Enhancing prisoner literacy and numeracy and providing vocational training can help equip them with skills for employment, leading to a reduction in reoffending rates. I welcome the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which will address the issue. Does the Minister agree that failing to tackle the issue will not only cause a lifelong challenge for individuals, but create a significant problem for the state, including lost opportunities and increased crime?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that having a job and a home are the best ways to reduce reoffending. That is why we have employment hubs in all resettlement prisons, where prisoners can access job vacancies and support with their applications.
Bob Blackman
The Minister will know that prison governors have a statutory duty to ensure that prisoners are prepared for life outside prison before their release. One of the main issues for released prisoners is finding a secure home, so that they can have somewhere secure to live rather than going back to the place where they were probably involved in gangs or with particular individuals. Now that prisoners are being released from their sentences early, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that they are fully prepared for life outside prison and there is no risk that they will reoffend?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We know that accommodation is key to reducing reoffending. That is why we are expanding our transitional accommodation service and working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness and ensuring this issue is tackled correctly.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government recognise that there are serious concerns about the funeral director sector and that the legislation that governs what happens after we die is outdated. We are considering how to ensure that appropriate standards are introduced, including through the potential for some form of regulation. We have asked the Law Commission to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die.
Dr Luke Evans
As the Minister knows, we have been in correspondence about that sector. She kindly wrote back to me to say that the Fuller inquiry’s phase 2 interim report has been released. My constituent Joseph Barsby runs G. Seller, one the biggest independent funeral directors. He is passionate about how we can bring forward a compassionate way of looking at people who have died, while ensuring that standards are kept high. Will the Minister consider meeting me and him to further discuss ways that we can bring the sector into the 21st century?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the vast majority of funeral directors treat people in their care with the utmost respect, as that business in his constituency will do. Nevertheless, there are some serious issues of concern in the sector. As I mentioned, the Government are currently considering the full range of possible next steps, including meeting with sector directors. I would be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman when that meeting is taking place, so that he and his constituent can take part.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to question 6, I notice that it was grouped, but to be honest I cannot see a relationship between the questions or why they were grouped together. I hope a message can be passed back to the Department to say that we need to have relevance in the way questions are grouped.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The victims code sets out the services and support that victims of crime are entitled to receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. That includes the right to access support, which applies regardless of whether they decide to report the crime directly to the police. We provide police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local, practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for all victims of crime.
Dr Chambers
England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams, which are very rare habitats. In Winchester we are lucky to have the Rivers Itchen and Meon running through the constituency. We know that they are struggling, with only 17% of chalk streams rated as having good ecological health. That is partly because of over-abstraction, partly because of pollution, and partly because of water companies dumping sewage in them. We know that that not only destroys biodiversity but makes people who swim in it sick. Will the Minister, in addition to coming down harder on water companies, commit to implementing a sewage victims compensation scheme for that particular problem?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will ensure that the hon. Member’s comments are passed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister responsible for water quality. I can confirm that we are committed to delivering for nature, taking action to meet our targets in the Environment Act 2021, and that we work in partnership with civil society, communities and businesses to restore and protect our natural world.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We will expand our transitional accommodation service and launch employment councils to strengthen the relationship between employers and HM Prison and Probation Service.
Mr Sewards
People who commit crimes should be prosecuted and put in prison as quickly as possible. It is also clear that we need to do more to reduce reoffending rates in order to keep the public safe. To keep up with the current demand for prison places, we need to build three mega-jails a year, costing the taxpayer millions. Given those facts, does the Minister agree that we need to invest in technology to bring reoffending rates down, so that we can help those people turn their lives around and, crucially, keep the public safe?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Absolutely; public safety is our No. 1 priority and new technology gives us every advantage to do things differently. That is one of the things that the independent sentencing review under David Gauke will be looking at.
Dan Aldridge
Providing quality education and training for offenders is one of the most effective ways of reducing reoffending. Weston College in Weston-super-Mare runs a transformational prison education programme across the south-west of England, which supports successful rehabilitation, resettlement and employment of offenders on release. Can the Minister advise what steps the Department is taking to ensure that more offenders can develop the skills they need to successfully gain employment and reintegrate into society?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I very much welcome the work that Weston College does in prisons. We are also developing our training offer for employers in areas such as rail tracks and construction, and HMPPS’s Creating future opportunities programme is working to improve the employability of offenders in both prison and the community.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare an interest as the founder and chairman of a prison rehabilitation charity. The Minister has helpfully set out what the Government are doing about reducing reoffending, which I welcome. Is he aware, though, of the enormous pressure put on prisoners who are approaching the end of their release, given the pressures that the prison service is under? That is partly because of early release itself, which is releasing prisoners before they finish programmes provided by charities or the prisons, but also because of the churn of prisoners being shipped around the prison system because of the pressure on that system. Is there anything he can tell us about what the Government are doing to ensure that prisoners approaching the end of their sentence have some stability in the prison they are serving in so that they can get support as they approach release?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Several of the things that I have mentioned already are designed to do exactly that, and we recognise exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. On the SDS40 scheme, prison and probation officers have done an outstanding job in supporting prisoners through that journey.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
A constituent of mine reported a rape and sexual offence case well over two years ago but, like many victims, is still waiting for her case to be processed by the Crown court, leaving her pessimistic about the criminal justice system’s ability properly to tackle violence against women and girls. What is the Ministry of Justice doing to tackle the backlog and support victims of VAWG through the criminal justice system?
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not relevant to the question that has been asked.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of the prison system by changing the automatic release point for standard determinate sentences. We are building 14,000 new prison places and we will publish our 10-year capacity strategy shortly, which will set out exactly where and by when we will get the places that we need. The previous Government left prisons in crisis. We will fix them for good with that capacity strategy and the independent review of sentencing.
Patrick Spencer
I welcome what this Government are doing to increase prison capacity, but what will the Secretary of State do on tougher sentencing? If she goes to my constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, she will be met with a tough, gruff East Anglian accent that says, “What’s the point of building prison places if you are not going to use them?”
Shabana Mahmood
I am sure the hon. Member’s constituents will also recognise that, even with the new supply that we are building, we will still run out of prison places, as the demand in the system is much greater than the building planned. We simply cannot build our way out of this problem, so to make sure that there is always a prison place for the people who need to be locked up and that we never run out of prison places again, we need an independent review of sentencing.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Lady Chief Justice has said that the courts are not operating at full capacity, perpetuating the record numbers in prison on remand, awaiting trial. There could be an extra 6,500 sitting days if the Government allowed them. Cases such as rape and sexual assault are being pushed into 2027. Baroness Carr warned the Justice Secretary that failure to maximise judicial capacity would actually cost the Government more in costly and limited prison places, yet the Justice Secretary failed to agree to her request. Why are the Government letting out criminals rather than hearing more cases?
Shabana Mahmood
I am tempted to remind the shadow Minister about his own Government’s track record. He ought to know that it was my predecessor, his colleague, the former Lord Chancellor who agreed the allocation of sitting days with the Lady Chief Justice and that that concordat agreement was concluded during the election period when the Tories were still conducting business. When the right hon. Gentleman responds, perhaps he would like to explain why the allocation was made for only 106,000 sitting days. What I have done is increase sitting days by a further 500 and increase magistrate courts’ sentencing powers, which is the equivalent of an additional 2,000 Crown court sitting days, in order to start cracking down on that backlog.
Robert Jenrick
Instead of increasing sitting hours, the Justice Secretary’s defining intervention in her five months in office has been to accidentally let out dangerous criminals from our prisons. Just last week, she rushed to Parliament to close loopholes that she created for stalking, for disclosing private sexual images and for murder. She could be signing deals with other countries to get new prisoner transport agreements. She could be using visa sanctions with foreign countries to force them to take back the 10,000 foreign criminals in our prisons. She is not doing so. Meanwhile, criminals are being released and are reoffending already. Will the Justice Secretary commit now to ending her dangerous and unnecessary early release scheme?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Minister could at least have apologised to the country for being part of a Government and a party that ran out of prison places. It was the Tory party that ran the system at boiling hot—at over 99% capacity. I hate to remind him, but for months before the previous election, the Tory party operated its own emergency release scheme, which did not have any exclusions for offences connected to domestic abuse. I will take no lessons from him, as it is this Government who are cleaning up the mess that his party left behind.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The Crown court backlog that we inherited from the Conservatives was dire. Instead of cutting the number of cases waiting to be heard, as they promised, the backlog of cases exploded under their watch. This Government are getting a grip of the problem. We have taken important first steps. We have funded 106,500 Crown court sitting days this year, and we have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up more sitting days in the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, but we know that there is more to do.
Luke Myer
I am campaigning to put more police on our streets, but that is only part of the picture. This backlog in our courts means that the entire criminal justice system is creaking and justice is being delayed. This time last year, there was a backlog in my region of more than 9,000 cases. Will the Minister ensure that this Conservative court chaos is dealt with and offenders are brought to justice?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as Conservative court chaos. Indeed, the full picture of the last Government’s terrible inheritance will become clear when we publish Crown court data later this week. Demand on the criminal courts is increasing at a faster rate than the actions we are able to take, and we must therefore go further. This Government understand the scale of the problem and are ready to confront it with the fundamental reforms that will be necessary.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister referred to court chaos. A tribunal judge and a court worker from my Taunton and Wellington constituency wrote to me. The tribunal judge said:
“tribunals are being cancelled every day as they say there are not enough judges to cover the cases. This is absolutely not the case,”
and
“People are waiting months for their benefit appeals in appalling poverty and again we cannot deal with the cases because of this limit”
on sitting days. What will the Minister do to increase sitting days in Taunton and Somerset courts?
Sarah Sackman
We are investing in increased court capacity and in the recruitment of 1,000 judges and tribunal members. As the Lord Chancellor said, we have increased the number of Crown court sitting days by 500, but it is not simply enough to increase court sitting days. We have to look at fundamental reform to address the serious backlogs we have inherited from the Conservative Government.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government are determined to provide support for all victims of crime. That includes publicly consulting on a new revised victims code in the new year. I remind the hon. Member that the Minister for Gambling in the other place recently announced a legally mandated levy on gambling companies to address gambling harm and to introduce NHS-led treatment and support.
Shockat Adam
I welcome that response from the Minister. Gambling addiction destroys lives. In fact, on average, 496 gambling-related suicides occur every year. It is not just the lives of the gamblers that get destroyed; there is an invisible group of victims—the families who have to pick up the pieces. A local charity in my constituency—Spinney Hill drugs, alcohol and addiction support—told me of a talented young man from a deprived socioeconomic background whose family saved every single penny to send him to university. He spent that and more on gambling because of his addiction. The family are now in spiralling debt, and the whole family unit has been destroyed. Does the Minister agree that gambling companies should pay a levy to help compensate families, especially when children are becoming addicted?
Alex Davies-Jones
The Government recently announced a mandatory levy on the companies directly to provide support and NHS-led services. I will pass his comments to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to give him an answer.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the Crown court and bringing down waiting times is a priority for the Government. We want to ensure that every victim has the swift access to justice that they deserve. We know rape victims are waiting a disproportionately long time for their trials, and that is why we have committed to working with the judiciary to fast-track those cases through the courts.
Rebecca Smith
Recently, Truro Crown court, which serves my constituency of South West Devon, has been forced to shut one day a week due to recent budget cuts and the judicial sitting day reductions. Some cases have already been postponed until late 2025, including lengthy cases that involve victims of violence, and it is prompting those victims to consider withdrawing their cases. Given the maxim justice delayed is justice denied, what additional steps are being taken to support victims to continue with their cases across Devon and Cornwall?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Lady knows, rape is an abhorrent crime and cases are usually complex. That means despite judges prioritising cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, rape victims can wait disproportionately longer than victims of other cases for their trial to come to court. I remind her that the Government have increased the number of court sitting dates by 500 days this year, and the Lord Chancellor agreed to increase capacity in the magistrates courts so that we can get through cases more quickly. We are also introducing independent legal advocates in the new year to advise rape victims from report to trial, which will ensure they stay in the system longer, feel supported and get to trial.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In the last five years, the number of magistrates covering Telford and wider Shropshire fell from 91 to 76. In 2022, 50% of the court sessions went unused. At the Crown court, victims are waiting an average of 18 months, with some sexual offences taking up to three years to be dealt with. Telford voted for change. Will the Minister ensure that victims of crime get justice and that criminals are punished?
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. The Minister with responsibility for courts, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), has already outlined the steps that the Government are taking to increase sentencing in our courts. We will of course consider what other action we can take. We know that the budgetary position that the Government face is incredibly tight, because of the inheritance that we received. However, it is vital that we make fiscally responsible decisions.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
SDS40—the standard determinate sentences early release scheme—was an emergency measure that we had to take to avert the complete collapse of the criminal justice system following the shocking inheritance left to us by the previous Government. The emergency measure is not, of course, the solution to the crisis that we inherited. That is why we will build the 14,000 prison places that we need, and have launched the independent review of sentencing.
Sir Edward Leigh
What concerns me is not the past but the future and how to protect the public. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the screening process is sufficiently robust to ensure that violent and dangerous criminals are not released into the community?
Shabana Mahmood
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that the past is relevant in so far as it sets the context for the crisis that we have inherited, which needs resolving. Given that we all but ran out of prison places—numbers had fallen to fewer than 100 in the summer—it is important that we recognise that the prison system is and has been on the point of collapse. That is why we had to take emergency measures. We have made exclusions to the SDS40 scheme that should take account of his concerns. It is of course important that offenders are monitored and supervised effectively when they are not in prison, and that is what we are trying to do now. Tech can play a bigger role there, and I have asked the independent review into sentencing to look into that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
There are no specific domestic abuse offences in law, so abusers hiding behind convictions such as actual bodily harm are being let out early under the SDS40 early release scheme. That is not right, so I have introduced the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill to create a specific set of domestic abuse aggravated offences—a bit like racially aggravated offences—that could be excluded from early release schemes. Women’s Aid is backing my Bill; will the Secretary of State back it, too?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to note that, under current legislation, it is possible to exclude only offences, rather than classes of offender. I am sure that his Bill will gain some interest across the House. If any such changes were to be made, they would be for the future, as they do not help us with the current crisis. I will ensure to discuss the details of his Bill with the Home Secretary.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer—I hope to have the chance to meet her to discuss it in more detail. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about survivors who have been told that, as it stands, their abuser is set to be released early. One such survivor is Elizabeth Hudson, who I met on the set of “Good Morning Britain” today when launching this campaign. She has written to Ministers about her concerns, but says that she has not received a response. Will the Secretary of State meet Elizabeth and me to discuss her case and how survivors can be respected and protected?
Shabana Mahmood
I believe that all who have written have received a response from the Ministry, but I will chase down that specific case. The way we implemented the policy meant that we were able to give the Probation Service time to prepare which was not available to it under the previous Tory Government’s end of custody supervised licence scheme. That means that all victims who were supposed to be notified under the victim contact scheme have been notified.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I recently met the chief coroner. We did not discuss the specifics of this issue, but coroners have a statutory duty to investigate deaths that are not reported to them if they suspect that the cause is unknown, violent or unnatural, or that the death occurred in custody or other state detention.
Olly Glover
The charity SUDEP Action, which is based in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, provides specialist support for bereaved families. Improvements to the coroner service would help to reduce trauma, improve understanding of the causes of death, and enable more research to aid prevention of future deaths. Will the Minister press for more investment in, and support for, the coroner service?
Alex Davies-Jones
The Government recognise the impact of delays and the other issues facing coroners at the moment, and the impact that that is having on bereaved families and the wider systems. We welcome the recent Justice Committee report on the coroner service, and I look forward to working closely with the chief coroner, local authorities and key partners to devise and deliver a wider strategy for those services.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
My hon. Friend is right to ask this question. Under the previous Government, a process was already under way to put in place new contracts for prison maintenance. We need to make sure that those contracts deliver good value for the public purse.
Kim Johnson
I thank the Minister for that response. The prison maintenance contract is set to be retendered to the private sector next year. Prisons such as Walton in my home city of Liverpool—a crumbling Victorian prison—struggle to get the smallest repairs undertaken, and there is £1.8 billion-worth of unreported repairs within the prison system. We know that privatisation leads to higher costs and increased squalor, so can the Minister or the Secretary of State call time on this failed experiment and bring prison maintenance back in-house where it belongs?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The previous Government paused work on essential maintenance, which has added to the problems we are now dealing with. My hon. Friend is right to say that all options need to be looked at in order to ensure we get the best possible value for money for the public purse from any new contracts or arrangements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that response. One story that has been quite prevalent in the press over the past two months has been the amount of mould growth in prisons, which will obviously lead to health issues. Will the new prison maintenance service that the Minister has referred to be able to deal with that specific issue? If it is not dealt with, it will lead to ill health among those who are in prison.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Clearly, issues such as that need to be dealt with. Staff at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are doing their utmost to try to tackle those issues, but we will redouble our efforts after the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
Last week, the National Audit Office released a damning report on the previous Government’s record on prison building, showing that their promise of 20,000 prison places by the mid-2020s was hollow. Unwilling to face down opposition on their own Back Benches, the last Government dithered and delayed, ultimately building less than a third of the cells they promised. As a result, they left our prisons overcrowded and at the point of collapse. Later this week, I will set out in my 10-year capacity strategy a realistic plan for building the 14,000 prison places that we need, and I will ensure that our prisons are never left at the point of collapse again.
Antonia Bance
I thank the Justice Secretary for that answer. In common with many Members of the House, I have heard horrific stories of perpetrators breaching orders to which they are subject, giving them further opportunity to terrorise, injure, or in some cases kill women protected by those orders—may Harshita Brella and so many others rest in peace. What action is the Justice Secretary taking to assess and improve the effectiveness of civil orders in safeguarding survivors of domestic abuse?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that this Government have launched a pilot of domestic abuse protection orders in a number of areas, which will bring together the strongest possible protections for victims in other existing protective orders into a single order. Breaching such orders will be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison, and unlike other orders, there will be no maximum duration.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
In London, there is a phone theft epidemic, and this time it is not the former Transport Secretary on the loose. Last year, more than 64,000 mobile phones were reported to the police as stolen in the capital alone. The small number of individuals responsible should be locked up for a long time, yet last month, a criminal who used a motorbike to steal 24 phones an hour was jailed for just two years. Enough is enough, so will the Justice Secretary commit to dramatically increasing sentences for career criminals, get them off our streets and slash crime?
