House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
Neither HMS Albion nor HMS Bulwark were due to go to sea ahead of their out-of-service dates in 2033 and 2034. The Royal Navy is exploring options to sell both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark in a Government-to-Government sale. Several potential customers have shown interest, but no final decisions have been made.
Rebecca Smith
Given that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are reportedly being sold to another navy for a figure that could well undervalue previous spends on refits and maintenance, how does the Minister justify the economic impact of their sale on Plymouth and Devonport dockyard, let alone the reduction in amphibious capability in the Navy, when the promised multi-role support ships are at least half a decade away from service?
Maria Eagle
I do not recognise any of the figures that have been bandied around in the newspapers; it would not be accurate to take them as anything other than speculation. The disposal shows that we are delivering for defence by divesting ourselves of old capabilities to make way for the future, as the First Sea Lord Admiral Ben Key put it. Those ships were effectively mothballed by the previous Government, so I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members on how to deal with these matters.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government were elected on a firm commitment to set a path to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Prime Minister has said that we will do so in the spring.
John Lamont
So that my constituents can better understand the Government’s priorities, which does the Minister think that we will achieve first: a deal to lease Diego Garcia for billions of pounds, or spending 2.5% of GDP on defence?
John Healey
Everyone agrees that we must increase defence spending to meet the increasing threats. This Government are delivering for defence by increasing defence spending, and we have already increased defence spending by almost £3 billion next year.
Aphra Brandreth
It is clear that we face increasingly volatile and dangerous global security challenges, which is why the previous Government set a path to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence by 2030. What conversations have the Minister and officials at the Ministry of Defence had with NATO counterparts, particularly from the United States, on increasing defence spending? What implications does he think his party’s lack of timeline for reaching 2.5% will have on the special relationship, given the new US Administration?
John Healey
This country is at the forefront of defence spending in NATO, and we are ready to increase it to 2.5% of GDP. The hon. Lady talked about the previous Government’s plan for 2.5% of GDP. I have to tell her that that was an election gimmick, announced four weeks before the Prime Minister called the election; the Institute for Fiscal Studies described it as “misleading”, and the Institute for Government described it as “a work of fiction.”
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
This Labour Government have given our armed services their biggest pay rise in almost 20 years. I have spoken to service personnel in my constituency, and those who are part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They talk about pay, but they also talk about service conditions and support for their families being key drivers of retention. What are the Government doing on those matters?
John Healey
I am proud to be the Defence Secretary who has been able, this year, to give the armed forces the largest pay rise in over 20 years. I am proud to have been able to do the deal that has seen 36,000 forces family homes brought back into public control, so that we can develop them for the future. This Government will reset the nation’s contract with those who serve and the families who support them.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
In my time in the Army, I saw at first hand blokes not getting the kit and equipment that they needed to operate efficiently. It angered me to read this weekend that the previous Administration wasted £5 million on McClaren mudflaps. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will not take the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Shadow Secretary of State, you will have the Floor after the next two questions, but I have not called you yet. Come on, Mr Stone.
Will Stone
To return to my question, I angers me that the previous Administration wasted £5 million, when blokes like me did not have the kit and equipment that they needed to operate—[Interruption.] That is a fact. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will put service personnel and our nation’s security first?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks from experience in the Rifles, and he is completely right. The issue is not just how much we spend, but how we spend it. The Government are delivering for defence by getting a grip of defence budgets, tackling Ministry of Defence waste and investing in the kit that our frontline service people need. We scrapped the £40 million VIP helicopter deal, we have ended the pointless racing car sponsorship, and we have saved £300 million from an out-of-control consultancy spend.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
When the UK persuaded NATO to spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2014, just two other countries did so; now, 23 countries do. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time once again for the UK to play a leadership role in Europe by persuading NATO to spend the money it should and keep America part of the alliance?
John Healey
I do indeed. It is time for the UK and European allies to step up and do more of the heavy lifting. That includes increasing defence spending, so that we can meet the threats that we face, and, as I have discussed with the new Defence Secretary in the US, boosting our defence industry on both sides of the Atlantic.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
In the light of the growing threats facing our United Kingdom, it was genuinely shocking to read at the weekend that Conservative Defence Ministers spent taxpayers’ money sponsoring a race car. My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South are livid about the waste of their taxpayers’ money. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that he will continue his actions to root out every aspect of wasteful spending in the Ministry of Defence?
John Healey
I can indeed. We have to get a grip of out-of-control defence waste and out-of-control defence budgets. I am pleased to have been able to put an end to that pointless racing car deal, which delivered free race-day tickets and MOD-sponsored branded mudflaps instead of the kit that our frontline troops need. Of course, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Minister responsible for that deal—he agreed the contract and told the House that it was a “brilliant partnership”.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
You will know, Mr Speaker, the importance of secure communications, and this is Defence questions, so before I ask my question, may I say that Conservative Members were sent all the Ministry of Defence’s answers to our oral questions in advance? I do not know whether we should be grateful or concerned. We have been forewarned.
Mr Speaker
I thought that Ministers thought up the answers themselves. You have shocked me.
James Cartlidge
I thought that it would benefit the House to know that, given the importance of secure communications. I turn to my question, which involves secure communications. It says everything about the Government’s priorities that they are delaying increasing defence spending to 2.5%, but accelerating their terrible Chagos deal, at a cost of up to £18 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister justified the deal by stating that without it,
“the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should”.
No. 10 later briefed that that was a reference to satellite links. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that there is an operational threat to US and UK military satellite communications at Diego Garcia?
John Healey
This is a question about defence spending. We have a cast-iron commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that the UK has not spent on defence since 2010, under the last Labour Government. On the Chagos deal, this is a military base that is vital to our national security. The Prime Minister was right to say that its legal certainty had been called into doubt. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. That is why we looked for a deal that would safeguard the operations for at least the next century.
James Cartlidge
When the Prime Minister said that the base “cannot operate”, he was referring to operations. That implies that there must be some kind of direct threat to satellite communications on Diego Garcia. The world will have seen that the Secretary of State has not defended that position—he is not leaning into it in any way—which makes us think this: given that the former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and the previous Defence Secretary Grant Shapps saw the same intelligence and rejected the deal, which has since got worse and more expensive, is not the obvious thing to scrap it, and to spend every penny that is saved on our armed forces?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, of course, were responsible for 11 rounds of negotiation on the deal, and the Prime Minister’s point was that a lack of long-term legal certainty casts into doubt the operational security of the base. This deal will secure an operational guarantee for at least a century.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government are delivering for defence with strong measures to protect our underwater critical national infrastructure. We have declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar. We have called out its activities by saying, “We see you. We know what you’re doing,” and we will robustly defend our critical national infrastructure.
Bradley Thomas
The Secretary of State agrees that the threat to critical undersea infrastructure is serious, so will he prioritise development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, including under pillar 2 of AUKUS, and will he increase research and development investment into systems that could protect that critical undersea infrastructure?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question—it is a good one. We are seeing more risks posed to our critical underwater infrastructure by players who wish harm to our national security. We already have brilliant capability in RAF Proteus, which is able to support our infrastructure and that of our allies. When the strategic defence review is published in the spring, I am sure that there will be more developments in that direction.
Harriet Cross
The Secretary of State recently outlined to this House the serious situation with the Yantar—a clear example of the threat posed to our critical undersea infrastructure, and of the work that we need to do to defend ourselves and deter potential attacks. Does that not show that we need to increase our defence spending as quickly as possible to defend our crucial infrastructure and protect national security?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is right. We are increasing our defence spending. In the Budget, we increased defence spending by £3 billion, and in the spring, after the publication of the strategic defence review, we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence.
Damien Egan
Our undersea cables are critical to the economy, public services and social order in this country. Given the hostile activity undertaken—the surveying of our cables—can Ministers give assurances that the full needs of our Navy will be reflected in the strategic defence review, so that we can defend our homeland security?
Luke Pollard
As a Navy brat and representative of a naval constituency, that is foremost in my mind. It is not just the Royal Navy that defends our critical national infrastructure; in the case of the Yantar, that was done by the RAF, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Navy, as well as a joint integrated operation of all our forces working together to defend our interests. Anyone threatening our infrastructure should be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities to defend itself—and we will.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting His Majesty’s naval base Clyde with a number of my colleagues from across the House. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is working with the Scottish Government to address the capacity and retention issues at the base, and that the Scottish Government are engaging positively on the industrial defence strategy?
Luke Pollard
Clyde is an important base for our national security. It is one of our critical military assets, and we work closely on it, not just with the Scottish Government and local councils, but across the entirety of Government. The success of our defence does not rely just on the actions and decisions of the Ministry of Defence; it is a whole-of-Government approach that keeps our nation safe. In these more difficult times, we will ask for more of a whole-of-Government approach, to ensure that the men and women of our fighting forces, and the civilians who support them, have what they need to keep our nation safe.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
The proposed AQUIND interconnector between France and England will slice through my constituency, causing huge disruption, but of more significant concern is the fact that the Ministry of Defence has raised serious national security concerns about the proposed submarine power cable. Does the Minister agree that we cannot do anything to jeopardise our national security, and will he formally lodge an objection with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who will consider the proposal?
Luke Pollard
I am familiar with the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who has raised similar concerns. If the right hon. Lady writes to me about that, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the strength of the response on protecting our undersea infrastructure. The Defence Secretary has been clear that growing Russian aggression will not be tolerated here or in Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that homeland security will be a key focus of the strategic defence review?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews. It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories.
Mr Speaker
We have stretched that answer out well, haven’t we? Let us go on to Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for his important question. He has my absolute assurance that if anyone dies in service, from training all the way through to combat and operations, they will absolutely be exempt from inheritance tax provisions. I will continue to discuss that issue, as well as many others to do with armed forces pay, with my opposite number in the Treasury. This Government are deeply proud of the armed forces, and I am deeply proud of them. They will have my full backing as we move forward.
Tom Tugendhat
First of all, I place on record my full congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for his recent award in the new year’s honours. That is a fantastic achievement for somebody for whom I have the greatest admiration, and with whom I have served in numerous fields. May I raise the problem with his answer, however? Retention in the armed forces is already suffering; numbers are already coming down and people are struggling to make the maths add up between serving today and having a future tomorrow. The problem with these arguments and the lack of clarity from the Government is that too many people are making decisions on which we all need them to think again. We need people to serve and stay, and it is his responsibility to keep them there.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his response. We need to take a holistic view of this. I remind him that we have missed every recruitment and retention target for the past 14 years. We are working really hard to get after that now: we have just put in place wraparound welfare, we have done the Annington Homes deal, we have put additional resources into veterans’ homes for after service, and we have given the biggest pay rise in 20 years. We are working really hard on that, in discussions with our Treasury counterparts, and we will move it forward.
Blake Stephenson
Will the Minister give an assurance that the proposed changes to the application of inheritance tax to certain armed forces death-in-service payments are compatible with the commitment in the armed forces covenant to ensuring that our brave and loyal armed forces personnel
“face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services”—
yes or no?
Al Carns
The covenant will come into law in the next two years or so, on the back of the armed forces Bill. That will result in a great expansion, with all Government Departments falling in line with the covenant, so that no individual who has served is disadvantaged because of that service.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Forces Pension Society has already stated that levying inheritance tax on death-in-service benefits would be wholly counter to the armed forces covenant, and we Conservatives wholly agree. The consultation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on that proposal closed on 22 January. On what day did the MOD submit its response to that key consultation—presumably in defence of service families’ interests—and will the Minister place a copy of that response in the Library?
Al Carns
May I remind the right hon. Member of my service, and of the fact that I will in no way, shape or form take this for granted? I am putting all my effort into those discussions at the moment. My officials have discussed that with the Treasury, I have discussed it with the Treasury, and we will continue to discuss such issues with the Treasury to ensure that our armed forces personnel get the deal that they deserve.
Mr Francois
I commend the Minister on his Distinguished Service Order—we all do—but in answer to a parliamentary question, we were told:
“The Ministry of Defence has not made a formal response to HM Revenue and Customs’ technical consultation.”
It really should have done. Who in their right mind would soldier for a Government who do not have their back, whether on school fees, lawfare or inheritance tax, or worse, do not have the back of their family if they die unmarried and in service?
Al Carns
Scoring political points on the back of armed forces families is unacceptable. This is a public consultation, and it is not the Government’s responsibility to answer it. We have discussed this Department to Department, from both an official perspective and a ministerial perspective, and we will continue to do so. We will bring this to a close.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I held the first call with the new US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, last month. We discussed the importance of all NATO allies doing more, including on defence spending. I look forward to meeting Secretary Hegseth this week at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers.
Wendy Chamberlain
Members of this House have raised concerns about the impact on Ukraine of both the new US Administration and continuing Russian aggression. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will use the upcoming Munich security conference to determine with allies the best way of ensuring Ukraine’s victory?
John Healey
I can indeed. I welcome the fact, as I think will the hon. Lady, that the new US Defence Secretary is spending his third full week in office in Europe. He has made it clear that he wants to discuss how to strengthen alliances, how to expand our defence industries on both sides of the Atlantic, and how to boost allied defence spending, including on Ukraine. That is something we all agree on.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer, but in the face of wider Russian aggression, could he expand on what conversations he has already had with NATO counterparts about how NATO can respond appropriately to the threat from Russia?
John Healey
I can indeed. Everyone in NATO, including every one of the European allies within NATO, is ready and is stepping up on Euro-Atlantic security. This Wednesday I will have the privilege of chairing the Ukraine defence contact group, a 50 nation-strong group in which we co-ordinate the support that Ukraine needs, because we must stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government have committed to maintain £3 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year, next year, and each year for as long as it takes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I came back from Ukraine a week and a half ago. I was very close to the front and talked to many of the military commanders there, and they made it very clear to me that they were desperately short of artillery pieces, 155 mm, and, most importantly, munitions—they could hardly respond to the Russians. As I understand it, they are also short of C-RAM—counter-rocket, artillery and mortar—defence missiles, which are desperately needed to protect Ukraine’s energy sites and its civilians’ flats and houses. That hardware has been promised by many European nations, and of course by the USA—and I must say that when you are that close to the front, Mr Speaker, you realise how desperate it is there. In the light of this delay, will the Government commit the UK to at least provide the sort of weaponry that it can provide to alleviate that problem as far as humanly possible, but mostly to push our allies to do what they promised to do? From what I heard, without that hardware, Ukraine runs the risk of losing this war.
John Healey
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman went to Ukraine. He was there with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), and I look forward to meeting them both later this month to discuss the detail of what they saw. From my second day in this job, when I was in Odessa with President Zelensky, I made the commitment that the UK would step up and speed up support for Ukraine, which is exactly what we have done. That will be part of the discussions we will have with other nations at the meeting I will chair on Wednesday, and I am sure it will also be part of our discussions at NATO on Thursday.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Along with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the £3 billion commitment to Ukraine this year, next year and the year after, but there are things that we can do at home as well. For example, this weekend I hope to host a reception for Ukrainian refugees in my constituency—a Valentine’s for Ukraine that we can send from all of us to all of them and all the Ukrainians who are finding refuge in our country.
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s action in his constituency. The UK has a proud unity on Ukraine, and it has given a proud welcome to Ukrainians under the Homes for Ukraine scheme since day one of Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion. As my hon. Friend says, nearly three years into the conflict, Valentine’s day is a useful marker to recognise the warmth of welcome from the UK people and the struggle and fight that the Ukrainian people—military and civilian alike—are waging for their freedom and their future.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government are delivering for Defence by addressing the deep retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the Conservatives. Last week I announced more detail on a brand-new fast-track cyber entry to boost UK cyber-defence, bolstering our capabilities in response to the growing threats and addressing a global shortage of cyber-talent. I also announced the award of a new contract for a tri-service armed forces recruiting service.
David Taylor
West Herts college in my constituency offers a great selection of courses, including computing courses that offer a pathway to a career in cyber-security. For young people in Hemel Hempstead considering a career in that field to defend our country, can the Minister outline further details of the steps that he took last week to boost recruitment to cyber-security in this country?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the enthusiasm of young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency for a career in cyber. Last week, the new cyber direct entry pathway for our armed forces was opened for the Royal Air Force and the Navy—the Army entry will come online next year. That allows people to join directly to pursue a career in cyber. By changing the entry requirements, it will bring on board the cyber-expertise that we need to keep our country safe. The frontline of the future is not tomorrow; it is today—it is the cyber-frontline. Young people across the nation should look on the Royal Navy and RAF websites at a career in cyber. It is well paid and will keep our country safe.
Peter Swallow
I welcome the news that the MOD has signed the British Dyslexia Association’s dyslexia-friendly workplace pledge. Does the Minister agree that, to address the recruitment crisis, it is vital that the armed forces remain inclusive for recruits from all backgrounds and with all experiences, while rightly continuing to demand high standards?
Luke Pollard
I am pleased to confirm that the Ministry of Defence signed the dyslexia-friendly workplace pledge at the end of last year, making us the first UK Government Department to do so. It is a fantastic step forward that signals that the MOD is a top employer for people with dyslexia. Whatever someone’s ability, there is a role for them within our armed forces, because our armed forces need people with a whole range of abilities, backgrounds and expertise to keep our nation safe.
Sarah Edwards
In my constituency we are proud to host the Defence Medical Services at Whittington. We are looking forward to a fresh date being set for a visit from my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People so that he can see its brilliant work for himself. What steps is the Minister taking to build on the success of such centres of excellence in any new recruitment programmes?
Luke Pollard
It is vital that we seek to invest in Defence Medical Services, especially as we live in more difficult and contested times where we may need to use its expertise and that of the national health service across the UK to support a warfighting effort. I know the Minister for Veterans and People is looking forward to visiting Whittington later this year. I hope that when the strategic defence review comes out, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) will see the path to investment and support that we are offering Defence Medical Services as we look to create a whole-of-society approach to our defence.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Soldiers will be leaving the Army, rather than being recruited, if we continue to allow the persecution of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. Last week’s coroner’s report into the Clonoe and Coalisland shootings was 51 pages of facts and eight pages of naïve speculation, which led right into the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland. Without the Northern Ireland legacy legislation, how will the Secretary of State prevent that, because if he fails, what should be a process of peace and reconciliation will turn into a vindictive, vengeful pursuit of men whose only sin was to serve their country with honour, heroism and skill, and in the most terrifying conditions? If we cannot prevent that, all the recruiting efforts will fail.
Luke Pollard
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his passion is also felt on the Government Benches, and the ministerial team want to support all our veterans. The issue that he raises is difficult for me to comment on as it is subject to ongoing legal matters, and he will appreciate that it is hard for a Minister to comment in such circumstances—
Mr Speaker
Order. I reassure the Minister that there are no legal restrictions on this case. It is not the courts; it is only a coroner.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question none the less. The Ministry of Defence is continuing our conversations with the Northern Ireland Office, which is the lead Department for such matters. We will continue to support our veterans, and we will continue conversations with the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner as to how we can support veterans in Northern Ireland in particular.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Following on from the previous question, does the Minister accept that recruitment is bound to be disincentivised by a finding, 30 years on, that people who did their duty and encountered armed IRA terrorists on murderous active service, and protected the public as a consequence, find themselves vilified 30 years later by the coroner’s service? How can that be right, and what steps will the Government take to protect our armed forces not just now but going into the future, including what happened in the past?
Luke Pollard
This is a matter that the Ministry of Defence has discussed today with the Northern Ireland Office—it is a Northern Ireland Office lead, and we will be working closely with it on that. Announcements have already been made in relation to this by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that a career in the armed forces is a brilliant career for anyone looking at it. This Government will continue to support those people who serve, and those who have served, to ensure that they get all the support they need to defend our country in service, and benefit from that service after they have left uniform.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the points made by right hon. and hon. Members, if we are going to have recruitment, we need to have protection. If we are to have protection, we must ensure that the disgraceful scenes—the SAS killed four IRA men who were returning from a bombing and shooting attack on a police station, trying to kill. The SAS were confronted by those killers, murderers, terrorist scum that they are, who were armed to the teeth with a machine gun that could fire 500 rounds in a minute and an AK-47. Is it not right that our soldiers should be protected? They were confronted by the enemy. That enemy was never going to surrender, and they got their just deserts.
Luke Pollard
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches share the same passion that all veterans should get the support they need. We will continue to discuss that aspect with our Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who take the lead on this matter. I encourage him to continue to raise questions, because it is important that we support all our veterans, no matter where they served across the United Kingdom. That is a matter that the Secretary of State and I, as well as the Minister for Veterans and People, will continue to discuss with colleagues across the Government.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
If we want to strengthen our armed forces, we must fix the recruitment delays. One young recruit signer, Jimmy, applied in September 2023 but will not start until January 2025. That is largely due to medical record hold-ups and poor communication. I welcome the aim for applicants to receive a decision within 10 days, and a training start date within 30 days, but how will Serco deliver that in practice? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that recruits get clear, timely responses and are not lost in the system?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady is right that we need to speed up the recruitment process. We inherited a situation where it takes, on average, more than 250 days from the point of application to turning up at a training establishment, often without any understanding of how long that will take. That is why the Secretary of State introduced the 10/30 policy, which means a provisional offer within 10 days of starting, and a provisional start date within 30 days of application. We are doing that to reduce the time of flight, including working cross-Government to improve speed of access to medical records. There will be further announcements in due course. We are making progress on that, but there is a lot more to do to fix the damage to the recruitment process that was run by the last Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Afghan resettlement programme is a cross-Government delivery programme that will bring existing resettlement schemes into one single pipeline. Under such schemes, more than 30,000 eligible Afghans have relocated to the UK. As confirmed in my recent written parliamentary answer to the hon. Gentleman, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of relocation figures by job role, including those who worked directly for British forces.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Having admitted 30,000 Afghans into the country as part of the Afghan resettlement programme, it is concerning to learn that the Ministry of Defence has no idea how many of them actually ever worked for British forces. The Government’s own figures estimate the total number of local Afghans employed by British forces during Op Herrick to be around 7,000, only 2,850 of whom worked as interpreters and translators on the frontline—a fraction of the 30,000. If the MOD does not know why they are eligible to be let into the country, the MOD presumably also does not know who they are or what they have been doing in Afghanistan over the past decade. Can the Minister confirm that the Afghan resettlement programme has not been exploited by criminal, terrorist or hostile state influence?
Luke Pollard
Can I thank the hon. Gentleman not just for that question, but for his ongoing interest in this area? We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan. This programme was started by the last Government, and this Government are proud to continue it. Everyone who is brought to safety in the UK from the Taliban under the Afghan schemes has been vetted in relation to that. There are a variety of roles that cover support to our armed forces in relation to our UK mission in Afghanistan, but I can reassure him that I pay close attention to this area. If he would like to meet to discuss this further, to deepen his interest and to help him in his inquiries, I am happy to do so.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Why do we support a more diverse military? It is simple: it makes us better, it makes us think differently and, importantly, it means the military represents the society we are trying to protect. Since coming into government, we have launched our Raising our Standards programme. We are seeking to make Defence the most attractive employer for all walks of society. I will be unequivocally clear that the underlying principle for why we pursue a more diverse military, better welfare, better housing, and better kit and equipment, is simply to ensure that we can call upon our men and women to do their job and that they can close with the enemy and win.
Dr Pinkerton
In 2019, the Wigston review identified that serving personnel from ethnic minority backgrounds are subject to higher levels of harassment and bullying than their white British counterparts. Given the recent success of the Atherton review, which cast light on the structural challenges faced by women in the armed forces, and given that 16% of the British Army workforce comes from ethnic minority groups, does the ministerial team think it might be time to have an Atherton-style review, independent of the MOD, into the challenges faced by ethnic minority groups to ensure and enhance recruitment, retention and promotional opportunities?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his useful comments. We have launched our Raising our Standards programme, which will take standards from where they were and raise them. We will make Defence the most inclusive career and, indeed, the most rewarding for any part of society to join. The Defence Committee will hold us to account on some of that. When the covenant comes into place, that will also cover certain elements of standards, too.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Recent weeks have seen troubling headlines for LGBT personnel, and we on the Lib Dem Benches believe that everyone is welcome in our armed forces, regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity. Can the Minister outline what steps have been taken to promote the British values of inclusion, particularly for the LGBT community, among our NATO allies? Will the Minister provide an update on the compensation scheme for LGBT veterans who were impacted by the military’s anti-gay ban?
Al Carns
When we started the Etherton review, a lot of engagement went out across some of our NATO allies to take best practice. Now that we have launched the programme, we are also making sure that people can understand the successes and perhaps some of the improvements as it progresses. As the House will know, the Defence Secretary announced our findings from the Etherton review on 12 December, with a 50% increase in the financial redress system for those affected by the LGBT ban. Things are now heading in the right direction, with more than 500 people starting the application process.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The new medium helicopter competition is at the evaluation and approval stage. If everything goes well, I anticipate a contract award later this year, subject to all the usual approvals.
Edward Morello
A significant number of my constituents contribute to the defence sector, whether through apprenticeships, graduate roles or skilled employment. Many were schooled in West Dorset and now work in the surrounding areas, including for firms such as Leonardo in the neighbouring constituency of Yeovil. What assurances can the Minister give that contracts such as the new medium helicopter will be awarded quickly so that the futures of the many apprentices and employees in the defence sector are protected?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is right: some of these programmes can take a long time to get to contract. In fact, this programme experienced delays in securing outline business case approval under the previous Government. I hope that we can get it to the end of the line as swiftly as possible, in accordance with the current process, and that some of his constituents will benefit from having work to do on the new programme.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis, which must be addressed across all different cohorts. Increasing female representation benefits our warfighting and readiness, but we are still some way from where the hon. Lady and I would like us to be on the issue. The latest figures from October 2024 show 11.9% female representation in the regular forces and 15.9% in the reserves.
Sarah Dyke
A balanced workforce in the armed forces is good for British defence, but women still face a raft of challenges, making it harder to attract and retain female talent. What steps is the Minister taking to accelerate progress towards the women in defence charter ambition of 30%, and to make the armed forces a better workplace for women?
Luke Pollard
This is an important topic, and it really matters. Implementing the recommendations of the Atherton review and raising standards, as the Minister for Veterans and People has spoken about, will benefit everyone in the armed forces, but women in particular. We need to improve culture and behaviour, and focus on women’s health and wellbeing. New policies are being brought forward to address that. We are also standing up more work on calling out crimes and behaviour that is unacceptable in our armed forces. Everyone should have a place in our armed forces, because defending our country requires a whole-of-society approach. We must not neglect any part of society.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I reassure the hon. Member that I work closely with my Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish commissioners. We are currently looking at the structures by which we support veterans across the whole tapestry of the United Kingdom, and we really want to put in place an institutional resilience system that gives the best care at the right time and in the right place to the right people. That primarily involves working with thousands of charities collaboratively and coherently to ensure that we can get the best bang for our buck from all the amazing volunteers and charitable services out there. A bigger review is going on. It is on hold at the moment, and we will let the House know more in due course.
Sarah Bool
I am proud that my constituency of South Northamptonshire hosts the largest armed forces gathering of its kind in the UK. The national transition event at Silverstone on 24 February, now in its sixth year, is run by the charities Mission Motorsport and Mission Community. The event recognises, demonstrates and celebrates the value of our veterans and armed forces community. As the Secretary of State develops the veterans strategy, are community-led approaches such as this part of the Department’s thinking, and how might we support such organisations in their work?
Al Carns
Absolutely. I just travelled to the north-east of England and hit three different councils, looking at the different ways in which they deal with the veterans issue. I am really looking forward to the launch event, which will have a variety of different race cars. I just hope that I do not get to see the mudflaps when I am there.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On behalf of us all, I wish our UK team in Canada good luck for the Invictus games. This week, I will have the privilege of chairing the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group. I will also attend the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers, and then the Munich security conference.
Mr Speaker, 2025 is the critical year for the war in Ukraine. The world is watching, and it is imperative that all allies step up their support. I am proud of the UK’s continued unity and leadership on Ukraine. This year, the UK will provide £4.5 billion in military aid—more than ever before. Our commitment is absolute. We will strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. I am grateful to continue to have the support of both sides of the House. Together, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Graeme Downie
US navy officials have reported increased Russian and Chinese patrols in the High North. Last week, the Danish navy announced plans to acquire three new Arctic patrol ships, and March will see one of the largest Exercise Joint Viking operations in NATO’s history. With these concerns in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm which UK assets will be involved in Joint Viking this year? What plans does he have to update the 2022 policy paper on the UK’s defence contribution in the High North?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right about the High North. We will continue to maintain a strong defence profile and posture. Both the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be taking part in Exercise Joint Viking.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Surely, one of the most important lessons from the war in Ukraine for our own military base is the urgent need to fire up the defence industry and increase its capacity. However, today we learned from ADS that British defence manufacturers will be hit with a £600 million tax rise this Parliament from higher national insurance. Why are the Government prioritising higher taxes on defence instead of higher defence spending?
John Healey
On the contrary, we are backing British industry. We are looking for firms that can design, invent and make in Britain—a big change from the industrial policy under the previous Government. I was in Derby recently to announce an eight-year contract for Rolls-Royce that will support more than 1,000 apprentices—200 each year—and thousands of small businesses in supply chains across the country.
James Cartlidge
I know all about the Unity deal because, as the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry said, I negotiated it. This is extraordinary complacency on tax from the Secretary of State. The Government are taxing not just the defence industry but the education of defence people’s children and death-in-service payments. The fact is that the Defence Secretary is under “a tax” from all sides. The question is: is that how the Government will pay for their Chagos deal?
John Healey
We stepped up and accelerated the negotiations to conclude the Rolls-Royce contract, and I was able to announce it the other week to apprentices and management at Rolls-Royce. We are putting nearly £3 billion extra into defence this year. We recognise, as everyone does, that we must increase defence spending. We will return UK defence spending to a level that we have not seen since Labour was last in government in 2010, directing it first and foremost to British industry.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I am very happy to acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point. I met many apprentices late last week at the launch of National Apprenticeship Week. Whichever factory I visit, I meet apprentices—young men and women—who are thrilled by the opportunities that a career in defence gives them. They all have smiles on their faces and futures in front of them. It is great that National Apprenticeship Week highlights all that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
There is a long-standing deal with other nations on the welfare of families and so on. This Government are supporting our armed forces community. We will pay 90% through the CEA. We have given service personnel the biggest pay rise, and we are addressing the recruitment and retention crisis that we were left with.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Maria Eagle
I am more than happy to join my hon. Friend in making those points. He is right that we must fully support defence companies and their personnel, and we must ensure that universities such as Keele, and all others across the further and higher education sectors, welcome defence firms at their careers fairs.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
John Healey
Mr Speaker, we have the commitment and we have the plan.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The visit to Redditch was truly enlightening; the charitable sector there is doing amazing work to support veterans in his constituency. I fully champion the breakfast clubs they are putting on.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
John Healey
We are setting out to reset relations with key European allies. We have said we will look to co-operate more closely with the European Union where that is in British interests and where we can add to the defence and security arrangements for Europe as a whole. We have struck some deep new bilateral agreements, such as the Trinity House agreement with Germany. We have to see our British industry not just as producing the kit our forces need, but as an essential part of our deterrence that, alongside allies, deters aggression.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Al Carns
National resilience and defence in depth is essential as we move forward, when the threat is transferred from non-state actors to state actors across the globe. When the strategic defence review comes out in the next couple of the months—in the spring—Members will see that that is a central tenet throughout.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Last week, the Gurkha class of 2025 proudly attested in Pokhara. There is one part of the British armed forces that does not yet have women: the Brigade of Gurkhas. Will Ministers do what—sadly, and not for the want of trying—I failed to do, and rectify that omission?
Al Carns
I served with the Gurkhas on various tours in Afghanistan and across the world. They are some of the best forces we have, and they do a fantastic job upholding the freedoms we enjoy. I will continue to work with the Gurkhas, and I look forward to meeting their ambassador here very soon to discuss issues such as this.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Al Carns
We just talked about resilience and defence in depth. The cadets provide an example of where we can bring society and defence together to help people understand the benefits of defence. It gives them some great examples, from courage to commitment, dedication, drive and, indeed, becoming a net contributor to society. I fully support it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Are the Government doing any forward thinking—[Laughter.] No, I am being serious—about what will happen when the shooting stops with a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine? Wherever the border between free and occupied Ukraine finally forms will become the new frontline for Europe, so what provision are we making, even now, to be able to secure the future shape and safety of Europe?