Shabana Mahmood
Where was the shadow Secretary of State over the past 14 years when the theft epidemic began? Again, given the scale of his party’s general election defeat, some humility is usually required—perhaps even an apology to the British public—before he and others can earn the right to be heard again. He is right about the issues with mobile phone theft, and the Home Office and the Home Secretary in particular are meeting with tech companies to talk about how we can break the business model of those criminals.
Robert Jenrick
Cousin marriage has absolutely no place in Britain. The medical evidence is overwhelming that it significantly increases the risk of birth defects, and the moral case is clear in that we see hundreds of exploitative marriages that ruin lives. Frankly, it should have been stamped out a long time ago. Will the Justice Secretary commit to ending this medieval practice, which is rearing its head once again in modern Britain?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Member will know that there has been a recent Law Commission report on marriage law more generally. The Government are going to consult on broader reform of marriage law, and we will certainly consider the issues that he has raised before setting out a public position.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
One of the very first actions of the Government was to accept the Prison Service pay review body’s independent recommendations in full, delivering a pay increase of 5% for prison officers. In addition, we monitor exit interview data and use it to help design interventions to improve retention.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member raises an important issue, which is always under review, but that is where we are at the moment.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend. Tagging technology can monitor offenders effectively in the community. We have tags that monitor curfews and exclusion zones, tags to impose home detention—in effect, the equivalent of house arrest—and sobriety tags with a 97% compliance rate. We are currently looking at expanding the use of technology to improve productivity in the Probation Service. We will also fund an additional 5,000 new tags to expand the use of tech outside prison.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
We are currently using a data collection and publication approach inherited from the previous Conservative Government—probably from the hon. Member’s time as an adviser to the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister—but I will continue to monitor the data that we collect and publish. We are committed to ensuring that we deport foreign national offenders, and are on track to deport more this year than were deported in the previous year. We will make more progress in that respect.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that HMP Parc is receiving targeted support. She points to the recent visit by my hon. and noble Friends to the prison, and the Minister for Prisons in the other place is providing full evidence about this and other matters to the Welsh Affairs Committee tomorrow.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Shabana Mahmood
There are no girls currently in Wetherby. We have not changed and will not be changing the policy we inherited from the previous Government in relation to single-sex spaces and the prison system; that policy will remain as it has been. The women’s justice board will consider the issues that relate to female offenders across the women’s estate.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The previous Government undertook a review of the scheme; it ran three consultations respectively. When the election was called in May no response to those consultations had been published. We are considering the support we provide to victims including child victims, and we are advising on a new victims’ code in the new year specifically to look at that issue, including any response to the review, and we will set out our plans in due course.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Since the beginning of this year, 17 inmates have died at HMP Parc. It has been under the control of G4S since opening in 1997. What consideration has the Lord Chancellor made of returning the prison to the Ministry of Justice?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
As I said in answer to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), HMP Parc is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. The Minister for prisons in the other place, Lord Timpson, will be answering questions tomorrow in thorough detail and the hon. Member might wish to attend that meeting.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
The independent sentencing review will be making recommendations to ensure that our sentencing legislation and framework is fit for purpose and that we always have prison places for those who need to be locked up, so that our prisons create better citizens out of criminals and we can expand the use of punishment outside prison. I will not get ahead of what that review might recommend but it will look at all those issues in the round.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons has been a problem for many years. The last Government spent over £100 million trying to deal with the issue; what plans do the current Government have to try to comprehensively deal with it?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right: drugs are rife in too many of our prisons and that problem has been very difficult to challenge, both for the previous Government and no doubt for us as well. We have to crack down on the supply of drugs into our prisons, which is why we are expanding the use of no-fly zones. The hon. Gentleman will know that scanners have already been used, but hardened criminals are increasingly moving on to using drones instead. We will crack down on supply but we also need to look at demand and getting more of our prisoners off drugs while they are in prison.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The current court backlog across England is an indictment of the previous Government, with almost 1,800 cases in Nottinghamshire alone. Rape victims are waiting on average over a year to have their case brought to trial, if it gets that far. What is the Department doing to prioritise these cases and restore faith in the criminal justice system for victims of rape and serious sexual offences?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
My hon. Friend is right that justice delayed is justice denied, and our hearts break for victims waiting too long for trials to come. That is why we must tackle the Crown court backlog, which we are doing by keeping open 16 Nightingale courts through the recruitment of more judges. As I said previously, we need fundamental reform, and that is what we will bring about.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
To boost public confidence in the criminal justice system, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not resort to increased dependency on community sentences, many of which are unserved?
Shabana Mahmood
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say many times, we have brought forward an independent sentencing review to look at the issues of sentencing in the round to ensure that we are never again in the position where we are about to run out of prison places and cannot lock up those who must be locked up for reasons of public protection. The review will also make recommendations on how prisoner rehabilitation can help people turn their lives around and, more importantly, cut the number of victims that would result from reoffending.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Last month in Basingstoke, three women were victims of spiking while on nights out. That appalling crime robs individuals of their autonomy, puts lives at risk and leaves women feeling unsafe. Victims, including Skylar, Laura and Jade, have highlighted serious gaps in the awareness of and response to spiking, so I welcome the Government’s pledge to make spiking a specific criminal offence and to train thousands of night-time economy staff. Will the Minister update the House on how the proposed measures will be implemented to prevent further incidents in towns such as Basingstoke?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government are committed to bringing forward a specific new offence of spiking. We are committed to modernising the existing legislation in this Session so that no other victims like Skylar, Laura and Jade suffer these abhorrent crimes.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Nearly 3,000 prisoners are still incarcerated under imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were abolished more than 12 years ago, many for offences not intended to be covered by such sentences. Will the Justice Secretary commit to expediting the Government plans to re-sentence all prisoners still stuck on indefinite IPP sentences to free up limited prison capacity?
Shabana Mahmood
First, the last Conservative Government were right to abolish the IPP sentencing regime, but that has left us with a cohort within our prison system who are still serving these sentences. I am determined to make more progress in ensuring that, when safe to do so, more of those individuals can come out of prison, but I will not do so in a way that compromises public protection, as some of these individuals pose a real risk to the public. I will not conduct a re-sentencing exercise, because that would have the effect of releasing everyone immediately, but we will make progress on getting more people properly rehabilitated and out of prison.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 bans prison officers from taking industrial action and limits trade unions’ ability to protect prison officers from attacks on their terms and conditions and wages. Thankfully, these fundamental trade union rights have been reinstated for prison officers in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for section 127 to change so that workers’ rights are fully restored for prison officers in the rest of the UK?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I do not think now is the time to consider that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Avon and Somerset police is doing an excellent job at Bath Christmas market, challenging any individual seen behaving inappropriately towards a woman or young female. What more can the Ministry of Justice do to tackle street harassment?
Alex Davies-Jones
We are working closely with our colleagues in the Home Office to tackle violence against women and girls. This Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. That includes all crimes against women and girls, particularly harassment, and we are working together to ensure that that happens.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach in recognising that we cannot continue as we have done. She will know that county lines are having an impact in towns and cities across the country, with a particularly devastating impact on children. Can she outline the options that the sentencing review might explore to effectively disrupt the criminal networks and protect vulnerable young people?
Shabana Mahmood
The sentencing review will primarily look at the sentencing framework and how we treat different cohorts of offenders within that. It will consider drug crime, too, but on the specific issue of county lines, I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response from the Home Office.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Only a couple of days ago, a prisoner was let out under the Government’s early release scheme. He was wanted for removing his GPS tag. What assessment has been made on the reoffending rates so far since the start of the scheme?
Shabana Mahmood
Anybody who breaches their licence conditions can be recalled immediately to prison. If somebody removes their tag, they can and will be recalled. We have not seen higher than normal rates of recall under the SDS40 scheme, and we have not changed our projections on prison capacity.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last month, the Justice Committee visited central London county court, which is one of the busiest in England, and met the exceptional and resilient people who run it, both judicial and administrative. They need to be resilient as their work is contained in thousands of paper files that are stored, transported and updated in a way that Dickens would have recognised. When will we digitise civil justice?
Sarah Sackman
The modernisation of the courts and the digitisation programme is a priority. Clearly, that can increase efficiency in the progress of cases and improve the workings of case management. We are looking at that and working in close co-operation with our colleagues in the judiciary to ensure that we make progress in that area.
Storm Darragh
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to Storm Darragh.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
I would like to say how sorry the Government were to hear that two people lost their lives during Storm Darragh. I extend my sympathy to their family and friends.
Late last week, the Met Office issued a red weather warning for wind covering England and Wales, with wider parts of the UK covered by amber and yellow warnings. The Government immediately took action to prepare for the arrival of Storm Darragh. Ahead of the storm, we issued an emergency alert to over 3 million people in affected regions under a red weather warning, urging them to stay indoors. That was the largest use of the early warning system outside of a test scenario. Impacts, although widespread, were managed effectively and local response mechanisms worked to mitigate impacts.
For the households and businesses affected by disruptions, it would have been a very distressing few days. Over 2.3 million customers have had their power restored since the storm made landfall. As of this morning, just under 24,000 customers remain without power. Reconnections are continuing at pace, and operators expect to have all remaining customers reconnected by tomorrow.
I am grateful for the response from colleagues in devolved Administrations and local resilience forums around the country. I praise our emergency responders and utility workers, who have worked, and indeed are continuing to work, so hard in difficult conditions to help the public manage the impacts of the storm.
Ben Lake
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her reply and join her in expressing my condolences to the families of those two individuals who have tragically lost their lives. The storm left hundreds of thousands of homes without power and disrupted critical infrastructure. We are all grateful to the engineers who are working tirelessly to restore power under challenging conditions. I pay tribute to the emergency services and local authorities who have also worked hard to clear roads and offer support to households where possible.
However, I am deeply concerned about the thousands of people still without electricity. The storm has brought into sharp relief just how dependent other key utilities are on electricity: from heating to water supply and mobile phone networks. The latter concern is compounded in rural areas by the fact that many have lost their copper landlines in the recent digital switchover and now use a system dependent on mains power. Villages such as Blaenffos, Pont-rhyd-y-groes and Ponterwyd in my constituency, to name just a few, have therefore not only been without power but had periods without water, heat and any means of communicating for help and support.
The increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as Storm Darragh due to climate change underscores the need for robust civil protection measures encompassing both our immediate response and long-term resilience planning. In that regard, our experiences with Storm Darragh highlight a need to review the adequacy of current arrangements. For example, if rural areas such as mine are without mobile signal and no longer have copper landlines, how can they receive important emergency information, let alone call for assistance?
Will the Minister therefore commit to reviewing arrangements in the light of the storm, including whether the priority services register is adequate to address the needs of vulnerable residents during widespread power outages? Will she ensure that key utilities are equipped to mitigate the impacts of future extreme weather events? Finally, will she outline the Government’s immediate action to work with the Welsh Government and local authorities in Wales to support communities who are still without power, and their longer-term strategy to strengthen national resilience in the face of extreme weather events?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his efforts over the weekend to provide advice and support to constituents. As he mentioned, many households across north and mid-Wales have been particularly affected by the damage and disruption caused by Storm Darragh. Again, I extend my sympathy to all those who have been affected by power cuts, flooding and other disruptions, which I know will have been distressing. Again, I pay tribute to the emergency services and utility workers in north and mid Wales who are continuing to work hard to support the households affected.
The UK Government have been working closely with our counterparts in the Welsh Government—the hon. Member raised concerns about that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister on Friday, and we are continuing to work closely together. I hope that reassures the hon. Member on that aspect. In my response I set out how work is under way to resolve the situation of properties without power and affected by flooding, which the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out.
More broadly, we are continuing to work with partners to ensure that the disruption is addressed as soon as possible, and that support is provided to those affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that we are constantly monitoring the work that we have done to see how to improve for future floods and storms. The Government are taking this seriously, and I hope the whole House supports these efforts.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) about the people who lost their lives and all those who have been affected by flooding. Those of us in communities that have been flooded know how desperate the impact is, not just in the immediate aftermath but for months afterwards. Flood victims often say that they have received false warnings on so many occasions that when the warnings come, they often do not have faith in them. What are the Government doing to improve the reliability of those warnings, so that we are better informed? What are they doing to ensure that the public are better educated about the limitations of the warnings that we get from the Environment Agency?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and talking about the impact on his constituents and those across the country. The Met Office warnings are based on judgments made by highly trained staff who have carefully collaborated to provide instructive advice to people, businesses, transport operators and emergency responders on a storm’s impact on customer disruption. In this particular situation, the emergency alert was sent to approximately 3 million people across Wales and the south-west on Friday 6 December. It reached the people who needed to be reached really effectively.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for asking this urgent question. He asked some very detailed questions about communication and connectivity that are vital for rural areas. Can the Minister commit to writing to him and to putting that letter in the Library? There is important information that needs to be put on the public record.
Storm Darragh has had and continues to have terrible impacts across the UK. Our thoughts are very much with the loved ones of those who tragically lost their lives in recent days, and with the people whose homes and businesses have been devastated and those who continue to feel the effects of the storm. We must not forget that for at-risk communities, the mental health consequences can remain long after the storms and floods have abated and the blue lights have left. The Opposition pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteer groups for their efforts to help people in these challenging and dangerous circumstances.
In the coming hours and days, the Government need to focus on quickly reconnecting those without power and giving help to those who have been driven out of their homes, on the repair and reopening of buildings and schools and on the process for insurance claims so that residents can return home as soon as possible. What conversations are being had across Government to ensure that all that happens?
What discussions did the Minister have with ministerial colleagues across Government and with the Environment Agency and the Met Office before the latest storm hit? The Government’s flood resilience taskforce was set up to improve flood preparedness. It has met once, and its next meeting is next year. Should it not be stood up more frequently and meet more regularly?
The previous Conservative Government committed a record £5.2 billion from 2019 to 2027 to provide significantly improved flood defences across the country. Will the new Labour Government continue that investment? The farm recovery fund, initiated by the previous Conservative Government to support farmers, is vital. Will this Government provide new money now, after recent storms like Bert and Darragh? Finally, can the Government confirm their ongoing commitment to the communities hit by these increasingly common extreme weather events?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are working closely with devolved Administrations and organisations to address these issues. As I mentioned already, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister on Friday, and we continue to work together. Work is being done to strengthen the resilience review, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the emergency alerts worked effectively to reach those who have been directly affected. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will respond to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli on the issues he has raised to ensure that his questions are answered.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement, and express my sympathies for those affected and my thanks to emergency and utility workers for all their efforts over the weekend. The storm was of great significance in constituencies such as mine. I appreciate what the Minister has said on the efforts and conversations between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Can she say any more on that, and assure us that the lessons to be learned from this storm—on resilience and dealing with any future storms—will be shared with all of us in this House, as well as our colleagues in Wales?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the impact the storm has had on individuals. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government on the civil contingencies response structures in response to Storm Darragh, and have convened an all-Wales civil contingencies committee. Officials in the UK Government regularly engage with the Welsh Government on this matter, and ensure that local responders are working effectively. We will be looking to see what else we can learn from this situation.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), who asked an excellent question and raised this important issue today. My thoughts also are with those who tragically lost their lives this weekend and with their families, and with all the communities who have been so terribly affected by the storm. I have immense gratitude, as I am sure we all do, for our emergency services, utility companies staff and local communities, who have responded with such effectiveness and compassion.
We were affected in Westmorland, although not as badly as the constituents of many Welsh Members present. Last week was the ninth anniversary of Storm Desmond, which we remember and still bear the scars from, and we stand in solidarity with all those deeply affected right now.
The storm reminds us of our duty to protect homes, communities, farmland and businesses. In the Budget, the Government agreed to funding for flood defences up to March 2026, with the potential threat of reduced funding thereafter. Will the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee, as a minimum, the current level of funding for flood defences beyond March 2026?
So much farmland has been affected by the storm, yet farms are key to successful flood management, storing water and slowing the flow to protect villages and towns downstream, such as Appleby and Kendal in my constituency. Will the Minister now agree to increasing the environmental land management scheme budget to help our farmers be our first and best defence against flooding?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government will expand eligibility for the farming recovery fund? Will they publish an up-to-date water management strategy to set out a plan for urgent maintenance and upgrades to flooding defences to protect homes, farmland and businesses at risk?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Government are working at pace to step up further preparations for winter. We are investing £2.4 billion up to March 2026 to improve flood resilience and better protect communities across the country. We are also looking at lessons from the floods, which are being fed directly in to the floods resilience taskforce that was set up under this new Government. That will look at flood defences and bolstering the nation’s resilience to extreme weather. I had the opportunity to attend the floods resilience taskforce with a wide range of stakeholders, and it is a positive way to address future issues. We recognise the significant impact flooding has on farmers and rural communities, which is why we are providing up to £50 million for internal drainage boards and an additional £60 million through the farming recovery fund.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to explain what has been going on in relation to Storm Darragh. Like everyone I thank the emergency services, and I also thank Monmouthshire county council for all the work it did this weekend. Over 2 million households lost power this weekend, including a group of constituents in Llangybi, one of whom was extremely vulnerable. Will the Minister share with us how many households have been reconnected?
Ms Oppong-Asare
As my hon. Friend mentions, up to 2.3 million customers lost power during the storm. As of this morning, as I mentioned, just under 24,000 customers are without power. The Government have been reassured that the operators are due to reconnect them all by tomorrow.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I join the House in paying tribute to the emergency services, including Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and Dyfed-Powys police, as well as Powys county council in my constituency, which have been working tirelessly to keep people safe over the past few days. Communities across Wales, including in my constituency, have been battered by this storm only a few weeks after already taking significant damage from Storm Bert. Many of my constituents in the Swansea valley were left without power for over 48 hours and some may not have power restored until Thursday. Likewise, many water supplies have been disrupted and towns such as Builth Wells have experienced significant flooding. What support are the UK Government providing to Wales to ensure that power is restored as soon as possible to those households?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I send my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are still directly affected. Our priority is to ensure that everyone without power is reconnected as quickly as possible. Our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero have been receiving regular updates from the Energy Networks Association on electricity outages. Work is being done swiftly to ensure that those who are directly affected get their power back as soon as possible.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank my neighbour the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for asking the urgent question. Let me add my voice to the chorus of voices thanking the emergency services, and also pay tribute to communities and local businesses such as the Hand in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, in my constituency. The storm brought out the best in society, which is what the worst weather sometimes does. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to local businesses and civic society for all their work in helping those most affected by the storm?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Local businesses, local resilience forums and emergency services have played a powerful role, and it has been great to see communities and businesses come together to address these problems, so I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
These storms are becoming more frequent, and we in Scotland probably have more experience of them than most, but there is a prevailing sense that we are lurching from one storm to the next. In the case of Storm Bert, for example, it was felt that the Met Office did not issue enough warnings early enough. To what extent is the Minister bringing the four nations together to share what they have learned from the various storms so that we can respond to them better?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Government have been working closely with devolved Administrations, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster organised a call on Friday to see what work could be done with them collaboratively. A meeting was held to establish which areas were directly affected and where there were threats to life, and an alert was issued as quickly as possible to those areas in particular. However, we recognise that there was some delay in the conveying of information, so we are working with operators to see how they can get the message out as speedily as possible in the event of another storm of this kind.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Will the Minister please give us an update om the extent of the floods that resulted from the storm? Rural constituencies such as mine experienced a double whammy: we were battered by the storm, and then we were deluged once again by flooding. That double problem is also much more sustained.
Ms Oppong-Asare
A lot of work has been done in this regard, but if my hon. Friend writes to me I shall be able to respond to her directly and adequately.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing the urgent question.
Electricity supplies have yet to be restored to some Gwynedd communities, more than 72 hours after the red weather warning. The switch from copper to digital technology means that all landline telephones will need electricity to work in the future, as do mobile phone masts. These matters are reserved to Westminster—they are not devolved—so will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and commit to a Government assessment of the resilience of mobile and landline communication in Wales and the adequacy of the support given by BT and EE to elderly and vulnerable people during the switchover process?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Engineers have been working tirelessly with National Grid’s electricity distributors and with other networks to ensure that steps are taken to reconnect vulnerable customers in particular, but if the right hon. Member writes to me, we can look into this in more detail.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to our fantastic volunteers who worked around the clock in difficult circumstances, playing a critical role in protecting people and homes? Will she visit my constituency to meet some of those volunteers, including some from Lowdham, Rainworth and Hucknall, who continue to face the threat of flooding?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I too thank the volunteers who have worked so hard to provide support. I always try to visit areas around the country, and if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will see whether if I can visit her constituency with the floods Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to see the hard work that those volunteers have been doing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
This morning, 2,500 people in my constituency were still without power. That is down from 8,000 yesterday morning, and I am grateful to all the engineers who have worked so hard to get those people back online. Water booster pumps also lost power on Sunday, so those in a large area of the constituency experienced low water pressure. In the sizeable town of Wem, there were large areas with no water at all, despite there having been only a yellow weather warning. It seems that that the resilience of the utility companies is not where it needs to be to respond to an event of this nature. Can the Minister reassure me about what she is doing with those companies to ensure that we are more resilient in future, given that these events will be increasingly frequent as the impact of climate change worsens?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We and our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working closely together, and as I said earlier, they are receiving updates from the Energy Networks Association. If any of the hon. Member’s constituents are directly affected, I urge them to call the network operator directly by dialling 105, or to visit the Power Cut 105 website. However, she is right that we should be exploring the impact that this could have on us in the future.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In Ironbridge gorge, a world heritage site in my constituency, the river fills up with water from Wales in the days after these storms. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the Government pay attention to secondary areas such as mine, and will Government Departments ensure that the economic hammer blow that flooding causes in communities such as mine is considered in any future grant applications by the local authority?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We are currently reviewing the flooding formula, which will address some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am incredibly concerned about the news that funding for organisations that co-ordinate multi-agency responses in the event of emergency, such as the Sussex resilience forum, is set to end in April next year. Will the Minister commit to long-term statutory funding for crucial organisations that plan emergency responses?
Ms Oppong-Asare
There is already a long-standing relationship between central Government and responders, underpinned by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government already works with local resilience forums on preparing for, and acting during, responses to emergencies, and provides a direct line of communication for them to central Government. The Met Office is our statutory responder under the Civil Contingencies Act, which strengthens its role at the heart of UK resilience. I recognise the contribution of resilience forums, and in particular the role that they played during the storm.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Northumberland has been battered by storms in recent years, most dramatically and devastatingly by Storm Arwen. Can the Minister assure me that she and her colleagues are taking proactive steps to protect communities in some of the most isolated places in my constituency from the devastating impact of these storms?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The flood resilience taskforce set up by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking into exactly those issues.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Storm Darragh brought 96 mph winds, flooding and power outages, and it came hot on the heels of Storm Bert, which brought severe rainfall and terrible flooding. Given the strong evidence that links increasing frequency and severity of storms with climate change, may I ask for the Minister’s response to the comments of Emma Pinchbeck, the new chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said at the weekend that the UK was “not ready” for these increasingly severe impacts of climate change? What are the Government doing, and what will they do, to make adaptation an urgent national priority?
Ms Oppong-Asare
As the hon. Member knows, we have only just come into office, but we have already set up a flood resilience taskforce and are carrying out a resilience review, so we do recognise these issues. Just a few months in, we are already looking into them proactively.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
As the Minister and Members from across the House have done, I commend our local authorities and our emergency services for the hard work that they did to make people safe. The storm caused so much damage; communities in my constituency, such as Northop, were without power for several days. Sadly, many of us had to change our plan to go out on Small Business Saturday and support our local high streets, which are struggling. There is a palpable commitment in this Chamber to preparedness. What conversations were had with the Welsh Government prior to the storm to ensure that we were ready to tackle it?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Government regularly meet officials to look at how we can work with the devolved Administrations. On preparedness, as I mentioned, we are doing work on the resilience review. I have had a huge amount of engagement with various stakeholders and the devolved Administrations, so that no one is left behind when it comes to making sure that we are prepared.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Let me thank the emergency services, Carmarthenshire county council, which is the local authority, and National Grid engineers for working tirelessly to help residents who were without power in Caerfyrddin. I also want to give a shout out to the farmers who helped clear the roads with their chainsaws.
Given that many areas are on their fourth day without electricity—most have not been promised a connection until Thursday, and some do not have water or connectivity either—it is clear that we need additional help. The 105 line is not working. It is not its fault; it is just overwhelmed by the number of calls. What advice does the Minister have for people living in rural communities such as Trelech, Brechfa, Blaenwaun and Llanarthne, who are in desperate need of generators for their village halls and community centres, so that they can provide hot water, hot meals and a place to charge a mobile phone? Can we do something about that?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for her question, and express sympathy with what her constituents are going through. I am disappointed to hear that constituents face difficulty in connecting to networks. We are trying our best to work with networks on the wider lessons for the future. If she writes to me directly about these matters, we can certainly explore the issue further.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, much of the impact of Storm Darragh was wholly preventable, such as Flamstead village being cut off because Trowley Bottom and Chequer Lane were flooded, as well as the flooding on Station Road in Harpenden, and in Puttenham. Next to the Hospice of St Francis is Shootersway, which has repeatedly flooded, and there are worries about ambulance access. What are the Government doing to work with local authorities, and what is the long-term strategy to prevent repeated damage from storms such as Darragh?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We are working with local resilience forums, and we are also carrying out a flood review. As I mentioned, a flood taskforce has been set up and is exploring the issues raised by the hon. Lady.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
While the damage from Storm Darragh was thankfully limited in North Norfolk, a number of properties in my constituency suffered power cuts, which lasted well into Monday. That has once again highlighted the problem caused by poor mobile phone signal in rural parts of North Norfolk. As hon. Members have mentioned, many people did not receive updates and cannot access real-time SMS information. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about ensuring that we fix the notspots and keep my constituents safe and connected when the next big storm hits?
Ms Oppong-Asare
DSIT is looking into this matter to see how the issues that the hon. Member raises can be addressed. I recognise that there were issues, especially with access to mobile networks, which made it a real challenge to reach people, particularly vulnerable individuals. The situation is being reviewed by my colleagues in DSIT.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Storm damage in Holyhead has led to severe disruption to the second busiest roll-on, roll-off port in the UK, with ferries to Ireland being cancelled. This weekend also saw the closure of the Britannia bridge to all vehicles. The vulnerability of Ynys Môn’s connection to the mainland has been of concern for several years, with access to our main hospital at risk. What assurance can the Minister give me that island communities, such my constituency of Ynys Môn, will be safeguarded from extreme weather in the future?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I have been very concerned about this issue, particularly as part of our work on resilience looking at who may be affected, including vulnerable people and those who may become vulnerable as a result of extreme weather. Local resilience forums have also been looking into this issue. We are working closely with Welsh local authorities and the Welsh Government on how these issues can be addressed.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Storm Darragh is the second serious storm to hit my Thornbury and Yate constituency in recent weeks; it came soon after Storm Bert, which caused serious flooding disruption. I thank everyone involved in the response. These storms are not going away; owing to the impacts of climate change, they are likely to get worse. We need a clear framework for local authorities, so that they know when they will get support and what that support will be. Can the Minister please provide some clarity on that?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We work very closely with the devolved Administrations, local resilience authorities and emergency responders regularly on how we can address this issue. The UK Resilience Academy will be launched in April next year, and it will be a great way for us to look at the lessons learned and at how we can strengthen our responses to such issues.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My residents in Bersted, in Pagham and across my constituency of Chichester live in constant fear of storms such as Darragh. They cause severe localised flooding, which often isolates communities and closes businesses, often for months on end. Funding is available for local communities to improve their flood resilience, but West Sussex county council cut that funding by a third this year, even though the problem in my patch is only getting worse. How does the Minister expect communities to be resilient to flooding if local councils are eroding the funding?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We do not have authority over what West Sussex county council does, but we have been advising councils, which are under a lot of pressure, on how they could look at their flood resilience. This issue is really important, but it has not always been championed. Hopefully, we can have that conversation and encourage people to play a role.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Hurley and Cookham in my constituency have been hit time and again by storms. What work are the Government doing to protect villages along the Thames, which often get flooded several days after a storm has passed?
Ms Oppong-Asare
As I mentioned, we have set up a flood resilience taskforce, which looks at constituencies such as the hon. Member’s to make sure that they are not affected. The Government will invest £22.4 billion until March 2026 in improving flood resilience and better protecting communities across the country. DSIT is also looking at UK power networks to see what role they could play. On the emergency alerts that were issued on Friday, we are looking at the lessons learned to see how they could be used effectively if we roll them out in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her positivity, and for her helpful answers; it is very clear that she is doing her best to make things better. I put on the record my thanks to all emergency service workers across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for their sterling efforts.
Storm Darragh saw the cancellation and delay of numerous trains and flights across Northern Ireland and, further afield, across the United Kingdom. Although that cannot be helped, thousands of people were at a financial loss due to the cancellations and delays. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that airlines and rail companies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do their bit to ensure that due compensation is paid to constituents, and that they do not lose out due to the weather conditions?
Ms Oppong-Asare
That is an issue on which we need to work collaboratively, particularly when it comes to the impact on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We need to see what the challenges are, and why these matters are not being addressed, particularly at local level.
Point of Order
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 August, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the closure of Yeovil district hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit. Despite following up several times, including with his senior staff, I have not received a response. On 2 December, I submitted a named-day parliamentary question for response on 6 December, but I have received only a holding answer. My understanding is that while Members can occasionally expect to receive a holding answer, we should usually receive a proper answer by the due date, or at least in a timely manner. From a previous parliamentary exchange, I understand that the decision to give a holding answer is determined by the terms of the question, how much information is sought and how difficult it is to obtain, but I do not believe that I am asking a question of great difficulty. What more can I do to ensure a response from the Department for my constituency of Yeovil?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is not responsible for the quality or timeliness of Ministers’ answers to correspondence or to questions, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has waited an awfully long time, both for a reply to his letter and for a substantive answer to his written question. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his remarks, and I hope that somebody from the Department of Health and Social Care is already drafting a response. I am sure that they will be in touch with him very soon to explain what is going on. I do not want to have to keep repeating this, but Members have a right to expect timely answers to correspondence, and to expect that when a holding answer is issued, a substantive reply will be along very soon thereafter. This seems to be a trend; it is becoming more and more apparent that Ministers are not responding. I am still waiting for a Minister in the Lords to respond to me, so I know the frustration well.
Bills Presented
Breast Cancer Screening (Review) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wera Hobhouse, supported by Clive Jones, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the current arrangements for breast cancer screening, including the potential merits of reducing the minimum age at which women are invited for regular breast cancer screening and of increasing the use of automated breast ultrasound; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 7 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 144).
Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ellie Chowns presented a Bill to require new buildings to meet net zero standards for embodied and operational carbon emissions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 11 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 148).
Building Regulations (Swift Bricks) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ellie Chowns presented a Bill to require the installation of swift bricks on new buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 11 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 149).
Rivers, Streams and Lakes (Protected Status) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Victoria Collins, supported by Jess Brown-Fuller, Dr Danny Chambers, Edward Morello, Tom Gordon, Alex Brewer, Calum Miller, Tessa Munt and Manuela Perteghella
presented a Bill to make provision for the designation of rivers, streams and lakes as having protected status; to specify criteria for minimum standards that a site must meet where it has been designated as a river, stream or lake with protected status; to set minimum standards of water quality, safety, environmental management and provision of information in relation to such sites; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 150).
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill 2024-26 View all Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; and for connected purposes.
Members across the House may wonder why first-cousin marriage is not already illegal. In fact, many in this House and in the country may already believe that it is. That is understandable, because as early as the middle of the fifth century in England, the Church practised the Roman doctrine on first-cousin marriage, which was clarified by the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the early eighth century, after he received a letter from Pope Gregory I. The letter cited Leviticus 18:6, which states that sacred law forbids a man to uncover the nakedness of his near kin. Throughout the centuries that followed, this canon law forbidding first-cousin marriage remained the norm, and by the 11th century it extended to sixth cousins.
This 1,000-year tradition of first-cousin marriage being illegal was continued until 1540, when King Henry VIII broke with Rome and legalised marriage between first cousins so that he could marry Catherine Howard, his fifth wife and a cousin of his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Sadly, both Catherine and Anne ended up facing a swift end at the block. However, the law pertaining to first-cousin marriage has been more enduring, remaining unchanged ever since.
Today, according to the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, cousin marriage is practised by about 10% of the world and is most prevalent in the middle east, west Asia and north Africa. However, the practice varies enormously within countries and by regional culture, reaching at its highest over 80% in parts of rural Pakistan. By contrast, in China and western countries it is less than 1%.
Patrick Nash, a visiting fellow at Oxford University’s faculty of theology and religion, describes how a region’s history of harsh conditions, such as resource-scarce rurality, proximity to conflict zones and industrial poverty, plays a major role in developing the cultures that practise first-cousin marriage. He argues that cousin marriage was at one time biologically beneficial for the survival of mankind, when times were especially hard and inhospitable. However, this does not carry forward into modern living conditions in our post-industrial age, where genetic and degenerative diseases are among the most severe threats to public health.
That brings us to the issue today. Certain diaspora communities have extremely high rates of first-cousin marriage, with a rate of 20% to 40% among Irish Travellers and higher rates still among the British Pakistani community. There is a worrying trend, as this rate has increased significantly from that of their grandparents’ age group. Although there have been some reports of the rate falling within the last decade as young people push back against the system, there remains an extraordinarily strong link.
I have already touched on why first-cousin marriage is problematic, but I will expand further, as there are three real issues at stake: health, freedom and our national values. The dangers of consanguineous relations have been appreciated throughout history. The consequences of extreme intergenerational cousin marriage within the Habsburg monarchy of Spain eventually led to the demise of the house itself and the war of the Spanish succession. That is very well documented. By the 19th century, the British Medical Journal had published many papers on ill health transmitted to children through first-cousin marriage. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself publicly expressed concerns based on his own experience of marrying his first cousin, with three of their 10 children sadly dying in childhood.
Today, the health risks are explicable in granular scientific detail. According to Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford University, the child of first cousins carries approximately double the risk of inheriting a serious disorder than the child of unrelated people. Health consequences can include: recessive disorders such as Tay-Sachs, cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis, which require lifelong treatment and can lead to premature death; an increased susceptibility to cancer and infectious pathogens such as hepatitis; birth defects including facial clefts and cardiovascular conditions; an increased risk of many illnesses, including schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s; and higher infant mortality. Moreover, where the parents come from multigenerational cousin parents of their own, this risk is compounded and intensified with every subsequent generation. The science is clear. First-cousin marriages should be banned on the basis of health risk alone.
The second issue at stake relates to freedom, and particularly the freedom of women. In my work in the last Parliament to ban so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, I saw at first hand through speaking to people how reproductive mechanisms are used to coerce and control women and girls where actions and freedoms are heavily controlled. Women and girls living under a clan mentality often know the scientific risks of first-cousin marriage but make considered social and cultural calculations. Strict honour codes—where expressions of individuality can be subject to social isolation, violence and even death—dominate thinking. Notions of dishonour can also significantly hinder a family’s standing among clan institutions, risking the family’s standing in the social hierarchy and materially affecting issues such as shared access to clan wealth. It is vital that we ensure that freedoms that have been hard fought for by women over centuries are protected.
Finally, alongside the impact on women’s rights, cousin marriage has a broader societal impact. Joseph Henrich, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, has found that cousin marriage does not just affect individual rights, but reshapes society. His research shows that cousin marriage declined in medieval Europe as individualism grew. The weakening of blind family ties led to the growth of individualism, natured trust of outsiders and, in turn, helped to develop a deeper civic responsibility beyond clan to country, allowing people to break free from the chains of clan, class and caste in their society.
Anthropologist Sir Jack Goody attributes the Church’s ban on cousin marriage as the driving force behind the breakdown of barriers between Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings in early English society. As people were enabled to marry outside their clan, sectarian affiliations were gradually dissolved, which paved the way for the modern nation state.
Britain is not unique in having had immigration in recent decades from some regions where first-cousin marriage is prevalent, and therefore there has been a revival in the practice that we moved away from centuries ago. Norway has already banned the practice, and Sweden and Denmark are looking to do the same. Much like so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, it is clear that the practice is not really conducive to modern British society.