John Healey
Despite the titters on his own side, the right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. At the point at which Ukraine decides to talk instead of, or as well as, fight, security guarantees will need to be in place to ensure that Russia does not resume its aggression. In Washington last year, the NATO allies made a commitment that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership, but there will be a period when during the talks, just as in the fight, they will require our support. We are giving that detailed discussion now.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On Thursday, my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Veterans and People came to my constituency for an important discussion on veterans’ mental health. May I ask him for his reflections on that discussion and on what actions he will be taking moving forward?
Al Carns
First of all, I thank my hon. Friend for hosting a fantastic get-together with veterans, bereaved families and the charitable sector. I learned a huge amount from the visit. I looked again at how councils are delivering support to veterans, which I can contrast and compare with other visits, and will come out with a plan in due course.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will have heard the exchanges earlier about the grave injustice and slur that was delivered upon SAS personnel in the coroner’s judgment last week, following the incidents in Clonoe. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to indicate not only to the House but to service personnel and the nation that he, as Defence Secretary, supports those who bravely served in Northern Ireland and stood on the precipice between peace and tyranny?
John Healey
I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to do just that. It behoves us all to remember that those who served in our forces in Northern Ireland were part of a campaign that led to more deaths of UK security personnel in Northern Ireland than in Afghanistan. They deserve, and they will have, our fullest support.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
As seems to be the consensus of the House, our support for Ukraine must remain unwavering in the face of Putin’s war of nationalist aggression. I am proud that this country retrofits Storm Shadow missiles in my constituency. With an increasingly unstable geopolitical situation, does the Secretary of State agree that full co-operation with our NATO allies to defend Ukraine and guarantee the security of Europe continues to be integral in the defence of our own country?
John Healey
My hon. Friend points to one of the major items for discussion on Wednesday at the Ukraine defence contact group, and one of the main concerns of NATO and the new Secretary-General, which is to boost the capacity of the European defence industry.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Eskdalemuir seismic array in my constituency monitors compliance with the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. At the moment, there is a restriction on wind farm development in the vicinity of the array, but wind farm developers are lobbying hard to have those restrictions relaxed. Can Ministers give a guarantee that they will not be relaxed if there is any suggestion that that would interfere with the array’s effectiveness?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I was dealing with this issue before I came to the House earlier today. Supporting our national security is the No. 1 priority of the Government. We need to keep our nation safe. There is a variety of means by which we do so, and the array is an important contributor. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the details of the issue he raises.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister pointed out earlier, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service has taken a prominent role in protecting our subsea infrastructure. I welcome the settlement of the RFA pay dispute. Will that help the Minister to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis that saw numbers of RFA seafarers fall by 30% under the previous Government?
Luke Pollard
It is vital that we value the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and we have done so by settling the pay dispute and making it very clear that there is a bright future for seafarers in the RFA. Its work with RFA Proteus in relation to the Yantar has been exceptional, but each and every day those seafarers are supporting our Royal Navy on global operations. They have the support of our ministerial team, and I am sure that they have the support of Members on both sides of the House.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
With the Russians using drones to drop CS gas into the trenches of the Donbas, and Avon Protection in my constituency ready to manufacture the residue of the 300,000 gas masks that Ukraine requested, will the Government put in an order as soon as possible, please?
Maria Eagle
We have taken many steps to try to improve the capabilities of the Ukrainians when it comes to drone technology, and I am perfectly happy to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy, but it is also the proud home of many companies in the defence sector: BAE, Airbus and Accuracy International, to name just a few. Those companies provide fantastic job opportunities for my constituents, but they have faced real difficulties in the last decade. What steps is the Department taking to support our defence sector in the UK and in Portsmouth in particular—both the businesses themselves and the recruitment and training of the skilled workforce—as part of our Government’s industrial strategy?
Maria Eagle
I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend shortly when I visit some of those businesses in her constituency. The defence industrial strategy is the way in which we will seek to deal with the issues that she has raised.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
My constituent Owen was medically discharged from the Army after 17 years of service. Since then, he has been waiting for two years for a resolution of his claim under the armed forces compensation scheme. Does the Minister agree that that is too long to make a veteran wait, and what advice can he give me so that I can resolve my constituent’s case?
Al Carns
We are absolutely a Government who support veterans. If the hon. Gentleman will send me the details of that case, I will look into it personally. We pay out over £1 billion in compensation, and I have been to Norcross to ensure best standards up there.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I recently visited the Royal Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, which has an outstanding veterans’ care service. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for former and current service personnel in Birmingham and beyond to continue to have access to specialised musculoskeletal rehabilitation services?
Al Carns
Absolutely. Birmingham has a cluster of fantastic hospital and medical care facilities, as well as the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine. I would love to visit, and I hope I can do so in due course.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I think I am right in saying that I am the only Member of the House of Commons, if not Parliament as a whole, to have Mauritian heritage; if I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. Why does the Secretary of State not see that the proposed deal between the United Kingdom and Mauritius is a dangerous one because of the increase in China’s access to the islands near Diego Garcia, an unaffordable one—whether it is £9 billion, £18 billion or £52 billion, that is money that should go to our armed forces—and, above all, a humiliating one in the eyes of the Mauritians, the Americans and the international community? Why will he not scrap it?
John Healey
The deal with the Mauritians is designed to secure the long-term operation and the legal base, and to guarantee our ability and that of our allies in the US to continue to operate from Diego Garcia for at least the next century.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Earlier in topical questions, the Veterans Minister said that the strategic defence review would be published in the next couple of months. Can he confirm that it will be published by the end of April?
Al Carns
It is a fair correction. I said “in a couple of months” and then “in the spring”.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The Government’s priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North sea that recognises the role that oil and gas will play in the coming decades. This transition will be in line with our climate and legal obligations. It will drive us towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs.
On 29 January, the Court of Session published its judgment on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. The judgment set out that the previous consents granted to Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful, as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced. As a result, if developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will need to reapply for consent, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year.
Although the judgment itself is a matter for the courts, the Government have taken rapid action. In early January, we consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas, to provide stability for industry. The consultation closed on 8 July, and we are working towards publishing the finalised guidance as soon as possible. Once the guidance is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with regard to the environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments. The Court confirmed that it is in the interests of good administration for the consultation and guidance to be completed properly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw in Parliament or anywhere else, because doing so would prejudice future regulatory decision making should the respective developers decide to resubmit these projects for approval.
More widely, this Government are determined to deliver the long-term jobs and investment and the clean energy future that this country needs to ensure that people working in the North sea, and those involved in the oil and gas industry across this country, have the long-term future they need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for clarification, you do not have jurisdiction on the planning issue, and it is no longer in the court, so I am a little bit confused by your assertion that you will be involved going forward.
Michael Shanks
I am happy to provide clarification based on the advice that I have, which is that this is a matter for the applicants in the court case, who are entitled to appeal the judgment, should they wish to do so. If they wish to make a further application in this matter, my Department will be responsible for making that judgment, and I seek not to prejudice an application by giving an opinion one way or the other on these matters. I hope that that sits well with you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.
Andrew Bowie
In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.
The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.
Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.
The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for his response, although I am not sure it is entirely constructive in this conversation. He knows as well as anyone that the process is live, and the companies involved in these two projects have the right to apply in future. It would be wrong for me to prejudice those applications, in the House of Commons or anywhere else, by stating an opinion—
Michael Shanks
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.
What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the Government’s commitment to supporting production in existing North sea oil and gas fields and for confirming the desire to partner closely with industry and workers on the transition away from fossil fuels. Does he agree that the workers and communities that rely on the North sea would be in a much stronger position if we had not witnessed over the last decade a chaotic mismanagement of the decline in the basin that he has just referred to, and the failure to plan for the loss of 70,000 jobs in that decade alone?
Michael Shanks
The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point, which is that the failure to acknowledge that the transition is already under way is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything will carry on as it was. The reality is that in the past decade a third of the oil and gas workforce—70,000 workers, as my hon. Friend says—have already lost their jobs and the transition is under way. We are determined to ensure not only that the transition leads to a future in the North sea energy sector that, yes, involves oil and gas for many years to come, but that we build the industries of the future now so that there is no gap. The alternative is to do what the previous Government did, which was to pretend that the transition was not under way and then somehow deal with the shock that would come when North sea oil and gas inevitably declined to the point where workers’ jobs were not protected. We are determined to build what comes next and to protect good, well-paid jobs in the North sea for many decades to come.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The decisions that we make in the next decade on energy will make or break the planet, and this is also key for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields. Should the proposed developers apply for a new development consent, the ruling gives the Government the opportunity to take a rational, science-based approach and make a decision on the future of the field based on what is best for the planet, the people of Britain and the UK’s international leadership.
Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), approving these oilfields this will not protect UK workers. Despite promises of jobs, not a single UK design or construction role has been created. Instead, that work has been outsourced to Dubai. Business leaders agree that a fair transition away from oil and gas will boost our economy, create jobs and attract investment. The Liberal Democrats oppose the oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead of pouring money into an energy source that is not consistent with our climate commitments, we should be calling on the Government to invest in renewables and an ambitious green energy strategy that lowers costs, creates jobs and secures our future. What assessment will the Minister make of our climate commitments?
Michael Shanks
For the reason I outlined in previous answers, I will not comment specifically on these two projects. In answer to the hon. Lady’s broader point, any future applications for the North sea have to recognise the Supreme Court’s ruling that the end-use emissions, the scope 3 emissions, must be taken into account in any application.
We are now working through the significant number of responses to our consultation at the start of this year, on how people who wish to apply for consent to extract hydrocarbons from the continental shelf can comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment. An environmental assessment will be absolutely necessary. That is not a decision we have made from a political point of view; it was required by the Supreme Court.
We will follow the law of this land, as I would expect any Government to do, although apparently not a Conservative Government. We will put in place a robust system to ensure that any applications that come before us are judged fairly on their merits.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, constrained as it is by the legal situation. What a cheek the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has. He comes to the House pretending to be a hero and protector of the oil industry, when 70,000 jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out, were lost on his Government’s watch.
On the point at issue, there must be balance in the necessary transition from carbon to renewables. It is not an either/or. We have been in the North sea for two generations, and we will be there for two generations more as we wind down the basin. Politics is often about symbols, and the renewed consents for Rosebank and Jackdaw, if they come, offer an opportunity to reassure workers in this industry that they will not be left behind when we plan for a fair and just transition from the old to the new.
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for the tone of his question. This industry has many thousands of extremely talented, skilled and experienced workers, whom I have had the great privilege of meeting over the past seven months in this role. We have to ensure that we build a resilient industry for many decades to come.
Some of that will be the oil and gas that is already licensed and consented, and any other projects that come through the process, but it will also be about building the industry that comes next. It would be irresponsible of any Government to focus on one at the exclusion of the other.
The reality is that the North sea is a super-mature basin. A transition is already under way, and it is incumbent on us—and on any responsible Government—to build the industry that comes next while continuing to support the oil and gas industry that we have today.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is a double standard in the Government backing Heathrow expansion to drive economic growth, but not providing the maximum possible support for our domestic oil and gas industry?
Michael Shanks
The Chancellor was very clear in her speech that there is no conflict between our net zero commitments and the industrialisation that we want to see. Economic growth projects such as the runway at Heathrow will be important but, as the Chancellor said, they will have to be in line with our climate obligations.
Importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said, this is not an either/or. Oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we have to plan for what comes next and take cognisance of our legal and climate obligations.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I urge the Minister and Labour colleagues to take no lessons from the Conservative party on a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels, because our coalfield communities in this country were destroyed by Tory Governments over decades. In contrast, we need to look at the growth we are now providing by lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in carbon capture and storage, and establishing GB Energy.
Michael Shanks
I will find the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that historical transitions in key industries have left workers high and dry, instead of recognising that a transition is under way and supporting that workforce into what comes next. The coal industry devastated large parts of my constituency in Lanarkshire, and areas across England and Wales, which continues to have consequences for generations. We are determined that that will not happen with the North sea, but it requires us to plan the transition and to put it in place now, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
What will workers in Scotland be thinking right now, as they watch the UK Government, and a Scottish Minister, going out of their way to accelerate the decline in North sea oil and gas jobs, in advance of replacement jobs coming onstream, as they can see at Grangemouth? Does the Minister not understand that the reduction in attrition to North sea oil and gas production must be commensurate with a reduction in demand and an increase in renewables jobs? He has got that mix all over the place.
Michael Shanks
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is one of the Scottish National party cohort seeking to move to our other Parliament, but the SNP’s position in Holyrood is the same as ours, which is that we must be cognisant of climate change obligations with regard to any new licences. Perhaps he has a different position from his colleagues in Holyrood—I am not sure—but the SNP recognises, rightly, as we do, that the future requires investment in oil and gas for many years to come, to which we are committed, and that investment must match our climate obligations. The transition that is now under way must have Government at its heart, supporting the jobs and industries that come in the future. If the hon. Gentleman supported some of the investment that we propose, such as at Great British Energy in Aberdeen, instead of deriding it at every single turn—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I have again united all the Members of Parliament from north-east Scotland who oppose investment in their own constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman supported that investment, maybe he would see the jobs of the future coming.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost in the North sea, energy bills hit record highs and the Government put Britain’s energy security in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Having made a patently unlawful decision on Rosebank, the Conservatives are lecturing us on energy policy. The truth is that our clean energy mission will deliver the jobs and economic growth of the future, our commitment to climate action and lower bills. The Conservative party is stuck in the past. Will the Minister remain focused on the future and deliver our clean energy mission, which will deliver the economic and environmental benefits the public want to see?
Michael Shanks
As my hon. Friend says, the long-term future of our energy security in this country is not in oil and gas, as important a part as it will continue to play for many years to come. The clean power mission that we are driving forward at pace is about building home-grown renewable power that will deliver energy security in the long term, although oil and gas will continue to play an important part for many years to come, not just in our energy mix but in our country’s wider economic system. We will support the jobs and industries in north-east Scotland to ensure that transition is fair and prosperous for all.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Am I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?
Michael Shanks
We are still digesting the detail of the judgment, but my understanding is that, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, the Supreme Court made it clear that applications should take account of scope 3 emissions. In the process that we put in place, which I will not pre-empt, we will have to justify how the applications have met that requirement. It will then be for the North Sea Transition Authority to make a judgment and the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make a decision. If somebody wanted to take that judgment to a judicial review, they could be entitled to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the decision will be for the Government.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he is proceeding. We all recognise that climate change is a threat to growth rather than a driver of it, whether that is through flooding, fires or the chaos that it causes. It is therefore shocking that the previous Government did not take account of emissions and the impact that they might have on our economy in making the decision to proceed with Rosebank, and it is right that we rethink that.
I recognise what the Minister said about court judgments. May I press him, though? His predecessors had to admit that there was no energy security in proceeding with Rosebank because 80% of the oil and gas that it would provide would not be for the UK market, so it would not drive down British consumers’ bills. Is that still his understanding of the project? Is that not another good reason why we should rethink it?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to make the point that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality. This year alone there have been a number of examples around the world of that present reality already having a huge and devastating impact on people’s lives.
On the balance that we want to strike, yes, the oil and gas industry is important to our economy and to our energy mix, but the long-term future requires us to move towards clean power. Even if gas is extracted from the North sea, it does not help with consumer bills in this country, because it is traded on an open market to the highest bidder and sold by private companies. This is not a nationalised industry—it is owned by private companies, and gas is extracted by private companies and sold by private companies—and consumers in this country do not benefit from their gas coming from abroad or from the North sea.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.
Michael Shanks
To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.
We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.
On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.
Michael Shanks
I gently say to the hon. Lady that it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology—[Interruption.] It is about the Government responding to a legal judgment of a court—not just the Court of Session in this particular case, but the Supreme Court—on a decision taken by the previous Government to grant consent unlawfully. We now have to respond to that Supreme Court judgment and ensure that any future application process is robust and does not end up in the courts again—that is what we are determined to do. It will be for individual applicants to bring forward their applications.
On the wider point on jobs, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that there is certainty in the north-east of Scotland. I have spent a lot of time in this job making an effort to get to know not just the individual companies, but the supply chains, support companies and those on apprenticeships that work in the north-east. It is important to me, as it is to the hon. Lady, but I say to her and her whole party that we cannot move forward simply saying that oil and gas is the only future for the north-east of Scotland. They are finite resources, and we are clearly saying that the balance requires us to start investing now in the transition, so that there are good well-paid jobs for many generations to come.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the just transition and the need to move gradually to renewables. He quoted from our party’s manifesto that
“We will not issue new licences to explore new fields,”
but I remind him that there was another part to that paragraph. It says:
“because”
—there was a reason for it—
“they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”
Can he confirm that the 3 million oil barrels that would come out of Rosebank would in fact not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and would only worsen the climate crisis?
Michael Shanks
We have outlined in the seven months we have been in government our determination to deliver the energy security that this country has lacked in the past 14 years. The previous Government displayed a lack of preparedness not just for our energy security in future, but for the bills—higher than ever before—that all our constituents paid and that led to the cost of living crisis. That was because the Conservatives were happy to have us at the casino of fossil fuel prices. We are determined that that will not be our future and that we will no longer be in thrall to petrostates and dictators. Even though very little of our gas comes from those countries, we remain vulnerable to the prices set by international markets. We are determined that that will not happen, and we are building the clean power system that will take us away from it.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister talks of the threats of the climate crisis and the need for us to meet our climate commitments, which is encouraging to hear. What steps are the Government taking right now to improve the energy efficiency of homes across the UK to help us reduce our dependence on oil and gas?
Michael Shanks
I give credit to the hon. Lady for the ingenious way she got that important question into the urgent question. She makes the good point that, as well as ensuring we have built the clean power system for the needs of the future, we want to reduce as much as possible the need for households to heat their homes by making them much warmer in the first place. We are doing that by improving the standard of homes through the work being done by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) on the warm homes plan. We know that some of the poorest people in our country live in substandard homes that are cold and that take far too much of their monthly budgets to heat. We are determined to do something about that, as well as working across the piece on energy-efficiency measures that reduce demand in the years ahead.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
The remaining global carbon budget is extremely small, amounting to just five years’ worth of present global emissions. There is significant evidence that burning all oil and gas in existing fields globally would exceed the 1.5°C global limit. The climate pollution from burning Rosebank’s reserves would be more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 of the lowest income countries in the world. Does the Minister agree that we should focus on a fair transition for our communities and workers as we move to other forms of energy, rather than giving CPR to an already declining industry?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend outlines again the importance of tackling the climate crisis that is with us now. That is why the Government have been determined to move faster, through our clean power action plan and through the Department’s wider work to decarbonise across our economy. That is incredibly important and we do not have a moment to waste.
A fair transition is key to ensuring that we move away from a carbon-based economy. We have already closed the last of our coal power stations, which was an important moment, and my visit to Ratcliffe on Soar was an important moment for me to recognise how a transition can be done well—[Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), chuntering that that was done under a Conservative Government. It was an example of where the Conservative Government recognised that the coal industry was declining and that a transition was necessary, but he seems not to recognise that the same is true of the oil and gas industry, which is declining. If we do not start planning for that future now, we will leave those workers with nothing.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Government profess to want growth and jobs, yet they are giving no incentive or indication whatsoever to the developers of Rosebank and Jackdaw that if they spend millions of pounds on a new application, the Government will or will not grant consent. As a result, those developers are much more likely to say, “I won’t bother; I’ll invest my money elsewhere.” Will the Minister give an indication—yes or no to a compliant application?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me far beyond what I said at the beginning by asking me not just to give an opinion but to adjudicate on applications, right here in the House of Commons, before either company has applied. I think he knows fine well that I will not do that. We have put in place a robust process whereby the Supreme Court judgment will set out a clear pathway on exactly what companies must do in future applications. It is highly likely in this case that both companies involved in those projects will seek to apply again. They will do so and the Government will make a decision in due course. On the wider point about investment, the Government are doing everything to make this one of the most investable places in the world to come and do business—that is important. Our clean energy action plan, which he opposes, will deliver up to £40 billion of investment every single year in the industrial future of this country, and he should get behind it.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and appreciate his approach in not wanting to prejudice the judicial process. I wonder whether we would be discussing this if Conservative Members had had a similarly responsible approach to government. In very general terms, does he agree that it is vital that the Government honour not just the letter but the spirit of our manifesto commitment, and that this proposal was originally approved over 20 years ago?
Michael Shanks
It is important to separate the question of licences in these two cases from the consent process—licensing and consenting have always been different processes. We have said that we will absolutely respect licences that have been issued. We have no plans to and will not revoke existing licences, but neither will we issue new licences to explore new fields. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there have been licences for those fields for a very long time, and we will not revoke them. The question now is about specific consent applications for those projects. That will come before the Department when we have put in place the process to respond to the Supreme Court judgment, and when the companies, if interested, re-submit their applications.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields could supply 8% of the UK’s gas needs. The Minister has talked about the court cases, but will he clarify why the Prime Minister let the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero take Government lawyers off the defence of this case? If their push for growth is to mean anything, will the Government look again at changing judicial review processes?
Michael Shanks
On 20 June last year, the Supreme Court ruled that regulators must consider the impact of burning extracted oil and gas in the environmental impact assessment for new projects. Of course, we were already in an election cycle by that point. I do not know what the previous Government would have done, but a Supreme Court judgment gave a very clear steer that regulators must consider that impact, so I find it very hard to believe that they would have continued to defend a case that the Supreme Court clearly stated could not continue. This Government took the view that it would be wrong to put more public money into the case, when the two applicants themselves accepted the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the Opposition are saying that they would have continued to pour public money into such a case, I would be very surprised—or perhaps disappointed, but not surprised.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Conservative Members are speaking up now, but I was present at the United Nations General Assembly when they risked investor confidence in the UK. The then Prime Minister rowed back on net zero commitments, risking investor confidence in the UK and risking our global reputation on climate leadership. This Government are putting us back on the world stage when it comes to climate leadership, and we have a goal: to deliver clean power by 2030. Does the Minister agree that the UK’s key growth sectors of the future include renewable energy, and that there will be jobs for the future in renewable energy and our own Great British Energy?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend’s point about investor confidence is important. Investors lost all confidence in this country under the previous Government; not quite knowing who was going to be in No. 10 or No. 11 at any given moment certainly did not help investor confidence. We are building back that confidence, and have already seen tens of billions of pounds in investment since we came to power, and 70,000 new jobs.
It matters that this country takes a leadership role on climate, because the transition that we want to deliver here is also being delivered right across the world. The country with the fastest transition to clean power last year was China. In some cases, Members of this Parliament are trying to row back on our net zero commitments. We are determined to double down on those commitments, because that is the best way to deliver stability and energy security, bring down bills and create the industrial future and jobs that this country needs.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Hardly a day passes in this place when Ministers do not tell us how broke the country is, yet here we have a Minister who cannot give a commitment to extracting the liquid gold that lies under this country, although it could generate jobs and tax revenue, give us energy security and reduce the import bill. Is it not a fact that the court judgment has driven a hole through the growth strategy, because due to the legal targets for CO2 reduction that we have set, every major infrastructure project in this country will be legally challengeable, and could be turned down on the basis that it generates CO2?
Michael Shanks
The reason we are in this situation is that the Court ruled that the previous Government made an unlawful decision by not taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court. That is not me saying that from a policy perspective; it is the Court saying that, and we are now moving as quickly as possible to put in place a process that gives confidence to industry and allows applications to come forward. We have said that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for many years to come. We will not revoke existing licences, and therefore it is open for applications for projects to come forward, which will be considered on their individual merits.
However, the right hon. Gentleman and I will always disagree on the fundamental point that tackling climate change is in all our interests. Right around the world, we see the impact of not tackling climate change. It is a clear and present danger to our country and our national security, and we will tackle it.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Another day, another Labour Minister cleaning up the mess of the Conservatives who came before them. The only reason why we are having this discussion today, and why there is any lack of clarity for workers in the north-east, is that the Conservatives messed up in government. However, does the Minister agree that supporting projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw is entirely compatible with our drive towards a net zero economy? We will continue to need domestic oil and gas to 2050 and likely beyond, and therefore we should maximise UK production, since we can do so with the highest possible labour and environmental standards, and should secure and create jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right. We are putting in place a robust and clear process, so that applications can come forward that are in line with what the Supreme Court ruled, and can be decided on their merits. That is important. On UK production, as I have said a number of times and will keep saying, oil and gas will play an incredibly important role in the UK for many years to come. That investment is important, as are the jobs and the skills in the north-east.
My hon. Friend mentions environmental standards. In my past few months in this job, I have been pleased to hear about the huge amount of work that oil and gas companies have undertaken to decarbonise their work through electrification and other means. This question is about the scope 3 emissions, however, that the Supreme Court ruled must be taken into account; that is about the end use of the hydrocarbons as well. We will put in place a process to deal with that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last week, in excess of 400 redundancy letters were issued to workers at Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, so perhaps the Minister will start matching his warm words about the just transition with action. On the North sea, what the industry, the investors, the workforce and our journey to net zero require is certainty. He obviously cannot comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and so cannot provide the answer that I think we all know is ultimately coming, but can he give us some certainty on when he expects the Government to issue the updated environmental guidance?
Michael Shanks
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, we are moving as quickly as possible. Having built on what needed to be done about the scope 3 emissions, we introduced the consultation as quickly as possible. We sped up that consultation, and engaged with the industry to make sure that we still got a substantial number of responses. We now have those—it closed two weeks ago, I think—and we are considering them. We will issue information about the process as quickly as possible. I cannot give him an exact date, because we have to analyse the consultation responses; it would be pointless to seek consultation responses and not look at them.
More broadly, the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Grangemouth. It is, of course, extremely disappointing that Petroineos has decided to cease refining there. For the benefit of the House, I will say that when I arrived in the Department seven months ago, the first thing in my in-tray was Grangemouth’s closure. Of course, that did not arrive in July with the Labour Government’s election—it had been known about for many, many years—but not a single plan had been put in place by the Conservative Government, or the SNP Government in Edinburgh. We moved as quickly as possible to invest in the future, and to give funding to Project Willow to make sure that there was a viable economic future for that site. I wish that I was in power five years ago to start that work, but the Opposition and the SNP failed to do anything about Grangemouth for at least 10 years in which we knew that its situation was precarious. The right hon. Gentleman will have to answer for that.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for the Government’s rapid action, which he alluded to earlier. Does he agree that it is thanks to our record-breaking investment in not one but two first-of-a-kind carbon capture projects that we are getting on with delivering the good jobs that our communities deserve?
Michael Shanks
I do think that carbon capture is important. We were delighted to put forward the investment to get the track 1 projects over the line, and we are looking forward to seeing those develop. That was about giving investors confidence after a protracted period, under the previous Government, in which those projects fell by the wayside several times. We were determined to get them over the line, and I am delighted that we did.
We remain supportive of the track 2 projects, particularly the Acorn cluster in Scotland, which may have an impact on areas such as Grangemouth in future. We want to see investment there as well. Such investments are incredibly important for building the jobs of the future. That is partly why the Government are determined to look at what comes next, and not just to support the oil and gas industry, as important as that is at the moment.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister has talked long and loud about confidence in the industry, but disappearing investment does not engender any confidence. The 200,000 people employed in the oil and gas sector in this country will look askance at GB Energy, which looks less like the second prize and more like the booby prize. The point is that the oil and gas that we are taking from the North sea fulfils existing demand; it does not create new demand. It keeps the lights on in our homes, shops, offices and schools right now.
Michael Shanks
The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman repeat the point that the £8.3 billion investment in Great British Energy is not welcomed by the Conservative party, but it will create jobs—including, I am sure, in his constituency—through supply chains. We never said that all the jobs would be in the head office. There will be an important head office in Aberdeen, in recognition of the skills there, but the investment made will create tens of thousands of jobs, which is important. In the past 10 years, a third of jobs in this industry have already been lost. Either we accept that a transition is under way, and we put in place a plan and processes to build the industry of the future, or we bury our head in the sand and continue to see thousands more jobs go. I am determined not to do that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The highly respected Grantham Institute, chaired by Lord Stern, said that a UK Government decision to proceed with Rosebank and Jackdaw would
“signal to all other fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Russia,”
that they support a “business as usual” approach to the oil and gas industry. Does the Minister acknowledge the leadership role of the UK Government internationally, and agree that such leadership is best shown by our investing in the sustainable green jobs that North sea communities need, not by granting further unjustifiable permissions?
Michael Shanks
I will not be drawn on the applications in this case, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about the important leadership role for the UK in building the green industries of the future, and on climate change. At COP29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero communicated the importance of leadership on this most pressing issue, and of seeing it not as a future threat, but as a present reality. The UK has an important leadership role to play and, critically, can help deliver the industrial future that we need and the clean power of the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that fuel in Northern Ireland is exceptionally costly, and the rise of all other costs of living is leading to businesses finding it difficult to keep their head above water, let alone turn a profit. The cost of energy is sewn into every facet of business and home life. How will the Minister ensure that the vast resources that we have at our fingertips are utilised? Does he acknowledge that while renewable energy is something to work on, we need energy now? Consent must be considered quickly, and the correct decision must be made on behalf of every home and business in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised those questions with me on a number of occasions in different debates, and they are incredibly important. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate, he educated me on how many off-grid households there are in Northern Ireland—it is a surprisingly high number. The issue of where our oil and gas comes from is also relevant, because they are traded on an international market, and the prices that his constituents and others pay are based on what the fossil fuel market does across the world. Given all the geopolitical uncertainty, we want to get away from fossil fuels as fast as possible and on to renewables, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from that as well.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that a workforce with skills honed in the North sea oil and gas sector will have an increasingly vital role in the renewables sector? Given the crucial role for GB Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, in managing a fair and phased transition, is it not extraordinary that the Conservatives and the SNP have failed to support this proposal in this Parliament?
Michael Shanks
It is a huge shock, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, because failing to back an £8.3 billion investment in your own constituency seems an odd approach for a Member to take, whatever election they are standing in.
Let me make a broader point about other work that we are taking forward. One of the most important things we did recently was get the skills passport over the line. That is about recognising the huge skillset of offshore oil and gas workers; 90% of those skills are directly transferable into renewables and other technologies. Passporting is about ensuring that those skills and experiences are recognised, so that those skilled workers can find jobs in the renewable industry. This important work is about the transition to the jobs of the future. We announced that Aberdeen will be one of the first skills pilot areas, in recognition of the importance of that skills transition for the whole north-east of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The final question is from Tom Hayes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as this is the final question, may I commend the Minister on taking a measured and pragmatic approach at the Dispatch Box? That is in sharp contrast with the Conservative party, which seems to be continuing its journey from zombie Government to shambolic irrelevance. When I talk to investors and businesses in the energy sector, they stress the importance of a plan, whether it is that of the National Energy System Operator, or of mission control, led by Chris Stark. Will the Minister outline the importance of Great British Energy in the planned transition to the jobs of the future?
Michael Shanks
In terms of the tone of the debate, the Government and the Opposition will of course disagree on many things—by the sounds of it, we increasingly disagree on the importance of tackling climate change and net zero—but generally we all want to see a transition in the North sea that is fair and prosperous, particularly for the workers in that industry, to ensure that they have confidence that they will have well-paid jobs to go into. I spend every day in this job taking that incredibly seriously, and whatever disagreements we might have across the Dispatch Box, I hope that is understood. We want to build a transition that recognises that it is already under way, that thousands of jobs have been lost and that it is our duty and responsibility as a Government to ensure that we put in place the industry and jobs that come next. That is what I will spend every day doing while I am privileged to have this job.
Biomass Generation
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about support for biomass electricity generation. My apologies to the House for it having to put up with even more of me.
In January 2024 the previous Government launched a consultation on supporting large-scale biomass generators when existing support ends in 2027. That consultation outlined their proposals to continue to support biomass as a
“valuable...form of dispatchable power”.
Since this Government came to office, we have carefully considered responses to that consultation and assessed the case for a new support mechanism. Biomass currently plays an important role in our energy system, but we are conscious of concerns about sustainability and the level of subsidy that biomass plants have received in the past. With that in mind, I want to report to the House on our conclusions about the role of Drax power station in Yorkshire in the years 2027 to 2031.
In coming to the view I will express today, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator on questions of security of supply, analysed the effect on consumers of support for biomass versus the alternatives, looked at issues around subsidy and sustainability in the existing arrangements, and considered longer term issues around decarbonisation.
First, on security of supply, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where there was no long-term planning for our energy system and its resilience. In the system we have inherited, large-scale biomass provides around 5% of our annual electricity generation, serving a specific role as a source of firm power. To meet our needs between 2027 and 2031, we could seek to replace Drax with new gas-fired power stations, but in the timescale we have there would be significant risks to relying on that approach. In that context, NESO has advised us that Drax plays an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031.
Secondly, on price, we have undertaken comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections show that, on the right terms and in a much more limited role than today, biomass generation at Drax is the lowest cost option, including when compared with gas-fired power stations, for bill payers during this period.