As MPs, we are more than mere delegates but rather legislators for the mother of all Parliaments—our country. As MPs, we should be more than glorified social workers seeking to help constituents through the bureaucracy and the system. We have a role in changing things for the better too. Henry VIII changed the law on cousin marriage to suit his own personal interests and pursuits, but we should act in the national interest.
Of course, we should find a balance. I have outlined the risks to health, freedom—especially for women—and the cohesion of our society. For me, those risks tip the balance against personal freedoms. While there will be details to work through, I hope right hon. and hon. Members give me the chance to take the Bill forward to Second Reading, and that Government Front Benchers will look at the measures as a vehicle for positive change in our country. In the end, the legislation is about more than individual marriages; it is about the values and foundations of our society and our democracy.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) states, there are documented health risks with first-cousin marriage, and I agree that there is a need for greater awareness about that issue. Virginity testing and forced marriages must be prevented, and the freedom of women must be protected at all times.
However, the way to redress the issue is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I do not think such measures would be effective or enforceable. Instead, the matter needs to be approached as a health awareness issue and, where women are being forced against their will to undergo marriage, as a cultural awareness issue. In doing so, it is important to recognise that this is a highly sensitive issue for many people. In discussing it, we should try to step into the shoes of those who perhaps are not from the same culture as ours, to better understand why the practice continues to be so widespread.
An estimated 35% to 50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either prefer or accept cousin marriage, and it is extremely common in the middle east and south Asia. The reason the practice is so common is that ordinary people see family intermarriage as something that is very positive overall; as something that helps to build family bonds and puts families on a more secure financial foothold.
However, as is well documented, it is not without health risks for the children of those relationships, some of whom will be born out of wedlock. Instead of stigmatising those who are in cousin marriages, or those who are inclined to be, a much more positive approach would be to facilitate advanced genetic test screening for prospective married couples, as is the case in all Arab countries in the Persian gulf, and to run health education programmes targeting those communities where the practice is most common.
I therefore urge the House to vote against the motion and to find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriage, including the health risks, and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of populations around the world.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Dan Carden, Claire Coutinho, David Smith, Neil O’Brien, Lee Anderson, Mr Andrew Snowden, John Lamont, Nick Timothy, Katie Lam and Laura Trott present the Bill.
Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 146).
Finance Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
14:17 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:56 - divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 350 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name. “Madam Chair” or “Chair” will also suffice.
Clause 7
Main rates of CGT for gains other than carried interest gains
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clauses 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Impact assessment: capital gains tax—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in clauses 7 to 12 and schedules 1 and 2 of this Act, on—
(a) long-term investment;
(b) disposable income across different income deciles, and
(c) tax revenue.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of changes to Capital Gains Tax made in this Act on investment and the disposable income of taxpayers across different income deciles.
New clause 4—Section 12: review—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in section 12 of this Act on—
(a) the timing of asset disposals or transactions;
(b) shifting between different assets;
(c) shifting between gains and income;
(d) tax planning;
(e) migration; and
(f) non-compliance by non-payment, misreporting or underreporting of chargeable assets, gains or income.”
New clause 5—Business asset disposal relief: review of increase in rate—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of the provisions of section 8 on the number of Business Asset Disposal Relief claims involving the sale of a business.
(2) The assessment must compare estimates for the number of claims involving the sale of a business in the tax year 2024-25 with the number of such claims in the tax year 2025-26.
(3) The assessment must compare the impact under the provisions of section 8 with what impact could have been expected had the rate remained unchanged”.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
Since 2010, the UK has experienced low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services. Public sector net debt is at its highest since the early 1960s, at 98.5% of GDP. Per capita, GDP remains lower that before the covid-19 pandemic.
In July this year, the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance, with a £22 billion in-year pressure in the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s review into March’s spending forecasts concluded that had the information that has since been shared by the Treasury been made available to it at the time of the March Budget, there would have been a materially higher departmental expenditure limits forecast for 2024 to 2025. This was the result of the previous Government not factoring in the impact of a series of new, challenging pressures on the public finances, not taking the difficult decisions needed to address these pressures, and instead making a series of commitments that they could not fund.
This Government are committed to fixing the foundations and delivering a decade of national renewal. To do so, we must turn the page and take a different approach. In the autumn Budget, the House will have heard the Chancellor set out the Government’s first steps to repair the public finances, by taking the tough decisions needed to address the £22 billion in-year pressures to avoid further damage to our public services, including securing £5.5 billion of savings.
We are also putting in place significant reforms to strengthen our fiscal and spending framework that will improve certainty, transparency and accountability, and ensure that the situation can never happen again. This Government are taking the tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare that are necessary to repair the public finances and restore economic and fiscal stability. Those choices are not easy, but they are transparent, they are responsible and, with such a difficult position, they will ensure that the Government can deliver on our commitments not to increase taxes on working people.
The changes to the main rates of capital gains tax in clauses 7 to 11 will help to address the gap in public finances while retaining the UK’s internationally competitive investment climate. The new rates are revenue-maximising in the current design of the tax system, generating an additional £8.9 billion over the forecast period. The UK’s headline CGT rates will remain lower than those of France, Germany and Italy, and the highest rate is still lower than it was between 2010 and 2016. The new rates will mostly affect people who earn income from selling financial assets. The Government are taking the difficult but responsible decision to ask that group to pay a little bit more tax in order to restore economic stability.
Clause 12 represents the first step in a package of reforms to the taxation of carried interest by increasing the applicable rates of capital gains tax to 32% for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025. The reforms will put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.
I will begin with clauses 7 to 9, concerning the capital gains tax package. CGT is charged on individuals’ annual capital gains, net of losses and allowable costs. Less than 1% of adults pay CGT per year. There are lower rates available for reliefs, including business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. CGT has an annual exempt amount of £3,000 for individuals, which keeps people with lower levels of capital gains out of the system.
To repair the public finances and help raise the revenue required to increase funding for public services, the Government are increasing the main rates of CGT. The clauses will increase the lower main rate of CGT from 10% to 18% and increase the higher rate from 20% to 24%. Those changes affect disposables made on or after 30 October 2024. The clauses also increase the CGT rate at which business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief are charged in a phased way from 10% to 14%, effective from 6 April 2025, and from 14% to 18%, effective from 6 April 2026. Phasing in the rate increases for those CGT reliefs demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a predictable tax system.
The Government accept that for some entrepreneurs, a lower CGT rate will be factored into their plans for exiting the business, which can be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Although it is right to increase CGT rates to raise revenue, it is also fair to give business owners some time to adjust. The changes will raise £2.5 billion per year by the end of the forecast period, while ensuring the UK’s headline CGT rates remain below those of France, Germany and Italy.
Turning to clause 10, investors’ relief offers access to the lower rates of CGT on the disposal of qualifying unlisted shares. Its objective is to provide the financial incentive for individuals to invest in unlisted trading companies over the long term and help companies in accessing other forms of investment. The lifetime limit for investors’ relief was previously £10 million, compared with business asset disposable relief’s lifetime limit of £1 million. We feel that that disparity in lifetime limits is unfair towards entrepreneurs and could encourage harmful tax planning strategies. The changes made by clause 10 will reduce the lifetime limit for investors’ relief to match that of business asset disposal relief at £1 million of qualifying gains per person. Investors’ relief has received little take-up since its introduction in 2016, and so the Government expect that the measure will affect a very small number of individuals.
Turning to clause 11 and schedule 2, which introduce transitional arrangements and anti-forestalling rules, the transitional arrangements are consistent with similar rules put in place when CGT rates were charged in-year in 2010. The anti-forestalling rules draw on the approach taken when changes were made to business asset disposal relief in 2020. Transitional arrangements are needed for a small group of taxpayers in some specific circumstances. Those taxpayers will have capital gains that are ascribed to the 2024-25 tax year in general and not to any particular point in the year, and because clause 7 makes in-year changes, the Government have a legal responsibility to clarify the capital gains tax liabilities of those taxpayers. To avoid taxing those individuals retrospectively, the legislation puts in place transitional arrangements. The relevant capital gains are treated as arising in the earlier part of the year and are therefore subject to the previous rate schedule. From April 2025, there will be no need for those arrangements to remain.
I now turn to anti-forestalling rules. Some taxpayers will have tried to lock in the old rate by entering into various artificial arrangements and specific anti-forestalling rules are needed to prevent abuse. The anti-forestalling rules target disposals entered into before 30 October 2024 but completed after that date for the main rate change and the investors’ relief lifetime limit reduction. They also target disposals entered into on or after 30 October 2024 for the phased rate changes applying to business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. The provisions ensure that such people can still access the previous rates and the previous investors’ relief lifetime limit, but only where the disposal has not been artificially structured for the purpose of securing a tax advantage.
I now turn to clause 12, which concerns CGT on carried interest gains. Carried interest is a form of performance-related reward that is received by a small number of individuals who work as fund managers and, unlike other such rewards, carried interest can, where certain conditions are met, be subject to capital gains tax. Hon. Members will have heard the Chancellor announce at the Budget that the Government will reform the way carried interest is taxed, ensuring that that is fairer and in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. From 6 April 2026, a revised regime will tax all carried interest within the income tax framework with a 72.5% multiplier applied to the amount of qualifying carried interest that is brought into charge. The Government are also consulting on potential new conditions of access to the regime. Legislation to implement that revised regime will be included in a future finance Bill.
In advance of the implementation of the revised regime, the Government are acting now to increase the rates of capital gains tax that apply to carried interest. Clause 12 therefore increases the rates of capital gains tax for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025 from 18% and 28% to 32%, and from that date, the single CGT rate will apply to all relevant carried interest, subject to the same conditions as currently.
To conclude, the increases to the main rates of CGT to 18% and 24% represent a balanced and responsible approach to revenue raising, which will help the Government to improve the UK’s public finances and services while remaining competitive for investment. The clauses phase in the rate increase for business asset disposal relief over 18 months to mitigate impacts where the previous level of relief was factored into anyone’s plans to exit their business in the short term. That underlines the Government’s commitment to supporting entrepreneurs and recognising the vital role that small businesses play in our economy. In addition, the move to a single higher rate of CGT on carried interest at 32% demonstrates the Government’s commitment to decisive action now, while we rightly take the time to undertake technical consultation on the revised regime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Members that, in Committee, I am Madam Chair or Madam Chairman.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always a pleasure to see you in Committee and to serve under your chairmanship.
On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor. Before I do so, let me set the scene for clauses 7 to 12.
When announcing these changes in her Budget, the Chancellor said:
“We need to drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 818.]
She said something similar to the BBC in 2023:
“We want Britain to be the best place to start and grow a business”
and that was why, she said
“I don’t have any plans to increase capital gains tax.”
This Bill corrects the record. Labour wants to increase capital gains tax, so clearly it does not have any plans for Britain to be the best place in which to start and grow a business. Is it any wonder that business confidence is now at the lowest level we have seen since the pandemic?
Clause 7 increases the main rates of capital gains tax from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24% respectively, with schedule 1 making consequential changes to reflect that these rates are now equal to those on residential property. The Office for Budget Responsibility rates the costings on this policy as “highly uncertain”. It says that
“these costings are among the most uncertain in the policy package, reflecting the range of potential behavioural responses.”
This Government are far too quick to ask others to explain how they would pay for Labour’s policies, when they are clearly failing to explain convincingly how their own policies would pay for themselves.
I wish to take this opportunity to highlight an issue raised with me by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. First, let me place on record my thanks to the organisation for its invaluable support. It has been informed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is too late to change the format of the relevant 2024-25 tax return pages to accommodate this in-year change. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister could provide the following assurances to HMRC: first, that it will be properly equipped to implement this measure; secondly, that the changes will be published as widely as possible; and, thirdly, that an appropriate level of understanding will be shown to taxpayers contending with these complications.
Clauses 8 and 9 increase the rates for gains that qualify for business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. From 6 April 2025, the 10% rate will increase to 14%. From 6 April 2026, it will rise again to 18%. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, because the increase to the main rates of capital gains tax is effective immediately, this leaves a window where people selling their business can save up to 14% in capital gains tax until April 2025. In other words, the tax changes in this Bill do not cultivate a start-up Britain; they incentivise British business owners to sell up and sell up soon. This could have been avoided—along with the administrative complications that I have already outlined—had measures in clause 7 been implemented from the start of the new financial year.
Will the Minister explain why the timings of these provisions appear to be so untidy, and, for that matter, how exactly they drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation? I simply say that if hon. Members are not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, I encourage them to vote for new clause 5, which would require a proper assessment of the impact of this perverse incentive.
Clause 10 reduces the lifetime limit for investors’ relief from £10 million to £1 million, while clause 11 and schedule 2 bring in transitional rules and anti-forestalling provisions. On those anti-forestalling provisions, the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that the anti-avoidance measures risk being “unfairly retrospective”, capturing those who entered into commercial contracts in good faith before the Budget, on the grounds that they do not satisfy the stringent requirement put down by the Treasury to be “wholly commercial”. Will the Minister tell the House why the wording is so tight? Widespread concern over being hit with “unfairly retrospective” taxation would have a chilling effect on parts of the economy. It would exacerbate uncertainty among those who already feel that they have been blindsided by this Government.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I will talk mostly about new clause 5 on capital gains tax, but, given the remarks by the shadow Minister, I will make a few points on the broader matter and on incentives to start a new business.
My constituency of Earley and Woodley in the Thames Valley is one of the hottest destinations for business investment and for new start-ups in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. I have met a number of those inspiring entrepreneurs to talk about their start of the business journey. As is widely known, when entrepreneurs start passionately with a project, they are thinking not about the disposal and taxation regime at the end of their journey, but about the infrastructure and the support that they will have around them that brings their idea to fruition. For the tech and pharmaceutical entrepreneurs in Earley and Woodley, that is about a transport infrastructure, a skills base, and schools, colleges and universities in the area that can produce the kinds of graduates who will then staff their company. It is about a regime that is welcoming to entrepreneurship and is welcoming for people to live in and to prosper in. For all those reasons, I very much support our Budget and the Budget that brings more investment to infrastructure across the UK.
First, I welcome the measures on capital gains tax introduced in new clause 5. Let me remind Conservative Members that it was Chancellor Nigel Lawson who, in a much more dramatic measure than that proposed today, equalised the rate of capital gains tax with income tax in 1988. That equalisation was proposed because of tax avoidance. To many people listening to the debate, capital gains tax will not be familiar because, like me, their main means of taxation will be income tax and they will not have come into contact with CGT.
For the purposes of understanding, let me illustrate what I mean by “tax avoidance”. The issue was raised with me by a retired consultant when I was canvassing in the summer in the north of my constituency. When I knocked on his door, he said, “What are you going to do about capital gains tax? I want you to ensure that this doesn’t happen any more.” He then proceeded to illustrate the means by which he had paid less income tax than he otherwise would have done through the capital gains tax system. It was a principled and honourable admission for him to make to his then parliamentary candidate on the doorstep.
Many of us pay income tax, and we are all familiar with the way that it is structured. Among those of us who do not receive income from payroll—that is, who do not work for a company—but have the ability to structure it as self-employed or consultancy income and funnel it into a business of our own creation, that is a channel by which many people avoid paying income tax on activities that are arguably income-like. That happens, as I said, for a minority of people in the UK. The vast majority do not have access to that route because they earn through working for other people through companies, and they are on the payroll and not able to structure their own companies. When those companies holding the—arguably—income revenues are disposed of, that is when capital gains tax comes into the picture. Of course, the rate of capital gains tax is much lower than the rate of income tax, and that is where the gap comes from that was illustrated by my retired constituent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that the tax system is efficient in raising revenues, which is what our Budget sets out. The tax system must also be principled in ensuring that the tax purposes to which we have allocated certain measures raise the right taxes and are targeted towards the kinds of activities that are meant to be taxed. All of us in the Committee would probably agree that we should pay tax through a progressive system that distinguishes between different forms of revenue-raising activities, but that allocates people fairly and proportionately to those right and relevant activities.
I am reminded of the announcements that came out during the last Government regarding the tax affairs of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who paid 23% in average tax on his £2.2 million in earnings. That was of course possible because of the relatively low rate of capital gains tax that he was paying on the vast majority of his earnings, which came through capital and not through earned income.
Again, to the vast majority of people listening to the debate, I am sure that that is a reality far outside their understanding. The vast majority of people in the UK earn income through going out to work and working hard every day. It is for those people—the working people of this country—that this Budget has been made, so that we can lift livelihoods across the country by properly funding our public services and by closing the significant in-year overspend that the previous Government made of £22 billion. Through those measures, and by ensuring the financial stability of our tax system and the economic stability of our country, we will start to raise living standards across the UK. For those reasons, I very much support the measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
As colleagues will notice, the Speaker’s Chair is vacant, so I remind Members that the Chair should be addressed as Madam Chair or Madam Chairman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I commend the Government for looking at capital gains tax as a potential source of revenue to get public services back on their feet, but we Liberal Democrats believe there was a better way of doing it. Right now, capital gains tax is unfair for everyone. Most people already pay too much capital gains tax when they sell a property or a few shares because the system does not account for inflation over the time they have owned them. At the same time, a tiny number of super-wealthy individuals—the top 0.1%—are able to exploit the capital gains system as effectively one giant loophole to avoid paying income tax like everyone else.
According to the latest HMRC statistics, 12,000 multimillionaires used the loophole to pay less than half the top rate of income tax on their combined £50 billion of income. Instead of raising capital gains tax across the board, we Liberal Democrats would have liked to see the Government properly reform CGT to make it much fairer. To provide a comparison, under the Labour Government’s proposals, the main rate of capital gains tax for basic rate taxpayers is being increased from 10% to 18% and, for higher and additional rate taxpayers, from 20% to 24%. According to the Government’s own statistics, the change will raise about £2.5 billion per year by 2029 to 2030. Under the Liberal Democrat proposal, we would have separated out capital gains tax from income, raised the tax-free allowance, provided a new allowance for inflation and had three different rates of capital gains tax. That would have raised £5.2 billion, more than twice the Government’s proposals.
As colleagues will hear, key to our proposal is the reintroduction of indexation—effectively, an allowance keeping people from paying tax on gains that are purely the result of inflation. That would be fair for ordinary people selling a family home or a few shares, but it would also incentivise long-term investment by ensuring that taxpayers are not penalised due to inflation if they hold their assets for a long period of time.
To summarise, the Liberal Democrat proposals for reforming capital gains tax would be fairer and would raise twice as much. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said our proposals would move CGT in a “sensible direction”. Our new clause 1 is incredibly simple. It would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of the changes to capital gains tax under the Bill on investment and on the disposable income of people in different income brackets. The objective behind the new clause is to illustrate to the Government that there is a fairer way to reform capital gains tax and to encourage the Government, in the spirit of constructive opposition, to look at our proposals in future years.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in Committee of the whole House on a crucial Bill that underpins the new Government’s aim of fixing a tax system that has become less fair and less sustainable over 14 years of Conservative government. We will ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share, and we will increase funding for public services. I will not detain hon. Members long as we have debated the measures at length already, but I want to make a few brief comments on the portions of the Bill that relate to capital gains tax.
As other Members have pointed out, we need to remind ourselves of our starting point. As the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Paul Johnson, said in his response to the Budget:
“It does bear repeating that the fiscal inheritance”
—that this Government face—
“is truly dire.”
It is in that context that the Bill and the wider measures announced at the Budget should be seen. As the IFS has set out, and Members have mentioned, capital gains tax is paid by less than 1% of the adult population—about 350,000 people. If we break that down further, around 12,000 people—0.2% of the adult population—realise gains of more than £1 million, which account for two thirds of capital gains tax. That is 12,000 people—the main contributors to capital gains tax—paying a little bit more.
Clause 7 raises the headline rates of capital gains tax to 18% for gains within the basic income band for basic rate taxpayers and to 24% for those who pay higher rate income tax. Those levels have risen to match the unchanging residential property rates. The changes are welcome and perhaps not as substantial as was widely speculated in advance. It is important that we look at comparators with neighbouring countries. Those rates, even after the changes, compare well with our European neighbours. In France, as the Minister already said, capital gains tax sits at 30%, rising to 34% for high earners. Our closest neighbour Ireland—often seen as a haven for entrepreneurs who feel that the UK is not a good place to do business—charges 33%, and in Germany it is charged at 25%, plus a 5.5% solidarity surcharge on the tax paid.
Clause 12 includes a long-needed reform in the treatment of carried interest, and I am pleased that the Government are proceeding carefully with this long-overdue measure, moving us towards a tax regime where carried interest is within the income tax framework.
These measures will, I believe, contribute to the crucial revenue that must be raised to fix the foundations of our economy and repair our public services. We need to remind ourselves of the words of George Dibb, the associate director of economic policy at the Institute for Public Policy Research, who said of the changes in the Budget:
“After at least a decade of under-investment, there is now real hope that the government can start to fix the UK’s economic foundations.”
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that.
Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK.
The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million.
CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding:
“There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.”
Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill.
The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, and have saved the best until last. I call Bobby Dean.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Before I address capital gains tax directly, I will make a few short remarks about the state of the national conversation about tax more generally, which I think is highly relevant. I note that tax is always something to be “hit by” in politics—it is violent; we are “hammered” by it—so the debate ends up focusing on who is deserving or undeserving of such punishment. As a result, few organisations are viewed as legitimate targets for taxation. Very rarely do we in politics have the bravery to talk about the virtue of paying tax—what it pays for, how it benefits us all, and why collectively contributing to schools, hospitals and physical infrastructure is sensible investment that we should be proud to make.
That is where the political conversation falls slightly out of step with the mood of the public. Believe it or not, I have had conversations about tax on the doorstep, and I mostly meet people who are proud to make that contribution. Let me be clear: this is not some special plea to talk about tax in a warmer, fuzzier way in order to improve the civility of public discourse. Nor should it be confused for advocacy of a high-tax based economy. I raise that point because our distorted public conversation means that we end up with a dysfunctional tax system that is neither efficient nor equitable. Where we are with capital gains tax is a good example of that.
Decades of wrangling over whether capital gains tax stifles entrepreneurship or is merely a ruse for the rich often results in a pretty reductive focus on rates. It seems that that happened again in the Budget, and I fear that we have missed an opportunity to make that tax better. As others have explained in putting capital gains tax into context, it is paid by around 350,000 people and raises around 2% of total tax revenue, and 12,000 people account for two thirds of that revenue. That tax does not necessarily affect a broad section of society, but it does play an important role in investment in the economy and in the overall sense of fairness in our system.
Let me start with the economy. It makes no sense to me for the Government to make changes to capital gains tax without sorting out the tax base. If we do not index capital gains for inflation, we are not really taxing the thing that we say we are taxing. We should be focused on the real gains—otherwise, we risk taxing those who simply hold on to an asset for a long time, and ultimately we end up discouraging long-term investment.
Secondly, we ought to be targeting capital gains tax at those making the larger gains—if large gains are to be had, those investments will be made anyway. Smaller gains, however—the stuff at the margins—are where investment decisions could be at risk. Raising the CGT allowance a bit would go a long way towards addressing that, as would designing better-targeted reliefs that more precisely encourage investment.
Finally, we come to capital gains tax rates, whose alignment with income tax rates is often called for. The Government have of course moved a bit on that, but a focus on rates alone means that an inherent unfairness remains. There would still be the sense that there is one rule for small businesses and another for the giants. When he appeared before the Treasury Committee, Paul Johnson of the IFS remarked on another unfairness: someone can simply leave the country for a few years and dispose of an assets overseas—somewhere like Monaco—and they are then no longer responsible for capital gains tax. That is another inherent unfairness.
Ultimately, with the proposed changes only, the system will continue to disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest. It is for that reason that I cannot support the measure. If it passes, I hope the Government will consider carefully the impact of the change in isolation, and whether further reforms are necessary in future. Our tax system needs to ensure that everybody pays their fair share, and I do not think the Government have quite got this one right yet.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the Front-Bench wind-ups. Does the shadow Minister wish to speak?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points, and will then give the Government’s views on the proposed amendments. If there are questions that I do not answer, I will write to hon. Members.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his important speech and agree with his points about much-needed reform to our tax system. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her powerful speech and wholeheartedly agree with her constituent, who seems very principled and knowledgeable.
To respond to the points made by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), about the revenue impacts of the carried interest measure, the OBR-certified costings demonstrate that this measure raises revenue over the scorecard period. The Budget does deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on tax: estimated revenues for these policies have been adjusted for final policy decisions and to account for underlying changes in the OBR’s forecast, but overall, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the tax measures raise over £1 billion more than was in the manifesto.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about why the changes are being made in-year, the in-year rate changes were made to protect Exchequer revenues from the impacts of forestalling. It is common practice for tax changes to take effect from the date of the Budget. As for anti-forestalling, we would not expect the anti-forestalling provisions to apply to an ordinary commercial sale of an asset where the contract was entered into prior to 30 October. Those provisions target those who enter into artificial arrangements to lock in the pre-Budget tax treatments.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), talked about inflation indexation of CGT. Indexation previously existed when CGT rates were charged at income tax levels with a top rate of 40%. A rate schedule of 18% and 24% is significantly below those levels, so for the important reason of simplicity, indexation is not a part of the system.
New clause 1 would require the Government to present to Parliament a review of the capital gains tax package’s impacts on long-term investment, disposable income across the distribution, and tax revenue. In deciding on these changes to capital gains tax, the Government have already considered all three factors. On long-term investment, the OBR assessed the CGT package to have no measure-specific macroeconomic impact. On impacts across incomes, distributional analysis for all Budget measures combined is set out in the “Impact on households” publication. The Government do not normally publish the impacts of individual measures. Finally, the Government’s projection of the revenue raised by these CGT changes has been certified by the OBR and published in the Budget document. Every year, the Government publish the amount of CGT paid in the most recent tax year with available data, where table 3 breaks down gains by income. For those reasons, the proposed report is unnecessary, and I implore Members to reject the new clause.
New clause 4 would require the Government to publish a review within three months of the passing of this legislation covering various issues in connection with our reforms to the tax treatment of carried interest. As set out earlier, the CGT rates applicable to carried interest will increase to 32% from April 2025. This is a first step in advance of moving to a revised regime fully within the income tax framework from April 2026. The Government believe that their reforms will deliver increased fairness and place the tax rules on a more sustainable footing, while preserving our country’s position as a global fund management hub. We will also be undertaking extensive technical consultation ahead of legislating for the revised regime in a future finance Bill, which the House will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise. We therefore do not consider that new clause 4 is a necessary addition to the Bill that is before us today.
Gareth Davies
I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining all the things she has just set out, but I did not quite get an answer to the specific question of why it costs HMRC £4.5 million to execute this tax rise, which will not raise any money in the next year or the year after. Could she explain why this specific measure that only affects 3,100 people costs HMRC £4.5 million, but other tax increases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Tulip Siddiq
If the shadow Minister looks carefully at the documents we have published, he will find all his answers written out very clearly there.
New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an impact assessment of the changes to business asset disposal relief, and to compare the impact of those changes with the number of claims that would have been expected if the rate had not been changed. Every year, the Government publish capital gains tax statistics, which include the number of business asset disposal relief claims for the most recent tax year with available data. The number of claims in 2024-25 compared with upcoming tax years will therefore become public information in time. Meanwhile, the fiscal impact of the changes are is out in the tax information and impacts note for this measure, which has been published online.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 16 to 18 stand part.
Schedule 3.
New clause 2—Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.
New clause 3—Changes to energy (oil and gas) profits levy: review—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in sections 15 to 18 on—
(a) employment in the UK oil and gas industry;
(b) capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry;
(c) UK oil and gas production;
(d) UK oil and gas demand; and
(e) the Scottish economy and economic growth in Scotland.”
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the Budget in October, the Chancellor set out the decisions that we are taking to restore economic stability, put the public finances on a firm footing, and embed fiscal responsibility in the work of Government. Having wiped the slate clean of the mess we inherited, our Government can now focus on boosting the public and private investment that is essential for sustainable long-term growth. It is through sustainable economic growth across the UK that we will create wealth and provide security, making people across the country better off.
That goal of raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pocket is at the heart of the Government’s plan for change that the Prime Minister set out last week. That plan also set out the Government’s commitment to securing home-grown energy, and to protecting bill payers by putting us on track to secure at least 95% clean power by 2030. Making the transition to home-grown energy has required us to take immediate action to unblock investment, including deciding to reverse the de facto ban on onshore wind. The Government have their part to play, alongside the private sector, in making sure that investment happens on the scale and at the pace that we need. That is why the clauses that we are debating are so important—they are a key mechanism for raising the funding that is needed for that investment to be delivered.
We are taking a responsible approach that recognises the role of businesses and their employees in the energy industries of today and tomorrow. Since we formed a Government, my colleagues and I have been working closely with the sector affected by the energy profits levy to make sure that the transition is managed in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries. Our approach recognises that oil and gas will have a role to play in the energy mix for many years to come, during the transition, and it balances that with ensuring that oil and gas help to raise the revenue that we need to drive investment towards the energy transition. Our legislation delivers that approach, and I welcome the chance to set out the details of how it does so.
The clauses that we are debating concern the energy profits levy, a temporary additional tax on profits from oil and gas exploration and production in the UK and on the UK continental shelf. The levy was introduced by the previous Government in response to the extraordinary profits being made by oil and gas companies—and, it is fair to say, in response to substantial political pressure from Labour Members.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?
James Murray
I believe that it is fair that the oil and gas industry makes a reasonable contribution to the energy transition. We need to ensure that during the transition from oil and gas, which will play a key role in our energy mix for years to come, the industry contributes to the new, clean energy of the future. The way to have a responsible, managed transition is to work with the industry and make sure that it makes a fair contribution, but to not shy away from making that transition at the scale and pace needed.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let me try to understand the Minister’s logic. First, he recognises that we will need oil and gas. Secondly, he is going to tax oil and gas companies. Thirdly, he is telling them that his Government are creating an environment in which there is no future for oil and gas, but he still expects them to invest. Where is the logic?
James Murray
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to set out why the Government plan is the right and balanced approach. We are ensuring that the oil and gas sector is supported in making the contribution that we know it will to our energy mix for many years to come, while asking it to contribute to the transition to clean energy. The oil and gas industry recognises that a transition to clean energy is under way. It wants to support investment and jobs in the industry but also to contribute to the transition. Taking a fair and balanced approach is the right way to protect the jobs and industries of today and tomorrow and, crucially, to protect bill payers, giving them permanently lower bills and greater energy independence. [Interruption.]
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
In the last financial year, the oil and gas industry made £6.1 billion in profit, despite the chuntering from Opposition Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives introduced the energy levy? We are simply ensuring that our oil and gas sector pays an equivalent sum, so that we can transition to a green energy future. This money is necessary for that transition to occur.
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are asking oil and gas companies to make a fair and reasonable contribution towards our transition to clean energy. That transition is under way, and it is important for oil and gas companies to make a contribution, but that should happen in a way that protects the jobs and industries of today and tomorrow.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The oil and gas giants were making eye-watering profits when the Conservative Government finally introduced a levy, although it had a loophole that let the oil and gas companies off the hook. The Government should support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which demonstrates how much of a missed opportunity that was, and how much money we could have raised, had the loophole been closed earlier.
James Murray
I am not entirely clear that that is what the Liberal Democrat amendment does. We have been clear that our intention is to end unjustifiably generous allowances. That is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance, which was unique to oil and gas taxation and is not available to any other sector in the economy.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
New research published in the last few days has found that fossil fuel companies reported profits of nearly $0.5 trillion during the 2022 energy crisis. By contrast, people struggled with fuel poverty and had to choose between heating and eating. One in seven households in my constituency is in fuel poverty. Does the Minister agree that the ability to extend and increase the energy profits levy is a key lever for addressing this imbalance and supporting households?
The Chairman
Order. That was neatly done, but interventions have to be very closely related to what we are debating here and now.
James Murray
I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from lower bills as a result of the investment that we are ensuring, by the public and private sectors, in the clean energy sources of the future.
We knew, when the Conservatives introduced the energy profits levy, that the extraordinary oil and gas profits were driven by global circumstances, including resurgent demand after covid-19, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Households in the UK, however, were particularly badly hit by higher oil and gas prices, as the Government at the time had failed to invest adequately in energy independence, or in measures such as home insulation. When the energy profits levy was introduced, an 80% investment allowance was also introduced, and this was later reduced to 29% when the levy rate increased from 25% to 35% in January 2023. An 80% decarbonisation investment allowance was later put in place for decarbonisation expenditure, which is money spent on the reduction of emissions from the production of oil and gas. The levy was initially set at 25%, but the previous Government increased it to 35% and extended it beyond 2025, first to 2028, and later to 2029.
As I mentioned, the Government recognise the continued role for oil and gas in the UK’s energy mix during the energy transition. We are committed to managing the transition in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries, recognising that our offshore workers have the vital skills to unlock the clean industries of the future. I put on record my thanks to the offshore workers I met in Aberdeen in August for giving me some of their time and their views when I was there for a meeting with Offshore Energies UK and representatives of the sector. As I mentioned, it is essential that we drive both public and private investment in the transition to clean energy. Clause 15 therefore increases the energy profits levy by three percentage point—from 35% to 38%—from 1 November 2024. The clause also sets out the rules for apportioning profits for accounting periods that straddle the start date. As I have made clear, the money raised by these changes will help to support the transition to clean energy, enhancing our energy security and providing sustainable jobs for the future.
Clause 16 concerns allowances in the levy. The clause removes the 29% core investment allowance for general expenditure incurred on or after 1 November 2024, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government have been clear about our intention to end unjustifiably generous allowances, and that is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance. We are bringing the level of relief for investment in the sector broadly in line with the level of capital allowances available to other companies operating across the rest of the economy through full expensing, which we have committed to maintaining. The energy profit levy’s decarbonisation allowance will be retained to support the sector in reducing emissions.
Qualifying expenditure includes money spent on electrification of production, or on reducing venting and flaring. The retention of the decarbonisation allowance reflects the Government’s commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy. However, in the light of the increase to the levy, clause 16 also reduces the rate of the decarbonisation allowance to 66% in order to maintain the same cash value of the tax relief per £100 of investment.
Clause 17 extends the sunset of the levy by one year from 31 March 2029 to 31 March 2030. To provide the oil and gas industry with long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime, we are retaining the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism.
Dave Doogan
Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?
James Murray
I would like to explain to the hon. Gentleman how the energy security investment mechanism works, because that, to be fair, was put in place by the previous Government, and we are maintaining it. It says that if prices drop below a certain threshold for six months, the energy profits levy ceases early. That gives some certainty and predictability to the oil and gas sector. If prices go below that level, the sector can have confidence that the energy security investment mechanism will end the levy early. If that does not happen, the levy will continue, as we have said, until March 2030.
I am keen—I will set out a few more details later—to engage with the oil and gas sector on the regime post the energy profits levy, because it is important for oil and gas companies making decisions about investment to have certainty about what will happen up until March 2030, and to understand what the regime might be like thereafter. That is why I am looking forward to my conversations with the sector on what the post energy profits levy regime will look like.
Long-term certainty and confidence is being provided to the oil and gas sector by our retention of the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism, which I was explaining to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). It means that the levy will cease permanently if oil and gas prices fall below a set level for a sustained period. Furthermore, as I also just said, to provide stability for the long term, the Government will publish a consultation in early 2025 on how the tax regime will respond to price shocks once the energy profits levy comes to an end. That will give oil and gas producers and their investors predictability and certainty on the future of the fiscal regime, which will support their ability to continue investing, while also ensuring that the nation receives a fair return at a time of exceptional crisis.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Gareth Davies
I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition on new clause 3, which stands in the name of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).
Clauses 15 to 18 concern the taxation of the oil and gas industry, which meets 75% of the UK’s household and industrial energy needs, with 50% of that need being met by the North sea. The sector supports more than 200,000 high-skilled jobs in this country, and that talent, along with the rest of the supply chain, will be crucial to our domestic energy transition. These realities underscore the imperative of a smooth and efficient transition and a fiscal regime that facilitates that, not least because the timeline for investment in the oil and gas industry is so long. If the fiscal regime is not calibrated correctly, the damage may be irreversible and the costs will be significant.