Thirdly, we have looked at previous arrangements for subsidy and sustainability. This Government’s view is that they simply did not deliver a good enough deal for bill payers and enabled Drax to make unacceptably large profits. At the same time, they demanded levels of sustainability that are not now in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice, including supply chain emissions well above the European standard. We have concluded that if Drax is to continue to play a role in our power system, these arrangements must urgently be improved going forward.
Fourthly, we have looked at issues with decarbonisation. Our finding is that there is a potential role for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage—or power BECCS—but realistically this will take time to implement and therefore cannot form the primary basis of this decision. On the basis of that assessment, and given the circumstances that we inherited, the clear evidence is that Drax is important for delivering a secure, value-for-money power system in the period 2027-31. But we have also concluded that we cannot allow Drax to operate in the way in which it has before, or with the level of subsidy that it received in the past. On that basis, we have secured heads of terms that will form the basis of a very different agreement with Drax for support during the period 2027 to 2031.
Let me set out the terms of the agreement. First, it will ensure that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when it is really needed. Drax currently operates as a baseload plant, running around two thirds of the time. That means that it provides power even when other renewable sources are abundant. That must not continue. Under the new arrangement, Drax will be supported to operate only at a maximum load factor of just 27%. In other words, it will operate less than half as often as it does currently. That will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that we have agreed. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate, and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.
Secondly, reflecting that change, the contract will deliver much better value for consumers. It will significantly reduce the amount paid in subsidies compared with the previous support mechanism. The new deal halves the subsidies for Drax—equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the deal will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market. I can also inform the House that the deal limits the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem, but while that is our central estimate, unlike the last Government we are not prepared to take the risk of prices soaring in response to volatile fossil fuel markets, so the agreement includes a built-in windfall mechanism, with rates of 30% and 60% that would claw back excess profits made by Drax, guaranteeing a much fairer deal for consumers than in the past.
Thirdly, we will introduce tough new measures on sustainability. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the much stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, and we will exclude material sourced from primary forests and old-growth forests from receiving support payments. There will be substantial penalties on Drax if those criteria are not met, and we will go further to ensure greater confidence that the standards will be met. I can inform the House that we will also appoint an independent sustainability adviser to work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to ensure that our monitoring and enforcement measures are robust and keep pace with the science.
To be clear to the House, taken together the measures represent a profound shift from the past on both sustainability and value for money. In that context, this is the right deal for security of supply and price in the period 2027 to 2031, given the circumstances that we inherited from the previous Government. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of concerns in this House and across the country about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. We are determined that the next time such decisions are made, the Government are not left in the circumstances we have been.
We will do the work that was not done by the previous Administration on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives, so that in four years’ time we will have proper options. To help that process, we are setting up an independent review to consider how options for greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and direct air carbon capture and storage, can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets and ensure security of supply out to 2050. The review will take representations widely on the issues and report back in due course.
The steps that I have set out are about fulfilling our duty to ensure security of supply and the best deal for bill payers. We have come into office, faced up to the circumstances left by the previous Government, and delivered a step change in value for money and sustainability. The Government will do whatever it takes to deliver energy security, to protect bill payers now and into the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I also apologise, as I am sure that the House is a little fed up hearing the Minister and me this afternoon.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. In the past few weeks it has been difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. First, their Secretary of State was forced out of hiding to defend a third runway at Heathrow—something that he once said that we could not do because it would make us look “completely ridiculous”. Cornwall Insight has stated that Ministers will miss their clean power target by a country mile, and I think it was clear during the urgent question that they are getting ready to be overruled by the Prime Minister on approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields—something that we on the Opposition Benches would welcome.
Now the Secretary of State has sent the hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon to defend the farce of chopping down trees in forests in Canada, converting them into pellets, shipping them across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships and burning them in a power station in North Yorkshire, all in the name of net zero. The Conservative party is under new management, and that means confronting hard truths, so let us get one thing straight from the outset: Drax’s biomass plant is neither clean, nor cheap.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has said, burning wood from the other side of the Atlantic—releasing more carbon dioxide in the process—and labelling it renewable is a product of a carbon budget system that forces politicians to make perverse decisions. Those decisions result in an extortionate level of subsidy, deliver a bad deal for British taxpayers and bill payers, and make the climate worse. We have started a reset on net zero, and we will not shy away from arguing for a more pragmatic approach that prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy.
Turning to the details of the statement, naturally we welcome a more limited role for Drax biomass in our power system, but more biomass subsidies are needed only in the short term, because this Government are embarking on a reckless experiment to have a grid based entirely on intermittent renewables at the expense of flexible and reliable baseload power. Drax’s role could be filled with more gas power plants, which are cheaper and cleaner than burning trees shipped in from Canada. Ministers know that burning wood at Drax produces four times the emissions of our last coal power plant, which in turn produces around twice the carbon emissions of gas. We could get that gas from the non-subsidised fields in the North sea, if this Government were not in such an ideological rush to shut down our domestic energy industry.
On cost, the new agreement that the Minister has signed us up to comes with a genuinely eyewatering strike price of £160 per MWh in today’s money. That is higher than Drax’s existing agreement of £138 per MWh. In fact, Baringa’s analysis that Drax put out this morning shows that bill payers will still be paying over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. If the analysis behind the Minister’s promise to cut bills by £300 is anything to go by, we should not rely on him too much. Has his Department carried out its own independent analysis, separate from that published by Drax this morning, to determine what the increased strike price will cost the British people and how that compares to supporting extra gas power in the capacity market?
We welcome the strengthened sustainability criteria, as investigations by Ofgem and the BBC’s “Panorama” have revealed serious questions to be answered by Drax about the import of wood from untouched primary forests in British Columbia. But as the BBC journalist Joe Crowley, who reported on these issues for “Panorama”, stated this morning, more clarity is needed on whether wood from primary forests will be classed as unsustainable under this new regime. Will the Minister confirm that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during any of its generation—not just that which is subsidised? What work is being done to ensure that the new sustainability criteria are actually enforceable?
On sustainability reporting, will the Minister confirm that the Department has received the KPMG report that the Prime Minister said he would look at? Will a copy be placed in the Library? The Minister’s statement has left the door wide open for the introduction of power BECCS after the transition arrangements end in 2031. That proposal to fit first-of-a-kind technology solely for the purpose of meeting our carbon budgets would cost the bill payer up to £40 billion—£1.7 billion a year. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has produced any analysis of what a system without BECCS would cost? Will he rule out keeping this racket going indefinitely, with people’s energy bills rising to pay for BECCS?
Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.
Michael Shanks
“Under new management,” indeed! The tough thing about being the acting shadow Secretary of State is that it is not, of course, his script that the hon. Gentleman is reading out.
This Government are fixing the mistakes left by the previous Government. I gently point out that eight previous Conservative Energy Ministers stood at this Dispatch Box and—deal after deal after deal—announced a worse deal than this for bill payers, energy security and sustainability. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that today. In fact, only a year ago—such is my love of his contributions in this House that I have read up on Hansard—he was saying that he had “absolute confidence” in the deal the previous Government made with Drax.
Let me outline why this deal is so different from those his party made in the past. The hon. Gentleman first asked about subsidy and mentioned a figure, which is what it will cost to deliver the necessary dispatchable power. He missed the fact that it is, of course, half of what was paid under the previous Government—nearly £1 billion a year—to Drax. We have halved that amount to lower bills for consumers.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about sustainability. We agree on the importance of tightening up the sustainability, which is why we have moved from 70% to 100%. I would gently say, again, that he was quite happy to support public money going into unsustainable biomass year after year when he was in the Energy Department. We have said that we will not pay a penny of subsidy to Drax if there is unsustainable biomass in the mix.
Thirdly, what the previous Government did not do, of course, was any sort of deal to control the runaway excess profits—record profits—that Drax was able to obtain as part of its deal. We have put in place a mechanism to claw back that excess profit so that the people of this country do not pay over the odds for their energy.
Fourthly, I will address the important point about energy security. Year after year, the Conservatives exposed us to the lack of a plan for what the energy system would look like in the late 2020s and into the 2030s. This Government have had to take tough decisions quickly to secure that supply for the future, and that is what we have done. We have decided that running Drax when it was not necessary—when there were clean, cheaper alternatives in the system—will no longer happen. To the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on Drax running less, I say that limited generation times mean that it will run only when we need it for capacity to meet demand in the system. The alternative—he asked for the figure, which I set out in the statement—would be £170 million more every single year.
Finally, on the future of BECCS, we are open-minded at this point on the role it will play. However, I agree that it is important that we come to a decision on that soon. The review we have outlined is about bringing together all the various bits of science that we know are there in different reports and trying to work out a credible pathway for whether power BECCS will play a role in the system. We will make that decision as soon as possible.
I will finish by saying that this is an extremely different deal. It will deliver benefit for the hard-working people of this country, ensure that sustainability is at its heart and protect our energy security in the years ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his marathon stint and on the pragmatic and well-crafted analysis of how the Government’s energy policies will address the security of supply and provide the best deal for bill payers. This is in stark contrast to what the Conservatives did, and in particular to what my hon. Friend described as the terrible deal with Drax that they presided over while in office.
Today’s statement is a timely reminder of the challenges with Drax, not least given the news over the weekend of further misreporting of the burning of primary forest. NESO, in its future energy pathway, predicted a reduction in the use of biomass as part of the UK becoming more energy independent. Does the Minister, with his announcement, foresee that the cuts in subsidies and in the reliance on Drax will contribute to the Government’s clean power plan, to energy security and to reducing bills for all our constituents?
Michael Shanks
The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right about where Drax, and biomass generally, fits in our wider energy system. What we want to build at pace is a clean power system that takes us off the volatile fossil fuel markets. That is important, but there are short-term issues around ensuring we have the dispatchable power we need when we need it.
The Government have taken long-term decisions, for example in the first funding scheme for long-duration energy storage in 40 years. We hope to see modern new technologies of long-duration energy storage but also some classics from the history books, with pumped storage hydro playing a critical role in the system and delivering the dispatchable clean power we need. But there is a short-term question we need to answer that the previous Government did not have an answer for: how we get to 2031. We can build new gas units. Our analysis and the advice from NESO was that that was more likely to deliver energy security and in the end be cheaper for bill payers, who ultimately pay the bill. Our long-term ambition is to build towards that clean power system. This is an important step to get us the energy security that we need in the system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Minister for sharing his statement with us in advance.
Climate change and nature loss are undoubtedly the greatest twin threats we face. While pursuing the clean power by 2030 goal, the Government need to reconsider their decision to indeterminately extend the burning of biomass as part of the energy mix, despite overwhelming evidence that it is neither sustainable nor truly renewable, especially with the threat to virgin forests. The Minister says biomass is vital for energy security, supplying 5% of the UK’s electricity. However, he fails to mention that biomass emits 18% more carbon dioxide than coal and that it takes nearly a century for new trees to absorb those emissions. That is not energy security; it is a carbon ticking time bomb.
We are told by the Minister that NESO advised that Drax was a necessity between 2027 and 2031 to prevent supply risks. That is due to the reckless rowing back by the former Government, the absence of accelerated investment in renewables and the continued investment in Drax as part of their strategy, but what kind of future are we building if it depends on burning forests rather than investing in real renewable energy sources?
On costs, the Minister tells us that biomass at Drax is cheaper than gas-fired power, but we must not forget that past subsidies by the former Government allowed Drax to profit excessively at the expense of bill payers. Even today, despite halved subsidies, Drax’s shares have surged, suggesting that even this deal remains a good deal for Drax and potentially a bad one for taxpayers. We therefore call on the Government to release the 2022 KPMG report into Drax’s subsidy claims, which should have been released under the Conservative Government. Transparency is crucial and the public deserve to know if their money has been misused. I will end by asking: are we looking for home-grown clean energy—
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Her tone means that I will resist the urge to say that, although I made fun of the shadow Minister for the eight announcements, it was of course the current Liberal Democrat leader who agreed the first support deal for Drax. But we will move past that on to her important questions about security of supply.
The place we want to get to by the end of this period is one where we are not forced into making a decision like this again. It is really important to say that. We have a strong deal that protects bill payers, improves sustainability and delivers energy security, but we want to have options. The truth, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, is that we came into government without those options because of the decisions made by the Conservative party. That is a really important point.
As for the point about excess profits, there was previously no mechanism to claw them back. We made that a key part of the negotiation and we managed to get it into the deal. Even if our estimates are wrong—and the estimates, of course, mean that the profit will be below the level expected of the regulated companies by Ofgem—we can claw back the additional profit from Drax. That is important to the system.
Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the question of KPMG’s reports. I know that my Department has seen them and engaged with them, and I know that Ofgem is still engaged in the audit process. I will take those questions away and see what can be done about sharing those reports.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We have a new line from the official Opposition. We are told that they are a firm under new management, but this sounds to me like the same circus, just with different clowns.
The Minister is right to say that the new deal that the Government are putting in place is a far better deal for taxpayers, because the previous deal was an absolute disgrace for taxpayers, but can he tell us a little more about the projections that he has seen? Do they confirm that this deal is the best for taxpayers, even in comparison with gas? How can he be certain of that? We heard a different suggestion from the shadow Minister.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think we should consider two aspects of the analysis of the importance of Drax to the system. First, in comparison with the counterfactual of building new gas-fired power stations, our analysis is that the deal we have agreed, which involves the use of gas on the system for 27% of the time, costs £170 million less. Secondly, on energy security, the assessment is that even if we wanted to go down that route, there would be risks about whether we could build that capacity in the time that we have.
This is all about the decisions taken by the last Government, who did not look far enough ahead and did not have that capacity on the system. Even if we did want to proceed with new gas stations, there would be questions about whether we could build them in time. This deal is about protecting bill payers, halving the subsidy from £1 billion and ensuring that there is dispatchable power when we need it as we build the clean power system.
As we move towards the 2030s, what comes next is long-term planning for a clean power mix, but also about the long-duration and short-duration storage mixes that will help us to make decisions that are different from the one we were forced to make this time.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I suppose we shall be told that half a loaf is better than none, but this strikes me as a half-baked half-loaf, to say the least.
The Minister has spent an hour this afternoon lecturing the House about why it was better to import oil and gas from overseas than to extend the production of at least some home-grown material. The bottom line is that, clearly, the Minister has not read the KPMG report, the Prime Minister has not read the KPMG report, and we are still going to pay billions of pounds in subsidy to import pellets created in Canada and then shipped across the Atlantic at God knows what carbon cost. Where, please, is the sense in that?
Michael Shanks
First, let me say that I have spent the last hour answering questions from Members on both sides of the House. I have not lectured anyone. I have, however, stated the facts—for instance, that if oil and gas are extracted from the North sea, they are sold on the open market for whatever price the international markets have at any given moment. That delivers neither energy security nor confidence to bill payers. While Opposition Members may want us to go back to the fossil fuel casino and hope we can play a better hand this time round, I think we should be building a secure power system that delivers both energy security and confidence that we will not be exposed to the price spikes we have been exposed to in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take that as a lecture, he can take it as such.
On the role that Drax will play, of course we looked at all the assessments around Drax to date. Frankly, we have put in such a robust process on sustainability, and independent assessments of some of that, because of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raises: we know that there have been questions in the past, and we want to make sure that there are tough penalties if Drax does not comply. Raising sustainability from the level under the previous Government—70%—to 100% means that we will not pay a penny of subsidy if Drax fails the sustainability tests that we have set out for it. That protects consumers right across this country and delivers the dispatchable power that we need.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I have met women from the southern United States and British Columbia who live next door to primary forests that have been cut down by Drax so that wood pellets can be burned in Yorkshire. As we know from the BBC’s “Panorama” and Ofgem, Drax has utilised primary and old-growth forests. Drax cannot be trusted to ensure that the sustainability requirements that the Minister has put forward will be met. What powers and audit trail will the new independent sustainability adviser utilise to ensure that Drax is burning 100% sustainable wood and not ruining the lives of people in North America by using primary forests?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The sustainability criteria are important, but he is right that making sure they are met is important too. This is a contract for difference agreement and we will work with Ofgem to work out exactly what its role is as the regulator, but to go above what has been in place before, we have announced that an independent adviser will work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to make sure that the latest science and the latest awareness on different elements of biomass are key in our decision making, and that there is a real audit trail in place. The other really important thing is that there is now no room whatsoever for Drax not to comply with the sustainability criteria. Its compliance must be 100%, and there will not be a penny of subsidy for anything that is not sustainable. That is important, and the audit trail will be part of that work.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Will the Minister agree to publish the full, comprehensive analysis of the cost of providing support to Drax versus the alternatives?
Michael Shanks
Transparency is important, so I am very happy to publish what we can. Elements of that analysis, such as details of how Drax runs its power station, will be commercially sensitive, so I will have to look at exactly what can be published. I know that NESO has today published a summary of its advice, to give clarity on its view on the security of supply questions. I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s point away and write to him.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Drax has exploited UK taxpayers for far too long. It has lied about meeting sustainability rules, burned 1 million tonnes of wood from primary forests, gagged whistleblowers with non-disclosure agreements, and pretended that it could sequester carbon from replanted forests in time to meet our 2050 targets. Today, the Government have brought that a stop. They have debunked Drax’s lies, cut its subsidy, and set a clear and sensible exit strategy that will maintain security of supply. After 15 years of campaigning, I welcome this breakthrough for honesty and common sense.
Will the Minister now look at the role of Ofgem in all of this? Just this weekend, when it was informed of the other break in proper reporting of sustainability, it replied, “That is the same issue as we’ve dealt with before.” What would he say if a policeman said that about a serial murderer?
Michael Shanks
On the start of my hon. Friend’s question, I agree. This Government were deeply concerned about sustainability practices at Drax and, frankly, about the level of subsidy that was part of the deal negotiated by the previous Government. We inherited a dire situation in terms of long-term planning for our energy security. What we have sought to do with this deal is answer all those questions—on sustainability, on security of supply, on excess profits and on the role of Drax in the system for dispatchable power, which is important.
On the role of Ofgem, I know that the audit of some of Drax’s practices is still under way. I am rightly not privy to the details of that, because it is Ofgem’s review, but we have a wider review of the role and remit of Ofgem under way at the moment, and I think that would be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to feed in his thoughts on the future of Ofgem.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Biomass burning has always been a sticking plaster, and it has allowed successive Governments to claim green progress while continuing to emit immense amounts of CO2. The public were promised £20 billion a year of green investment, but instead we are getting less than 6% of what is needed. When will the UK Government commit to significant direct investment in long-term energy storage such as pumped hydro storage and green hydrogen production, so that the UK can move past burning forests for its energy?
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I reiterate that we wish we were not in the position we were in when we came into government, whereby this was the only option that would deliver security of supply out to the early 2030s. We have sought to get the best possible deal for sustainability and for bill payers, but I agree that we need to be building what comes next.
Last year we announced that, for the first time in 40 years, the Government would be funding long-duration energy storage, and I have held a number of meetings with developers on pumped hydro and also on new, modern forms of long-duration energy storage. There are some really interesting, innovative ideas out there. Ofgem is currently putting in place the technical specifications for the cap and floor scheme, and we want to get that rolling as soon as possible. From all my meetings with developers in Scotland, I know that there is huge potential around pumped hydro in particular. They are waiting for certainty from the Government in order to move forward, and we are determined to give them that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Reports show that Drax has behaved appallingly, and under the last Government it seemingly had pretty free rein. I welcome the fact that this settlement includes a drastic reduction in subsidy, an upping of sustainability in supply chains to 100%, and a windfall tax principle that will deliver value for the British bill payer. I also welcome the further consultations the Minister has outlined, but this raises the question: why were the last Government unable to get anywhere near to this deal?
Michael Shanks
I am tempted to say that we will have to ask the Conservatives that question, but they are under new management, so they do not know why the previous Government that they were all Ministers in made the decisions that they did. The truth is that for far too long—under, I think, eight different Conservative Energy Ministers—they signed off deal after deal with Drax with uncapped profits and nowhere near the sustainability criteria that they should have had, letting Drax do whatever it wanted with that power station. We have put a stop to that. Let us be really clear: we have halved the subsidy, taking £6 off every single bill in this country every single year, we have increased sustainability to 100%, and we are delivering the energy security this country needs, but we should not have been in the position on coming into office where there were nowhere near enough long-term plans for the future of our energy system.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I think I detected one item of agreement between the Minister and his shadow, which was that there needs to be a long-term solution and this is not a short-term fix. Surprisingly, there seems to be little support from the Government Benches for Drax, which plays a major part in the regional economy. In my own constituency, Associated British Ports invested £150 million in the facility to import the biomass, and a significant number of my constituents will be involved in the supply chain. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will bear in mind the impact on the local economy as we move forward to a longer-term solution?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I would gently point out that the shadow Minister and I agree on a lot more than he likes to pretend—or I like to pretend, perhaps. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are aware of the importance of the jobs at this particular power station and in the supply chain, and we will be working with Drax on what that looks like. We are of course changing the role that Drax will use the power station in Selby for, and I will ensure that I have those conversations about the supply chain. I would be happy to speak to him more about that in due course.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister should be commended for ending the terrible deal negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, which led to higher bills, excess profits and poor sustainability standards, but it is worth saying again that there seems to be no end to the Conservatives’ rank hypocrisy on energy policy. In government, the then Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), signed off planning consent for the Drax carbon capture project, saying that
“the public benefits…outweigh the harm.”
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), has now come to the Dispatch Box to decry the costs, while the right hon. Member for East Surrey also opposes Drax. Has the Minister considered capturing the burning hypocrisy of Conservative Members, because it seems to be a truly inexhaustible resource?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes the point for me. He forgets, of course, that the Conservatives are under new management, so it is all fine—we just forget everything that happened in the last 14 years and move on. Of course, we have had to pick up the pieces from the last 14 years, and while the Conservatives will not take responsibility for those decisions, we have grasped the challenges and are moving forward as quickly as possible.
The truth is that not only did we inherit an energy system without the long-term planning it should have, but Drax did not have a deal that was good for the climate, good for energy security or good for the hard-working people of this country, who paid year after year for the subsidies that the previous Government negotiated. We have halved the subsidy every year, putting money back into people’s pockets and, of course, making sure that any excess profits come back to the Exchequer.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The net zero madness coming from this place is truly staggering. Bearing in mind that this power station used to burn coal from a coalmine less than 20 miles away, we are now transporting wood from 3,000 miles away. We are paying over £10 billion in subsidies for this power station, and it is producing four times more CO2 than a coal-fired power station. Can the Minister explain how this is contributing to net zero?
Michael Shanks
I was not aware that it is the Reform party’s policy to reopen the coalmines—
Michael Shanks
That is good to know.
I am proud that, as a country, we have moved past coal-fired power generation, which is incredibly destructive for our environment. We closed the last coal power station, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, last year. Its workforce proudly recognised the role they played in powering the country for many years, while also recognising that the drive to net zero is important. While we are building a clean power system that delivers energy security for the future, the Reform party would take us back to the stone age.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the strict new sustainability rules imposed on Drax, which will mean that we do not pay a penny for unsustainably sourced biomass. Can he give the House a bit more detail on the role of the independent adviser? Their work to hold Drax to account will be critical to ensuring that this deal progresses.
Michael Shanks
The point of having an independent adviser is that, while the role of the Low Carbon Contracts Company as the counterparty to the contract for difference we have agreed and the role of Ofgem as a regulator are incredibly important, we think there is also a role for someone independent to make sure they are analysing the particular questions about biomass and sustainability, while also having an eye on the science as it moves forward.
Part of the challenge is that, over the years, the sustainability information we have, and the types of forestry and where the biomass comes from, have changed. The adviser will play an important role in advising my Department, Ofgem and the Low Carbon Contracts Company on this deal in the years ahead. It is important to say that we want to make sure we also have an independent review of what the future looks like, so that in five years’ time we are not looking at the same decision as we are now.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on energy security. Can he give us some idea of the timetable for when the first small modular nuclear reactors—preferably ones built by Rolls-Royce, which has expertise in this area thanks to its excellent work for the Royal Navy—will be commissioned?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman will not draw me into the ongoing competition on small modular reactors, but he has made the case for his preferred company.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we have a new commitment to reviewing the 2011 planning statement so that we can have much more new nuclear across the UK. That is particularly important because previously there were only eight designated sites. Small modular reactors, of course, open up possibilities right across the country, and we want to see much more of that. We are moving as fast as possible to make sure these reactors are under way, and I hope that we can move at such a speed that the Scottish Government will change their objection to having small modular reactors in Scotland.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The news of a windfall tax on Drax was welcomed by people across my constituency. Will the Minister assure me that this will be the end of grotesque profits going to Drax at the expense of the taxpayer?
Michael Shanks
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have significantly reduced the ability of Drax to make profits, but we have also ensured that if there are excess profits, they are clawed back on behalf of the British people. The additional rates of 30% and 60% in the mechanism that we have designed will ensure that any unexpected profits are clawed back. That was not the case under the eight previous Energy Ministers in the previous Government who signed off deals on Drax year after year. This is a new way of operating that protects our energy security, as well as protecting the hard-working people of this country.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Drax is a clean energy scam that has been handed £6 billion by successive Conservative Ministers since 2012, when that money should have been spent on getting energy bills down. The Minister rightly cites past excess profits and I believe he said specifically that the new contract will allow Government to claw them back. Will the contract allow clawback of previous excess profits and remedy the past misspending of public money? Or will the clawback apply only as we go forward into the future, in which case that is still throwing good money after bad, just slightly less of it?
Michael Shanks
We do not have a mechanism to claw back past profits from any company—that is not something that Governments are able to do. What we can do is move forward with a fair system that reduces the subsidy considerably, and has excess profit mechanisms and a windfall tax in place to ensure that if the company generates additional profits, we can claw that back for the British public, which is important. The level that we have agreed in the deal brings the subsidy down to a considerably lower level—half what it was under the previous Government.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I welcome the revision of Drax’s role in our energy system, reducing biomass and ensuring that where it is used it displaces gas, not excess wind and solar. However, we also need to find new low-carbon forms of dispatchable power, backed up by long-term energy storage at scale. Hydrogen is a strong candidate for that. By moving fast, the UK can reduce costs and regain our early-mover advantage. Will the Minister work with industry at pace to ensure the opportunities around hydrogen are known, explored and exploited?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that one of the really important outcomes of the new deal is that instead of cheaper wind and solar power being displaced by Drax when it operated with baseload capacity, Drax will only operate when we need it on the system. That means that the cheaper, cleaner power sources that we are building in abundance, of which we want to see much more in the years ahead, can generate and deliver cheaper power for the people of this country. On my hon. Friend’s wider point, it is important that we explore the role that hydrogen can play in the system. We are looking at a number of different technologies at the moment. Just last week, I met some investors looking at the future of the gas system to take forward some of those questions, and I am happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend in the future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister said that he is looking for
“strong and credible low carbon alternatives”
to burning biomass in order to generate electricity. Will he ensure that those alternatives do not include so-called energy from waste plants, since burning waste is as dirty as coal? And will he follow Scotland and Wales in placing a moratorium on the construction of new waste incinerators?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we want “credible low carbon alternatives”. I will look at the specific points he mentions, but we do not see such generators as key to the review we want to undertake. We want to look at carbon capture and other technologies and, crucially, how we store some of the renewable energy that we are generating in abundance that we cannot use at times of peak demand, including long-duration energy storage and, increasingly, short-duration energy storage batteries that are powering more than they have done in the past. I will look at the specific points the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The last Government’s deal with Drax was not just shocking value for taxpayers, leaving us all on the hook for subsidising sky-high profits during a cost of living crisis, but bad news for the environment, with real concerns about the sustainability of Drax’s supply chain. As the Government rightly take a measured approach to ensuring that we protect not just bill payers but workers as we seize the benefits of the green transition, what assurances can the Minister give my constituents that this will be a far better deal for our country?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that this is a good deal, in the short term, to ensure security of supply into the early-2030s, which was key to NESO’s advice on the basis of security of supply. In the process, however, we have sought to halve the subsidy that Drax was given by the previous Government and deliver on the sustainability criteria, taking that from 70% to 100%. This is a good deal for the people of this country.
My hon. Friend also touched on the important work we need to do in the broader energy space to deliver energy security. That is why clean power 2030—our sprint to deliver decarbonised power—is so important, delivering good jobs in supply chains across the country.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This statement should be a warning to all those across the House who are cheerleaders for renewable energy. Let us not forget that, in 2010, Drax power station was the poster boy for green energy policy. Of course, it turned out that instead of green energy, it has produced more CO2. We have chopped down natural habitat 3,000 miles away to bring it and burn it in a power station in England, and consumers pay the grand total of £1,000 million a year for the pleasure of doing so.
The Government have not learnt from that lesson. Only this year, we have had a similar mistake made with wind energy, where the Government have given a subsidy six times what the price of gas would be. Will we find a Minister in 15 years’ time standing again at the Dispatch Box to apologise for a waste of public money, high electricity prices and environmental disaster?
Michael Shanks
After an urgent question and a statement, I hope that I will not still be standing here in 15 years’ time, and I suspect the House will support that. Let me be really clear. I do not remember Drax being the poster child for the clean energy transition. I have outlined clearly why this decision is important in terms of energy security, but we wish that we as a Government had had more options. Unfortunately, those options were not there, so we have made the best of a difficult situation to get an incredibly good deal that delivers value for money, improves sustainability and delivers on energy security. In the 2030s, I want to see our clean power system delivering cheaper bills and industrial manufacturing jobs across the country. I hope that, in 15 years, the right hon. Member and I will have a conversation about how that is delivering for our constituents.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State talked about being under new management, and I suspect that he will be saying the same thing in a few months after the inevitable bloody coup. I commend the statement, which will do some really important things, including: capping Drax’s output; a windfall tax on Drax; millions saved by halving subsidies paid for by my constituents; and the forcing up of sustainability. It is a pragmatic solution to a disastrous inheritance. Does the Minister agree that this will be a better deal for taxpayers and consumers for our energy security and our environment?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend summarises the importance of the deal clearly. We have limited the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem. We have halved the subsidies provided to Drax that were in every single deal from the Conservative party, year after year, saving £170 million each year of the agreement. We have introduced a windfall tax with 30% and 60% rates to be clawed back should Drax have excess profits. We are delivering on energy security and on tougher sustainability requirements, but at the heart of the deal is better value for money for the hard-working people of this country.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Drax has been a greenwashing con that has ripped off the British public for far too long, so I welcome the statement. The Minister and the Energy Secretary have done more than eight previous Tory Energy Ministers, and indeed one Lib Dem Secretary of State. I welcome the move to slash the subsidy for Drax and to enforce 100% sustainability targets on its supply chains. But when the Minister talks about a windfall mechanism, may I gently urge him to call a spade a spade? This is a windfall tax on Drax and we should be proud of saying so.
Michael Shanks
At the risk of getting into trouble with those responsible for tax matters, I simply say that this is a windfall mechanism that does exactly the same thing, and it does exactly what the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years, which is to ensure that there is a good deal and good value for money for the British public, delivering on energy security and, crucially, getting us to a point where our clean power plan for 2030 delivers energy security, climate leadership and jobs right across the country. It is the ambition of doing something different in this country and doing it fast, and we are committed to delivering it.
Point of Order
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 28 October, in response to a question on his statement on the middle east, the Foreign Secretary stated that the terms of annihilation, extermination and genocide were
“largely used when millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the second world war. The way that people are now using those terms undermines their seriousness.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 556.]
The following day, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary seeking urgent clarification. The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide states clearly that the genocide means a specific set of acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
It is not defined by the number of people killed, but rather the acts committed and the intent behind them.
Indeed, as recently as July 2024, the UK Government made a statement on the 29th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, commemorating the massacre of approximately 8,000 mainly Muslim men and boys. I could go into some detail, but to get to the point, I have subsequently written two letters to seek clarification from the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary. In both accounts, I have had letters from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), neither of which address either what was said in the House or, indeed, the definition of genocide.
The reason I stand here to make a point of order is this: have the UK Government moved away from what we have agreed to since 1947 in the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide? I seek clarification on the matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the substance of answers given by Ministers in this House or for ministerial correspondence with hon. Members.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 115 / Noes: 354 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 109 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has been selected.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen UK border security, which has been weakened and undermined in recent years; to restore order to the immigration and asylum systems, which were left in chaos; and to bring in new counter-terror-style powers for our law enforcement to go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security, that profit from putting lives at risk and that have been getting away with it for far too long.