To recap the measures in the Bill, clause 15 increases the rate of the energy profits levy from 35% to 38%, bringing the headline tax rate on the sector up to 78%. Clause 16 removes the 29% investment allowance and reduces the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66%, so that the cash value of that allowance remains the same. Clause 17 extends the energy profits levy to 2030, at which point the Government are committing to implementing a successor regime to respond to price shocks once the levy expires. Clause 18 and schedule 3 legislate for certain payments into decommissioning funds to be treated as decommissioning expenditure so that they can attract tax relief.
The question that many are asking is this: do these measures add up to a fiscal regime that facilitates a smooth and efficient energy transition? Not according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concludes that on average over the forecast period, capital expenditure will be 26% lower, oil production 6.3% lower and gas production 9.2% lower compared with our March forecasts. Those are dramatic movements. The University of Aberdeen has warned:
“A rise in the EPL and loss of investment and capital allowances may have the unintended effect of accelerating decommissioning and decelerating the energy transition as companies face an additional cost burden.”
The Government have thankfully carried out a partial U-turn, retaining the decarbonisation allowance and the 100% first-year allowance introduced by the Conservative party, but if they were persuaded of the importance of those investment allowances and that removing them would do more harm than good, why persist with removing the main 29% investment allowance? What was it about that relief compared with the others that made them want to scrap it?
The Government talk about closing loopholes—we saw how well that went with carried interest—but these measures will contribute just 1% of the new revenue raised by the Budget across this Parliament. Does the Minister really think it is worth jeopardising some 50% of our domestic gas supply for that? The measures in the Budget essentially throw a massive spanner in the works for oil and gas, and it is unclear exactly what the Government’s rationale is for doing that.
When we brought in the levy, it was to tax extraordinary profits in extraordinary times. The revenue that we raised contributed to our efforts through policies such as the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme to reduce energy bills for the British people. Today, as those extraordinary circumstances subside, Labour is ratcheting up the levy. That sends a mixed message to the industry ahead of the consultation on a successor regime. The terms of that regime will supposedly be set by the need to respond to price shocks, yet the Government’s justification for these measures has nothing to do with price shocks. Instead, they are all dressed up in language about the sector making a “fair contribution”, as the Minister said, to the Energy Secretary’s environmental ideological ambitions. What is the Government’s vision for the taxation of oil and gas in this United Kingdom—temporary windfall taxes or permanent climate levies? The Bill suggests the latter. I would be grateful for the Minister specifically commenting on that when he responds.
One way in which the Minister could give an indication and provide some long-term certainty would be to confirm further the future of the energy security investment mechanism, which he mentioned. As he kindly said, we introduced the ESIM so that when prices returned to normal levels, the energy profits levy would end; no more windfall profits would mean no more windfall tax. Will he confirm that the ESIM will remain in place up to 2030? I think he said so at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful for his reconfirming its end date. Will he go further and confirm that it will remain in the same condition as today? Will the price floor continue to be consumer prices index-adjusted?
The Treasury and the Minister have said that the ESIM will be retained, but the industry would like further confirmation, as I have set out. Will he also write to me with the Treasury’s latest modelling of future oil and gas prices to prove that the expected revenues are not at the expense of the ESIM? That modelling will be important for us to understand and get that reassurance and certainty on the ESIM. Having been in the Treasury, I know that that modelling is continually reviewed and produced; I would be grateful if he would write to me with that.
These are not purely academic questions. Our concern is for the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the UK oil and gas industry, for the UK’s energy security and for the efficient and smooth energy transition that we all care about. The Government should be not ideological but empirical in their approach, which is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require a review of the impact of these measures on employment, investment, production, demand and the whole Scottish economy. If the Government have already made detailed assessments on those specific areas, we would be grateful for the Minister publishing them.
On every measure, the Budget has not survived contact with reality. Growth has been downgraded, real incomes depressed and business investment reduced, with broken promises and credibility completely shattered. It is not so much that the Labour Government take a different view on economic matters; it is that they take the wrong view. Labour is the party of the tax rise that loses money. We are the party of the tax cut that raises revenue. That is why Labour Governments always leave office with more unemployment, larger debt and higher taxes. They always run out of other people’s money, and this Government are set to do so in record time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson once again.
Daisy Cooper
At the heart of the debate is a stark injustice, understood by every man, woman and child on the streets of Great Britain. In the last few years, oil and gas giants have made eye-watering profits—in many cases, they are profits that they did not expect to make—and they have made them off the back of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues that caused energy prices to soar. At the same time, people have seen their living standards drop and their energy prices soar. In too many cases, people have had to choose between heating and eating.
We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that the previous Government eventually introduced the energy profits levy. It was half-hearted and woefully late. If it had been brought in when we had called for it, there would have been additional revenue to reduce people’s energy bills and launch an emergency home insulation scheme, reducing energy consumption, which would have been good for the climate, and reducing people’s bills, which would have been good for their pockets.
The previous Government effectively let oil and gas giants off the hook, by initially setting the energy price levy at just 25% and putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. That allowed the oil and gas giants to get away with vast sums at taxpayers’ expense, with the excuse of investments that they would have made anyway. In essence, the Conservatives gave them tax relief on polluting activity when they should have been doing everything to raise funds to reduce people’s bills and urgently insulate homes.
Thanks to the investment allowance—the big loophole—in 2022, Shell admitted that it had paid zero windfall tax despite making the largest global profit in its 115-year history: a profit of £31 billion. As some colleagues in the Committee have referred to, energy prices have come down since those record levels of 2022, but the oil and gas producers have still seen huge profits. In 2023, Shell saw its profit come down from £31 billion, but it still made £22.3 billion.
Harriet Cross
How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?
Daisy Cooper
To be honest, I do not know what the distinction is between global profits and UK profits. The point is that the levy is put on UK profits made out of UK operations. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that when her constituents cannot afford to put their heating on, she should not miss the opportunity to raise taxes from the big oil and gas companies.
As I said, Shell made a profit of £22.3 billion in 2023, and BP saw profit of £11 billion, its second highest in a decade. I hope the Committee agrees that where those profits are made on UK operations, they should pay their fair share. We are glad that the current Government have listened to calls from Liberal Democrats and others and finally scrapped the unfair investment allowance loophole, but we would like the Minister to give the Committee some clarity on how much money will be raised, particularly through the abolition of the carve-out. By extension, we would be able to see how much money could have been raised under the previous Government but was gifted to the large gas giants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but their constituents are choosing between heating and eating. People should know just how much money could have been raised and how much will now be raised through this measure.
Harriet Cross
I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK.
On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?
Harriet Cross
We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland.
We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying:
“The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.”
According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On the impact that increased tax on the industry will have on jobs, was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was to hear the Liberal Democrats talking only about how much cash can be raised from an industry, without asking how many jobs would be affected across Scotland and the UK, or about the impact on the economy as a whole?
Harriet Cross
Absolutely; sometimes there is a complete disconnect in this place between how much we can tax and squeeze something dry and what that does to investment. These companies, especially the global ones, do not have to invest in the UK—they can invest across the world. They are choosing to invest here at the moment, and therefore we get jobs, opportunities and employment. That investment can go abroad, and if it does, it will take jobs with it, to the detriment of all of us, but particularly us in north-east Scotland.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are in a transition period, which we need in order to get to net zero? Of course, we need to protect jobs, but the transition to net zero is essential.
Harriet Cross
I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the mobility of investment in the oil and gas industry. Is it not ironic that, since we will need oil and gas, if we tax companies on production in the United Kingdom, they will simply produce elsewhere, other Governments will get the revenue from the tax on that production and we will pay more for imports?
Harriet Cross
Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins.
New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK?
The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards.
We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call Dave Doogan, I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they need to be bobbing consistently—I cannot read people’s minds to put together a speaking list.
Dave Doogan
The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it.
The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk.
The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition.
The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count.
Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.
Mr Snowden
At the heart of this, when we have comparisons to Norway, is a sheer focus on trying to squeeze as much taxation out of the industry as possible, without a focus on how to become more competitive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need for jobs and for energy security in the UK is to compare ourselves to the most competitive oil and gas economies in the world, and not those that squeeze and tax the most out of the industry and kill jobs?
Dave Doogan
Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that.
The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 2. I welcome the Government finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole for the oil and gas giants, which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for and called for since the previous Government introduced the levy—too late, and half-heartedly—in May 2022. Oil and gas companies made eye-watering profits off the back of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain problems that caused energy prices to soar. While the oil and gas giants saw record profits, my constituents in Bath and others across the country faced a cost of living crisis.
The previous Government have a lot to answer for. They sat and watched as the oil and gas giants lined their pockets off the back of people struggling with their bills. It did not have to be that way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but it did not have to be that way. Those were the political choices the previous Government made.
The measures announced by the Government in this Bill are welcome, in particular the removal of the 29% investment allowance except for investments on decarbonisation. This has been a Liberal Democrat policy, and I am pleased the Government have picked up on it and that it will now become a reality.
We Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021. While the previous Government did eventually introduce the energy profits levy, they did so half-heartedly and woefully late in May 2022. It matters that we repeat that again and again: it is something that the previous Government failed to do. That Government let the oil and gas giants off the hook by putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. It was thanks to that allowance that in 2022, Shell admitted it had paid zero windfall tax, despite making the largest global profits in its 150-year history of £31 billion. That cannot be right while our constituents have been struggling to pay their bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has tabled new clause 2, which would require the Government, as we have already heard, to produce a report about the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the EPL and relief for investment expenditure. We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. To avoid a repeat of the energy crisis, we must end our reliance on oil and gas. Investing in renewables would mean cheaper energy across the country. We would no longer be reliant on dictators such as Vladimir Putin who use natural gas as a weapon. As well as being more affordable, renewables are the best route to energy security. It is very disappointing to hear Conservative Members advocate for business as usual. We need to transition away from oil and gas.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. At what point does she believe we will be fully reliant on renewables?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is absolutely by putting in place the measures for transition that we will meet net zero. If we continue with business as usual and continue to listen to people who ultimately do not understand that unless we get to net zero our whole economy will suffer, then people will suffer. We will also have big, big problems with issues such as huge migration if climate change can rule unchallenged. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe the transition to net zero is important and why we need to put measures in place to make that happen. It is disappointing that the Conservatives, as the previous Government and now the Opposition, still do not understand how urgently we require climate action.
Dave Doogan
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What is her understanding of what will happen to domestic consumption of oil and gas products in the United Kingdom if the domestic industry atrophies but domestic demand still exists? What will happen in that scenario? Where will the oil and gas come from, or will we just give it up overnight?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The whole argument is that we will continue to rely on oil and gas for the time being, but unless we start to change something, on the current projection we will not get to net zero as urgently as we need to. Progress has been too slow, so the longer we hesitate the more difficult it will become. The new Government have understood that urgency, and the Liberal Democrats support them in dealing with this issue with more urgency than we saw from the previous Government. I therefore repeat that we support the measures, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 2. As I said, it will show what we can raise by closing the loophole. It would by extension, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans clarified, show what has been squandered by the previous Government—money that could have been invested.
Tristan Osborne
According to the New Economics Foundation, the previous Government’s levy raised £10.6 billion for the oil and gas industry, but the industry invested only £3.6 billion of that in new capital projects, taking the remainder as sheer profits. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that that is exactly why it was a foolhardy proposal? The profits made did not go into investing in new capital assets, but largely went into shareholders’ pockets.
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed. I could not agree more and I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the figures. That is why something needed to change and something needed to give. I repeat that I hope Government Members can support our new clause 2, because it matters. It will lay open what has been squandered and what difference we could make if we close the loophole.
Yuan Yang
Thank you, Ms Ghani. I apologise for my inconsistent bobbing. I am still learning when to stand up, but what has gone up and stayed up are the record profits of the oil and gas majors. I will start my speech on that topic, and will go on to speak about where those profits have come from and, finally, what the proceeds of our EPL will go to fund.
First, on those record profits, I think all Members of the Committee agree that the record profits in the oil and gas industry in 2022 were excessive. In 2023, however, the profits for Shell, the largest oil and gas major in Europe, barely decreased from the previous year. In fact, if we take its profits from the first half of this year, Shell looks likely to eclipse even those of last year. In the first half of this year, Shell has had profits of $14 billion. Half of that went to share buybacks, which do nothing to fund the decarbonisation that is so necessary to secure the future of energy production here in the UK and around the world. Those record profits, much of which have been handed back to shareholders, are going in the opposite direction of what ordinary families and working people need. Rather than reinvest in the transitions of the future, I would argue that the Conservative party is looking at the industries of the past and clinging on to a past that is quickly fading from reality.
Secondly, let us look at where those profits have come from. The House of Commons Library states that generally lower wholesale prices in the last year led suppliers to start offering fixed tariffs, as of summer 2023. However, they have been far more cautious in pricing those tariffs, with prices close to the level of the energy cap. Any return to competition in the market is expected to be slow. That reflects the state of affairs we face today. The wholesale prices of oil and gas—as an example, look at the price of Brent crude in the market today—are back below the levels they were pre the Russian invasion of Ukraine, yet the retail prices facing ordinary working families in the UK are still far above those levels. What happens in the middle? The profits are being taken by the oil and gas companies. Largely, they are not being reinvested in the productive sectors of the future, but being paid back to shareholders.
In any market where the return of competition is expected to be slow, there is a role for the Government to regulate the fair share of proceeds—who gets the surplus from that market. Here I pause and say that when we look across the Committee to who is arguing for the interests of working people and who is arguing for the interests of the oil and gas profit-making giants, the political divisions are clear. There are schools in my constituency that are fundraising to insulate themselves. The Maiden Erlegh school where I live is asking its parent association to provide better wooden frames for its windows, because they leak in winter. That is the public estate that our Government have been elected to fix and repair. We will set about doing so with the profits from the levies set out in the Bill we are discussing today.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She says it is clear who is on the side of working people versus the companies. My constituents are the people working in the oil and gas sector. They are the ones most at risk of losing their jobs if the changes brought in through the EPL go wrong. I am on the side of working people, and I am on the side of my constituents. No matter what MPs across the House say, I will always fight for my working people in Gordon and Buchan who just happen to be working people in the oil and gas sector.
Yuan Yang
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and, at this point, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from the unionised voices of those who work in the sector to which she referred. I commend the Government’s green prosperity plan to initiate a skills transition, and provide funding for it, so that those workers can profit from the industries of the future rather than the industries of the present and the past.
As the Minister said, the energy profits levy will raise £2.3 billion over the current Parliament, which will go towards the funding of, for instance, Great British Energy. GB Energy, whose headquarters are in Aberdeen, will bring innovation in green technologies not only to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. I will forgive, for a moment, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for perhaps not recognising my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—I know that an awful lot of new Scottish Members were elected in the last general election, and it must be difficult to learn all their faces. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on the possible reasons for the election of a record number of Scottish Labour Members while he sets about learning their names and faces.
The Government’s auction of 130 wind, solar and tidal energy projects in the latest round of the contracts for difference scheme points the way to the future. It points the way to the generation of 95% of the UK’s energy through green and decarbonised energy by 2030; to a transition that everyone in this Committee, and certainly everyone on the Government Benches, is looking forward to seeing in the next 10 years; and to the delivery of the local power plan, which will support local energy projects in communities such as mine. I welcome the funding of local projects such as Reading Hydro, which takes hydroelectric energy from the Thames, and the work of Reading Community Energy Society, which generates solar energy on the rooftops of the University of Reading and rooftops across my constituency. I look forward to all those projects and to the projects of the future, which is why I commend the measures that we are discussing today.
Sammy Wilson
The Government have set a number of objectives that they wish to achieve over the next five years. Central to those objectives are growth, highly paid jobs, energy security, and increased investment. However, when I look at clauses 15 to 17, I ask myself, “Have the Government gone mad?” They are undermining the very objectives that they are seeking to achieve through their policy of taxation, a policy that I believe is driven more by green ideology and by prejudice against some high-earning companies than by any economic logic. The economic logic of these proposals, and indeed the predictions made by those who have fed in the data and the information about them, indicate that, at least in our major oil and energy industry, investment will go down, production will go down, and highly paid jobs will go down.
The hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) said that hers was the party that was interested in ordinary workers. As has already been pointed out, no Scottish Labour Members are taking part in the debate. I suggest that the 100,000 workers in Scotland who depend on the oil and gas industry feel abandoned today because there is no one here to defend them—although I have to say that if I were a Scottish Member I might not want to stick my head over the parapet, defend measures such as these, and then have to go back to my constituents to explain. I suspect that they will go through the Lobby and vote for those measures, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is opening her arms and saying that she is from Scotland. I look forward to hearing her speak later in the debate in defence of these measures, which will cost jobs.
We have heard that those jobs will be replaced by highly paid, skilled jobs in the renewables industry, but there is little evidence of that so far. Indeed, if we look at the sources of the materials and the providers of, for instance, wind turbines, we see that the skilled jobs are not in Britain. We are making ourselves dependent on countries such as China which have control of the earth metals and valuable metals that are required to provide the necessary equipment for the renewables industry.
Mr Snowden
The right hon. Member has touched on an important point. Meeting the Government’s 2030 target and creating the green jobs to which he has referred will require two technologies that have not yet been tried and tested at scale, carbon capture and battery storage. Why would we gamble such an important 100,000-job industry in favour of technologies that have not even been tried and tested at scale?
Sammy Wilson
It is not just that they have not been tried and tested. There is also an acceptance—indeed, it is the Government’s own stated position—that even with those technologies, we will be reliant on, and will need, oil and gas not until 2030 and not even until 2040, but beyond 2050. If we do not extract as much oil and gas from our own resources here in the United Kingdom, where will we get it from? We will get it from abroad, which brings us to the issue of energy security.
The places where energy is likely to be produced will not be stable countries, countries that will always be favourable towards us, or countries that are ruled by rational rulers. It will come from countries where rulers are irrational, and take political decisions about who they do or do not trade with on a whim. The idea that we will rely on fossil fuels until well beyond 2050 but not produce them ourselves—in fact, we are going to discourage companies from producing them in the United Kingdom, even though we know that we have the resources—and somehow or other we will still guarantee security of supply, and security of energy, for our constituents is just madness.
Wera Hobhouse
I have a very simple question to ask the right hon. Gentleman: does he believe that climate change is happening and that we need to get to net zero by 2050, or does he believe it is all a hoax?