It is a Bill to strengthen leadership and accountability around our borders, putting the Border Security Command on the statute book, and to bring in tougher powers to tackle organised immigration crime, including pursuing those involved in supply chains, preparatory acts and seizing mobile phones. It is a Bill that allows us to take stronger action on those who put the lives of others at risk at sea, that will improve intelligence gathering and sharing, and that will restore order and control to the asylum system so that we can clear the backlog.
It is a Bill to deliver on our Labour manifesto commitment to bring in counter-terrorism-style powers to increase enforcement and returns. It is part of the programme to deliver what we set out before Christmas in the Government’s plan for change—rebuilding secure borders; restoring order, control and confidence to the immigration and asylum systems; and bringing legal and illegal migration down.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Home Secretary may recall that, when she was on the Opposition Benches, I cautioned the then Conservative Government that the actions they were going to take to have a uniform immigration policy throughout the United Kingdom were unsustainable. More particularly, I warned during proceedings on the Illegal Migration Bill that it would conflict with the Windsor framework. They said I was wrong, but the High Court in Belfast has said that we were correct. She is taking steps today to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, so will she confirm, as Home Secretary of this United Kingdom, that our immigration policy will run throughout the entirety of this United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can assure him that our approach is for both immigration and asylum to apply right across the UK, recognising the importance of border security as part of that UK-wide approach.
Most people across the UK want strong border security and a properly controlled and managed asylum and immigration system, so that the UK does its bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution, but also so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned and the rules are respected and enforced. None of that has been happening in recent years. When this Government took office, basic rules had stopped being enforced, the asylum system had been crashed, and smuggling gangs saw the UK as an easy target. The last Conservative Government completely lost control of our borders.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Member, but I inform Members that although I will take many interventions, I must make progress first.
Pete Wishart
That is fair enough, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. She talks about how much the whole of the UK wants this Bill, but my little part of the UK has experienced population stagnation, with decline coming in the 2030s. What we want and need are the tools to address that. A Scottish visa, supported by every sector and business organisation, would help our nation. When will we get that to help with our issues?
Yvette Cooper
Let me repeat the answer that I have just given: our immigration and asylum system applies right across the UK. I say to the hon. Member that when net migration soared under the previous Government, it did not address the labour market issues in Scotland. That is why we need a proper strategy that addresses the labour market issues, rather than always seeing migration as the answer.
The last Conservative Government completely lost control of our borders. Net migration quadrupled in the space of three years to a record high of nearly 1 million people, as overseas recruitment soared while training was cut in the UK. Immigration is important for the UK, but that is why it needs to be controlled and managed. The party that told people that it was taking back control of our borders instead just ripped up all the controls.
Six years ago, barely a handful of boats crossed the channel: 300 people arrived by small boat in 2018. Within four years that number had risen to more than 30,000—a 100-fold increase—which not only undermines our border security but puts huge numbers of lives at risks. The Conservative Government failed to act fast with France and other countries to increase enforcement and prevent the gangs from taking hold. Instead, criminals were let off and an entire criminal industry was established along our borders in just a few short years, with tragic consequences.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Nobody in this House supports criminal gangs or people smugglers. We recognise that they are grotesque people who exploit those in very vulnerable situations. However, the people who get on those boats are desperate. Many of them are victims of war and the most grotesque human rights abuses, and they deserve to be treated with respect. Does she agree that, by way of balance, we should work out more sustainable safe routes for asylum seekers to gain a place of safety, in recognition of the massive contribution that many of them will make to our community, our country and our society?
Yvette Cooper
The UK must always do its bit to help those who have fled persecution. That is what we have done with Ukraine and Afghanistan, and it will continue to be important, but no one should be making this dangerous journey on a boat across the channel and being exploited by the criminal gangs that are profiting from it. They are making huge amounts of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—from putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. It should be Governments, not gangs, who decide who enters our country.
Under the last Government, asylum decision making collapsed, with a 70% drop in monthly decision making in the run-up to the election and an 80% drop in asylum interviews. The entire asylum system was crashed by their chaotic legislation, driving the backlog up at huge cost to the taxpayer, and enforcement was undermined, with a 34% drop in returns compared with the last Labour Government. Just four employers were charged with illegally employing migrant workers in the space of two and a half years, and of course, £700 million was spent on sending four volunteers to Rwanda—that programme ran for more than two years and sent just four volunteers. At the time, we said that it would have been cheaper to send those same people on a round trip to Australia on the former Prime Minister’s private helicopter. It turns out that it would have been cheaper to buy each of them a fleet of private helicopters themselves, never mind spending that money on paying for thousands more doctors, nurses or police officers, or paying to boost our border security instead.
We said in our manifesto that we would stop the chaos and return order to the system. That is what this Bill does, and it is exactly what we are doing. Since the election, we have started by ensuring that rules are respected and enforced, because immigration is important, but the system should not be misused or abused. We have transferred staff and resources from the failed Rwanda scheme and boosted returns and enforcement. The result is a 24% increase in enforced returns in our first seven months for those who have no right to be in the UK. Some 19,000 people were returned by the end of last month, including the four largest return charter flights in our country’s history, and there has been a 38% increase in illegal working raids and arrests compared with the same time period under the previous Government. New biometric kits have been rolled out, so that immigration enforcement can check fingerprints and biometric residence permits on the spot, and we are already strengthening our approach to prosecuting employers for exploitation and employment of illegal workers.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary tell the House how many of those who have been deported since she came into office had crossed into the UK on a small boat?
Yvette Cooper
I should perhaps point the hon. Lady to her own Government’s record, which left us with a shocking and disgraceful backlog in the asylum system. We are now clearing that backlog so that small boat cases can now be returned, something that was not possible under her Government’s approach. They never decided any asylum cases, and as a result could not return anyone who arrived on a small boat because their system was so broken. Not only are this Government introducing stronger powers to prevent small boats arriving in the first place—something that, shockingly, Conservative Members seem to want to vote against this evening—we are clearing the backlog so that we can substantially increase returns, compared with the total failure under the previous Government.
We have established our new Border Security Command to draw together the work of the Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the police, Immigration Enforcement, the Foreign Office and the intelligence and security agencies in order to strengthen our borders. That is backed by £150 million of funding for new technology and hundreds of specialist investigators, and it has already led to major joint operations with Belgium, France, Germany, Bulgaria and Iraq, taking out smuggler gang leaders and supply chains—the criminals operate across borders, and so must we.
Since the election, we have signed new agreements with Germany, Iraq, Italy, the Calais group and the G7, and we are drawing up new, closer arrangements with France. In parallel with our new UK Border Security Command, the French Interior Minister has announced increased enforcement along the coast and a new criminal intelligence and investigations unit to drive new action against organised immigration crime.
But we need to go much further. It is worth understanding how extensive and vile this criminal industry really is. It operates from the money markets of Kabul to the hills of Kurdistan and right across Europe—through the western Balkans and across the Mediterranean. It uses false advertising on social media and hawala networks to channel the cash. There are huge supply chains of flimsy boats, weak engines and fake lifejackets that would not keep anyone afloat. There are shipping routes through Bulgaria, Italy and Spain; warehouses of boats in Germany; and organised logistics networks through Belgium and northern France.
Gangs have become increasingly violent in their determination to make as much money as possible. They are crowding more and more people into flimsy boats with women and children in the middle, so that if the boats fold or sink, they are the first to drown or be crushed. They provide the fuel in flimsy containers that leak, so that when it mixes with saltwater, it inflicts the most horrific burns.
The gangs’ latest tactic is to make people wait in freezing cold water—even in January—until a boat arrives from further along the shore to pick them up. The International Organisation for Migration estimates that at least 78 people died when attempting to cross the channel in 2024. Families have been left devastated by the loss of loved ones, the victims of a diabolical trade —the most disgraceful and immoral trade in people.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will accept that this is a difficult time to speak up for a fair and ethical immigration policy, with the tide of far-right politics sweeping Europe, and maybe even lapping the shores of this country. Does she accept, however, that she is in danger of sounding like she is trying to stigmatise desperate migrants, rather than build a fair system?
Yvette Cooper
The Mother of the House has long had an interest in these issues and has often spoken on them. I would say that it is important for the UK to have a fair and effective asylum and immigration system. Immigration has always been an important part of the UK, but for it to be so, the rules need to be respected and enforced. We cannot allow the criminal gangs to put life at risk in that way or to undermine our border security. It is as a result of the operations of those criminal gangs that 78 people died while attempting to cross the channel in 2024 and that we have seen those quite horrific tactics.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Home Secretary is clearly describing the grotesque way in which evil people traffickers encourage people to cross the channel, but my constituents find it difficult to understand why people want to come across the channel from France, which is a lovely country where many people enjoy holidaying and it is so safe. What is her understanding of why people make that journey and how will the Bill specifically help to reduce the number who do?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady will know, this challenge has been escalating for six years. We have seen a huge increase in the number of boat crossings, and underpinning that increase is the development of a criminal industry. In 2018 there were barely a handful of boat crossings, and now an entire criminal industry has developed based on false advertising and marketing, and on being able to promise people that they will be able to work illegally. That is why the previous Government’s complete failure to take enforcement action on illegal working or to make sure that there was a proper system in place for returns has been deeply damaging.
The Bill provides statutory underpinning for the new Border Security Command. For too long, different agencies with responsibility for border security have been operating in silos, without clear strategy or direction. Criminals can exploit that fragmentation, and the new Border Security Command that we established last summer is drawing together the work of different agencies including Border Force, the National Crime Agency, local police forces, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, immigration enforcement, the intelligence and security agencies and, because strengthening our borders means working internationally, the work of the Foreign Office on border security. Led by former police chief Martin Hewitt, Border Security Command is already having an impact, driving law enforcement co-operation across Europe and beyond. By placing it on a statutory footing and securing its authority and direction, for the first time border security is being treated as the national security issue that it needs to be, engaging with the multiple challenges and threats that we face around our borders.
The Bill strengthens the powers that law enforcement can use against ruthless and devious criminals. For too long, the ringleaders and facilitators of this wretched trade have been able to evade justice by ensuring that they are not present when the money changes hands or the boats set off. That has to change. Learning from early intervention counter-terrorism powers, the Bill will make possible much stronger early action against smuggler and trafficking gangs. New powers will better target supply chains, making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transporting of small boat parts, motors and engines to be used for illegal entry—not waiting until we can prove that the boats in question were used to arrive at Western Jet Foil.
We are making it an offence to organise the logistics or gather information for the purposes of organised immigration crime, making clear that that is targeting criminal gangs who are profiting from trading in people, not those who help rescue others from serious danger or harm. We are giving law enforcement powers to seize and search the mobile phones of those arriving on small boats, to trace the gangs who organised their journey. As Rob Jones from the National Crime Agency said,
“if you get effective legislation, and you get concerted effort across the system internationally, you can make a real difference.”
That is why a Bill such as this is so important.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I have asked the Home Secretary this before and she has not given an answer yet: which metric should we use, and by which date, if we are to ascertain whether she has succeeded in smashing the gangs?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear as part of the plan for change that the purpose is to reduce illegal migration and the number of boats crossing the channel, because no one should be making those dangerous journeys. We must take these powers to be able to go after the gangs —powers that, astonishingly, the hon. Gentleman and his party seem to want to vote against tonight. They will be voting against the action that we need, and voting in favour of the criminal gangs, letting them off the hook once again.
I am also deeply concerned about the growing violence and risk to life. In the past 12 months we have seen a disturbing number of cases where the French authorities have tried to rescue people, including children, from dangerously overcrowded boats on which they were being crushed to death. One such case was last April when a seven-year-old girl died. Even though people had died and many were complicit in the crushing and putting lives at risk, some refused rescue and remained on the boat to travel to the UK. We must be able to take stronger action here in the UK. We must be able to extradite people to France to face trial, but we need powers in the UK too. A new offence of endangering life at sea is being introduced to send a clear message that we will take action against those who are complicit in loss of life or risk to life at sea. Those involved in behaviour that puts others at risk of serious injury or death, such as physical aggression, intimidation or rejecting rescue attempts, will face prosecution.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I support the intent of this Bill to reform the asylum system and prevent further deaths in the channel. The Prime Minister has promised to defend migrants and to develop a system based on “compassion and dignity”, and that can be resolved by looking at safe routes. People would not put their lives on the line and put themselves in danger if there were safe routes. Can the Home Secretary tell us what will be in this Bill to support safe routes?
Yvette Cooper
The purpose of this Bill is to pursue the criminal gangs who are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. That is the way the criminal gangs work, and that is why the Bill is so important. Unless we do that, any other measure we take in any direction will be undermined and will fail. The UK must always do its bit—it has always done its bit—alongside other countries to help those fleeing persecution. That is what we have done and continue to do for Afghanistan, for example. We also have to ensure that Governments, not gangs, choose who enters our country and that we prevent this criminal trade in people that is putting lives at risk.
The Bill will upgrade serious crime prevention orders, which are a potentially vital tool, but are currently underused. Under new interim serious crime prevention orders, the process will be streamlined, so that strict curbs can be placed on individuals suspected of involvement in organised immigration crime before they are prosecuted and convicted. That could mean, for example, restrictions placed on travel, social media access or the subject’s finances, so that early intervention can prevent dangerous action.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Home Secretary has outlined many of the measures she is taking to try to deal with the gangs, but the fact is that people come here because there are advantages in coming here. What is she doing to ensure that those advantages are removed, so that there is no incentive for people to come to the United Kingdom? Secondly, what role will Border Force have between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, since the Irish Republic is also a route for illegal immigrants to come to the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will be aware that the common travel area has long been in place, and that means that arrangements have to be addressed differently. Part of the problem with the whole asylum and immigration system has been that issues around enforcement have just not been taken seriously enough for far too long. We have been clear that the rules need to be respected and enforced. That is why we have substantially increased the resources and staffing available for enforcement and returns. It is why we have had 19,000 people returned. It is why we have increased returns. For example, we have increased enforced returns by 24%. It is why we have also increased the illegal working raids by 38% just since the election. That is a substantial increase in the illegal working raids and arrests, because not enough action was being taken on illegal working and employers exploiting people. If we do not have that system of proper enforcement, people think it is just too easy to ignore the rules, to break the rules and to ignore the system, and that is what we have to turn around. There has to be some credibility underpinning the asylum and immigration system and some enforcement of the rules; frankly, there just has not been that for far too long.
We will introduce two new offences to criminalise the making, adapting, importing, supplying and offering to supply and the possession of a specified list of articles for use in serious crime. That includes templates for 3D-printed firearms, pill presses and vehicle concealment. We will introduce stronger powers to go after dangerous criminals—criminals who are planning to provide small boats, supplying small boats, putting lives at risk, undermining border security and organising serious crime.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Home Secretary is doing her best to cover the waterfront—almost literally—but is not part of the problem that so many of the criminal gang organisers are outside our jurisdiction? How will these new laws apply to people we cannot reach?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member makes an important point, because we have to do this work in co-ordination with other countries. Alongside the UK’s setting up the Border Security Command, France is setting up its new organised immigration crime unit and a new intelligence centre and is strengthening enforcement. Alongside the UK’s strengthening our law to be able to go after the preparatory supply chains used by the people smugglers, Germany is also committed, as part of our new agreement, to strengthen its laws so that it can take action against the warehouses that we know hold huge numbers of the flimsy boats that are then used to transport people across the channel, putting lives at risk. He is absolutely right that this has to be done in co-operation and co-ordination with other countries, because the best way to strengthen border security is to work in co-operation.
The National Crime Agency is also clear that some of the organisers are here in the UK, such as those who do the facilitation, organise the supply chains and organise and help plan some of the routes, the dropping-off points and the advertising. Some of them are based in the UK, so we need the powers to be able to go after them here. If we are asking France, Germany and other countries to do their bit to help go after the criminal gangs, we need to make sure we are doing our bit, too.
That is why, to be honest, I find it absolutely astonishing that the Conservatives are planning to vote against Second Reading and against the provisions we are putting forward. [Interruption.] There is no point doing, “Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but”; the impact of the reasoned amendment from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is to refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which puts forward counter-terrorism-style powers to go after the criminal people smugglers and traffickers who have undermined border security and put lives at risk. We have seen reasoned amendments from Reform and the Scottish National party, too, all wanting to oppose this Bill and the powers we need to go after the criminal gangs. Frankly, they should all explain why they want to let down the people of this country and stand up instead for the people smugglers and the traffickers who are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. On the Government Benches, we believe we should go after those gangs, because theirs is a vile and illegal trade.
The Bill also strengthens intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing to tackle organised immigration crime. It will make it easier for customs data to be shared with the Home Office and police and provides for data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on UK-registered trailers to be shared with law enforcement in real time. The House will remember the terrible case where 39 people died in the back of a trailer in Essex. The Bill will help detect attempts to smuggle people or goods into the country illegally via lorry. It will also provide for biometric checks to be taken more easily in different locations, including from Scottish ports and evacuation routes.
Importantly, the Bill also restores order to the asylum system by putting an end to some of the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that the previous Government left us. That includes sorting out the chaos created by the unworkable and contradictory provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, most of which are so unworkable that Conservative Ministers never commenced or implemented them. Some 34 major clauses were passed by this House but never commenced, because Ministers knew they would not work. Sixteen more were commenced, but never operationalised, because they were simply unworkable. The chaotic combination of section 9 and section 2 meant that anyone who arrived could claim asylum, get asylum support and get put up in an asylum hotel, but the Home Office could never take a decision on their case, so they would have to stay forever—an asylum Hotel California which people never leave, while the backlog soars and the taxpayer foots the bill.
We are repealing many of those chaotic, gimmicky and broken laws, including the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which will allow us to withdraw from the UK-Rwanda treaty that would otherwise have cost us hundreds of millions of pounds more for an unworkable scheme.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Home Secretary mentions asylum hotels. The Government have actually opened more asylum hotels since they have been in office. Can she give us a date when she will have met her manifesto commitment to close the last asylum hotel?
Yvette Cooper
I would just point out to the hon. Member that his party’s previous Government opened 400 hotels. This Government have already cut the cost of asylum accommodation substantially, and we continue to do so. We have also had to start clearing the backlog that was created by the previous Government collapsing asylum decisions in the run-up to the election, creating total chaos.
The Bill is about restoring order to the immigration and asylum system and rebuilding our border security. Immigration has always been important to the UK, but that is why it should be controlled and managed so that the system is fair. Our country will always do our bit to help those who have fled persecution and conflict, but the system needs grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises. Unlike our predecessors, we will not claim that there is a single fantasy gimmick that will solve the serious challenges. The gangs have been allowed to take hold for six years, so it will take time to loosen that grip and smash the networks that lie behind them, but there is no alternative to the hard graft of going after those gang networks, which have been getting away with this for far too long. Nor is there an alternative to working with international partners on this international crime, building new alliances against organised criminals—not just standing on the shoreline shouting at the sea.
If all the other parties are serious about tackling the criminal gangs that undermine our border security and put lives at risk, if they are serious about tackling crime, if they are serious about tackling criminals, and if they are serious about protecting our borders, they will support the Bill. The gangs do not care about borders, or whether the people they exploit live or die, but we have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure, to go after the criminal gangs that are undermining them. We have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies, and stop the gangs that undermine border security and put lives at risk. I commend the Bill to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while welcoming measures to create new immigration criminal offences, declines to give a Second Reading to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, because an effective removals and deterrence arrangement is fundamental to stopping illegal immigration, but the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.”
It has been seven months since the Government came to office, so we have had a chance to look at their record. I am afraid it does not make for happy reading. Since the general election on 4 July, 24,793 people have illegally, dangerously and unnecessarily crossed the English channel. That is a 28% increase on the same period 12 months previously. The Home Secretary tells us how good her Government’s record is, yet illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch. She promised that she would end the use of asylum hotels. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) asked her when she would deliver on that manifesto commitment, and she did not answer the question. The truth is that, after the election, there were 6,000 more people in asylum hotels: a failure on her watch.
The Home Secretary crows about removal numbers, not mentioning of course that three quarters of those removals were voluntary, and only a tiny fraction relate to people who arrived by small boat. In the first three months of this Government, the number of people who were removed having arrived by small boat actually went down. In fact, the removals of small boat arrivals in those first three months—the most recent period for which figures are available—amount to only 4% of small boat arrivals, so how can she tell us that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is some kind of deterrent? It is not.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary seems keen to reflect on the records of Governments. In 2010, the number of people in the asylum system reached an over-20-year low. By the time the Conservative Government had left office, the number had ballooned by 13 times to 225,000. Will he reflect on who was responsible for that?
Chris Philp
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows which Government gave an effective asylum amnesty; it was the previous Labour Government. If he is so interested in the asylum backlog, does he know whether it has gone up or down under the new Government? It has gone up, as has the number of illegal migrants crossing the channel, leaving a safe country—France—from which there is no necessity to depart in order to find safety. France has a fully functioning asylum system, does it not?
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
In 2018, 400 people crossed. On the Conservative Government’s watch, 130,000 people crossed the border. Will the shadow Home Secretary apologise?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that in 2023 the numbers were going down. Since his Government came to office on 4 July last year, the number has gone up by 28%.
Sammy Wilson
The shadow Home Secretary notes that the number of asylum claims has gone up since the Government came to power, yet thousands have been wiped off because those people have been automatically given permission to stay in the United Kingdom. Does he not think that one reason we will continue to see people flooding in is that they know we are an easy touch? They can just come here and get granted asylum.
Chris Philp
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The asylum grant rate in this country has gone up in recent months, and is high in comparison with some other European countries. That is obviously a potential pull factor for people considering a dangerous and unnecessary crossing of the English channel.
Let me say a word about the Bill in general before discussing its specifics. The Bill cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who have arrived illegally. That is a shocking move. It creates a pathway to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally, which will only increase the pull factor, and completely cancels any prospect of establishing a removals deterrent, which the National Crime Agency says is necessary.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
How many people were removed under the previous Government’s so-called deterrent?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight—[Interruption.] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I was in opposition when we had ferocious debates about Brexit, and Conservative Members used words like “surrender”, “traitors” and “weak”. The shadow Home Secretary is now doing the same in opposition. Does he honestly believe that such language is conducive to getting to a solution? Does he think that it makes any person in this House feel better about themselves? Does he think that it gives him the moral high ground? I think it exposes his inability to conduct an argument in a way that is vaguely civil.
Chris Philp
I think a Bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants and cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive illegally is a shocking piece of legislation. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment.
Chris Philp
I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress.
The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary can confirm that the measure in the Illegal Migration Act on citizenship was never commenced because it was unworkable. The Government have strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules. We have done more in seven months than the Conservative party did in 14 years. If he really wants to support counter-terrorism-style powers, why is he going to vote against the Bill on Second Reading?
Chris Philp
The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?
Chris Philp
I will make some progress.
Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. The only problem with the Border Security Commander is that he cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report. Preparing a strategic priority document and publishing an annual report are unlikely to smash the gangs. The Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, and that deserves its reward.
Tom Hayes
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the reward, and I hope to return one. The director general of the NCA has said:
“The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill should help UK law enforcement act earlier and faster to disrupt people smuggling networks and give us additional tools to target them and their business models.”
The Conservative party is about to vote against the Bill. Why does the shadow Home Secretary think that he knows better than the director general of the National Crime Agency?
Chris Philp
The point of a debate is to engage rather than read out a pre-prepared question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Crime Agency has said that we need a deterrent. The Bill removes any legislative prospect of a deterrent, which is why we oppose it.
The Home Secretary talked about various new offences, including endangering life at sea and activities preparatory to supporting illegal migration. Of course, no one from any party in this House wants those things to happen, but the measures that she proposes duplicate the existing provisions in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Facilitating illegal immigration—quite a broad term—is already a criminal offence. Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary.
Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication.
Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place.
We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%. Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.
Mr Brash
That is the second time the shadow Home Secretary has said that the National Crime Agency has suggested that Rwanda would be a deterrent. The head of the National Crime Agency has said specifically, “Others are implying that we support Rwanda, and that isn’t true.” Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?
Chris Philp
No, what the National Crime Agency said was that we need a deterrent. That is what it said, that is what I quoted, and the Government’s own Border Security Commander made the same point.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Last year, as part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I visited Rwanda to see the accommodation at Hope hostel that was to be provided to people who were moved under the Rwanda scheme. I learned from that visit that, yes, people would have been deterred from going across the channel, but that migrants who were sent to Rwanda would have been well looked after, well cared for and able to set up a new life, free from the war and famine that they were fleeing.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members look themselves in the mirror, with a hand on their heart, and say in good conscience that for a great nation like ours—a country that believes in the international rule of law—to outsource its asylum policy to a country like Rwanda is the correct way to behave? Can he really say that that is the right policy for this country?
Chris Philp
The right policy for this country is for the Government, not people smugglers, to decide who comes into this country. Unlike this Government, we have a plan to deliver that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that France is a safe country. There is no need to cross the English channel to flee war or seek asylum. France has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system.
When it comes to people who are genuinely in need, this country has a proud record. The Home Secretary referred—rather generously, I might say—to initiatives undertaken by the last Government. They include the Ukraine scheme, which allowed in 200,000 or 300,000 people; the resettlement scheme that welcomed around 25,000 Syrians from about 2015 to 2020; the provisions made for British nationals overseas who came here from Hong Kong, and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy. That is the record of this country, and of the previous Government, on people who are in genuine need. But people—overwhelmingly single young men—leaving France, conveyed here by people smugglers, are not the people whose entry we should be facilitating.
Let me move on to the Bill’s provisions to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. One such provision to be repealed, therefore depriving the Government of the ability ever to use it, is section 2, which created an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the 2023 Act makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger. That is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention, which Members will be familiar with. But people who come here directly from France—a safe country where no one is being persecuted, which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system—should not illegally enter the United Kingdom.
The Bill will also repeal section 32 of the 2023 Act, which prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship. By repealing that section, the Bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.
The Bill will also repeal sections 57 and 58 of the 2023 Act —a topic on which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum and I have had some correspondence—which concern scientific age assessment methods. Every European country apart from this one uses scientific age assessment techniques, such as an X-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. That is important because quite a few people entering the country illegally who might be in their early or even mid-20s falsely claim to be under the age of 18, and without a scientific age assessment method it is very hard to determine their age. That creates serious safeguarding issues. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, which carries obvious safeguarding risks.
A statutory instrument passed in early 2024—quite soon before the election—commenced the power to use those age assessment techniques. I really hope the new Government will use those powers and start using wrist X-rays, or other techniques, to ensure that people cannot falsely claim to be under 18. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that in her winding-up speech, because we would certainly support her work in that area. As I say, there is an important safeguarding element to this matter, as well as a migration element. I note that in repealing section 57 of the 2023 Act, the Government will no longer be able to treat as over 18 somebody who refuses one of those tests. There are some predating provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but the provision being repealed is stronger, and in the circumstances that may be rather unwise.
There are various things missing from the Bill. We will table various amendments during its passage that will seek to introduce much stronger measures, but I want to point to two in particular now. The first addresses the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill for a binding annual cap on legal migration.
Chris Philp
No—I have taken lots of interventions.
I think we can all agree that numbers in recent years have been far too high, and what is needed is a binding cap that Parliament can vote on, so that it can decide how many visas are issued each year. I believe the Prime Minister was asked about that and said he did not agree with it, but I think the Bill is an ideal opportunity to create that power for Parliament—for us, the directly elected representatives of the people—to vote each year on how many visas get handed out. Perhaps the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will execute a considered U-turn and embrace the suggestion I have just made.
On the topic of legal migration, the previous Government —in fact, I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the former Home Secretary, who is in his place—announced an increase to the threshold for dependant visas. It went up somewhat in April last year, and it was due to go up again this April to about £38,000. I would be grateful if the Government could clarify whether they will go ahead with that plan, which would, of course, control some of the numbers.
The second area that requires further legislation is indefinite leave to remain, which the Leader of the Opposition and I spoke about last week. Indefinite leave to remain, as the name implies, confers an indefinite right to reside in the UK and provides a number of privileges, including access to full benefits, social housing and pension rights. It is the Opposition’s view that it should be granted only if a person, having come here for work purposes, has made a genuine contribution—if they have earned more than they have paid in taxes, which we could measure by reference to a salary threshold. If, after someone comes to the UK to work, it turns out they have not worked and have become a burden on the taxpayer, or have worked for a very low level of wages, implying they are not making a net contribution, it strikes us as fair that they should not be granted indefinite leave to remain and that their visa should not be renewed.
Last September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an analysis showing that migrants on low wages carry a lifetime fiscal cost to the rest of the taxpayers of £500,000. The Centre for Policy Studies recently published an analysis showing that the fiscal cost of those who might be granted ILR in the next four or five years will amount to £234 billion over their lifetime. We do not think it is reasonable for taxpayers to bear so high a cost for people who have arrived only relatively recently and have not made a significant contribution, so we will be tabling amendments to ensure that only those coming here on work visas who have actually made a contribution will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will support that measure.
The Government have presided over 25,000 illegal crossings since they came into office—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months ago—and have failed to remove 96% of the people who have crossed the channel. They scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it even started, even though the National Crime Agency and their own Border Security Commander said that a deterrent is needed and we have seen it work in Australia. The Bill will cancel the Government’s obligation to remove people who have come here illegally, and we see the Government creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. This is a weak Bill from a weak Government, and that is why we will oppose it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We will start with an immediate five-minute time limit, with the exception of Front-Bench speeches.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this important Bill, which will introduce new counter-terror-style powers to identify, disrupt and smash the people smuggling gangs. I take this opportunity to commend the Home Secretary on the work the Government have already done to remove foreign criminals and immigration offenders at the highest rate since 2018. By restarting asylum processing to clear the backlog and redeploying 1,000 staff to work on immigration enforcement, the Government have been able to deport more than 16,000 people, while the previous Government deported just four volunteers.
I want to focus on an extremely important aspect of the Bill that has gone largely overlooked, and on which I have been campaigning for change. Clauses 43 and 44 will introduce new offences to clamp down on the rise of 3D-printed firearms, which is a serious threat. Such firearms present a new challenge to law enforcement because they can easily be made at home and are untraceable and undetectable by magnetometers in places such as airports and courthouses. While the UK has been successful in policing gun crime, law enforcement agencies have warned that they are underpowered to tackle this rising threat, so I am glad that the Bill addresses it.
Birmingham, the city I represent, has regrettably become the gun capital of the United Kingdom, with nearly 600 firearm offences recorded in the West Midlands police area last year. In 2023, a local man was convicted of possession of a range of home-made assault rifles manufactured using a 3D printer in his home. That is why last year I introduced my Firearms (3D Printing) Bill, which would make it an offence to possess and share the blueprints to build these deadly weapons and to possess part of a 3D-printed firearm.
I worked with Channel 4 and Middlechild TV on a documentary about this issue, and I was shocked to learn that files containing IKEA-like step-by-step guides to 3D print firearms at home can be downloaded from the web in as little as three clicks. That is putting the public at risk. I am therefore delighted that Ministers have wasted no time in closing this loophole, introducing much-needed legislation and backing my Bill.
The horrors of the Dunblane massacre in the 1990s mean that the UK has got much right on gun control. Our constituents see mass shootings in other countries and are thankful for the strong gun controls we have here. However, that has never been a reason to be complacent, and the rise of 3D printer technology in recent years has presented a novel threat. Someone can buy a 3D printer for £150. As we saw in the Luigi Mangione case in the United States, 3D-printed firearms are not toys, but deadly weapons. Some might look like Nerf guns, but 3D-printed weapons can kill.
In the United Kingdom, 3D-printed firearms are growing in popularity, with several cases in recent years. In 2023, a man from Bradford was held in possession of a FGC-9 home-made automatic sub-machine-gun, magazine and bullets. In May 2023, two men from Bradford and Hull were convicted of plotting to build and supply home-made weapons to criminal gangs. In the same month, National Crime Agency officers uncovered a factory in south London that was converting blank-firing guns into lethal weapons using 3D-printed parts. Earlier this year, an Islamist extremist was jailed for seven years after being found with instructions on how to build 3D-printed weapons. I mentioned the case in Birmingham, where a man was convicted of making assault rifles in his own home similar in size and scope to the AK47. The point of this legislation is to limit the accessibility of blueprints and prevent dangerous people using them to undermine gun control in the United Kingdom, and to send a strong message that the law will come down on those who want to do harm to our country. In conclusion, the Labour Government came to power promising safer streets. I am proud that we are taking stronger action to deliver on that pledge. In a weaponising world, legislation must keep pace with new technology and the rise of new novel threats. My call for a change in legislation has meant that those seeking to undermine our gun controls to commit criminal acts under the radar by downloading and sharing blueprints to make 3D-printed guns will now face criminal charges. I thank the Government for that.
Finally, turning to other measures in the Bill, I commend the Government for taking a practical approach to Britain’s border security. The previous Government’s efforts were a disaster. They stopped processing asylum cases while failing to deport people with no right to be here, with the result that thousands upon thousands of asylum seekers have been left to languish in hotels and B&Bs across the country, costing the taxpayer billions. Even more self-defeating was the previous Government’s decision to write a blank cheque out of Britain’s aid budget to pay for that mess, taking away funding to tackle the crisis that many people are fleeing in the first place. There is no solution to the global displacement crisis without international development. The Bill is right to focus on the smuggling gangs. We need to break the business model of the vile criminals who are still shipping families across the channel, even in the freezing cold, with no concern as to whether they live or die. The Bill will equip our law enforcement agencies with the powers they need to stop them, disrupt their supply chains and bring most of those who profit from this human misery to justice. The new counter-terrorist powers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We all want to stop the dangerous channel crossings, wherever we sit on the political spectrum. There are some measures proposed in the Bill that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support, some that we do not think will be effective enough, and some that we will seek to amend in Committee.
When in government, the Conservatives systematically dismantled safe and legal routes to sanctuary, forcing desperate people into the arms of criminal smugglers. At the same time, they mismanaged our asylum system so badly that they allowed a massive backlog to build up, with thousands of people stuck in limbo, banned from working and contributing to society, and costing taxpayers millions.
The current asylum system is not working for anyone. It is not working for communities like mine, whose hotels are being used to house asylum seekers. It is not working for those housed in those hotels for months and years waiting for their applications to be processed, unable to get on with their lives and integrate, banned from paying their fair share by working and thereby paying tax, and too often called by their room number, rather than their name. And it certainly is not working for the taxpayer who is forking out millions to pay for this broken system.
The Liberal Democrats want a fair, effective immigration and asylum system that treats people with dignity and respect. That means scrapping the unworkable and inhumane Rwanda scheme and investing the savings in clearing the asylum backlog. That means real action against the criminal gangs profiting from human misery, but it also means tackling the root causes of the crisis, rather than just chasing headlines. Applications should be processed quickly, so that those with a right to be here can integrate and contribute, and those without the right to be here can be returned swiftly. The Bill, however, fails to provide a humane, legally sound and effective framework to achieve those goals.
One of the biggest gaps is in the area of modern slavery. The previous Government brought in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which shamefully stripped protections from those who arrive irregularly in the UK, leaving victims at risk of further exploitation. This Bill does not reverse those measures, which exclude asylum seekers from the protections under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Further, without access to the national referral mechanism, survivors of modern slavery are left without the support they need to rebuild their lives. Surely the Government can see that that plays right into the hands of the very criminals they claim to be fighting, by keeping victims trapped in exploitation rather than helping them to escape.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
I just want to point out that, contrary to some of the reporting when the Bill was published, the vast majority of the clauses in the Illegal Migration Act that prevented children and others from having access to the national referral mechanism have, in fact, been repealed.
Lisa Smart
I thank the Minister for her intervention. It is good that the vast majority have been dealt with, and we will get into the detail of all of them in Committee.
During the passage of the Illegal Migration Act, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to remove those restrictions, which, had they been accepted, would have protected survivors and made it easier to bring traffickers to justice. If the Government are serious about smashing the gangs, they should commit to establishing a new single enforcement body to crack down on modern slavery in the UK, as the previous Government once promised and failed to deliver. Whether it is domestic workers, seasonal agricultural workers, or, in the case of a raid on a Stockport abattoir only last week, meat processing workers, modern slavery is happening across our country today. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail, line by line, in Committee.
The Bill also continues the indefensible policy of detaining children for extended periods, a policy that undermines the UK’s commitment to child welfare and international protections for unaccompanied minors. The Liberal Democrats would end the detention of children for immigration purposes entirely and reduce detention for adults to an absolute last resort, with a strict 28-day limit.
Another shortcoming is the lack of any serious attempt to improve safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. The Government continue to restrict those routes, forcing vulnerable people to risk their lives at sea. They are cracking down on the gangs while simultaneously forcing asylum seekers into their hands. Do Government Members not see the conflict? By shutting down legal routes, the previous Government made the channel crossings crisis worse. Under this Government, the cap on safe and legal arrivals remains, limiting those who wish to travel safely to the UK to claim asylum, rather than turning to smugglers. The Liberal Democrats would take a different approach. We would expand and properly fund the UK resettlement scheme, introduce humanitarian travel permits, and widen family reunion rules to better protect children. If we truly want to tackle smuggling gangs, we must cut off their business model and that means the existence of safe and legal routes.
The Bill could and should go further to improve cross-border co-operation. Stopping the gangs that profit from human trafficking requires more collaboration with our European partners. The UK should work more closely with Europol and the French authorities to track and dismantle smuggling operations before people even reach the channel. As the Home Secretary said, this is an international crisis and it needs an international solution. The UK should be leading in Europe on this issue.
The Conservatives have long failed on immigration. They failed to stop the boats, failed to clear the asylum backlog and failed to crack down on trafficking gangs. The Bill, for all its rhetoric, has too many missed opportunities. We look forward to scrutinising it in detail. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for an immigration system that is fair, humane and effective.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
The Bill paves the way to end 14 years of gimmicks and sticking-plaster politics. The previous Government threw £700 million of taxpayers’ money at the Rwanda scheme, which, from the time it was introduced to the day it was scrapped, saw 84,000 people arrive on our shores in small boats. Given the focus of the Bill, it is important that clear distinctions are drawn on its purpose, and on immigration itself.
Workers arriving here legally to fill the gaps in industry and institutions such as our national health service are vital contributors to our society and economy. Migrant labour and immigration from Ireland and the commonwealth nations built my constituency in the 1920s and 1930s. Not only is that a part of Dagenham and Rainham’s heritage, but my heritage as the daughter of an Irish immigrant. My dad came here for work in the ’50s and contributed to our society throughout his life. Equally, those fleeing war and devastation, human rights abuses and more, have an international right to seek asylum.
It is also important to acknowledge that our borders cannot be an open door, especially not to criminality or exploitation. That brings us to the focus of the Bill. It is why I welcome the Bill and will be supporting it on Second Reading. The Bill seeks to close the gaps, ensuring that law enforcement agencies are granted counter-terror-style powers to tackle organised immigration crime. There is a public perception, and a perception of some who are new to the House, that those arriving here are somehow stealing from the British people—taking something away, whether it be jobs, homes or services. The truth is, however, that many thousands of those who arrive on our shores find themselves exploited and trapped, used in criminality, and thrown into the life of modern slavery. With no recourse to public funds, they are not accessing our services, and without citizenship or national insurance, they are not taking our homes or our jobs.
Lives are being lost, but the organised crime groups who are fuelling this—they are despicable people—do not care whether those who are exploited live or die, as long as they make a profit. Back in October 2019, close to my constituency, we saw how that leads to the terrible tragedy of which the Home Secretary spoke earlier, when 39 men and women were found dead in a lorry in Grays. This cannot continue. The Bill is, first and foremost, a way to disrupt organised immigration crime by scaling up law enforcement and the response to border security checks. It is about our Government getting things done: being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and protecting our borders while still ensuring that the vulnerable, and victims of organised crime, are offered the protection that they deserve.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a vital issue, and Labour voters feel as strongly about it as Conservative voters. Our inability as a country to control the people smugglers is utterly debilitating to the political process, and is causing tremendous unhappiness and angst in our nation. We can throw brickbats across the Chamber and blame each other, arguing about which Minister is or is not responsible, but until we solve this problem together we are simply feeding a vast populist movement that could be intensely damaging to both the Conservative and Labour parties, so we have to work together to solve it.
I know that I will not persuade Labour to support the Rwanda scheme, but experience shows that the only effective deterrent is to detain and deport. We know that from other countries, such as Australia. I will not become involved in an argument about whether Rwanda is right or not, or how many people were or were not exported, and I agree that the Government should be commended for wanting to be seen to do something, but what they are doing is ineffective because it scraps the Rwanda scheme.
The devil is in the detail, so let me deal with one detail to prove this point. Article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention forbids the return of refugees to countries where they may be at risk, but it creates a specific exception for those claiming refugee status who either pose a danger to the security of the country or have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. That exception exists regardless of the threat of being persecuted, so, under the convention, someone who is a criminal can be exported to Afghanistan. Article 3 of the European convention on human rights is a very sensible and restrained one-sentence article prohibiting torture, but the European Court has expanded its meaning to interpret it as prohibiting Governments from returning individuals to countries where they could be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. That is a massive extension of article 3’s sensible and reasonable intention. I am sorry to go into so much detail, but it is essential to understand what is going on.
This is typical of the way in which judges have worked to undermine legitimate Government action undertaken by elected representatives. Two weeks ago, I sat in the hemicycle of the Council of Europe listening to Lord Hermer saying that he would always accept every interpretation of the convention. That, in my view, is unhealthy, and undermines our democracy as well as the public legitimacy of the system. The refugee convention was drafted in 1949, in tandem with the European convention on human rights—it is very old, even older than I am, and that is something—and it was drafted by the same people. It was never intended that the ECHR should apply to immigration at that time; it was only in the 1980s that judges in the European Court extended it. In 1996, in Chahal v. United Kingdom, it was held that there was an absolute rule to prevent the exporting of criminals. I am a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the Government should work with other members there to seek to revise the convention. All European Governments are struggling: we are all in the same mess.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights are not a pick and mix? If we are signed up to the convention, we have to abide by the decisions taken by the Court. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be taking an approach that does not accept the jurisdiction of that Court over UK law, which is implicit within the Human Rights Act 1998 in this country.
Sir Edward Leigh
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a particular point of view, but what I am trying to explain to the House is that the convention was never intended to apply to immigration. The refugee convention applied to it, and under the refugee convention we can export criminals. It is judges who have extended the European convention on human rights. Unless we persuade the Court to change, I am afraid that if we want to solve this problem—if we want to stop people coming across the channel, and if we want to detain and deport—in the end we will have to grasp the nettle and get out of the European convention on human rights.
There is precedent for issuing a temporary derogation, given that we are facing a crisis, but if that is not heeded, we always have the option to leave the convention altogether and opt out of the Strasbourg Court’s expansive rulings. That covers the criminals claiming asylum or entering illegally. For non-criminals, we need a programme like Rwanda, although it may not be Rwanda; I know that I will not convince the Government on that. As for legal migration, the Government—any Government—must stop subsidising legal arrivals undercutting existing workers in Britain. I am very critical of my own Government for allowing this mass immigration, and I was constantly raising these points from the Back Benches, but at least, albeit too late, the Conservative Government committed themselves to raising the earnings minimum to meet the average earnings in the UK. That must be kept up to date and enforced.
Let me end by saying that it we are to solve this crisis, we need, ultimately, to get out of the convention, stop the boats, and stop importing low-paid workers legally.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the Father of the House.
Alongside a deterrent—perhaps—the first, foundational point of any system must be control at the border, and over the past 14 years we have certainly not had that. My constituents tell me that they want change, and want fairness to be at the heart of the border and asylum system. There has been chaos—chaos that saw last year alone at least 77 souls lose their lives by drowning while crossing the channel, about a third of them children; chaos that saw £700 million wasted on a scheme that did nothing to stop those crossings, but paid for a grand total of four migrants to move voluntarily to Rwanda; chaos that saw tens of thousands of people come to the UK and then spend years in hotels, including a manor house in my town, in military bases while our serving personnel waited for homes, and on barges, because the Government of the day refused to process their claims.
The Bill marks a sea change, away from chaos and towards a security that will allow us to tackle the human trafficking gangs with counter-terrorism-style laws and tactics—to go after them, lock them up, and take possession of the proceeds of their crime. That security will allow us to welcome the most talented, the best and brightest, to make this country a better place, contributing to our public services, our cultural sector and our world-leading technology, research and innovation sectors, together with the people who help our country around the world, including Afghan interpreters.
When things go wrong, however—when laws are broken, or time is up—my constituents expect the state to have the ability, the right and the mechanisms to remove people who have no right to remain here. The Bill takes the welcome first steps that will enable the state to remove such people, particularly those who come to the UK to commit crime. I urge the Government to go further, and allow British judges to impose stand-alone deportation orders in cases where the public interest is served.
During the general election campaign, many voters asked me about illegal migration. Many of them had concerns about small boat crossings. They felt that Britain should have control over our borders, and that we should decide who can and cannot enter our country. Illegal small boat crossings undermine that principle, and make it impossible to have an asylum and immigration system that is both fair and functional.
This Bill gives Britain a better deal. It protects vulnerable people against human trafficking and dangerous small boat crossings, and it restores law and order at our borders. It will give us greater powers to identify and detain the people behind the industry. It creates a criminal offence of supplying or handling items that are used for organised immigration crime. At long last, it allows us to tackle the problem upstream in order to stop a backlog the size of Colchester building up, as it did under the last Conservative Government’s watch.
Today’s Bill is about illegal migration and our approach to it. The merits of legal migration, and how to ensure a fair and balanced system, start with the Government’s ability to decide who comes in and who does not, and who stays and who does not. The Bill is a first step towards ensuring that this Parliament, on behalf of the British people, makes that decision—not criminal gangs who make money from exploiting and trafficking children, women and men.
After 14 years, the shadow Home Secretary should have stood up and apologised. I have a warning for the public: those who come up with simple solutions to complex problems are not telling the truth. This Bill is a first step in the hard work to take back control of our borders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies). He made exactly the right point in saying there are no easy answers to this problem.
I stand here in another immigration Bill debate—I do not know how many I have attended in the 15 years that I have been in Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, you held the brief of Immigration Minister for some time. We have all tried to combat this problem, and we all want to see the same solution. I sincerely wish the Home Secretary and her team of Ministers the best of luck in getting the Bill right, which may mean that there need to be some amendments to make sure that it actually delivers what she wants it to deliver, because there are no easy solutions. There is no silver bullet that will solve this problem, and any politician who dares to stand up and say, “Only one thing is going to make this better,” is misleading the public and making it harder for all of us to do the job that we were elected to do.
It is important to say that the Bill builds on previous work, including on data sharing and returns. These are all matters that Governments of every colour have worked on for many years. I congratulate the Secretary of State on focusing on those, but it is right to say that this is a process rather than an event, that these are things that all parties and all Governments have worked on, and that legislation can only go so far. This is about how enforcement happens, about training and about understanding at the frontline. I praise the NCA, which has done incredible work on this issue globally for many years and continues to do so. We need to remember when people get to the beaches in northern France that an awful lot of others do not make it there because of the work of the NCA and other parts of our law enforcement system.
Illegal migration is a global problem, and we cannot escape that. We have talked about the increase in numbers, which is down to global events. This is happening across the world; we are not the only country suffering from this problem. We might see it acutely on the boats crossing the channel, but this is happening everywhere. May I ask the Home Secretary to use her good offices, and those of the Prime Minister, to raise this issue at all multilateral levels? We need it to be on the agenda for the UN General Assembly, and we need an annual Heads of Government meeting at a UN level to look at this matter. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), talked about when the refugee convention was written and what it was written for. Things are different now. We are living in a different world, which means that we need to work together globally to deal with this issue.
In the short time I have, I will make just a couple of points. I welcome the measures on endangering life at sea, but the devil will be in the detail. We will need to make sure that the measures are properly understood by those enforcing the laws, and that they can actually be implemented. The Home Affairs Committee has heard that if a boat gets on to a beach near Calais, it is very difficult for anyone to intervene at that point because of the legal position in international maritime law and other matters.
I also welcome the protection measures and the biometric testing. I met representatives of the British Red Cross last week, and they have some very interesting ideas about potentially expanding where that testing could take place. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister can take that point forward.
My final point is about modern slavery. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the protections for victims of modern slavery, but I want to reiterate that modern slavery is not a migration crime; it is a financial crime. It is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial profit, and we must not confuse the two. If somebody chooses to pay a people smuggler to put them in an unsafe vessel, that is a crime, but it is a consensual crime. If somebody has been forced to get into an unsafe vessel, that is a coercive crime and needs to be treated differently. In much the same way as our policy response to a person who gets ill from having their drink spiked is different from our policy response to somebody who gets ill from taking an illegal substance that they chose to buy, there has to be a different policy response to victims of modern slavery.
May I ask the Home Secretary and the Minister to make sure that, throughout the passage of this Bill and elsewhere, the victims of modern slavery are put at the forefront and can get the protections they need? They should enter the national referral mechanism so that they can be looked after. We owe it to the world to be a leader in this matter, and I fear that if we do not take those steps, we will fail to be so.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I rise in support of this important Bill, which is a crucial step as this Government regain control of our borders after the Conservative party lost control.
My constituency is a diverse and welcoming place. We have a long and proud history of migrants from around the world coming to work and contribute to our community, and we have a proud history of welcoming refugees fleeing persecution and abuse. That compassion is part of who we are as a country, but our compassion must always come alongside control and a system that is fair. That is why my constituents are right to be angry about illegal crossings. When the last Government lost control of our borders, it risked lives and undermined our national security, and meant that people could cheat the system. It also meant that millions of pounds were being spent unnecessarily while our public services were on their knees. Enough is enough. This Government are determined to secure our borders.
Whereas the Conservative party chose the path of sounding tough but failing to deliver, since the election this Government have rolled up their sleeves. Whereas the Conservative party picked fights with France, we have made landmark deals with international partners. Whereas the Conservative party spent nearly £9 million a day on hotels for asylum seekers, we have restarted processing to save the taxpayer £4 billion a year over the next two years, and to end the use of hotels. Whereas the Conservative party spent years pursuing the fiction of the Rwanda scheme to send a sum total of four volunteers, on our watch 32 charter flights have returned migrants across the world, enforced returns are up by 24% on the year before the election, and our streets have been made safer through the removal of 2,500 foreign criminals.
The Bill before us does two really important things. First, it removes from the statute book the fallacy of the Rwanda scheme—the so-called deterrent that saw 84,000 people cross the channel between the day it was announced and the day it was scrapped. Secondly, the Bill removes a hodgepodge of unenacted and unworkable clauses, whose sole purpose in law is to act as a monument to Conservative failure.
Most importantly, this Bill delivers a range of counter-terror-style powers that I believe will enable us systematically to dismantle the vile criminal gangs who facilitate small boat crossings and risk lives. It introduces new offences, so that we can use every tool possible to put gang leaders away; new powers to seize devices, check biometrics and share data; and a new role for our new Border Security Command, so that we can ensure that all agencies work together. No more empty rhetoric; instead, a common-sense, intelligence-led approach to border security. We are taking down the gangs and building the international relationships that we need to regain control. We have turbocharged our asylum system so that we can return people with no right to be here and allow those granted asylum the chance to work and contribute. A real plan. No more empty rhetoric from the Conservatives or Reform; these are concrete steps to secure our borders, and I will be proud to vote for Second Reading today.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I cannot help but think that the Home Secretary thought that border control, reducing illegal migration and stopping the boats was going to be considerably easier than it has turned out to be. She spoke with great authority and confidence ahead of the election, and yet, as the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has highlighted, since taking office the Labour Government have seen almost every key metric go in the wrong direction. I therefore think it is right for us to look at what is actually in the Bill—not just the tone and the rhetoric, but the detail.
What the Home Secretary says in general terms is quite welcome, but let us look at the example of the new Border Security Command. At the Dispatch Box and in the media studios, she has spoken about this new, powerful organisation that will bring a step change in the co-ordination of our national response to illegal migration, so when the Bill was published, I looked with great interest at the specific provisions for this new, powerful organisation headed by a senior former police officer and a senior former Royal Artillery officer—a wise choice of regiment—and I found myself saying, “Is that it?” Looking at the detail, we see, as my right hon. Friend set out, that this powerful new organisation will be able to write a plan, to present an annual set of accounts and then to ask nicely, but not compel, any other organisation to do its bidding. The headlines might sound great, but the detail is frankly underpowered.
This Bill removes more power from the Government than it puts on the table—as my right hon. Friend said, the ability to seize and search mobile phones already exists—so when we come to the Division later this evening, we will be making our decisions on what is actually in the Bill, not on the rhetorical cloud that surrounds it. The simple truth is that the Government had an opportunity to make something different and to be courageous, but they missed the target. This Bill is massively underpowered. It does not have the kind of game-changing clauses that the current situation demands. People on both sides of the House may disagree with the detail of the Rwanda scheme, which this Bill repeals, but it was at least an attempt to do something significant in response to a significant situation.
Ultimately, the Home Secretary will have to explain, or perhaps the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will do so in her summing up, where she envisages people being returned to if they fail in their asylum application here in the UK but their home nation is deemed unsafe to return them to—the Afghans, the Syrians and people from other parts of the world. If the Home Secretary is saying that they cannot go to their home country or to a third country, she is by definition saying that they can stay here, and that is a blank cheque for hundreds of millions of people around the world. She can be as critical of me and the Conservatives as she likes, but until she comes up with a credible alternative, her criticism is massively undermined, and this is not a credible alternative.
This is a missed opportunity. This is words but not action. This is headlines but no substance. When this Bill is passed, as it inevitably will be because the Home Secretary has a majority, but then fails to achieve what she has promised, she will find that her party is punished at the ballot box.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I shall begin by committing my support to the Government’s efforts today. After years of the Conservatives failing to secure our borders with failed projects such as the Rwanda scheme, it is refreshing to see legislation come forward in this place that will smash criminal smuggling gangs and disrupt their ability to carry out small boat crossings. When debating such issues, we must not forget the lives lost in small boat crossings. They include women and children, often fleeing violence and persecution, and they are treated in the most abhorrent manner by criminal gangs who put them on those small boats with no care whatsoever for their safety, or indeed for whether they make it across the channel. We must be in no doubt that the sole focus of these criminal people smugglers is profit. They care not for the lives of the vulnerable and frightened, but only for lining their own pockets and the continuation of their despicable criminal enterprise.
Although not a surprise, it remains absolutely absurd that Reform UK and increasingly the Tories, under the Leader of the Opposition, point the finger at a Government that are actually working to address this issue, rather than work co-operatively to save lives, punish criminals and secure our borders. It would be fair to say that Reform UK is engaging in a form of politics that absolutely scrapes the barrel. It is focused on pitting working people against one another. Its language and manner have seen people who have been settled in this country for decades become increasingly frightened about walking their own streets, and it has no care whatsoever if its actions erode the great British values of tolerance, inclusivity and respect.
Kenneth Stevenson
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.
As the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said, the acts of criminal gangs must be treated as a global security threat, and as such must be addressed using counter-terrorism tactics. I am pleased that this legislation will allow immigration enforcement, the police and the National Crime Agency to seize electronic devices from people who come here illegally, if intelligence suggests that this would help to gather information on organised immigration crime. Indeed, I am reassured that these measures have been established in co-operation with law enforcement and by learning best practice from other examples of tackling and defeating sophisticated and organised crime.
In taking these steps, we will limit and disrupt the operations of the criminal gangs, which is critical to securing our borders. This stands in stark contrast to the previous Government, who spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money on their failed Rwanda scheme. Their costly gimmick sent just four volunteers to Rwanda and caused a complete collapse in asylum decision making. What a difference serious government makes. Is it any wonder that the people of this country voted for change?
We have debated in great detail the technicalities of this legislation, but I would like to briefly look at my own constituency of Airdrie and Shotts. Lanarkshire is a place where many communities from across the globe have settled, where their culture has been respected and enjoyed, and where people have been welcomed after fleeing situations that could only be described as horrifying. However, just last week when I held my surgery on Friday, I took a walk around Airdrie and found graffiti in our town centre that can only be described as racist, abhorrent and hostile. It was the sort of language that is not welcome in Airdrie and Shotts, and I reiterate my support and solidarity for those communities who have made our towns and villages their home over many generations and contributed positively to our local area.
Immigration must be controlled, but it can and does work. I conclude by reminding those on the Opposition Benches that people are watching. People are listening to their rhetoric, and if they continue to embark on a campaign of rhetoric and divisive messaging, they risk destroying the historic ties, tolerance and unity that make Britain great.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Well, here we go again—another Government with the same old, tired, failed approach to asylum and immigration. Other than getting rid of the truly bizarre Rwanda Bill, this Bill just picks up where the Tories left off, with the added extra of further criminalising asylum seekers.
I cannot help feeling that a lot of the activities and debates around this Bill have quite a lot to do with Reform’s rise in the opinion polls. Its Members usually sit behind me but, bizarrely, they have not turned up to debate this immigration Bill. The bizarre videos of the Home Secretary going to deportation centres and the posters celebrating the Government’s success in deporting and kicking people out play right into Reform’s territory. I say to Labour Members that they will never out-Reform Reform—they are masters of the art of anti-immigrant rhetoric. Regardless of how hard Labour Members try, they are mere amateurs by comparison. All Labour is doing by going on to Reform’s territory is legitimising it. You do not pander to the populists and the likes of Reform; you take them on.
The Bill does nothing to address the real issues we will confront in the middle-to-late part of this century. The Bill is totally fixated on the small numbers of people who come across the channel in small boats, but it does nothing to tackle the massive structural problems that are about to come our way because of population stagnation and population decline.
If anything, this Bill is designed for the early part of the century, not for the part of the century we are about to enter. Nations across the industrialised world, including Italy, Spain and France, are taking action to increase their population. South Korea has pumped $200 billion into what it calls the demography crisis. Japan has historically been resistant to immigration, and with a birth rate of one child for every three women, its population is predicted to fall by 25% by 2050. Japan will fall from third in the GDP league to eighth—that is what is coming our way.
Even the Bill’s purpose of defeating the gangs is doomed to failure. This Bill does nothing to address the root causes of irregular immigration, and it does not even start to get curious about why there is a problem with immigration in the first place. All it will do is make immigrants take even greater risks. It will have very little impact on the gangs the Government are targeting, as the gangs will adapt their business models accordingly.
The Government might inadvertently make the gangs’ obnoxious trade even more lucrative. The smuggling gangs are successful because they have exclusive rights and a monopoly on the irregular immigration market. There is nowhere else for people to go other than to the illegal gangs, as there are no safe routes to get into the UK.
We have particular problems in Scotland. Our population is currently around 5.43 million, and it has grown modestly over the past few years because of the Conservative Government’s immigration debacle, but Scotland will be one of the first parts of the UK to experience population decline, and it could come as early as 2030. That is why we have been so resolute and persistent in calling for a Scottish visa, and all sectors in Scotland now support that call.
Pete Wishart
I think Scottish Labour also supports it, as the hon. Gentleman will probably clarify.
Chris Murray
Of course, the issue is that Scotland is not the same everywhere. My community in Edinburgh and East Lothian is seeing its population grow, while other parts are seeing their population decline. The reason is Scotland’s labour market and economy. Even when we had access to 300 million people as an EU member, with net migration of 900,000, there were still parts of Scotland that were unable to attract migrants. The problem was not the immigration system; the problem was our labour market.
Pete Wishart
I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the scale of the problem in our nation of Scotland. Twenty-two per cent of our population is over 65, compared with 19% in England. We have one of the lowest birth rate ratios, with one child for every three women. If we do not do something quickly, this will have a huge impact on every sector of our society and every part of our economy.
I thought Scottish Labour supported a Scottish visa. I have heard Jackie Baillie speak very interestingly about it, but all of a sudden Scottish Labour has abandoned it. Every time I raise it with the Home Secretary, I am totally rebuffed. Every time my colleagues ask the Government to give us the tools to help address our predicament, we are told where to go.
We need the tools so that Scotland can grow its population, and so that we can equip ourselves for the problems that are already coming our way. We need a new mindset on immigration, which we have to start seeing as a benefit to communities. We have to recognise how it enriches our society. For the Government, immigration is a bad that has to be dealt with, and that is such an early-century approach. We will soon be facing population stagnation and decline. Unless we get ready and prepare for what is coming, we will be in serious trouble.
I look across at Labour Members who are singularly uninterested in any of this. They want to be as hard on immigration as the Tories and the Reform party. It does not work, it cannot work, and it is the wrong solution for where we are heading. I encourage them to think once again about what we all need across the United Kingdom.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary and her team for the reforms in the Bill that are genuinely positive, including the scrapping of the unworkable and costly plan to expel asylum seekers to Rwanda—a repressive regime that is making war on its neighbours. The Bill rescues us from the “Alice in Wonderland” situation in which Rwanda is safe if the Government say it is safe. The Government have also scrapped and towed away the Bibby Stockholm, the miserable and dangerous prison ship, and committed to deciding asylum claims that had previously been placed in indefinite limbo. Those are all positive developments.
However, it is difficult to be positive about the remainder of the Bill. It clearly aims to prioritise border security, but the malign Greek chorus that chants “Stop the boats!” in response to every problem in our society is wrong. With these measures, as with others, the boats will not be stopped unless we look at the issue holistically. Have we stopped organised crime, drugs, people trafficking, fraud, firearms and so on? Of course not, because some of those crimes are high-tech operations, but all these overseas-based people smugglers need is a dinghy.
We cannot have a credible plan to smash the gangs unless we deal first with the demand for what they supply. Many of us have long argued that the way to undercut and ultimately eliminate the gangs is to re-establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, to establish processing centres in northern France, to turn away failed applicants, and to allow safe travel for those who are entitled to be here.
Ms Diane Abbott
Does my hon. Friend agree that more people should listen to those of us who say that, if we do not want people drowning in the channel, the answer is to enable the processing of asylum claims in northern France, as the French have offered?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and obviously she is always right. It is not impossible; in fact, it has been done before.
Instead, this Bill could end up criminalising people because of how they travelled here, which is wrong. It is widely understood that many of these people, precisely because they are victims of persecution, cannot apply for visas in the normal fashion, and many more cannot afford the cost of long-haul flights either. Genuine and valid asylum seekers could be criminalised. We should remember that these people are fleeing war and devastation. Some have been trafficked, and many of those are brought here as slaves—either for domestic service and menial unpaid work, or for sex slavery. The Bill could abolish their rights and protections under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Then there is the question of immigration detention, which will increase as a result of the Bill. The immigration detention estate is already costly and cruel. It is a ridiculous irony that we are releasing criminals because our jails are full, yet we are increasing the use of immigration detention despite 75% of those detained eventually being found to be entitled to be here.
The main concern has been foreign national offenders, and 4,674 were returned in the year ending September 2024. That is an increase of more than a quarter compared with the previous year, which means that this Government are doing what they want to do on foreign national offenders. Why are we holding on to the idea of increasing the immigration detention estate when we know that in 2019 the Conservative Government awarded asylum accommodation contracts worth billions of pounds to just three companies, and almost every single one of the removal centres operated by those companies has reported overcrowding, hostile and unsanitary conditions, and, at worst, death and suicide? Those centres are costly and cruel. A limit on immigration detention would be both humane and efficient. The average daily cost of holding an individual in immigration detention is £122. What a huge cost when there are options for detention in the community. Most people are detained when they go to their bi-weekly reporting session at the Home Office.
We are detaining far too many people unlawfully. In 2023-24, the Home Office issued 832 compensation payments for unlawful detention, totalling £12 million. As we have heard, we detain children—in 2023, the Home Office detained 47 children for immigration-related reasons. We disagree on many things across the House, but the rights of children is not usually one of them. People say there are complex reasons why such detentions happen. To that I say: “Make it simple and make it stop.” We should not be detaining children for immigration-related reasons.
I am also concerned that the Bill might undermine the application of international law to refugees. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will be untouched, even though it was a truly rotten measure introduced by the Conservatives, who had a problematic relationship with international law. We on the Government Benches must be better than them. At the moment, a trafficked woman who arrived here having been abducted halfway across the world would have no rights as refugee, precisely because her traffickers brought her here on a small boat. That cannot be right.
The Bill focuses on small boat crossings, but it is an immigration Bill, and that means it does not all have to be negative. There are things we could do that we largely agree on, such as scrapping child citizenship fees and introducing further protections for European Union nationals and the Windrush generation. When we were in opposition, we supported scrapping child citizenship fees. The shadow Home Secretary, when he was the immigration Minister, implemented a fee waiver, but last year only 36% of those waivers were accepted—40% were rejected and 22% are awaiting decision. That is just not good enough. This is about children who have lived here for their whole lives—children who were born here, including the children of EU nationals.
We know that EU nationals continue struggle with their rights, which is something that we could resolve. We can all agree that the Windrush generation have the right to be here, but they are still having major issues; we should not wait for the appointment of the Windrush commissioner to be told that they are still subject to the hostile environment. We could do so much more on things we agree on, but unfortunately there are too many instances where victims can be blamed for the crime, and I worry that the Bill could codify that injustice in law.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
We have heard that there are no easy answers to the topic of tackling illegal immigration, but as Members of this House, we have to find within ourselves the collective will to succeed. Since July, 24,586 people have crossed the channel, compared with 19,300 in the same period the year before, which represents a 28% increase since the election. That shows clearly that the Government need to go further with legislation to strengthen the nation’s response to illegal immigration.