Sammy Wilson
Only a fool would say that climate change is not happening. Climate change has occurred in all the time that the earth has been in existence. Of course it happens, and of course it is happening. The hon. Lady asks me a question to which I think anybody could give an easy answer. Yes, climate change is happening, but does that mean that we have identified all the sources of the change in our climate? Does it also mean that we should distort our economy, in such a way as she would suggest, to try to make changes to the world’s climate, especially given that other countries are not making any changes to their economy and are not following our lead? They are simply ignoring us and doing what they believe is best for their own economies.
The second point I want to make is that we are leaving ourselves open to a situation in which companies that we need to invest in energy production will not do so. The OBR has made that quite clear, but even if it had not made its predictions, economic logic should make us understand that if we take investment allowances away from people and tax them, they will have less money to invest.
The Minister makes a great point: by putting all these measures on the statute book, he creates certainty for the industry. He does create certainty, because anybody looking at the Bill knows for certain what the future entails: they are going to be taxed until the pips squeak, so they will look for other places to go and make their investment. He argues that putting out a tax plan somehow gives assurance to companies, but sometimes it confirms their prejudice that Britain will not be a place where they have a future, or where they wish to invest.
I turn to the third impact of these measures, building on a point made by the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley. The Government’s whole approach is to tax oil and gas companies, get money, and help working people by putting it into schools and so on. But the predictions are that we will not get more revenue, because if there is less production, there is less tax to be paid. If there is less tax to be paid, the Government have less revenue to invest in the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to invest in. Where does that tax go? It will go to foreign countries, because that is where production will take place and where the oil companies will be taxed. They will get taxed where they make their profits. If they are not making any profits in the United Kingdom, they will not pay any revenue in the United Kingdom. They will take their production and tax revenue elsewhere.
There does not appear to be any economic logic to this proposal, other than that the oil companies are seen as bad so the Government have to tax them, even though they are taxed heavily already, and that the Government want to ensure that we have this transition to net zero, even though we know that we will still need the product that the oil companies produce for many decades into the future and we will be turning our back on that production in the United Kingdom.
If the Government are so sure that this cunning plan is going to work—I think Baldrick would have been embarrassed by this cunning plan, I have to say—they should not fear any examination of it. They should welcome it. In fact, maybe once the assessment is done, they will be able to point to red faces on the Opposition side of the House. If I were as certain as the Minister is that his plan was going to work, I would be saying, “Right, we’ll do the assessment and we’ll make you eat your words.” I suspect that the reason that new clause 2 will be rejected today is that the red faces and the eating of words are going to be on the Government’s side of the House. Unfortunately, the people who will suffer will be the hundreds of thousands of people facing rising fuel bills, the 100,000 workers who will face redundancies and an industry that we very much need in this country going into decline.
Dave Doogan
On a point of order, Madam Chair. The last but one speaker, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), called me out regarding my perfectly legitimate comment that there was not a single Scottish Labour MP in here. I chose my words carefully, taking part in this debate. I appreciate that there is a Labour Member here who, unless I am very much mistaken, is fulfilling the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore will not be taking part in the debate. I ask your guidance, Madam Chair, on whether it is legitimate to call somebody out in a debate and not give them an opportunity to respond. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley to correct the record, but she refused to give way. How can we correct the record to underline the fact that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in here taking part in this debate on Scotland’s energy?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and therefore I cannot provide advice as to how he can put that on the record. He will know as well as other hon. Members do that it is entirely at the discretion of the individual contributing at that time whether or not they take an intervention, but he has done good work in putting his point on the record via the mechanism of a point of order.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I would like to echo the arguments made by the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) . I rise to speak to whether clause 18 and schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I argue that both should be omitted, to remove the proposed new tax relief for carbon capture and storage installations as currently drafted. The tax regime for oil and gas is riddled with reliefs, exemptions and loopholes. The windfall tax introduced by the last Government was widely reported, but was slightly less reported was the increased tax relief that went along with it, which allowed oil and gas companies to deduct 91% of their capital investment costs from their tax bill.
We are now many years into an escalating climate crisis, and one that the oil companies have known they were causing since at least 1977. There is absolutely no excuse for public subsidies that incentivise fossil fuel companies to expand their operations. So while I welcome the increase in the rate of the energy profits levy and the reduction of the investment allowance, I want to highlight the fact that, because of other reliefs that still exist, North sea oil and gas companies will still be able to offset 84% of capital expenditure against tax in relation to their expansion of operations.
Mr Snowden
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that capital reliefs are about attracting investment that creates jobs and secures energy security for this country? If UK countries are to make such investments, we have to be competitive in the global market. If we do not make those investments, what does he think will happen to the industry and the 100,000 jobs that go with it?
Adrian Ramsay
As we heard earlier, it is vital that there is strong Government support and a dedicated plan to ensure transition to alternative job opportunities for anyone working in the oil and gas sector. Having a background in the renewable energy sector, I strongly support Government incentives and policies that will help that sector to expand, so that we create jobs and skills. My amendments would reverse the Government’s tax relief on the conversion of oil and gas infrastructure to carbon capture and storage installations. There are many other reliefs in the tax regime that should be addressed, but they are out of the scope of the Bill.
Carbon capture and storage is a complex area. There are different types of technology that use different techniques. I support further research and development in relation to the hard-to-abate sector, but CCS cannot be used as a fig leaf to hide the expansion of fossil fuel operations. In reality, after years of hype, the result is very little carbon—less than 0.1% of annual emissions—being captured globally. Most of the carbon dioxide that has been successfully captured has been used to extract more oil. The UK has also been criticised for targeting most of its CCS at so-called blue hydrogen, the use of which would increase our long-term reliance on gas and generate more carbon emissions.
The proposed tax relief is too blunt an instrument to make a useful contribution to decarbonisation. The role of CCS is still relatively untested, so it is vital that we do not bake in over-reliance on that technology. Public funding for CCS should be restricted to research and development, and to projects that would clearly help to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors. It absolutely must not be a green light for fossil fuel companies to carry on with business as usual and an expansion of operations. Will the Minister explore the idea of reviewing the measures, in the light of what I have suggested?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
In October 2021, we Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits, so I am glad that the Bill is finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole, after years of oil and gas companies not paying their fair share under the Conservatives. I urge the House to adopt our amendment, which calls on the Government to set out exactly how much money is being raised through the scrapping of the investment allowance loophole, and how much money was gifted by the last Government to the oil and gas giants. My constituents in Yeovil deserve full transparency.
I encourage the Government to use the money raised by closing the loophole to address energy and environmental issues impacting my constituents in Yeovil, such as fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners; the need to protect homes and businesses from flooding; the need to support farmers with green investments; and helping homeowners to install clean heating.
In conclusion, we must ensure that our constituencies get a fair deal out of the Bill. If the average taxpayer is expected to pay their fair share, then so must the wealthiest individuals and companies in this country. There cannot be one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
James Murray
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I will respond to some of the points raised, and set out the Government’s views on the new clauses. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), asked for confirmation of our decision to retain the energy security investment mechanism. I hope that he will take yes for an answer, because yes, I can confirm that the ESIM will remain in effect until 31 March 2030, when the energy profits levy is due to end. It will continue to be adjusted in line with consumer prices index inflation in future financial years. I hope that sets his mind at rest on that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about modelling the impact of the energy profits levy. I am sure that he will remember from his time in the Treasury the role that the Office for Budget Responsibility plays. He will see that in the report that it published alongside the Budget, it forecast £12.6 billion being raised from the levy over the forecast period. Of course, the OBR will provide updated forecasts next year.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members kept raising the phrase “extraordinary profits” when talking about trying to understand the position that the oil and gas sector is in. That links directly to the energy security investment mechanism, because prices remain higher than the price floor that we set. The energy security investment mechanism means that if prices fall sufficiently and return to historically normal levels, the levy will be disapplied. The relationship between the levy, profits and the maintenance of the energy security investment mechanism is key to understanding the Government’s approach.
The Liberal Democrats spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked about our choosing a 78% rate, how we set the rate for the energy profits levy, and about other attributes of the system being set up by the clauses under debate. We seek to achieve a balanced approach. We are raising the rate to 78%, extending the levy for a further year and removing the investment allowance, which we deem to be unjustifiably generous; yet we are maintaining 100% first-year allowances, the decarbonisation allowance, and the energy security investment mechanism. That strikes the right balance between ensuring that oil and gas companies continue to invest in oil and gas for years to come, and ensuring that they contribute to and support the transition to clean energy.
The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke about the need for long-term stability. I entirely agree that we need it. That is precisely what we seek to achieve by saying that the energy profits levy will come to an end in March 2030, by having a price floor in the ESIM—we have mentioned that several times—and by proceeding with our consultation on the post energy profits levy regime. That will give confidence to those thinking about investing in the oil and gas sector not just before the end of the energy profits levy, but post 2030.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) also mentioned long-term stability. He seems distracted right now, but I hope that will be of some reassurance to him. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens said that a £78 investment relief is available in Norway, whereas the figure is £46 in the UK. I want to put on record that in the UK, while the energy profits levy remains in place, the sector continues to benefit from an £84.25 relief for every £100 of investment. I hope that gives him some reassurance on the points that he raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her thoughtful and informed contribution, which explained that our approach strikes the right balance. I must say, however, that I was disappointed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), because he seemed not to support our moves to ensure that tax is not a blocker to CCUS, which will play an essential role in our progress towards net zero. The UK has a chance to be a world leader in that sector; I hoped that he would support our efforts to ensure that it is.
Two new clauses were tabled, which hon. Members spoke about. They require reports to be published. I can remember tabling many such new clauses over the last few years. New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans, would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the removal of the energy profits levy investment allowance and the change to the decarbonisation investment allowance rate. New clause 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), would require the Government to produce a report on the expected impact of the levy changes in a number of areas, including on capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry and on the Scottish economy.
The Government oppose new clauses 2 and 3 on the basis that they are unnecessary. We have already set out the impact of our measures in a tax information and impact note, which was published at the time of the Budget. That note states that the changes made to the energy profits levy will raise an additional £2.3 billion over the scorecard, and further data on the UK oil and gas industry is regularly published on gov.uk.
I hope that I have addressed some of the points raised by hon. Members, and have reassured them that the new clauses are not necessary. I urge the House to let clauses 15 to 18 and schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, and to reject new clauses 2 and 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
New Clause 2
Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.” —(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 424 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Pimping websites and paying for sex
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I rise on Human Rights Day, the final day of the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, to present a petition on behalf of my constituents on commercial sexual exploitation. Demand from men who pay for sex is fuelling and funding a brutal sex trafficking trade, yet our laws allow them to exploit women with impunity. To stop the exploitation, we have to stop the demand. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to outlaw pimping websites and paying for sex, and provide support, not sanctions, to victims of sexual exploitation.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Monmouthshire,
Declares that demand from the minority of men who pay for sex is driving the prostitution and sex trafficking trade, and this sexual exploitation is being facilitated by pimping websites that operate with impunity.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to outlaw pimping websites and paying for sex, and provide support, not sanctions, to victims of sexual exploitation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003028]
International Human Rights Day
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate to mark international Human Rights Day, which we remember annually across the world on 10 December.
I first declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group, whose purpose is
“to raise the profile of international human rights issues within Parliament and to investigate and publicise human rights abuses occurring”.
The group is one of Parliament’s most long-standing APPGs, set up in 1976 by the late human rights champion Lord Avebury, and one of its most active, with at least one event a month and often many more. I also declare an interest in what I am about to say, as I am chair of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Last week, the all-party parliamentary human rights group held a reception organised jointly with Amnesty International UK to mark Human Rights Day. It was very well attended, showing that the protection of human rights across the world is an issue that transcends party politics and matters greatly to many of my parliamentary colleagues right across the political spectrum.
International Human Rights Day commemorates the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights by the United Nations General Assembly on this day in 1948.
The universal declaration, whose 75th anniversary the human rights APPG celebrated last year in Parliament, is founded on the principle that
“All human beings are born free and equal”.
It has set the standards by which states must treat their citizens and provides the basis on which Governments can be called out and held to account for not doing so. The universal declaration has had a profound impact since, having inspired and paved the way for the adoption of more than 60 human rights treaties at global and regional levels and having provided the basis for the 2030 UN sustainable development goals. At the individual and collective level, the declaration has protected millions and empowered many to stand up against abuse and tyranny, and for equality and justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Gentleman. In all my time in this House—he has been here longer than I have—I have always been impressed by his commitment to human rights issues. In every debate, he and I have been there together. I commend him for that, and put it on the record in Hansard. Does he agree that today we should not simply reflect on how far we have to go, but celebrate how far we have come? We should never grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap as we diligently sow. Those lovely words from the Holy Bible, which the hon. Gentleman and I both respect, must encourage us all to keep pressing, and keep winning the small human rights victories that literally save lives, grant education and preserve innocence for children.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my friend, first for his generosity and secondly because he is an extraordinary performer in this House, not just on these green Benches but in Westminster Hall. I have sat around the table with him in many, many debates, and he always stands up for humanity and faith. I respect and thank him for that, and I agree with his quote from the Holy Bible. I thank him for quoting it.
In this year’s commemoration, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is focusing on the realisation of rights as a pathway to solutions to many real-world challenges, such as armed conflict, political and social exclusion, and economic inequality—and, goodness me, do we not need that in the world right now?
Let me highlight a key provision of the declaration, the right to life, which is of course fundamental to the enjoyment of every other right that we are here to protect. Categorical violations of the right to life include: extra-judicial killing; the misuse of the death penalty, or, I would argue, the use of it at all; life-threatening prison conditions, which we have seen in the footage from Syria in recent hours and days; the use of live ammunition by police forces against unarmed protestors; serious violations of humanitarian law; and environmental degradation and climate change, which give rise to serious threats to the existence of present and future generations. Tragically, the right to life is violated in many countries, by state and non-state actors, including China, North Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Colombia and Mexico to name just a few, I am sorry to say.
I would like to express the APPG’s deep concern about the killing of human rights defenders, brave people from all walks of life: community leaders, environmental activists, lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, academics and members of non-governmental organisations who are committed to promoting and protecting the human rights of their communities, in their country and the wider world. The APPG has been privileged to meet many inspiring human rights defenders over the years. Their work documenting violations, holding human rights violators to account and tackling cycles of impunity may result in serious threats, including harassment, smear campaigns, physical attacks, arbitrary detention, torture, and in the worst cases, murder.
Environmental and land rights defenders are at particular risk. The non-governmental organisation Global Witness estimates that in 2023, 196 land and environmental defenders were killed around the world. The highest number by far were in Colombia, followed by Brazil, Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua. During my time as shadow Minister for Latin America, I visited Colombia and met trade unionists and human rights defenders who faced violent attacks every single day. Two weeks ago, I met representatives of the Wiwa indigenous people of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in northern Colombia to hear their testimony at first hand, here in our Parliament.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—for securing this debate on such an important day. He is right to draw particular attention to the experiences of defenders of indigenous communities and environmental rights defenders in Colombia and elsewhere. Back in October, in my capacity as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group, I hosted a roundtable here in Parliament with speakers from the Colombia Caravana. It brought together lawyers from 24 countries who had recently conducted a fact-finding trip in Colombia. They highlighted the increasing power of illegal armed groups, particularly in areas with no or limited state presence, and the serious threat that those groups posed to human rights defenders. We heard powerful testimony from the leader of an indigenous people’s reserve, who spoke of the threats to which his community was subject and called for the UK Government to do everything possible to ensure that UK companies were held to account for the impact of their actions. Would the hon. Gentleman support his call?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, for her work as an officer of the APPG, and for chairing that meeting. I was slightly late for it, but I was there for most of it, and I heard those testimonies. Of course I would support that call. I think it important for us to recognise the extraordinarily brave and courageous work of people like those who were there on that day, such as the human rights defenders from Peru from whom we heard very recently, and the representatives of the Wiwa people of Colombia, whom I mentioned. All over the world, human rights defenders are putting their lives, their safety and their freedom at risk to defend their lands and their rights against rapacious companies that are exploiting them because no one will protect them except themselves. I thank the hon. Lady for her support, and for all the work that she is doing. With President Gustavo Petro, we have renewed hope in Colombia, but sadly the attacks continue. Given that the UK is the penholder for Colombia at the United Nations, I should be grateful if the Minister reaffirmed our commitment to what the Colombians call paz total, or total peace.
As I have said, indigenous peoples continue to be disproportionately targeted, accounting for 49% of total murders. The UK and like-minded countries must help to support and protect human rights defenders. I understand that, to this end, the “UK Support for Human Rights Defenders” guidance, published in 2019, is being reviewed, and I should be interested to know whether the Minister has an update on when we can expect that review to be published. Given the crucial role that human rights defenders play in fostering peace, justice and inclusive development, I ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to consider elevating the guidance to a more comprehensive strategy, with benchmarks for officials and posts, which could then be adapted to specific country situations.
I cannot speak about the importance of the universal declaration without highlighting another of its central provisions: equality. Article 2 states:
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
I believe that all parliamentarians are horrified by the treatment of women and girls in some parts of the world, particularly Afghanistan.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent speech, and on securing a debate on such an important day. He rightly mentions Afghanistan and the issues around the discrimination of women and girls in that great country. Should the UK consider joining the 30, I think, countries that are involved in an action at the International Court of Justice, because of their concerns about breaches of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women?
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, and I would be interested to hear from our Minister whether we should join that action, because in some way or another, we really need to draw the world’s attention more clearly, and in a more focused way, to the shocking, appalling and totally unjustifiable treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan—and, indeed, other parts of the world. Until the sexes in this world are equal, we will not have the peace, justice and development that all humanity deserves.
Under this Government, we rightly have a relentless focus on tackling violence against women and girls in our country, but that focus should extend across the world, as I have said. It is simply incomprehensible—I stress this again—that in the 21st century, the Taliban can completely silence Afghan women and girls, almost erasing their very existence and barring them from education and public life. Extremely courageous women who protest against these violations face the most terrifying consequences, including enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture.