I cannot understand why the Government are seeking, through the Bill, to abandon X-ray assessment of asylum seekers to validate their age and prevent a surge in false applicants. All other major countries on the continent, including France and Germany, make use of medical tests to determine the age of applicants. The lack of such testing significantly increases the pull factors, and the Bill also creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants, which provides a direct new incentive for people to come here illegally.
The truth is that, in many cases, those who travel via illegal routes and seek to claim asylum in the UK travel through numerous safe countries throughout Europe before they arrive here. We have heard from other Members that this issue is global, and I implore the Home Secretary and Ministers across Government to raise it at every single meeting with foreign Governments.
The stark reality is that 87% of those arriving via illegal small boats are young men in their 20s. That begs the question: where are their wives, partners and children? Surely they did not flee a devastating situation of persecution and desperation, and leave their loved ones behind to suffer.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bradley Thomas
Not at the moment.
Furthermore, many of them pay thousands of pounds to smuggling gangs before they make the journey. These false cases do huge damage to public trust in the asylum system, as well as to the cases of genuine asylum seekers.
Over the past two decades, our economy has become addicted to mass migration, and we have been sold the idea that our economic prosperity hinges on the notion that mass migration will deliver prosperity. We were wrong on mass migration. It has instead placed undue pressure on public services, and housing in particular. Many migrants perform valuable roles, particularly in public services such as the NHS and the care sector, but it is critical that the Government focus for the long term on rebalancing our economy in order to once again make all manner of roles attractive to UK citizens, and reduce our dependency on long-term migrant labour.
Mass migration, especially by those who skipped the queue and arrived illegally, does not just impact us economically, but affects the social identity of our communities. The identity of many cities, towns and villages across the UK is changing. Part of that is down to us, as shopping habits go online, but, as reported in The Times today, there has been an increase in illegal workers in retail roles across the country, as cash-only vape shops, tanning salons, convenience stores, barbers and car washes start to litter our communities, with no social benefit to enrich our towns and villages. Not only are such businesses widely considered to be a front for money laundering, but they are linked to illegal immigration and people smuggling. They are a dangerous lure for young people who risk being drawn into county lines-style linked criminality.
We owe it to the future of our country to ensure that we have a controlled, measured approach to mass migration, and to respond with every legal, social and economic lever that we have to protect against the unmitigated erosion of our identity. We must ensure that those who are granted the privilege of leave to remain in the UK are net contributors—that is, they pay more in taxes than they cost the UK taxpayer—and that the customs, traditions and culture of our country are respected.
We must make the distinction between those travelling illegally and asylum seekers travelling to the UK via recognised routes of asylum, such as those who travelled to the UK from Ukraine when Putin’s illegal invasion commenced three years ago. It is a falsehood that the UK can become home to millions of people without any qualifying criteria. My constituents are not anti-immigration, but they want to see a system based on control and fairness to the UK taxpayer. I implore the Government to rethink the Bill, focus on reducing the pull factors to deter illegal migration, and invest the savings into our communities.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.
After the mountain of Acts passed by the last Government, I can finally breathe a sigh of relief that today we are debating an immigration Bill that, on its first page, states that it complies with the convention rights. That is a nice change, and one that was much needed.
The Bill builds on some of the vital reforms to our asylum system that our Government have already made. It removes so much of the draconian legislation introduced by the previous Government that stripped those fleeing war, persecution and human rights abuses of their right to seek safety in this country. Repealing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and a significant amount of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is a step in the right direction, but beyond a functional asylum system is one that is fair and welcoming. With that in mind, there are a few areas of the Bill in which I feel opportunities have been missed, and I hope those can be addressed as it moves to Committee.
I am concerned that the Bill does not repeal section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which makes any asylum or human rights claim by a national of a safe state inadmissible. Blanket bans on asylum claims from entire countries are fundamentally flawed, and with Rwanda we have seen the dangers of legislating that a country is safe when in reality it may not be so for everyone. Although I know that section 59 has not been enacted, it will set a dangerous precedent if it remains on the statute books.
For example, Georgia, one of the countries that the previous Government added to the safe states list, is becoming an increasingly hostile and dangerous place for LGBTQI+ people. While I have had assurances that the section 59 powers have not been commenced—and I know the Minister shares my concerns about the situation in Georgia—they will be left on the statute book. The Bill provides a golden opportunity to repeal them altogether. If they are not going to be used, what is the use of having them? I ask the Minister to consider that in Committee.
A fair system would also mean people seeking asylum being able to access the UK safely. The four Ps approach to tackling organised criminal gangs, as outlined in the Bill’s explanatory notes—to prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—are all important parts of disrupting the business model of criminal gangs, but I fear that we have lost sight of who needs protecting. No one wants to see more deaths in the channel, but prosecuting people smugglers needs to go hand in hand with other measures to prevent channel crossings. The Bill could provide a vital opportunity to set out clear plans for reviewing and expanding safe and legal routes to the UK.
I hope that those important points can be addressed as the Bill progresses. If not, I hope that we can have a good, grown-up conversation about safe and legal routes, which was absolutely missing from the last Parliament.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I think that everybody across the House wants to see small boat crossings diminish and hopefully conclude entirely. Likewise, I think that most people across the House feel that we need to have a fair, robust and effective way to deal with illegal immigration.
This, as I have said previously in the House, is a moral issue. We do not want to see any more women, children or men dying in the channel. When I raised that with the Home Secretary on 22 July, she seemed to agree with me, but thus far agreement does not seem to have matured into action. Indeed, when the Minister of State responded to me on a similar point on 6 November, she was much more equivocal about how the Government were going to deal with this really serious issue.
That is no surprise when we come to the Bill, which has ripped the heart out of the previous Government’s Illegal Migration Act. All the deterrence put into that Act has been pulled out. That is important for two reasons. First, this Bill will clearly not stop the small boat crossings. Secondly, it sends a message to those traffickers who want to exploit people and bring them across the channel that the Government are not serious about stopping the problem. We can see that from the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the X-raying and medical checks of migrants have been ripped out. That is something that EU countries do on a routine basis.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. These points are obviously going to come from Conservative Members. Have they read the comments of the noble Lord Winston in the other place on 27 November 2023, when he outlined that while scientific equipment may be used, the analysis that comes from bone density checks or X-rays is entirely flawed? The results depend on the calcium deposits and the food that was eaten by the person being X-rayed, as well as other health reasons. Has the hon. Gentleman read those comments? If not, could he read them? If he has read them, does he disagree with what Lord Winston said and think he knows better?
Gregory Stafford
Far be it from me to criticise a Member of the other place, especially one with such a distinguished medical career. All I would say gently to the hon. Member is that this is not novel or unique to this country; it is being used in countries across the EU. Likewise, on the Rwanda scheme, which the Government scrapped, we can have a debate about whether it was right or wrong, but EU countries are looking at similar schemes. If the Government do not like Rwanda, why are they not looking at other sites?
It is not just me who is saying this. The National Crime Agency has said clearly that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. While the Australians have done it, that was with a deportation scheme, but that is not being introduced by the Government. Likewise, the former chief immigration officer Kevin Saunders said that the United Kingdom needs a “big deterrent” and that everyone has told the Prime Minister that. We need a big deterrent to stop migrants. Forget about the gangs: if we stop the migrants from wanting to come to the UK, the gangs will not exist.
I come at this from a moral point of caring about ensuring that people do not die in the channel. We need a deterrent, which is sorely missing from the Bill. It should not surprise us that the Government are not robust on this, because Labour voted against every tough measure that the previous Government introduced in the Illegal Migration Act. Labour Members voted against measures to tackle illegal immigration 134 times. They voted to block, delay or weaken our plans to stop the boats 126 times in the last Parliament. It is therefore absolutely no surprise that their Bill does nothing to stop that and will lead to more dying in the channel.
We need a fair migration system. We need to support those who genuinely need our help or whom we genuinely need to fill gaps in our labour market, but we must not be taken for fools by the trafficking gangs, nor must we be taken for fools by this Labour Government.
I accept some of the analysis of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who said that we have a problem with our birth rates. However, the way to solve that is not through unlimited mass migration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, we cannot build an economy reliant on mass migration. We must build home-grown resilience. Again, this is a moral issue. If we denude developing countries of their most highly talented people, those countries will never be able to rebuild themselves and become successful, and the problem that we are dealing with will just carry on.
I have no confidence in the Government to sort this problem out. That is because, as we have already seen this evening, the Government have no answer on how many of the people who came over on small boats they have deported. Perhaps more tellingly, they have no ambitious target about when any of the measures they are proposing will start to solve the problem.
As I said, we need a fair, robust and effective immigration system, and not this insipid Bill, which will not secure our borders or deter the people traffickers, and, I am afraid, will lead to further deaths in the channel.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The British people are firm, but they are fair. They believe in order. They believe in justice. They know that security and decency are not rivals; they are partners. Those are the values that built our country, and they must be the values that shape our future, but for too long we have seen those values undermined. The promise of secure borders became a false hope. The system buckled under failure. Where there is failure, there are some who seek to divide us: to turn neighbour against neighbour and to fuel fear instead of fixing problems. They wrap themselves in our great flag, yet they offer nothing but empty slogans and false patriotism.
Border security is not a game. It is not a slogan. It is a fundamental duty of any serious Government. For years, the British people were promised control; instead, they got failure. We inherited open borders. Small boat crossings skyrocketed from just a few hundred in 2018 to 150,000 since. The last Government talked tough but were paralysed by their own failure. Under Labour, that ends.
In just six months, the Government have already taken decisive action. We have set up the Border Security Command and we have fixed and strengthened important international alliances. Nearly 4,000 illegal workers have been arrested since we came into government. Vitally, we have deported 16,400 people who have no right to be here—that is more in six months than the last Government managed in an entire year. The British people were told that this could not be done, but we are proving otherwise.
Today, we take another crucial step with this important Bill. The smuggling gangs are not petty criminals or opportunists; they are predators, and they make a mockery of our borders. We promised the British people that we would treat them like the national security threat they are, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
We do not wait for terrorists to carry out their plans before we act. We disrupt them, we intercept them and we take them down before they can do harm. We hit their networks, seize their assets and cut off their ability to operate. The Bill gives us the power to do the same against the smuggling gangs, to stop those vile criminals before they reach our shores. It allows us to use intelligence to take action, just as we do with terrorists. When our security services, police and the Border Security Command know what those criminals are doing, under the Bill they can act immediately, not sit back and wait for another overloaded boat to capsize in our channel.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I kindly say to the hon. Gentleman—he will know that that is my form when I ask questions—that there is a serious problem with the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, with people coming in through the Republic, into Northern Ireland and across to the mainland. What are the Minister and the Government doing to address that issue for us in Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mike Tapp
My understanding from the Minister earlier was that the Bill would work across all borders coming into the United Kingdom—I am sure that will be clarified later.
The Bill removes the loopholes that have allowed criminals to exploit our system. Smuggling is an industry, and we are dismantling it boat by boat, gang by gang. The British people know that an asylum and immigration system only works if it is properly enforced. They know that border security is not about hostility; it is about order and rules. They know that we must not allow criminals to decide who comes into this country. There is no silver bullet, but this Government are taking that control back. We will be firm, because the British people demand it; we will be fair, because that is who we are; and we will be decent, because strength without decency is weakness. Division is easy. It takes moral courage to lead with decency and strength. We are delivering security, and we play the ball, not the player. The Bill will help turn the page on failure, restore order to our borders and protect the country we serve.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Many people in my constituency are angry and frustrated at Britain’s approach to illegal migration. They see hundreds of people every week getting into small boats to cross the channel. Those people pay for a place in a small boat because they know that once they set foot on British soil, there is almost no prospect of their being deported. That is morally wrong. It brings the whole immigration system into disrepute.
Earlier in the debate, the Home Secretary was invited to say how many of those she has deported in the past seven months had arrived in a small boat, and there was no answer. I suspect the reason is that the answer is zero, but no doubt the Minister can provide an answer when she responds.
It is self-evident that most of the migrants standing on beaches in France are not refugees; they are economic migrants. They have not only reached a safe country, but have had to travel through a succession of safe countries to arrive at that beach in France. The National Crime Agency has made it clear that to stop the boats, we need an effective removals and deterrence strategy. The Bill does not deliver that. In fact, it does the opposite: it removes the key deterrents that we had put in place.
The last Government were correct in passing the Illegal Migration Act, which would have stopped those who enter the UK illegally from claiming asylum or being eligible for British citizenship. Twenty days after the election, Labour put it on hold, and it is now repealing those provisions through the Bill. It is a privilege to live in this country and to apply for British citizenship. The Government are removing the barriers to accessing that privilege and are therefore inviting thousands more people to join the queue. That is why the asylum backlog has grown under this Government. That is why the number of people in asylum hotels has risen by 6,000 since the election. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) stated, this is a seriously under-powered Bill. It actually does very little, and it reveals the Home Secretary’s policy of “smash the gangs” to be just a slogan.
Former chief immigration officer Kevin Saunders said,
“You need a big deterrent to stop the migrants. Forget about the gangs—if you stop the migrants wanting to come to the UK, the gangs won’t exist.”
Unfortunately, the Bill provides no deterrent. In fact, it removes the deterrents that were working. It has no vision for controlling illegal or legal immigration, no plan to protect our borders and no strategy to ensure that those who break the law by coming here illegally are removed quickly and effectively. The Home Secretary claimed this evening that the Government are repealing our legislation because it did not work. Did it not work when we struck landmark deals like the one with Albania, which drastically reduced the number of Albanian migrants arriving via small boats? By making it clear that they would repeal the Rwanda scheme before it started working without coming up with any alternative deterrent, the message that the Labour party has been sending to would-be illegal migrants is, “Come and have a go”. Is it any wonder that illegal crossings are up 30% since the election?
The Government are not in control of the borders, so we Conservative Members will reject the Bill. Our reasoned amendment will give Members a chance to say that we want strong action on illegal immigration.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Like many colleagues across the House, I am in no doubt that immigration and border security are a top concern for many of the people I represent in Weston-super-Mare. They tell me on the doorstep, by email and on social media that this is not a conversation that we can shy away from, although any conversation on immigration and border security is easily inflamed and sensitive for many.
As the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) said, there is no silver bullet and there are no simple answers, and those who peddle them are peddling falsehoods, but we must talk about and do better at showing how we are addressing people’s concerns. Concern about immigration and the pressures it places on any society or community is understandable, but so are concerns for all human life and the need to support people in need. How we lead on improving border security is a moral duty of this Government, and as a Christian I wrestle with that and with how we best achieve a balance between compassion for those who need help, and clarity and strength when it comes to defending our security and values.
In my constituency, like many others, there are strong views on the extremes of both sides of the immigration question. They are often very loud and absolutely at odds with the views of the vast majority of my constituents, who believe in British values of fairness, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law. They want our systems to work, are proud of Britain’s role as a force for good in the world and want us to sort our immigration system. We need the Government to deliver on a fairer immigration and border system precisely so that people can trust us again to keep them safe and do not turn to extremes because they feel there is no alternative. People are worried and want action, and it is this Government’s responsibility to address those issues in a way that is firm but compassionate, just and in line with our values.
The growing number of crossings, particularly in small boats, is not just a statistic; it is a crisis that demands urgent action. The tragic loss of life—at least 78 people died last year alone—should horrify us all, and we cannot allow that to continue. It is clear that our action to secure our borders and smash the gangs who are profiting from this evil trade in human desperation is necessary and urgently needed. Immigration, both legal and illegal, is of huge national and local concern, which has been fed in many ways by decades of under-investment in our communities, skills and infrastructure, leaving us reliant on importing the skills that we should have been developing here for our communities in places such as Weston-super-Mare.
I lay no blame at the door of immigrants who came here for a better life and who contribute so much to our country. I blame successive Governments for taking the easy route—or the impossible route in the case of the Rwanda scheme—and leaving us in a situation where public trust is through the floor. People can no longer be left behind because it is easier and cheaper to import talent and labour. I see the impact of poverty and systemic under-investment daily, and the people of my constituency and I will not stand for it. That is why I am pleased that the Government are taking concrete action through the introduction of the Bill, rather than following the example of previous Governments and continuing to use border security as a political football. We must find sustainable, meaningful and impactful solutions now. We have run out of road and public patience.
The Bill alone will not fix the deep distrust in our society—that will take years of demonstrable change and investment across housing, healthcare, community safety and jobs—but it will start that process by strengthening our response to border security threats, granting stronger law enforcement powers that allow us to go after organised immigration crime directly, and disrupting the criminal networks that profit from human misery. It will properly equip the teams on the ground to deal with this issue by enabling them to act faster and go further in protecting our borders and national security. Such action is long overdue, and I hope that it will be warmly welcomed by people in my constituency and across the country.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Government deserve credit for swiftly scrapping the disgusting, immoral and illegal Rwanda plan, but we need to scrap the attitudes that underpinned it too. The demonising of vulnerable people and of anyone who is different—pandering to the nasty, dog-whistling of Reform and the Tories—is divisive and dangerous. It is shocking, then, to witness the Government trying to mimic the Tories and Reform with migrant raid videos and adverts boasting about deportations. Do they not understand that that just serves to reinforce Reform’s scapegoating rhetoric? Let us not forget that last summer we saw mobs, driven by hate, trying to burn refugees alive in hotels. The Government should be challenging those narratives head-on and helping communities to heal from divisions, not publishing videos that risk encouraging further animosity towards migrants and anyone perceived as being one.
Let me turn to the Bill. I share the Refugee Council’s concerns about the potential for clauses 13 to 16 and 18 to lead to the unintentional criminalisation of refugees who are forced to make decisions under coercion when their survival is at stake—by being forced to steer a small boat under threat of death, for example. Although I am pleased to see the repeal of child detention powers, 1,300 children were wrongly assessed to be adults over an 18-month period, so how do the Government plan to address that? I welcome the repeal of much of the Illegal Migration Act 2024, but I am concerned that some aspects that should have been scrapped will remain, including, for example, the automatic inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from certain countries, which is particularly dangerous for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers.
Let me come to my central point. Focusing solely on enforcement simply is not saving lives. The number of deaths in the channel remains horrifying. Enforcement against criminal gangs is of course needed, but that is not going to work on its own when refugees have no other choice. Instead, if people have a choice not to go with gangs, not to put their children in a deathly dinghy and not to risk their lives, the gangs lose their power.
I hope that Ministers have seen the report on safe routes published by the APPG on refugees, of which I am a member. It contains three recommendations, all of which are already tried and tested in other countries and should, in my view, be totally uncontroversial. First, we must urgently fix family reunion. Refugee children are being intentionally kept apart from their parents by the UK’s asylum laws. That is unconscionably cruel. We must move in line with the majority of European nations by bringing parents and children together, which would likely reduce the number of parents making dangerous journeys across the channel to be reunited with their children.
Secondly, Ministers must improve the UK resettlement scheme, which has a lot of potential but has consistently failed to help enough people—only 435 people were resettled last year. My inbox—like those of many Members, I am sure—is full of heartbreaking pleas from people caught up in delays and huge backlogs, and that step could help to fix the system. Thirdly, I would like the Government to pilot a humanitarian visa, to provide a safe option for refugees with strong asylum claims to travel here and make their claim. It is based on successful schemes in the US and Switzerland that have helped to reduce people smuggling.
In conclusion, bits of the Bill are important and hugely welcome, but let us be clear: scrapping something illegal, immoral and unworkable is the bare minimum, and now we need Ministers to build something better that helps this country to rise above the far-right narrative that demonises all migrants. Before I end my remarks, I invite everyone in the Chamber to join me in a very short thought experiment. “The political environment in your home country has become extremely dangerous for anyone with your political views. People in your movement have been murdered. Last month, your children got followed home by an unmarked car, and you have received threatening calls. You have a family member in the UK who successfully claimed asylum a few years ago and is very worried about you. He implores you to join him. Your options are to stay in your home country, risk being murdered and leaving your children orphaned, or to flee to the UK.” Who among us could say with 100% certainty that we would stay?
I will abstain on Second Reading, because although I support the scrapping of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and the Illegal Migration Act, if the Government truly want to modernise the asylum system, they must be honest about the need for safe routes and respect for human rights.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Bill, which has been welcomed by the National Crime Agency and the new Border Security Commander, delivers the measures required to tackle smuggling gangs, prevent people from getting into unsafe boats, and improve our border security. It is about giving our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle what have been described as “industrialised” smuggling networks.
Let us make no mistake, under the previous Government the gangs were allowed to get away with it. Instead of sitting down with law enforcement agencies and doing the hard but necessary work to strengthen our borders and disrupt that activity, the Tory Government focused on their shambolic Rwanda gimmick. Shamefully, as those gangs developed and strengthened their processes, Tory Ministers were signing £700 million cheques as part of their Rwanda plan—an unforgiveable amount of money to move just four volunteers. Not only was that a colossal waste of public funds, but all the while, the lack of focus on disrupting the criminal activity perpetrated by the gangs was leading to more dangerous crossings, with a real human cost for often very vulnerable people.
The Bill puts the Border Security Commander on a statutory footing. Having one person leading a unit with responsibility for co-ordinating the UK’s response to our border security challenges is vital. The Bill sets out the framework for how that leadership role will operate within our current policing and security landscape, and the NCA, police and immigration enforcement must all have due regard to its priorities.
We know that the gangs are constantly looking for new ways to stay in business, and law enforcement in our country needs to keep pace. The Bill contains new immigration offences for the supply or receipt of items that the person knows or suspects will be used to facilitate illegal travel. Those tough new powers draw much from existing powers under counter-terrorism legislation, and are accompanied by powers to seize mobile phones, allow for the better sharing of data, and take biometric information. That represents a step change. It means that those engaged in people smuggling will be viewed as a global security threat, in the same way as terrorists.
I believe that that is worth highlighting. The criminal gangs are putting often very vulnerable people in boats that are wholly unsuitable for such a perilous crossing. It is therefore right that our law enforcement bodies be allowed to go after those criminals with the counter-terrorism powers proposed in the Bill. That will transform our response. We will target the criminals, stop people embarking on those dangerous journeys, and keep our borders more secure as a result. The strengthening of serious crime prevention orders will ultimately make all our constituents safer. The new interim SCPOs will put severe restrictions on people involved in organised immigration crime before they are arrested, allowing us to take decisive action when we know that time is of the essence.
The previous Government threw all their efforts behind the unworkable Rwanda plan, but we finally have a Bill that considers the detail and provides practical measures that will make a tangible difference. That will not happen overnight—we know just how sophisticated the gangs are, and how long they have been allowed to thrive—but with strengthened powers we will be in a far better place to tackle them head on. We are now investing in a workable system, with no gimmicks and no grandstanding. Instead, we are doing the detail. The Bill builds on what the Government have achieved so far, including a £150 million package for a Border Security Command, unlocking new surveillance technology and funding more NCA investigators; anti-smuggling action plans with our key allies in Italy and Germany; increasing enforced returns by nearly 25% compared with the year up to the election; and, of course, utilising the hundreds of staff who were working on the Rwanda scheme. Now they are working on immigration enforcement and helping to deliver bespoke charter flights, removing immigration offenders to countries around the world. This Bill delivers on our commitment to give our enforcement agencies the power they need to protect our borders and our citizens, and it has my support today.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I will be voting against the Bill and in favour of the reasoned amendment, for the simple reason that I do not believe this Bill will do anything to smash the gangs, which is what the Labour party sold to the British public.
Over the past 12 months and beyond, my constituents have regularly brought up immigration on the doorstep, talking about both legal and illegal immigration. They want a fair legal system that ensures that the best and the brightest come to this country, as we have always wanted, but for them, this is really an issue of fairness. They believe that uncontrolled borders are not fair, and I agree. Uncontrolled borders make people angry and undermine the case for taking those who are most in need.
Over the past 14 years and beyond, we have had a great track record of taking in refugees from areas of conflict and other places, but by cheating the system, thousands of illegal migrants are entering the country, with the inevitable consequence that our public services are overburdened. That makes my constituents feel that the system is broken—that it does not work for them. Our schools, NHS and welfare system fail to work properly because of the strains caused by illegal migration, and my constituents are right to feel a deep sense of unfairness. Until they see the fundamental issue being tangibly addressed, which this Bill does not do, they will continue to feel that sense of unfairness.
We have seen this with the reopening of the asylum hotels. That is a manifesto pledge that has been broken—the number of asylum hotels and the number of people in them has gone up. Those hotels are funded by the taxpayer, and divert money that my constituents feel could be spent on improving our public services. Earlier, we heard the Home Secretary give no guarantee on when those asylum hotels will be cleared. That will be a consistent and continuous source of consternation for many people across the country, who feel totally helpless when they see pictures and videos of often young men entering this country illegally and being given access to things that my constituents work hard for and pay taxes to sustain.
I firmly believe that all of us across this House want to control illegal immigration, but I fundamentally disagree that this Bill will do so. I have talked about our track record of taking in refugees. We have had a consistent record for many years—we have taken in refugees from Afghanistan, from Syria, and of course from Ukraine—but that track record is being constantly undermined by the dramatic increases in illegal migration, making people feel that we cannot do more.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) made an eloquent case for this being a global issue. That is often forgotten in the debate, whether it is due to climate change or conflict. However, the public want to see the case being made for the nation state—to know that we can control our borders, and can then allow in the people who we want in the country. Since the Labour party has been in government, we have seen a 28% increase in illegal migration, which will inevitably put strain on our resources. The consequence is that society becomes fragmented, and there are those on the far echelons of the political spectrum who take advantage of that for their own ends and crowd out legitimate and reasonable debate.
The Bill takes away the deterrent and does not deal in any way with the need for a deterrent. As we have heard consistently from the NCA and other experts, without a deterrent, there is nothing disincentivising the gangs from bringing people over. We all want people who are in need to be taken care of, but this Bill does not do that—there is no guarantee that it will. We have heard the Home Secretary continuously fail to provide an answer on that point.
The Bill’s weak tinkering around the edges of the illegal migration system will actually strengthen the gangs, because they now know that they can take advantage of that system. This House is engaged in debate, but the Labour party will win this evening’s vote—of course it will. It has got the numbers; the British people placed a huge amount of trust in Labour, which is now being betrayed, and those gangs will take advantage of it. The one example I will use is that when the Rwanda scheme received Royal Assent, we continuously heard people—and people smugglers—saying that they were not going to come to the UK, and we saw the numbers drop. They will be celebrating the fact that this Bill is going through the House.
Saqib Bhatti
I will not give way, because I only have five seconds. This Bill will weaken our borders and strengthen the gangs, and the Labour party really needs to come up with answers to that.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Government’s commitment to scrapping the costly and inhumane Rwanda plan, repealing much of the previous Government’s draconian legislation, and overturning the pause on processing asylum applications. They have averted a meltdown by cutting the delays built in by the previous Government. The Government are also right to seek to tackle the vicious smuggling gangs that prey on the most vulnerable, but how we do so is key to the success of those efforts.
I despair of the toxic, dehumanising political narrative around immigration over recent years, which has solved nothing and has driven division and hostility towards migrants in our communities, as we saw during last summer’s racist violence. From immigration mugs to Rwanda, from Reform to blue Labour, the spiral of doom on this issue continues apace. The shameless posturing of politicians who wish to make their name on the back of this issue, driving division, is one of the most unedifying parts of this job and this place. Just last week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was praising Trump’s horrific statement about ethnically cleansing Gaza of the people it belongs to—a plan that will create over 1.6 million refugees if, God forbid, it comes to fruition. I cannot help but wonder how many of those freshly created refugees would be invited to build a new life in Clacton.
I also worry that by focusing too extensively on deterrence and enforcement, the Government will miss a vital opportunity to tackle the deep-rooted, systemic issues that are truly at the heart of inequality in our country. If we solve the economic issues, we will begin to heal as a nation, and the toxicity around this debate will lose its power. I have discussed migration many times with concerned constituents, and I really value those conversations, but I was told during one such conversation that we have a shortage of housing due to immigrants and that constituents cannot see a GP because of immigrants. I will repeat in this Chamber what I told my constituent: between 1946 and 1981, as a nation, we built 5 million council homes. Since 1981, we have built 250,000, and Liverpool has not built a council house for 36 years. Thatcher’s legacy, not migration, is where the finger should point for our present-day housing crisis.
Speaking of myths, despite the best attempts of some sections of the media to portray asylum seekers as living a life of luxury at the expense of UK taxpayers, the reality is quite different. It is often the private companies, contracted to run the Government’s immigration services and house asylum seekers in awful conditions, that reap the benefits. Serco’s 2023 half-year results stated that revenues had increased by 13%, with financial statements citing that rise in profits as being partly due to
“strong demand for immigration services”.
The destruction of the NHS by 14 years of austerity and decades of privatisation is why people cannot get a GP appointment or receive treatment in A&E. It is immigrants who helped build the NHS.
A man recently told me that he was a true patriot, and that immigration is responsible for everything he was suffering economically. I reflected on those words—“true patriot”—and the narrative being spun around who is and is not worthy to live on these isles. My brother recently had our DNA tested, and we discovered that we are 65% Irish, 25% Scottish, 9% Welsh and, surprisingly, 1% Danish, but 0% English—Scouse not English, you might say. However, I am fiercely proud to come from these isles and from my great city of Liverpool, with its melting pot of cultures built on immigration. That is how I define patriotism, rather than by race or religion, which is a road I fear many are taking right now in a race to the bottom with Trump’s America.
To conclude, let us stop demonising those who come to the UK in search of safety, security and a better life. Let us nurture humanity, not hatred, and revisit the methods used to house, support and integrate migrants upon their arrival in the UK. As I have said, immigration forms the very foundation of my great city, and we are all richer for it. We know that when it is managed badly, immigration can breed fear, anger and hatred, but that is not inevitable. Managed well, and with the right support in place for local communities and migrants, immigration can reap benefits for us all. I will watch this Bill with great interest as it progresses, to see whether it delivers the fair, humane and effective immigration system this country so desperately needs.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This Government, with this plan, will sadly not get on top of illegal immigration. The Secretary of State made much of the fact that the Bill will introduce powers that mirror counter-terror legislation
“to allow law enforcement partners to disrupt, investigate and prosecute those facilitating organised immigration crime”,
but law enforcement already has the ability to disrupt, investigate and prosecute. The Border Security Command and the recruitment of its commander were announced with great fanfare by the Government, but what is there to show for them? Having already removed any deterrent, the number of small boats has risen to its highest level. By the end of the year, the number had risen to more than 30,000 arrivals—now crossing with impunity.
The Border Security Command is due to provide and oversee a long-term vision for the border security system, but what is that vision? Within that system, the commander is responsible for setting the system’s strategic priorities, but what are they? The commander was appointed in September, and it is now February, so when will he set the Government’s strategic priorities for border security?
The default answer of the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to nearly every question is that the Border Security Command is providing “cross-system strategic leadership” to tackle organised immigration crime—because cross-system strategic leadership is the No. 1 thing that people smuggling gangs fear more than anything. I asked what the Border Security Command’s target is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what the Border Security Command’s timeline is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what Border Security Command provides in the way of cross-system strategic leadership to Border Force, to the National Crime Agency, to immigration enforcement and to the police. The response was:
“The Border Security Command is, for the first time, providing system leadership across those partners.”
Most importantly, several months after the Border Security Command was established, I asked how many organised immigration crime groups had been dismantled —or, to put that in terms that regular viewers may find more familiar, how many gangs have been smashed? The answer was that it is
“collecting key data across the system… This will support the BSC’s ability to drive cohesive delivery across the system”.
So none—not a single gang has been smashed.
The Government have stated that their new approach to border security will focus on prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. Prevent will “disincentivise migrants”, but how will this legislation do that? Currently, if anybody is wondering whether the journey to the UK will be worth the risk, the gov.uk asylum support webpage states:
“You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker… You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
It continues:
“If you’ve been refused asylum but you’re still eligible for support you’ll be given: somewhere to live”
and
“£49.18 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries”.
Whether someone is eligible for asylum or not, they will likely still get a home and £50 a week. What deterrent is there in this legislation to mitigate those pull factors? None.
Ben Obese-Jecty
No, I will not.
The Bill repeals most of the Illegal Migration Act, removes the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements to remove persons who entered the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country, and allows illegal migrants to obtain British citizenship—more incentives. The Illegal Migration Act blocked asylum seekers from claiming asylum based on their method of entry, so those who entered the country illegally via small boat were unable to claim asylum, not eligible for support and, crucially, not eligible to claim British citizenship.