Just today, I heard an example of how this works on the ground in Afghanistan. I was told by somebody who knows the country well, and who is not an Afghan, that he recently spoke to Afghan doctors and midwives about the problems that many Afghan women experience when giving birth, especially in remote rural areas. Birth complications can lead to all sorts of other horrors, including the death of babies at birth. Under a special exception, the Taliban have allowed women to work as doctors and midwives, thank goodness, but a problem arises if a female midwife or doctor is stopped by, as he put it, a “bearded man” while she walks to work from where she lives. She will be stopped and questioned, and sometimes returned home. As women and girls can no longer get the training or education necessary to become gynaecologists, obstetricians, specialists, doctors, clinicians or midwives, there is a time-bomb ticking in this field of work, among others, in Afghanistan. It is extremely disturbing.
Our APPG is worried about democratic back-sliding globally, and the consequent erosion of political and civil rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly and association. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index, less than 8% of the world’s population lived in a full, proper democracy in 2023. Almost 40% lived under authoritarian rule—a share that has been creeping up in recent years. I do not need to remind hon. Members that this is happening, because we are all aware of it. Every single day, we hear stories of Parliaments and parliamentary democracy under attack.
Electoral autocracies are becoming more prevalent; sham elections are held, in a largely unsuccessful attempt to provide a veneer of political legitimacy. I will not name countries, but we all know who they are. The increase in violent conflict, as seen in Russia and the middle east, has stifled progress towards more meaningful political participation. It would be helpful to know more about how our Government will continue to promote and support democracy across the world and, closer to home, whether the defending democracy taskforce still has a role to play in protecting the UK’s democratic integrity from threats of foreign interference.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I really appreciate the hon. Member bringing this matter to the House today. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do everything we can to stand up for human rights, whether at home or abroad. The need to stand up for democracy, not only in the world in which we live physically but online, is also a real concern for me and many across the House. Does he agree that we need to do everything we can to ensure that elections, not just here but across the world, and the tenets of democracy are protected as we struggle to deal with those who would love to erode the fundamental freedoms and human rights that we hold dear?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Member for making such an important intervention. I would certainly agree that online interference is something we should be deeply concerned about. Indeed, we are deeply concerned about it. We have seen examples of that interference, that hacking and those bots, as they call them, creating posts for non-existent individuals on our social media, urging people to do something or to vote in a particular way, and quoting sham facts and figures that are made up or invented to persuade people to make a decision that would be against their interests or inclinations.
In connection with the latter, I note a growing worry about transnational repression when authoritarian Governments reach across their borders to silence dissent among diaspora communities and exiles, including through illegal deportation, abduction, digital threats, attacks and family intimidation. Indeed, we have heard examples in recent years of BBC World Service correspondents in London having their families intimidated, harassed or even arrested by the authorities in Iran. Those people have nothing whatever to do with the work that their family members are doing here in London, but they are none the less paying the price for that freedom to broadcast, that freedom of information and the brilliant work that the BBC World Service does.
The UK has not been immune to this, as I have just said, and I am pleased that our Government have recognised that. Individuals living here who have left Russia, Hong Kong, China or Iran have been subject to surveillance, attacks, confiscation of their properties and bank accounts in their countries of origin, and even assassination and attempted assassination.
UK parliamentarians have been targeted as well, with foreign Governments imposing sanctions against them for calling out human rights violations. This will need to be more effectively addressed. I am sure I am not alone in the House in finding out that all my assets and bank accounts in Russia, of which I have none whatsoever, have been confiscated or closed down. In recent years, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament were refused visas to go to China because of what the Committee had said about Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is simply unacceptable, and we need to address it.
As I said earlier, I am the current chair of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I would like to commend the human rights work of the IPU, particularly that of its committee on the human rights of parliamentarians—not the one I chair, but the international one—which is doing a lot of work to defend the rights of parliamentarians. The committee seeks to defend them when they are under attack. Every year, MPs around the world face abuse, mistreatment, disappearance and sometimes death. The human rights APPG and the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union work hand in hand in the belief that parliamentarians’ voices must be protected and allowed to be heard, free from the fear of violence or harassment. Parliamentarians are often the so-called canaries in the coal mine. If the human rights of parliamentarians are being violated, the situation of those in that country who do not have wider popular backing or the high profile of a local MP is likely to be far, far worse.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that this Government will put human rights and peace building at the forefront of our foreign policy once again. That includes a relentless focus on securing the release of arbitrarily detained nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. Anoosheh spoke extremely powerfully and beautifully at last week’s event about his imprisonment in Iran, and I am pleased to call him a friend. He is a delightful man and I am amazed that, after the ordeal he went through, he is still able to campaign in the open and democratic way that he has. He really is a remarkable man. I would like to gain more support for victims of gender-based violence in conflict and modern-day slavery, and to encourage support for the International Criminal Court and the importance of international law.
More specifically, parliamentarians have a key role to play in ensuring Governments’ compliance with human rights obligations, and holding those Governments to account for any violations; in incorporating human rights protections in national legislation; in helping to generate the necessary political will to bring about positive change domestically and internationally; and in engaging with, supporting and validating civil society, human rights defenders and inter-governmental and grassroots human rights organisations. I pay tribute to all Members of the House and the other place for their work on these issues, whether on Select Committees, with all-party parliamentary groups or in their individual engagement with human rights organisations and defenders.
I also pay tribute to my dear friend, Tony Lloyd, who died earlier this year, from whom I took over the responsibility of chairing the APPG on human rights. He was a spokesperson from his first election in 1983, through his time as Minister of State at the Foreign Office in Tony Blair’s Government of 1997, for human rights and for the prominence and importance of human rights worldwide. Not long before he died, he spoke to a friend of mine and said, “In the event of my death, I would like Fabian Hamilton to take over the role.” I found that deeply moving, so I undertake the role not just in the name of all those who are oppressed, whose human rights are not easy or clear, or whose human rights are taken away from them, but in the name of Tony Lloyd, to carry on the work he did.
Governments, of course, have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring their citizens benefit from their rights, and for promoting respect for human rights internationally. I know this Government take that responsibility seriously. Having worked closely with the Foreign Secretary and his excellent team for several years, I can say with the utmost certainty that this Government are committed to protecting the rule of law and the international rules-based order on which our security and prosperity rest.
I therefore welcome the Government’s unflinching approach to calling out serious and systematic human rights violations committed by state and non-state actors and, when appropriate, the imposition of sanctions. I believe it would be beneficial for the Government to consider bringing in legislation on mandatory human rights and environmental corporate due diligence.
Finally, the debate could not come at a more appropriate time. Democracy and freedoms hang by a thread across the world: in Putin’s Russia, there are forced conscriptions for the illegal war in Ukraine; the Iranian regime is clamping down on legitimate protests with the most brutal force; and China continues to lurch towards interference in our democracy, has all but destroyed any semblance of it in Hong Kong, and wishes to attack the democracy that is now evident in Taiwan. Members of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights and I hope to continue engaging on these issues with the FCDO, and I am looking forward to the Minister’s response on this 76th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
May I say how appropriate it is for you to be chairing the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have been such a champion for women since you came into the House, and when you were Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee? The theme of women and equalities has been raised again and again by Members during the debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing the debate, and for the fact he has secured it on Human Rights Day. We have just had a lovely occasion with Mr Speaker, where we celebrated the work of Parliamentarians for Peace, co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I will attempt to answer the question she raised in her intervention later in my remarks.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East for his tireless work to promote the importance of international human rights, including as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights. I congratulate him on his recent election as chair of the British group at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, standing up for democracy, free from fear of violence, for every country. The magic of the IPU is that it brings together members from so many different countries, with their different versions of democracy, all straining towards that common goal.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said about the importance of online safety and democracy. Having taken her seat in this House, I am sure she is aware now of the erosion of our rights as Members, brought here on the wind of democracy, being attacked online, and how disgraceful that is. We must seek new and fresh ways of tackling online abuse.
I also appreciate the contributions of other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who talked about the issues in Colombia, the indigenous groups and the illegal armed groups. Human rights defenders have put their lives at risk to defend their land and traditions, as other hon. Members who share her interest, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, and have gone to Colombia and got to know the concerns there, have made us aware. The UK Government’s important work in Colombia on human rights—which goes back to before the peace process and includes supporting the country as it brought that process in and monitoring it, with its new Government—started in this House and continues to have its support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East also mentioned those who have gone before us, such as Lord Avebury and the former Member for Rochdale. I may not have known him as well as my hon. Friend, but he did a fantastic job of supporting the women of Belarus who did not start out as politicians or human rights defenders but whose husbands were locked up in the summer of 2022 and who ended up becoming public figures in their own right. Once again, they were attacked online and attacked for all they have done to stand up for their country.
As hon. Members are aware, today marks Human Rights Day, commemorating the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East is aware of and was invited to the celebration in the Foreign Office this afternoon to mark Human Rights Day. We would all have liked to be there but we are doing this debate instead, so we are celebrating it in our own way. The team, who I must commend for their excellence, have put on an important event to listen to those who work in non-governmental organisations, human rights defenders and others who care passionately about human rights. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, celebrated how far we have come. Today is a celebration of that and the UK’s important role, but it is also a reminder that we must keep pushing forward where human rights have not yet been achieved.
As the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth spoke about women in Afghanistan, we continue to call for the human rights of all Afghans to be protected, including those of women and girls and religious and ethnic minorities. Officials at the Doha-based UK mission to Afghanistan regularly press the Taliban on human rights. We are still making very limited progress, so we must continue to speak out in this House. That way, if there is any online coverage in Afghanistan today for Human Rights Day, those women will know that we are talking about them, their education, their wanting to become midwives and nurses, which is being blocked by the Taliban, to be teachers, to work, or to have small businesses. Instead, we are seeing a terrible deterioration of women’s rights. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is a concern that you hold dear.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the UN General Assembly this year, the declaration sets out
“The very essence of what it is to be human—of equal and inalienable rights based on a foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
As one of its original drafters, the UK must continue championing its importance and building upon its foundation, given the challenges that we face today. The Government will act to protect and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law around the world.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister’s powerful speech highlights the responsibility that we all have to protect human rights in the UK and around the world. Earlier today, I was with Councillor Amjid Wazir from Stoke-on-Trent and a group of Kashmiris who were presenting a petition to Downing Street to highlight the ongoing human rights abuses in Kashmir, the lack of self-determination, and the continuing violations following the suspension of article 370 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the political autonomy of Kashmir and Jammu. All too often, Kashmir seems to be forgotten about; it is not talked about in this place nearly enough. May I ask what the Government’s current view is on the ongoing issues in Jammu and Kashmir? Can she take back to her Department our wish to discuss this matter fully in this House, because it has been a while since those people were given a voice here and I think that they would welcome it?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his important point and for the work that he is doing to represent his constituents, such as, for example, going to Downing Street with a petition. Interestingly, the other Member who is very strong on Kashmir is my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East who, like other Members here, regularly brings groups of constituents to the House. I know that the cross-party work that is done to promote human rights and to ensure that we observe their importance in Kashmir is crucial. That situation is monitored by the FCDO, and I would be very happy to write to him in more detail about the exact way in which that is done, bearing in mind, of course, that India and Pakistan play a crucial role in maintaining the peace.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for her kind words earlier. We know that human rights defenders have been detained without trial in many places—Khurram Parvez is just one example. The same is true of politicians and political activists, such as Yasin Malik, whose condition we are very concerned about. It would not be appropriate if, today of all days, we fail to mention the situation in the middle east, particularly given what is going on in Syria, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to those points in her closing remarks.
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Yasin Malik, whose situation the FCDO is actively monitoring. I know that she is aware of that, because she is a regular correspondent with the Foreign Office and a very active member of the all-party group on human rights.
On Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we are, of course, monitoring the humanitarian response there. On Syria, we all knew how terrible the situation was, but to see the unspeakable conditions in those prisons, to see the newspaper pictures of those nooses covered in human blood, and to understand that people, including women and children, have been buried six feet under in cells has been truly devastating. We do not know what the future holds for Syria, but it is a very fragile situation. What we do know is that this House, on Human Rights Day, has emphasised the importance of human rights being at the heart of the middle east on several different fronts. As these different situations develop, human rights must play a key role in any peace process and in how Syria is governed in the future.
I will shorten my speech a little, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that people are keen to get on to human rights and IPU events this evening. We want to maximise the impact of all the tools at our disposal, and our approach sees the agenda in five themes, which I will quickly outline. The first is on defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. Today, a third of the world’s population live in countries with a closed civic space, which is clearly unacceptable. We will defend those spaces by changing our fundamental relationship to enable grassroots actors in partner countries to advocate for people’s rights. We will protect media freedom, building on the call from Commonwealth leaders last month to implement the Commonwealth media principles across our diverse family of nations, to which I refer the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East set out so clearly, the Government must continue to promote and support democracy in this world, and we are doing so through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The taskforce is an enduring function of Government, which seeks to secure the democratic integrity of the UK from the full range of threats, including foreign interference. It comprises Ministers, operational leaders and senior officials, and it brings together His Majesty’s Government’s work on defending democracy to ensure we have a whole-of-Government response to the threats we face. The taskforce is reviewing the UK’s response to transnational repression, which was eloquently laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East. With his permission, I will write to him and all members of his APPG once the review is finished to give him a sense of where we are going on this important work, and so it can marry up with his earlier request that we look in an organised and systematic way at how we organise our work on human rights not just across the Foreign Office, but across Government. We must have a robust and joined-up approach across Government and law enforcement, not only on the human rights agenda, but specifically on transnational repression.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight his concerns about the killing of human rights defenders. They do inspiring work, often putting themselves in harm’s way. We heard from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about human rights defenders and peacebuilders who put their lives at risk to speak out. I confirm that our human rights defender guidance is being reviewed, and we expect it to be finalised and published in the new year. We will certainly take account of the wise recommendations from the debate about what a review should cover and of the examples used. Meanwhile, we continue to work with partners to address the shocking level of reprisals against human rights defenders, including women.
Our second theme focuses on upholding the rule of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned critical right-to-life violations, such as the misuse of the death penalty and the use of excessive force against unarmed protesters. We need to promote and demonstrate respect for the rule of law in addressing those and many other issues. We have levers within the multilateral system to promote and defend human rights, including at the United Nations and through regional bodies, such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. My hon. Friend made particular mention of attacks against human rights defenders in Colombia, which I covered earlier.
I am delighted that we have a renewed parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, including a number of hon. Members of this House, and I look forward to them reporting back and bringing such matters to the House’s attention. I am glad to share that we are seeking election for another term on the Human Rights Council from 2026 to 2028, where the UK leads negotiations on resolutions that put in place accountability mechanisms for priority countries around the world, including Syria and Sudan.
As I said, in Syria, Assad with support from Russia and Iran has committed brutal atrocities. Our focus now is on working with the Syrian people and the international community to move quickly towards an inclusive political transition. We are committed to tackling impunity and supporting an effective and independent International Criminal Court as the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.
Promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is the cornerstone of UK policy, and we call on all parties to conflicts to implement their obligations, reducing impacts on civilians and other non-combatants. This autumn, we published an updated voluntary report on our domestic implementation of international humanitarian law, and we are supporting other states to do the same. As ministerial colleagues have said in the House, we are clear about the unacceptable humanitarian situation in Gaza—a matter that many in this House have championed. We will continue to use all the diplomatic tools at our disposal to work with international partners to bring about a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages.
Accountability is not just about international processes, and that is why we work in partnership with the USA and the EU to ensure that Ukraine can fully and fairly investigate allegations of war crimes in its own judicial system. We have our best legal minds working on that. In other places, such as Nigeria, we are advising on dealing with vulnerable witnesses, including children and survivors of sexual violence. Our legal diplomacy is second to none.
The third of our five themes focuses on championing equal rights for all. I have already spoken about the Taliban’s disgraceful exclusion of women from all aspects of public life. We want to address the stalled progress and roll-back on the rights of women, girls, LGBT+ people, and those belonging to other marginalised groups globally. That is why we will continue to champion the rights and freedoms of women and girls, including in sexual and reproductive health and rights, and to support women’s rights organisations and challenge harmful disinformation. We will support the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, working with female parliamentarians globally to address barriers to their political empowerment.
We have announced a groundbreaking global programme to prevent technology-facilitated gender-based harassment and abuse, backed by over £27 million of funding. I hope that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley will be pleased about that development. That programme will pilot innovative work with partner countries to promote a safer online experience, counter extreme misogyny spread online, and support victims and survivors of online harassment and abuse.
Finally, we will defend the rights of people belonging to marginalised communities—for instance, by funding the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum to advocate for disability rights. By championing freedom of religion or belief for all—if the hon. Member for Strangford were in his place, he would be pleased to hear me say this—we are fighting back against the threats that so many people face for simply what they do or do not believe in.
The fourth theme focuses on supporting accountable, effective and inclusive institutions. Sadly, we are seeing a drop in the quality of institutional life internationally. We want to work with partners to protect democratic processes and strengthen Government legitimacy. In Moldova, for example, we have helped President Sandu’s Government to counter Russian disinformation through the UK’s Government Communication Service International. In Brazil, we are sharing UK expertise, as the Government there develop their own online safety Bill. In Nigeria, we are supporting Kaduna state to improve budget transparency. We are continuing long-term work with Nepal, supporting the transition from conflict to democracy.
The final theme focuses on responding to shared global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles. This debate further challenges the Department to get that right. We are living in a rapidly changing world that demands that we adapt, but we must do that while maintaining our principles. We are taking multiple steps to do that effectively. We are conducting a national assessment of our approach to tackling business-related human rights abuses, including in global supply, and ensuring that our actions are firmly based on the evidence of what does and does not work. We are actively engaging at the Council of Europe to address the impact of climate and nature emergencies on human rights. We are hosting the second democracy action partnership with Indonesia in Jakarta to support democratic resilience in the region. We are working with partners, such as the UK-based Centre for Information Resilience, to remotely verify and document digital content relating to the horrific violence in Sudan.
Those five themes lay a strong foundation for defending and promoting human rights around the world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East will agree—based on what I have said, and indeed on the FCDO’s earlier event to mark Human Rights Day, which sadly we both missed—that the Government do indeed see human rights and peace building at the heart of our work. We recognise that many Members share that commitment, and I thank them for attending today. Ultimately, a freer, safer and more just world is in everyone’s interests, and this Government will work flat out with our partners to achieve that goal.
Question put and agreed to.