The Government talk tough on deportations, proudly boasting that they have deported record numbers of migrants, but more than 80% of those individuals are voluntary returns. When I asked the Home Office how much they were each awarded in financial incentives of up to £3,000 per person, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum could not provide that information. Why does she not know? Even those who lose the game still walk away with a cash prize.
With no credible deterrent since the election, we have seen numbers rocket and migrant hotels reopen. In just three months since the election, the number of migrants in asylum hotels rose by 6,000, which is roughly equivalent to the population of the third biggest town in my constituency. Indeed, in Cambridgeshire, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) have asked the Home Office to rethink its decision to move 146 male asylum seekers into the Dragonfly hotel in Peterborough. I imagine that was not on their bingo card for the first six months of a Labour Government.
The only deterrent in the Bill appears to be five years in prison if migrants refuse to be rescued in the channel by French authorities. I will be staggered if a single person is prosecuted for refusing to be rescued by the French. For reference, threatening someone with a weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years’ custody in the UK, so to suggest that migrants will receive a harsher sentence for not being rescued by French authorities is a nonsense.
This is a terrible Bill that pays lip service to controlling illegal immigration by talking tough while crossing its fingers behind its back. We know that Government Members are more comfortable signing letters to stop deportation flights than they are actually deporting people, but this Bill pours fuel on the fire of illegal migration. It encourages it and facilitates it, and I would not be surprised if Lord Hermer had advised on it. The Bill makes for a snappy headline, but it will not be the solution needed to curtail illegal immigration.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Hon. Members might not realise it from some of the speeches that we have heard, but this Bill is actually about people—people fleeing war, persecution and unimaginable hardship. The repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and parts of the Illegal Migration Act is welcome, because those cruel, unworkable policies undermined our international obligations and put lives at risk.
This Bill still falls short, however, because it retains harmful provisions, such as section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which deems asylum claims from countries such as Albania, Georgia and India inadmissible. Those are not universally safe countries—just ask the LGBT community in Georgia, journalists in Albania, or Kashmiris and religious minorities in India. Survivors of trafficking and torture from those nations seek refuge here, so denying them asylum based on nationality alone is unjust and risks returning them to danger.
Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act is equally appalling. It denies protections to victims of modern slavery if they have a criminal record, ignoring that many are coerced into crime by traffickers. Punishing victims for their own exploitation is not just cruel; it is a failure of justice. Section 12 further weakens judicial scrutiny of immigration detention, letting the Secretary of State determine what constitutes a reasonable period. That strips away legal safeguards and allows indefinite detention by ministerial order. Sections 12, 29 and 59 also risk breaching the European convention on human rights and should be repealed.
The Bill also introduces new offences that could see refugees prosecuted simply for seeking safety—a deeply troubling approach. In reality, these measures will punish desperate individuals rather than the smugglers who exploit them. Let us be clear: no one risks their life crossing the channel in a flimsy boat unless they have no other choice. Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, put it plainly:
“Criminalising men, women and children who have fled conflicts in countries such as Sudan does not disrupt the smuggling gangs’ business model. When a refugee is clambering into a boat with an armed criminal threatening them, they are not thinking about UK laws but are simply trying to stay alive. The most effective way to break the smuggling gangs’ grip is to stop refugees from getting into the boats in the first place, which means giving them a legal way to apply for asylum in the UK without crossing the Channel.”
Yet this Bill fails to do that.
The Bill continues to treat desperate people as criminals rather than addressing the reasons that they are forced into dangerous crossings in the first place, and it fuels toxic rhetoric that breeds hate and division. We have all seen the consequences of that: asylum hotels named by MPs in this Chamber have been targeted by far-right rioters who set them alight. I have said it before and I will say it again: the enemy of the working class travels by private jet, not migrant dinghy. When politicians and the right-wing press deliberately stoke anti-migrant sentiment, they distract us from the real issues: a system that prioritises profit over people, that slashes our public services, that gives tax breaks to the wealthy and that allows inequality to flourish.
This Bill could have ended the hostile environment, but it doubles down on the same failed policies by criminalising refugees, denying protection to survivors and failing to provide safe routes. As an MP representing Coventry, a proud city of sanctuary enriched by generations of immigration, I demand better. We need a system that upholds human rights and international law and is built on fairness, compassion and humanity, not more failed, punitive policies. We need safe, legal routes for asylum seekers, family reunification and protections for trafficking survivors. This Bill, however, entrenches injustice instead of ending it.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Home Secretary asked earlier why we oppose this Bill. The answer is that it weakens the law and it allows illegal immigrants to claim asylum, live off benefits and become British citizens. It hinders enforcement by stopping scientific age checks for illegal immigrants and it allows the courts to further restrict immigration detention. No wonder the Home Secretary was yet again unable to say which metric we should use, and when, to judge whether she has succeeded in “smashing the gangs”. Once more she revealed her party’s true self by arguing that the problem with the crossings is not the crime of illegal immigration, but the risk to the illegal immigrants.
Much of this Bill is fanciful. New offences for facilitating the channel crossings apply in other jurisdictions. The idea that the state, even working with other countries, might identify, arrest and extradite the criminals involved, when it fails to prosecute elementary immigration crimes committed on British soil, seems far-fetched.
Some measures are pathetically weak. For example, the Bill requires the Border Security Commander to produce a “strategic priority document”, to which partners agencies must have “regard”. Even measures that supposedly toughen policy have glaring loopholes. The new offence of
“endangering another during sea crossing”
excludes the parents of children on the boats from prosecution, obviously encouraging migrants to put more children on to the boats. But it is all a sham, because we know that the Government’s real policy is to rush asylum claims through, accepting the vast majority before hiding immigrants in the welfare and local authority housing budgets. A Government impact assessment last July admitted that in black and white, stating that 44,000 illegal immigrants who Ministers were choosing not to deport would be granted asylum instead. That cohort alone will cost the taxpayer up to £18 billion over their lifetimes. So opaque was the Home Office about the true costs of its policy choices that the UK Statistics Authority rebuked it, in a letter to me, for being insufficiently transparent.
That should prompt an urgent question about what we are going to do with the huge numbers of low-skilled and high-cost immigrants who have come to Britain in recent years. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, more than 2 million visas have recently been issued to immigrants who could soon get indefinite leave to remain. That gives them the right to live in Britain indefinitely, and grants them access to the NHS, social housing and benefits. Even cautious estimates suggest that the net lifetime fiscal cost to the taxpayer could reach £234 billion.
That brings me to my final point: those immigrants who entered the country illegally should never be allowed to stay here, and those who came here legally on time-limited visas and have not contributed enough should be expected to leave. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is right to say that ILR should be conditional on someone’s respect for the law and their contribution to our economy. That would go some way to making up for the failures of immigration policy in the recent past, and it would mean a different system, in which we think of immigration as a temporary stay, not a permanent right. It would increase the outflow of migrants as we also control the inflow, and ensure that both the law and the state are in a condition to deliver that policy.
Civilisations that are unable to control their borders die, and ours is no exception. The future of immigration policy must be not just about who comes here, but about who we decide must leave.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
I commend those on the Government Front Bench for their work on the Bill, which will give law enforcement agencies the powers that my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe expect them to have to tackle the smuggling networks. It is a lamentable failure of government that the Conservative party prefers gimmicks to practical, workable solutions to take down those gangs. The only winners in this multimillion-pound industry, which burgeoned under the previous Government, are organised criminals who exploit the desperation of others and force many to work in criminal enterprises in the UK.
In my 18 years as a lawyer, I worked with many victims of modern slavery and saw how organised criminals use brutal, dehumanising tactics to destroy the will and dignity of their victims. Instead of addressing that complex issue, the Conservative party wasted £700 million on an expensive Rwanda gimmick and created a massive asylum backlog, all while stoking division and disregarding the rule of law. I am pleased to see this Government draw a line under that by taking a different approach and repealing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. I am pleased that their answer to these problems takes the common-sense approach of tackling organised crime with stronger law enforcement tools.
I wish to use my remaining time to make two points about something that the Bill leaves in and something that it leaves out. First, I thank the Minister for repealing the worst aspects of the Tories’ Illegal Migration Act when it comes to modern slavery, but do we really need to keep the uncommenced provision in section 29, which would block modern slavery protections on public order grounds, and could well undermine our efforts to combat trafficking?
Section 29 would deprive police of the vital intelligence needed to imprison traffickers, who intimidate victims into silence by convincing them that they will be harmed if they speak out. Victims need to trust that their coming forward will lead to protection, not punishment, but under section 29, anyone arriving in a small boat could be prosecuted for entering without a visa, and excluded from trafficking protections as a result. Victims are likely to think, “What’s the point in going to the police and making myself a target, when the police won’t protect me anyway?” That would support the traffickers’ business model and violate our international obligations. When the Bill reaches Committee, will the Government reconsider the need for section 29, together with section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022?
Secondly, the Bill tackles the criminal groups that drive small boat crossings, but it does not address the other dimension of the problem: the lack of avenues through which to seek asylum without making those dangerous crossings. The Home Secretary rightly said that the Bill is focused on the gangs, but pre-arrival processing is an important outstanding issue. We have schemes for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, and we should be thinking about increasing the resettlement of refugees who have already been recognised abroad, for example through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Will the Minister commit to looking seriously at a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here so that their claim can be fully examined on UK soil? That would build an evidence base on the issue to inform future policy and lawmaking. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the safe country list.
The Bill is a long overdue step towards fixing the foundations of our asylum system so that it is a fair, managed and compassionate system that the public can once more have confidence in. It pursues practical, workable solutions, rather than the gimmicks and divisiveness of the other parties, which I am proud that this Government reject.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My constituents do not object to immigration per se, and it is a myth that people who voted for Brexit did so purely on the basis of racism—far from it. People across my constituency want a fair immigration system, in which people stand in turn and come to this country fairly. Where the system has fallen down, and we now see ever increasing numbers of people choosing to come here illegally across the channel, we must have a deterrent to deal with the issue. Without that, we will continue to see and feel the effects of too many people coming into our country illegally.
My constituents are clear that the way to smash the people smugglers is to have a strong deterrent. Look at Australia: when illegal migration first emerged as a major problem in 2001, the Howard Government took swift action to break the smugglers by having a deportation strategy. That policy was of course dismantled by the incoming Labour Government in 2007, yet the same Government were forced to reintroduce the Howard Government policy after five years of ever increasing numbers making their way to Australia through people smugglers who saw the elephant in the room—an immigration policy that had no deterrent. That is exactly what we have here in this country: an inadequate measure to deal with a major issue. Illegal crossings are up 30% since the general election. We need to see action, and now, not just tinkering around the edges of legislation. We need to see deterrents in place and working. Currently, there is no deterrent to stop the boats.
Turning specifically to the Bill, it repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Much has been said about these two pieces of legislation, but what I see in front of me in this Bill amounts to sheer madness. It means that asylum seekers can refuse to take a scientific age assessment and consequently no longer be treated as over 18. How on earth do the Government plan to identify adults pretending to be children if they legislate to allow them not to have to take a scientific age assessment? That surely acts as a further tool in the armoury of the people smugglers, who I am sure are already poring over this legislation and identifying the loopholes. What does it mean for the safeguarding of those in our country who are tasked with dealing with these individuals?
As it stands, the Bill would enable an unintended consequence around refusing a rescue, whereby someone on a small boat can claim they are a parent with a child and can therefore refuse rescue by French authorities, refuse return to France and continue to the UK. We need an understanding and a plan for what to do with someone who cannot be returned. We need third-party agreements, which are vital. That is why we put the Rwanda scheme and the Albania scheme in place. Guess what? It works. It is a route of return and a deterrent. Those coming illegally to the UK from Albania know that they will be returned.
Disappointingly, the minute that this Labour Government came to power and signalled their intentions to scrap the deterrent within our immigration policy, the number of channel crossings once again started to rise—30% in seven months. I accept that as a Government we had far more to do, and our loss of trust with the British people was not least on this issue, but this Bill and this Government’s repealing of the Rwanda legislation will do nothing to improve the trust of this House and the British people and do nothing to make them believe their borders are safe. All it does is tinker at the edges. Our constituents want to see action, not just words.
In all honesty, I cannot see anything in this Bill that gets to the heart of the problem, which has to be to smash the gangs. What is worse, I am left fearing that this proposed legislation simply gives a green light to the people smugglers that this country has open borders without any form of deterrent. For that reason alone, I cannot support this legislation.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
As others have spoken about the specific measures in this Bill, I will take a step back and talk about the ideas that underpin it. There have been grumblings tonight that we are aping Conservative Members and that we are being asked to pretend, to delude ourselves and to dupe the public somehow into thinking that we support strong and controlled borders as a precondition for managed migration. I support this Bill, but I am doing no such thing.
For one thing, we have no need to ape Conservative Members. Their continued smug self-satisfaction smacks of their refusal to reckon with the magnitude of their failure, including to secure our borders. We also have no need to emulate the tub-thumping, NHS-destroying five musketeers who seem to be enjoying flying around the world, raking in cash and occasionally representing their constituents. Only one of them has bothered to show up tonight.
We should worry less about those people and more about the force of our own arguments—the arguments of those who believe in progress and fairness, and who seek to represent the interests of working people in this country. So often I have been told by people who live in wealthier, educated, cosmopolitan cities that support for strong borders and for the right of a public to choose who joins its ranks is an unenviable moral compromise. They say that open borders are the natural state of things, and the use of force to control them is a regrettable, if sometimes necessary, feature of the modern world. Those who think that do not understand the history of our democracy.
I hope the House will forgive a short detour. In the first great democracy in history—ancient Athens—about half the residents were migrants, or metics. Metics were subject to different rules; who joined the city was controlled and the bar was set high for who could become a citizen and vote. If metics broke Athenian laws, they were expelled from the city, and sometimes thrust into the blazing Greek sun. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that people who govern themselves control who they are and who becomes a member of the demos, but in recent decades, some in this country seem to have forgotten that principle. For instance, I was enormously frustrated by the remain campaign’s failure to acknowledge that the EU alters that fundamental principle. We might argue that control is worth giving up for some other reason, such as economic growth or reducing red tape, but without acknowledging that it is given up, we lack the credibility to make the argument.
This is something that my constituents understood perfectly well: control over who joins our self-governing nation is not a moral compromise; it is the heart of what makes us a free people and a strong democracy. The upshot is simple: control over the borders of this country is a precondition for a serious moral debate about who we should allow to join, on what terms and for what reasons. Unless elected Governments can demonstrate to their people that they have control over admission, we cannot seriously debate the trade-offs in who we admit and why.
The public rightly judged my party to have lost credibility on this issue in recent decades. In 2004, we chose not to put the brakes on and opened our labour markets to new EU members. At times, we openly mocked those concerned about migration, but we are not that party any more. I was not elected to this Chamber to espouse those views; in fact, I promised hundreds of my constituents that I would not rest until we gripped our borders, restored control, and yes, as the Home Secretary said, brought down the number of legal migrants entering this country each year—and I meant it. For me, this is not a regrettable moral compromise—a pact with the devil in which we hold our noses and ape Conservative Members to win votes—it is about a deep belief in what it means for our country to be strong, and our democracy respected.
Elected politicians do not just follow the polls; they explain and defend their convictions, and ours are these: the Labour party exists to represent working people. We seek to win power and use it to represent people outside the establishment who do not usually sit in the rooms where decisions are made. At the heart of that is the simple idea that elected people like me should take responsibility for deciding who gets to join our country. Parliament controls our borders, not Brussels or, after this Bill, smuggler gangs. We in the Labour party believe in control and order. The Opposition do not.
I welcome the Bill unequivocally. Those who abuse vulnerable people to threaten the order of our borders should be treated like terrorists, and I am glad that under this Government they will be. In doing so, we are not aping anyone; we are doing what Labour exists to do: take back control to represent the working people of this great country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We will go down to a four-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
In the summer of 2001, on a University of Southampton history field trip to the east end of London—part of the course “The Making of Englishness” on changing notions of British and English national identity in relation to issues of race, ethnicity and immigration from 1840 to the present day—Professor Tony Kushner, who still teaches the course now, took us to a building on the corner of Brick Lane. That building was once a Huguenot chapel, then a Jewish synagogue, and is today a Muslim mosque. That visit changed my understanding and perception of how immigration has impacted our country, and of the place of refuge that we have been over the centuries.
Immigration to the UK is not a new thing, and issues with asylum and illegal immigration are also not new. Two years later, I did a stint in the European Parliament working for an MEP, and I spent some time researching the different asylum systems across the member states in response to the issues that we were facing under the previous Labour Government. Why was that? Because the number of immigrants had shot up, casework had rolled in, and it became obvious that then, as now, we were the final destination for a huge number of illegal immigrants.
Fast forward 20 years and I found myself the Cabinet member responsible for refugees in Plymouth. I saw at first hand the exceptional record of the previous Conservative Government in providing for those arriving legitimately as part of resettlement schemes in response to crises in Hong Kong, Ukraine and Afghanistan, and the integration and engagement that took place as more than half a million migrants and refugees settled here, facilitated by many, including my South West Devon constituents. I also saw the impact on local services, housing, health and schools: the cost of even legitimate immigration.
We all agree that we must tackle the numbers arriving in this country illegally so that we can better serve those who arrive legitimately—those claiming asylum through legitimate channels and not arriving here in small boats having passed through safe country after safe country. We must tackle those who ignore international asylum rules, designed so that the burden of those fleeing conflict, famine and persecution is shared equally among those nations that have a moral duty to offer refuge.
The number of those arriving illegally will, however, keep increasing unless we have a deterrent. That is why the Bill is so counterproductive. By removing not only the deterrence put in place by the last Conservative Government but repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the new Labour Government are, in effect, removing any deterrent while also increasing the incentives for getting here illegally: the promise of claiming asylum regardless of whether someone arrives legally or illegally, and the promise of British citizenship. Talk about an open door policy.
Since the new Labour Government took office, so many debates involve highlighting the unintended consequences of their legislation. In this case, the unintended consequence is bound to be increased numbers of those likely to try to get to our shores—the complete opposite of what they want to achieve—and with that, a huge knock-on impact on housing, schools, healthcare and public services in general, all because the Government are naive enough to believe that a so-called Border Security Commander will solve the problem. Tackling illegal gangs is a noble aim, but the last time I checked, illegal gangs do not tend to identify themselves easily. All the while, the numbers arriving in this country will only keep increasing.
Without being defeatist, we struggle to tackle knife crime and drug gangs here on our own streets. I remain unconvinced, therefore, that we can tackle the tsunami of illegal boat crossings, which are already up a quarter on previous figures since this new Labour Government arrived, by simply tackling the black market that is driving illegal immigration. By all means tackle the gangs, but to rely on that with no deterrent and, instead, effectively reward those who make it here illegally, is doomed to fail. It reduces the value of doing the right thing and arriving here legally, and is a roll of the dice that is certain to fail before it has even started.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Before I get to my main speech, I will say a few words on my position on migration. When I was growing up, my dad, who was a bricklayer, had to go and work in Germany because it was so hard to get good-paying work in Burnley, where I am from. A bit like “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, he and loads of mates went over to Germany to help with reunification when the Berlin wall was taken down. He was able to earn the wages that helped my parents put a roof over my head and food in my belly.
Migration is not a threat. It is part of our national story and of the very fabric of who we are as a country, and it contributes to our economy, public services, businesses and communities. What we cannot allow, and should never tolerate, is unchecked illegal immigration, led by bad faith actors who seek to undermine our border security and, in doing so, put lives at risk. For too long, ruthless gangs have exploited vulnerable people by charging them thousands of pounds to make dangerous journeys in overcrowded, flimsy boats. These journeys are not only illegal but often deadly, leading to tragic and unnecessary loss of life. We cannot in good conscience stand by while human lives are treated as commodities and our borders are compromised by those who profit from human misery.
Right now, the system is completely overwhelmed, with unworkable policies creating backlogs and putting impossible pressure on housing and public services. I, too, was a councillor, and I remember the pressures on local services. This is not about turning our backs on those in need. It is about creating an orderly, compassionate and secure system that works for everyone. It is about restoring public confidence and ensuring that our borders are protected without compromising our values. The Bill fixes what is not working, ensuring that we have a fair but firm asylum process that prioritises genuine refugees while stopping the current abuses of the system. I strongly support the Bill, and I encourage colleagues across the House to vote for it. Let us send a clear message: we are a nation of compassion and of fairness, but also one of law, order and border security.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We must bring migration numbers down. They have simply been far too high for far too long. My constituents say that to me loud and clear, and I completely agree with them. Unfortunately, despite the Home Secretary’s words, I am not convinced that the Bill will go far enough. The Government have ignored the National Crime Agency, which has stated that a deterrent is essential to prevent small boat crossings. They are now repealing the legal basis of the deterrent that the last Government introduced, ignoring the fact that there has been a 30% rise in small boat crossings since they took office.
The Government are ignoring their own Back Benchers, who just last week were calling for a stronger stance on immigration, by repealing the laws introduced by the previous Government to toughen up the system. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to remove illegal migrants to their home country or a safe third country and ensured that those entering this country illegally would never be eligible for British citizenships. No ifs, no buts: someone entering the UK illegally should never be able to claim citizenship. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. What message does repealing those measures send to our constituents or those considering the dangerous crossing? Frankly, it shows that if someone manages to get to the UK illegally, this Labour Government will let them stay for good.
I fully support what the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has set out this afternoon and support the Conservative amendment. Citizenship and permanent residency should not be handed out freely. The ability to access that status should be heavily restricted. It must not be available to those who have a criminal record, have claimed benefits or have accessed social housing. We must be clear that individuals who enter the country illegally should never be granted indefinite leave to remain or citizenship, and I am disappointed that the Bill does the exact opposite.
Clauses 1 to 12 provide a framework to enable Border Security Command to fulfil its role as an effective border security system and set out that the commander must minimise threats to our border security. The commander has been in place since September—what has this new organisation been doing in that time? It certainly has not tackled the threats to our border security; as I have said, small boat crossings are up by 30% since July.
My constituents want to see immigration, both legal and illegal, under control. As their MP, I will vote for measures that reduce net migration numbers to avoid the situation recently forecast by the Office for National Statistics. This Bill fails to do that.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I am pleased we are having this debate today, as the measures proposed in the Bill are long, long overdue. Anyone can see that confidence in the immigration and border security system broke down under the previous Government, when hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was wasted on hare-brained schemes, tens of thousands were crossing the channel every year, and 69 people died in the waters off our shores while trying to cross the channel last year. We do not need more gimmicks and headline grabbing; instead, we need serious measures and hard graft.
There are three key components to the Bill that I think will have the most impact. The first is the counter-terror-style powers on immigration enforcement. These important measures will make immigration enforcement properly intelligence-led. There is no point in arresting someone when they step off the boat if we do not disrupt the network that funnelled them to the shore in the first place. The new powers on seizing electronic devices, biometric testing and intelligence gathering and the serious crime prevention orders are exactly what is needed. For four years before I was elected I served as the justice and home affairs attaché at the British embassy in Paris, where I saw at first hand the kind of interventions that make a difference in securing the channel border. These measures are exactly what we need. We are talking about large, well-funded organised crime networks, and we need to treat them as such.
Secondly, I strongly welcome the new offence of endangering a life at sea. We have to change the risk calculation of the people getting on those boats, which the Rwanda plan clearly failed to do. It should shame us all that we have somehow contrived a situation where innocent people drown off our shores, and it is right that we treat the people who endanger their lives like terrorists.
Finally, I cannot welcome enough the emphasis on working with other countries. Immigration is, by its very definition, a cross-border phenomenon, so immigration crime is a cross-border crime. Countries such as France, Germany and the rest of the Calais group will be central to helping Britain tackle our challenges, and intelligence sharing, access to databases and joint operations are the bread and butter of fixing immigration challenges.
Immigration is obviously a challenging topic politically, but as with the economy and public services, public trust is conditional on the Government having a firm grip on the immigration system. Folk understand that we live in a complex world and that people cross borders. They want to be compassionate to save those fleeing for their lives. They do not want to see people drown. Most of all, they want to see the system managed. It has to be firm and fair—it has to be both.
The measures in the Bill should have been on the statute book long ago. Rather than just standing on our shores and shouting, we are seeing the Government get down to doing the hard graft of what it takes to secure our borders.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
There but for the grace of God go I. Like everyone in this House, I appreciate the need for security at our borders and the need for a sensible discourse around immigration, but we must be very careful and mindful of our approach, rhetoric and implementation. Our approach must always be guided by compassion, legality and an unwavering commitment to human rights. I appreciate that the Bill seeks to confront the increasingly sophisticated methods used by organised crime groups to facilitate irregular migration. However, global instabilities, be they conflict or the devastating impact of climate change, force desperate people to risk everything in search of security. Since August 2019, 138 people, including many children, have tragically lost their lives. They are not migrants who drown; they are not asylum seekers who drown. They are human beings. These losses are a stark reminder that people do not take such risks unless they are fleeing unimaginable atrocities. In our pursuit of security, we must take care not to conflate genuine asylum seekers with criminals or opportunists. Our language and policies must not inflame hatred or prejudice against those seeking sanctuary.
In addressing irregular immigration, the Government have proposed the following four pillars: preventing, by disincentivising migrants; pursuing, by disrupting the operations of organised crime gangs; protecting; and preparing. I would like the Government to add one more: participating, to meaningfully resolve global conflict and address the root causes of migration, such as climate change, famine, conflict and human rights violations. We must increase our spending on overseas aid back up to 0.7% of GDP. By taking a proactive international role, we can help to create conditions that reduce the pressures driving desperate migration.
We must not view this entire process through the prism of criminality. Particularly alarming is clause 18, which creates the criminal offence of
“Endangering another during sea crossing”.
This clause is aimed clearly at those inside the boats—the very individuals fleeing peril—and represents a dangerous escalation in the criminalisation powers under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Such measures risk penalising vulnerable people who are already caught in the midst of conflict, deprivation and despair. Worryingly, according to the European convention on human rights memorandum,
“Although it is very unlikely, there is no absolute bar to prosecuting parents who have taken their children on journeys which come within the ambit of the Endangerment Offence, which could result in the break-up of families.”
Furthermore, we must ask why the Bill excludes countries such as India, Albania and Georgia from its protections. Genuine survivors of torture, trafficking and persecution from those nations deserve our help, not our suspicion. The retention of sections 59 and 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 would restrict or even criminalise asylum and human rights claims from those very countries.
I call on the Government to address these pressing questions. How will we ensure that our measures do not criminalise those seeking asylum? Why are we excluding countries like those mentioned above? What steps will be taken to increase international aid? The Bill is a missed opportunity to demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and to
“modernise the asylum and immigration system”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 40.]
We all welcome the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, but I look forward to seeing some meaningful amendments in Committee.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Let me start by correcting some misinformation that has been shared throughout the debate by Opposition Members— unintentionally, I am sure. Those who speak about illegal immigrants, or people seeking asylum illegally, should bear in mind that everyone, under international law, has a right to seek asylum from persecution. That is enshrined in international law. There is also the right not to be penalised for entering the country without permission when it is necessary to seek asylum. Those who use the word “illegal” should remember that it is only illegal because the last Government made it so, just as Rwanda was only considered safe because the last Government legislated to make it safe. The vast majority of people need to cross the channel by irregular means because there are very few safe routes. The UK requires them to do that, and then criminalises people who do it.
The Government’s scrapping of the Rwanda plan, and the repealing of some of the most extreme elements of the Conservative Government’s legislation, are very welcome. It is essential for this performative cruelty to be wiped from the statute book, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office team on doing so. However, I must admit that I am disappointed that many inhumane policies have been left to stand. For example, the Home Office will still be allowed to operate a two-tier asylum system: some refugees will be penalised for the route by which they arrived; some victims of modern slavery will continue to be denied protections; and some people’s claims will still be automatically inadmissible on the basis that they have come from so-called safe countries, a number of which are anything but safe for minority groups.
I am particularly worried about certain new elements of the Bill. It expands offences, and gives the state additional powers to investigate and prosecute people. I know that the Government’s target is the organised criminals running these operations, but I am deeply concerned about the possibility that many more people seeking asylum will also be criminalised as an unintended consequence. We must ensure that people who just want to start a new life in safety after being forced from their homes are not punished. We need to combat the dehumanising, false narrative that desperate people fleeing war and persecution are criminals, and we must not treat them as such. Instead, we should be properly reforming our broken asylum system. An improved system should include safe and legal routes, a fair and efficient decision-making process, the lifting of work restrictions, the closure of all large sites, and increased asylum support rates.
It is appalling that 138 people—138 human beings—have died attempting to cross the channel since the summer of 2019. I have no doubt that my party is united in wanting to save lives, but I fear that the Bill, no matter how well-intentioned its aims might be, will not succeed, and that more people will die attempting to reach our shores because it does not tackle the lack of alternative options for claiming asylum, which is driving people on to those dinghies. I worry that our approach, which does not differ drastically enough from that of the last Government, will continue to add to the suffering that so many people seeking asylum have already experienced. When sector organisations such as Asylum Matters, Asylum Aid, Médecins Sans Frontières, the Refugee Council and Migrants’ Rights Network have expressed serious concerns about the Bill, alarm bells should be ringing.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that we need to have a robust migration policy that fulfils the economic needs of the UK while also protecting and preserving our British way of life. Although it is important that the British public hear loud and clear our acknowledgement that the last Government did not get everything right on migration numbers, it is equally important that recognition be given to the actions that they took to start turning the tide on migration numbers. The changes in visa rules at the end of 2023 curbed some of the student visa abuses, with the result that applications fell by 30%, delivering a cut in legal migration. As for illegal migration, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 created the foundations for a deterrent—which the National Crime Agency says is essential—that would have allowed the UK to process asylum applications overseas. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 would have prevented those who entered the UK illegally from claiming asylum or gaining citizenship. The Bill before us seeks to undo so much of that good work, as the shadow Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) explained. Labour will allow illegal migrants to claim asylum and have access to British citizenship, remove our third-country deterrent and make our borders weaker.
We are already starting to see the effects of Labour’s light-touch approach to border security. Since the election, we have seen illegal boat crossings up and the number of migrants housed in hotels, at taxpayers’ expense, up. At least the Labour party is consistent on this issue. However, it is essential that we safeguard our borders, and this is not just linked to migration numbers. Under this Bill, the Government are seeking to set up a Border Security Commander who, in exercising their functions—which, I note, are undefined—must have regard to the objective of
“maximising the effectiveness of the activities of partner authorities relating to threats to border security”.
One such partner authority would be Border Force, which is a law enforcement organisation whose priority in relation to channel crossings is
“search and rescue and the safety of life”.
However, as was flagged in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s session last week, Border Force is also responsible for control of personal imports and for checks on illegal meats coming in across the border. Biosecurity threats do not respect boundaries or borders, but Border Force is so stretched that we are able to check only about 20% of the meats imported into the UK. I cannot state clearly enough that our biosecurity is at risk, particularly given the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Germany, and the spread of African swine fever.
My concern is that the Government have created a new position without clear functions in the Border Security Commander, which is a distraction from the action that is needed now. Overwhelmed by the numbers coming across the channel, and without an effective deterrent, our Border Force cannot manage the catastrophes in front of it. It needs urgent funding, yet this Government are not addressing that.
For all the reasons that I have stated, I will vote in favour of the reasoned amendment, as this Bill fundamentally undoes the good work of the previous Conservative Government, flies in the face of common sense, and is an insult to my constituents in South Northamptonshire, who want to see stronger borders and a tough migration policy.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Home Office team for bringing forward this Bill. We all recognise in this place that, over the years, immigration has enriched our country and helped us all to prosper. One only has to look at the local health and care system in and around my constituency of High Peak, where nurses and care workers from around the world are keeping our NHS running. I want to put on record my thanks to all those in High Peak who have made it their home and contribute so much to our communities.
The concerns that I hear from local residents in High Peak are not about those who come here legally, play by the rules and fill vital roles; they are about those who enter the UK irregularly, mostly on small boats, who my constituents see as skipping the queue. This is about fairness, the rule of law and standing up for British values.
Not that long ago, the last Government, Boris Johnson and the now hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) promised us that leaving the European Union meant that we would take back control of our borders. The last Government left us with open borders and failed to create a plan to tackle illegal migration. Small boat crossings reached record numbers and, in their last three years, the previous Government poured all their energy and resources into the shambolic, unworkable Rwanda scheme—a gimmick that saw just four volunteers go to Rwanda, at a cost of £700 million of taxpayers’ money. That was an utterly scandalous waste of my constituents’ money, and it was anything but a deterrent. It is shocking that so much time and effort was put into a scheme that could never work and would never work.
In High Peak, we saw the consequences of the lack of a deterrent when the previous Government tried to convert High Peak Halls in Buxton into an asylum dispersal centre, which was ultimately only stopped by opposition from local police, local councils and local people.
By contrast, this Government are getting on with the job of delivering stronger border security and a fairer immigration system. We are determined to decisively bring down the number of small boat crossings and end the use of asylum hotels for good. Our deterrent is clear: we will process applications and we will deport those that do not have the right to be here. Some 19,000 people have been returned under this Government—a 24% increase in enforced returns. That is a genuine deterrent, and this Bill will go further in helping to defeat the criminal gangs that are making millions of pounds from preying on vulnerable people. All of us in this House have seen the tragic losses of life in the channel, and stopping the crossings is a humanitarian necessity. The Bill will help to do that by creating the offence of endangering life at sea.
I fully support the measures in this Bill that give the law enforcement agencies the toughest tools possible to break down the smuggling gangs’ ability to carry out those small boat crossings. The Prime Minister was right to say that we need to view the smuggling gangs as a global security threat and treat them as the terrorists that they are. The Bill will replicate the counter-terror powers on issues such as electronic devices at our borders, and introduce new offences against gangs conspiring to plan crossings. As a result of this and the statutory powers of the new Border Security Command, the people of High Peak can finally have faith that our law enforcement agencies will have the power to stop these vile criminals.
Only by taking these concrete steps can we smash the gangs and bring down the numbers of people who are travelling to this country illegally. The Government’s plan for change relies on stronger border security, and it is critical that these steps are taken to ensure that those who threaten our security can be pursued relentlessly and by every means. This Bill will start to restore fairness and balance to our immigration system and, dare I say it, take back control of our borders. That is what the people of High Peak expect, and that is what this Labour Government will deliver.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Our country has a proud history and record of offering sanctuary to and helping those in need. From the Kindertransport when we offered a home to Jewish children escaping Nazi persecution to hosting Ukrainians fleeing President Putin’s Russia, our country has proudly welcomed people from around the world. In fact, in our very own hour of need, when our cities lay in ruins after world war two, immigrants from the West Indies played a significant role in rebuilding Britain, filling labour shortages in critical sectors such as construction, transport and healthcare. We should never forget either the contribution that immigrants have made to our country or our responsibility as a place of refuge in the world, but today immigration is higher than it is ever been, and this causes legitimate problems and concerns that my constituents in Mansfield are very concerned about.
Let me be absolutely clear that my constituents, many of whom voted for me last year, are not racist, right wing or far right for having concerns about immigration and the security of our borders. They are neither racist nor far right for being worried about our NHS, about housing or about why their children cannot get a place in the local school of their choice. We must never label those constituents who raise legitimate and factually sound concerns as racist. What we must do as a Government is address those concerns. I believe that the previous Government failed to do that, instead allowing migration, both legal and illegal, to skyrocket. I am glad, therefore, that the Government are scrapping the completely ineffective Rwanda scheme, which cost an eye-watering £700 million, and that we are instead introducing measures that will deal with the problem at hand.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill will target the people smuggling gangs that have facilitated boat crossings of the channel. It will create a new offence of selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel, it will enable the confiscation of electronic devices and the disruption of communications, and it will support the newly created Border Security Command. These responsible, realistic actions show that this Government are focused on delivering results, unlike the solutions offered by the Opposition.
My constituents in Mansfield want to get on with things. This Bill, along with the other legislation that the Government have introduced in their first six months to support house building and invest in our national health service and schools, will go a long way towards doing that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I simply wish to make one request and propose one amendment to the Bill. I have listened to the whole debate. There are more asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency than in any other constituency in the country. I have two detention centres, one of which was the last to imprison children, so I understand. I tour the hotels, and every time there is a debate like this in this place and it is reported outside, I worry because it creates insecurity, worry and fear among the asylum seekers in my constituency.
To answer a point made earlier, most of the asylum seekers in hotels at the moment did come in the boats, but they came in the boats because there is no other route. It is as simple as that. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, and the PCS and the frontline Border Force staff it represents say that the way to stop the boats is to introduce a safe-passage visa system, accessible through our European centres or online. That would undercut the criminal gangs’ money earning potential.
When I meet asylum seekers and listen to their individual stories of the suffering both in their home country and during their passage here, I rarely come away without tears in my eyes. It is also rare that I do not come away impressed by the scale of their talent, and by just how much they can contribute to our economy and our society. I want the message to go out that I welcome asylum seekers—it is as simple as that.
There has been a failure to address the age assessment of individual applicants. The previous Government introduced the national age assessment board, which uses supposedly scientific measures to assess an applicant’s age. As Members involved in that debate will know, experts both in this place and elsewhere—Lord Winston has been mentioned—have contested the idea that it is a scientific approach and said it is inaccurate. It has been proven to be a failure, and where it has been used in other countries, it has never been solely relied upon. What has been successful is a comprehensive evidence-taking process, through a social work-type assessment of individuals.
Since the new system was introduced, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) mentioned, there have been 1,300 incorrect assessments. What does that mean? I will give one example. Under the new law, 450 people have been convicted of arriving on the boats. Of those 450 convictions, 14 people who were imprisoned were later determined to be children. If a child is incorrectly assessed, they are classified as an adult and are put into an adult institution, and some of those classified as adults have therefore been imprisoned alongside adult offenders. That is not fulfilling our duty to safeguard children, is it?
That is why this system needs to be changed. We need to reinvest the £1.7 million that has been wasted on these “scientific” assessments and go back to the social assessments made by professional social work experts. At least we will then be able to live up to the expectation of safeguarding young people.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
Members across the House want an immigration system that is well managed. When I speak to my constituents, they tell me that is what they want, too—grip, control and a Government back in control of our borders. I am so pleased that the Bill seeks to provide exactly that, and not just with slogans, but with solutions.
I welcome the establishment of the Border Security Command and the enhanced powers to tackle the criminal gangs that make it possible for people to cross the channel in small boats. Those gangs are exploiting some of the world’s most vulnerable people, and that is unacceptable. I welcome the Bill’s focus on unaccompanied children who enter the country in that way. It is right that we will no longer detain them without time limits, and it is right that local authorities will be supported to make decisions on their accommodation needs. We must not leave those vulnerable children in hotels or in any inappropriate adult accommodation. I cannot tell the House how much I welcome the repeal, in full, of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Some £700 million of taxpayer money was wasted on a scheme that was inhumane and never going to work.
There are two areas of the Bill that we will need to scrutinise carefully as it moves forward. First, I would like reassurance that we are able to continually review which countries are safe and which are not, based on evidence. That is really important when international events can be so unpredictable and fast-paced, as we have seen with the fall of Assad in Syria, for example. Secondly, we have to be careful to minimise the risk of unintentionally criminalising asylum seekers—people like Ibrahima Bah, a young person from Senegal who was sentenced after steering a dinghy that broke apart next to a fishing vessel, under threat, he claimed, of death. It is the smuggling gangs we need to target, not young people who are coerced while trying to survive. I know that Ministers will be looking carefully at that.
I turn to the international context in which we are discussing the Bill. While I welcome the Bill and I hope it reduces the number of people crossing the channel in grave danger, the reality is that for as long as persecution, war and conflict exist in the world, there will always be people fleeing for their safety, including to the UK. With that in mind, I see a vital continuing role for safe and legal ways for refugees and asylum seekers to seek protection in the UK. We know that safe routes can work; I am proud of our country for the Homes for Ukraine scheme and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, for example. When such schemes operate effectively, we do not see people of those nationalities getting on small boats.
The APPG on refugees, of which I am co-chair, last week published an inquiry into safe routes, proposing further solutions, such as reviewing the financial restrictions for UK-based sponsors to reunite with their children who remain in danger overseas. I hope those proposals will be considered. The benefit of options such as family reunion and humanitarian visas is that they are also controlled and orderly, in the same spirit as the Bill.
I also see a vital role for international co-operation. I know the Home Secretary has been working with European neighbours to tackle the criminal smuggling gangs, which is vital. I was pleased to see the joint action with Germany in December. I would like to see international co-operation extend to better anticipating and engaging constructively in resolving the crises that cause people to flee their homes in the first place, and to providing support for people closer to their homes. For example, the 3.3 million people who have fled across a border to escape the conflict in Sudan need support in Sudan and when they flee to neighbouring countries. That work has just got harder with the dramatic cuts to the US international aid budget, which I fear will be deeply destabilising. Ultimately, that is where the work must start to stop vulnerable people attempting to reach our own shores.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to supporting the Bill tonight.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) took us back to ancient Athens. I am a recovering classicist, so let me note that Britain has, from the time of the Romans, been a nation of immigrants. Scientific analysis has proven the rich cultural diversity of Roman Britain, and immigration has enriched our country ever since, with people from the Windrush generation to, in more recent times, the Ukrainians and Hongkongers proudly making their homes here in the UK.
As the MP for Bracknell, a new town, I know that my constituents understand what it is to set up home in a new corner of Earth. That said, they also know that it is the first duty of any Government to protect the country, and a functioning and fair immigration system is the prerequisite to that. The Government—any Government—must have control of their borders, but the sad reality is that, under the previous Government, control of our borders was lost.
Nearly 37,000 people crossed the channel in small boats last year. Many of them were vulnerable individuals, but nevertheless the sheer number of people crossing demonstrates a lack of control. For the Conservative party, which fashions itself as taking a tough stance on immigration—we have heard some of that in the debate—that is an embarrassing record. One need only look at the Rwanda scheme, which cost £700 million of taxpayers’ money and saw 84,000 people crossing the channel from the day it was announced to the day it was scrapped —some deterrent.
The challenge with the open-border policy of the previous Government was that it undermined the possibility of having a safe, just and effective asylum system. Many people who risk their lives crossing the channel do so because they are seeking asylum. It is proper that our country protects the rights of asylum seekers, but it is also true that some of those crossing the channel have no right to be here. That is why there has been a 10% increase in returns under this Government, and almost 3,000 foreign criminals have already been removed from Britain’s streets—a 24% increase on last year. Flights to Rwanda stayed on the ground; this Government are ensuring that flights to deport foreign criminals are taking off.
We can already see the effect on small boat arrivals under this Government. When we won the election in July, arrivals for 2024 were almost 6% ahead of the record year of 2022. In the second half of last year, we saw almost 10,000 fewer arrivals than in 2022, despite having more days when the weather was favourable for crossings.
The Bill will introduce landmark new measures so that we have the tools to fix the immigration system that the Tories have broken—and, yes, it will act to smash the gangs. There are measures to strengthen border security, strengthen the asylum and immigration system, prevent crime, and protect vulnerable asylum seekers whom the vile people smugglers would seek to exploit. That is the action that the Government are taking, and that is why I support the Bill.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Some of us have run a real business. I had to drive trucks across the channel, and I still remember the Calais-to-Dover border crossings, with dogs sent in to sniff out human trafficking and groups of men at every service station on the road to Calais. My fear that my lorry might be hijacked by someone attempting to enter our country illegally very much reflected the confusion and anger expressed by my constituents in Bassetlaw. That is why they sent me to Parliament to be their loud voice, to monitor and to push for tough action to boost border security and to sort this problem out.
We now have a Border Security Commander in Martin Hewitt, who was appointed in the first days following the general election. His job is to bring back control of our borders, smash the gangs and stop the flow of illegal migrants. Under the previous Government, £700 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on the failed Rwanda scheme, 84,000 crossed the channel in rubber dinghies, asylum decision making collapsed, and the cost of asylum hotels stacked up to £6 million a week.
With this Government, we are getting results: the highest number of returns since 2018, with close to 19,000 individuals having been flown out of our country; nearly 3,000 foreign criminals removed; deals around the world, including with Iraq, to break up those at the centre of the organised smuggling gangs; proper dialogue with our G7 partners as we start to work in step on this issue; agreement with the German authorities to arrest and imprison anyone caught facilitating the trafficking of illegal migrants; and, just last month, 828 raids on businesses, including the nail bars and car washes where people are brought to work in slave labour conditions. But we need power to take more action, and the Bill will enshrine the Border Security Command in law, enabling the co-ordination of law enforcement agencies with the sole focus of taking back control of our borders.
We must make the English channel a no-go area for the criminal gangs by effectively targeting them; disrupting their activities through the seizure of electronic devices, including mobile phones; restricting their activities by maximising the impact of serious crime prevention orders and giving law enforcement the power to monitor and intervene; and arresting and jailing them, with new offences that will mean that those selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel face up to 14 years in prison. The Bill will make it a criminal offence to endanger life. My thoughts today are with those children too young to make a choice who were lost by drowning.
There can be no hiding places. Where lorry drivers are bringing people in, there will be a new 14-year jail term for vehicle concealment. My message to the Government is: crack on with the job, give us a running commentary of every success, publicise the return flights and the jailing of criminals, clear up the Conservatives’ mess, secure our borders, close down the use of hotels and stop the small boats.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for introducing the Bill, which undoes some of the harmful elements of the asylum system, including the measures introduced in the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. In particular, I welcome the measures to repeal child detention powers and Home Office accommodation powers over unaccompanied children.
From the Kindertransport to the many children we have welcomed into our homes from Ukraine, the Great British public really care about the welfare of children coming from war zones and fleeing persecution. We must be diligent to ensure that the Bill does not criminalise the wellbeing of children or lead to cruel measures against children fleeing persecution in their own countries. It is the people smugglers who are putting lives in danger, yet they are not the people who are trying to migrate here. Those migrating here are escaping persecution, and we must be mindful of that when we seek international and EU powers to criminalise those who are actually trafficking people.
Children are too often caught up in politics that leaves them cruelly treated, such as in 2023 when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), as Immigration Minister, ordered that murals of Mickey Mouse and other cartoon characters designed to welcome child asylum seekers to a reception centre in Dover be painted over because they sent “too welcoming” a message. These are children fleeing war and persecution.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my concern about the new law enforcement elements of the Bill. The changes include new criminal offences of supplying or handling almost any item to be used in connection with illegal immigration, and of collecting information to be used for arranging an unauthorised journey to the UK. I will give an example. Some non-governmental organisations in border zones provide a play service to create space for refugee and asylum-seeking children to process trauma, develop key skills and make positive memories in hostile environments. That can be a lifeline for children at risk across continents. It helps mitigate some of the traumatic effects they experience and hopes to lessen the impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder.
If the new law enforcement powers criminalising the supply or handling of almost any item to be used in connection with illegal immigration do not include exemptions for toys or other items used for play, are we penalising children’s ability to play or enjoy a toy that brings them solace in the chaos of their fleeing journey? We must ensure that children and aid workers are not penalised under the Bill for supplying toys or items that bring solace to children.
Dame Angela Eagle
To reassure my hon. Friend, these items certainly will not include children’s toys, and nor will we be doing anything to introduce widespread powers that just apply to everybody. These are intelligence-led powers that will focus on those in the gangs doing the organising.
Alex Sobel
I thank the Minister for that reassurance. As the Bill progresses to Committee, it would be helpful if those items were listed among the relevant articles to give some solace to the NGOs, which have pointed out their concern to me. That would be an easy thing to add to the list already in the Bill.
To conclude, I welcome this significant step forward for children’s rights. I look forward to further strides during the Bill’s passage to find ways of bringing unaccompanied children and family reunion into the migration system once again.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Britain has a long and proud tradition of providing asylum to those fleeing war and persecution, and that patriotic principle must always remain. However, we must be honest: too many people are arriving in our country with no legal right to be here, and they must be returned. Further still, they must be prevented from entering our country altogether. The numbers are too high; they must come down.
The alternative is unacceptable. Towns such as Hartlepool are targeted by private providers of asylum accommodation because of our lower housing costs. Those providers are profiting from this crisis and putting a burden on Hartlepool’s public services. Local schools, hospitals and social services are forced to absorb the consequences of a broken system—that is the reality that we face, and it must change. The Bill signals the Government’s intention to do just that. Instead of open borders, we will have a Border Security Command. Instead of a soft touch, we will have record deportations. Instead of expensive gimmicks, we will have far-reaching new powers that will put the boot of the state on the throat of the criminal gangs whose trade, let us not forget, is the trafficking of human beings. The Bill is about restoring control and taking decisive action to fix the system.
Hartlepool people are open, generous and welcoming. I have personally seen their fundamental decency on display in communities across our town, including at the Salaam Community Centre on Murray Street, where Nancy Pout and her amazing team took to the streets after last summer’s rights and, alongside volunteers and council workers, cleaned up the devastation left by mindless thugs. They symbolise fundamental Hartlepool values.
Those values include fairness, which is why I believe that transparency in these matters is essential. Home Office figures provided to me by the House of Commons Library show that, as of September 2024, Hartlepool is supporting 50 asylum seekers per 10,000 people. The neighbouring, larger local authority is hosting just seven per 10,000. There are local authorities up and down this county for which the figure is zero. That cannot be right. After 14 years of austerity for our public services, it must not be the most deprived areas of our country that carry the biggest burden.
When the break clauses in the asylum accommodation contracts come up in 2026, I urge Ministers to use them and spread the burden fairly as we fix the system and bring the numbers down. This is about taking back control of our asylum and immigration system, not through slogans and broken promises, but through real enforceable action. The people of Hartlepool, and communities across the UK, deserve nothing less.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Conservative party has a record of failure, and now it is failing to back our measures to put things right. On Rwanda, so much money was wasted to deport so few people, and with so little remorse. Imagine the howls that we would have heard if a civil servant or trade union had wasted just 1% of that sum. On the asylum backlog, the graph is like the NHS waiting list under the Conservatives: up and up it went to 166,261 by 2022—an elevenfold increase on the number that they inherited. That is what happens when those who do not believe in government are the Government.
While this Bill focuses more on asylum, the net migration figures also illustrate that the previous Government let things get out of control, with a 220% increase in net migration from 244,000 in 2010—then a record—to 782,000 in 2023. As with policing and defence, so it is with asylum and immigration: the previous Government failed, yet Conservative Members rail against us as we tackle the crisis that they bequeathed us. I do not want to rehearse the excellent policies set out by Ministers and by my Labour colleagues, so I will just gently ask right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to put their hand on their heart and tell us that they are proud of their record. Do they think it is dignified for a great country such as ours to offshore our responsibilities to Rwanda, a country that they needed—with an Orwellian flourish—to define as safe? Hand on heart, do right hon. and hon. Conservative Members think that it is in the national interest to vote against the robust, practical and principled approach in this Bill?
It is a shame that the Conservative party continues to resort to false promises and populist language. We have heard that tonight, such as “surrender”, or the words of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who spoke about the £49.18 per week that asylum seekers receive to pay for clothes and toiletries. These are human beings. I am sure that the hon. Member was not suggesting that a country such as ours should not be offering people the ability to clothe themselves.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I was not suggesting that people should not have the ability to clothe themselves; my point was that this is advertised on the Government website, and is a pull factor. What does this Bill do to address that pull factor?
John Slinger
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This Bill proposes numerous measures that will get tough on the evil criminal gangs that are bringing people here on those boats, and my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have made that point very clearly.
With their hand on their heart, are right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches perhaps feeling ashamed of flirting with the idea of derogating from our international rights obligations? In time, I believe that the public will see that—led by a Prime Minister who has actually tackled criminal gangs—the Home Secretary and her team will leave behind the failure, gimmicks and populism of the past and replace them with effective action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call Matt Vickers.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Today’s remarks from Conservative Members have been clear—we understand the public’s frustration that more has not been done to reduce these numbers. They are too high, and they must be lowered. During the election campaign, Labour said that it wanted to smash the gangs, but since it took power, small boat crossings have risen by 28%. Before the election, we were closing hotels, yet now 6,000 more people are in hotels, and the number of people arriving in small boats and being removed is down. Conservative Members remain deeply concerned that this Bill and the Government’s approach would represent a backwards step. Rather than utilising every power available, they are focused on tweaking existing laws and stripping away powers that were previously put in place. That is not the approach that the UK needs; rather, we need legislation and a strategy that establishes powers to stop illegal migration for good.
I can already hear Labour Members criticising the last Government. We do not deny that numbers were far too high—quite the opposite—but it was the last Government who introduced a deterrent, one that was scrapped by the Labour party immediately upon taking office before it could even begin. The Leader of the Opposition has been abundantly clear that despite efforts made by the last Government, far more needed to be done to solve the problem.
The problem for the Government is that, despite their complaints about their predecessors, this legislation is unlikely to provide anything like a real solution. The immigration crisis is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges we face as a country, and it requires bold action. If people believe that they can arrive here illegally and stay, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. The cancelling of the deterrent was an act of national self-harm. The increase in small boat arrivals since the Labour party took office makes that clear for the whole House to see.
Matt Vickers
I will give way to people who have been here throughout and have contributed to the debate.
Some of the changes in the Bill weaken rather than strengthen our ability to deal with the issue. Creating a route to British citizenship for those arriving here illegally—enticing more people to come—cannot be part of the solution. Weakening our ability to scientifically verify the age of those arriving, creating huge safeguarding risks in our education and care system, is also not part of the solution.
The National Crime Agency, and examples from Governments around the world, show that a deterrent must be in place, but this Bill does the opposite by removing the deterrent that is currently in law. It seems to stem from the misguided belief that arresting a small number of these heinous criminals will be enough to stop the crossings. Even though we would all like that to be the case, it is a vast oversimplification.
On deterrence to stop criminals, we all agree on the need to arrest the people behind these crimes, which is why, in 2023, there were 246 arrests of people smugglers and 86 arrests of small boat pilots—and I am still stunned that the Labour party opposed life sentences for people smugglers. We need measures that stop people boarding those boats in the first place, however, because failing to do so not only harms our country but fails those who endanger their lives by making that perilous journey.
Where legislation increases enforcement powers, enables further interventions and enhances data availability, we will welcome it. The experience of the enforcement authorities must be heard to ensure that they have the necessary powers. These sensible measures should not, however, be bundled into a Bill that simultaneously weakens the Secretary of State’s authority. The Home Secretary’s remarks failed to acknowledge the impact of the repeals. [Interruption.] She could have commenced them with the stroke of a pen. We must ask why this Bill repeals sensible provisions. It is stunning that the Government would prefer to weaken their powers rather than strengthen them.
Turning specifically to the repeals of previously passed legislation, I ask the Government what is wrong with the principle that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should never have a path to British citizenship. Why remove that provision? British citizenship is a special privilege, not something to be granted lightly. Those who enter our country illegally—breaking our laws—should not be offered a pathway to citizenship. Regularly granting citizenship to such individuals undermines the deterrent and sends the damaging message that breaking the law can lead to benefits. That harms the UK and endangers those who risk their lives to come here.
Additionally, the legislation repeals the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate consent for scientific age assessments where there are no reasonable grounds to withhold consent. That was a sensible step to prevent the abuse of the system. Some may argue that the provision is unnecessary, but between 2016 and September 2022, around 8,000 asylum cases involved age disputes. In about half, the individuals were assessed to be adults. Removing that power again weakens our legal infrastructure. We have also suggested significant but appropriate changes to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Why should the right to stay not be dependent on someone’s willingness to contribute and obey the law?
Last week, the Brussels correspondent for The Times reported that the European Union is drafting plans to overhaul the post-war refugee convention in what may be one of the most significant shifts in migration policy for decades. That is a clear signal of a growing consensus across the western world that the legal structures and institutions that restrict the Government from doing what is best for our country, and that have been obstructive, are no longer fit for purpose in tackling this significant issue.
While EU countries look to put together a deterrent scheme similar to the one cancelled by the Government, we must ask what the Government are trying to achieve with this legislation. Rather than implementing the significant changes being seriously discussed in Europe, or those that have been effective in Australia, they are opting for limited interventions. They are focused on tweaks to the system while simultaneously reducing their own powers in other aspects of the legal framework. That is not the decisive leadership that we need from the Government of the United Kingdom; it is a weak approach stemming from weak leadership, and for that reason I urge the House to vote for the reasoned amendment. It would be far better for the Government to go away, return swiftly with the necessary legal changes, and adopt an approach that genuinely deters people from coming to this country illegally.
I remind Members that despite pledges to smash the gangs, as of yesterday crossings were up by nearly 28%. That demonstrates that, as we warned the Government, their plan is not working, and the reality is that there are no easy fixes to this problem. There are significant challenges in addressing the issues arising from channel crossings, but we do not believe that the appropriate response is to dismantle legislation that provides the Government with powers they could use for the benefit of the country. That would be capitulation, and a charter for illegal immigration. I say to the Government: bring forward a Bill that enhances the ability of enforcement agencies, rather than one that strips them of their powers. We need a solution that takes the transformative steps to reduce illegal migration significantly, and action that secures our country’s borders and stops these life-threatening crossings. It is wrong to tell the world that if someone comes here illegally they can become a British citizen. I urge Members to back the reasoned amendment.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
There was one iota of reality and truth in the middle of that farrago of rubbish that we have just heard from the Conservative party, and I will quote it because I pricked up my ears. The hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said that there are “no easy solutions” to this problem. You could have fooled me, Madam Deputy Speaker! Conservative Members spent most of their last few years in office telling us that there were easy solutions and passing legislation that was so unusable and useless that they never commenced it, yet they now complain about our taking it off the statue book.
Conservative Members need to explain to the people of this country why they do not want counter-terrorism-style powers to deal with organised immigration, and why they are voting against sensible extensions of powers, which have been asked for by the National Crime Agency, our Border Security Commander and the police, to help deal with this challenge on our borders. Why are they against the Bill? Almost all of them are still trying to claim that somehow their fantasy of the Rwanda scheme actually was a deterrent, when we know that it did not work—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary can chunter all he likes, but 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats when the Rwanda scheme was in operation and on the statute book. Conservative Members started off by saying that all they had to do was talk about the Rwanda scheme and it would be a deterrent. Then it was, “Once we’ve put it on the statue book it will be a deterrent”, and now all of a sudden it is, “Oh well, it never worked because not a plane took off.”
Dame Angela Eagle
No. If they were so convinced that the Rwanda scheme was going to work, why did they hold a general election a week before the first plane was due to take off?
This crucial Bill will give law enforcement new powers to combat threats to border security and evolve our response as those threats change. Before I respond, in a slightly quieter way I hope, to some of the many excellent speeches we have heard today, I remind the House of the dire legacy left to us by the Conservatives. They left a system in chaos, where asylum claims were hardly being processed. It takes some brass neck for the shadow Home Secretary to complain that the number has gone up. It has gone up because we started to process decisions, which they had stopped. [Interruption.] Yes, it has gone up because we are processing decisions. We have a system where they did not do any processing for a year, then they wonder why there are a load of people in a backlog. We had to come into government and clean up the mess. Asylum claims were hardly being processed, and we are now processing 11,000 a month. The Conservatives were down to below 2,000 a month.
Tens of thousands of people were left in limbo. Tens of thousands more were crossing the channel in small boats because they were not deterred by the Rwanda scheme. Some 84,000 people crossed while the Rwanda scheme was being pursued. The Conservatives pursued expensive and unworkable gimmicks, spending £700 million to send four volunteers to Rwanda. They allowed ruthless gangsters to operate with impunity and make a fortune exploiting desperate people. They put legislation on the statute book that was so unworkable, even they did not commence it, and now they are complaining about our having to repeal it. I like a tidy statute book; we are not going to leave the rubbish that the Conservatives put on the statute book to clutter it up.
It is time to shift the dial. That is why this Bill puts the Border Security Command on a legal footing, offering system leadership and co-ordination across borders. The Bill introduces counter-terror-style powers to disrupt and prevent organised immigration crime and the gangs from profiting from the exploitation and misery that they cause. It takes the fight to the gangs on multiple fronts, using every possible tool at our disposal.
Mr Cleverly
To give the Minister a breather and for the education of the House, can she refer to the particular clauses in the Bill that give the Border Security Command any ability whatever to dictate the activity of other bits of Government to that end?
Dame Angela Eagle
The Border Security Command co-ordinates and leads across Government; the right hon. Gentleman will want to serve on the Committee so that we can discuss this in detail. [Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I can tell him that the Border Security Commander is already leading across Government and making a real difference in operational co-ordination, which this Bill will put on the statute book. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Cleverly, we have heard you shout enough times. The Minister will respond.
Dame Angela Eagle
We are not doing line-by-line; those on the Opposition Front Bench need to know that that happens in Committee. I have just invited the right hon. Gentleman to sit on the Committee. If he looks, he will see that the first part of the Bill deals entirely with the Border Security Commander and putting his powers on the statute book, and it makes clear that he is a systems leader who can co-ordinate properly across Government. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Mr Cleverly
Is it clause 3(6) in part 1 of the Bill that lists the agencies that the Border Security Commander does not have authority over? If I know the Minister’s Bill better than she does, she should consider her position.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am too busy cleaning up the right hon. Gentleman’s mess to consider my position.
While we have been drafting the Bill, we have been busy in other places. As we know, there are no quick and easy answers to this complex problem; we finally heard that from the shadow Minister. We have therefore struck groundbreaking new agreements with key international partners, ranging from the Calais group to Italy and Germany. The Home Secretary has been to Iraq to do some important work on dealing with the gangs. [Hon. Members: “Private jets!”] Well, at least she has not taken a private jet to Rwanda. We all know that only four volunteers ever went there at huge cost, but two Home Secretaries went too. Certainly more Conservative Home Secretaries managed to go to Rwanda than asylum seekers ever did.
We are dealing with international co-operation because it is right both for returns and for co-ordination to smash international smuggling gangs and organised immigration crime that we work co-operatively with our colleagues, not only in Europe but further afield. We have also concentrated on actually enforcing the law, and illegal working visits and arrests are up 38% since we came into government. We have ramped up returns. The latest figures show that 18,987 people with no right to be here have been deported since we came into government. There is no point in having an asylum system if we do not return those people who are found to have no right to be here.
Gregory Stafford
I am sure that the Minister is about to get to this, so I apologise for intervening, but as I raised in my speech, we want to be very clear about how she will measure success based on the Bill. By what metric, and by when, will we be able to judge whether the Government’s policy has worked?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
There will be more than four.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, it is certainly true that we promise to get more than four volunteers out of the country.
The Bill is not about posturing or pretending that there are easy answers to complex questions. The Bill is not about expensive gimmicks and an abject failure to deliver. The Bill is about restoring order to the chaos that we inherited from the Conservative party. It is about giving our law enforcement authorities the counter-terror-style powers that they need to dismantle the organised criminal gangs who are exploiting desperate people. It is about enforcing the law and securing our borders, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Community and Third Sector Organisations: Employment
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Before I start the debate, I would like to declare an interest: I chair the organisation in my constituency that I will be talking about, but I get absolutely no remuneration for it.
It is a privilege to speak on behalf of my constituents in Erdington, whose communities are filled with untapped potential. My constituency ranks among the top five most deprived areas in the country, with an unemployment rate of around twice the national average. Sadly, we fall well below the national average for functional literacy, ranking 47th lowest out of 533 constituencies in England last year. This stark reality creates major barriers for my constituents, but I am proud to say we have not stood idly by. Instead, in the face of adversity, our community came together to take decisive action to shape our future.
In 2020, in response to the economic fallout from the covid pandemic, the north Birmingham economic recovery board was formed. This vibrant and dynamic board is administered by the Witton Lodge Community Association, and I have had the honour of serving as its chair since March 2022. Driven by collaborative action, we are ambitious, maximising economic opportunities and supporting thousands of residents into training and employment. The board brings together around 25 organisations, including the local authority, the combined authority, local and national businesses, community groups and third sector organisations, to deliver skills, training and employment opportunities to residents of north Birmingham, particularly those facing the greatest barriers and exclusion. From the beginning, it was vital to include businesses and social enterprises of all sizes to ensure that local residents can access and benefit from significant business opportunities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I commend her initiative. Her constituents can feel immensely proud of her efforts. Scrabo residents’ group has done something similar in an area of disadvantage in my constituency where people do not have opportunities. The group has provided jobs in security and HGV driving, for example. These people previously had no job, and now they have opportunities for employment. A community initiative has made this happen.
Paulette Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing what his constituents are doing.
The results speak for themselves. To date, we have secured over £15 million in investment, supported 8,000 residents—two thirds of whom are aged between 24 and 49 —and helped over 1,000 people into work. We have enrolled 1,500 residents in gateway courses, linking them to jobs, and supported major employment with recruitment drives such as at Amazon’s Peddimore site.
But it does not stop there. Witton Lodge Community Association holds regular skills workshops and jobs fairs in north Birmingham, such as the event at St Barnabas church in Erdington just two weeks ago, connecting hundreds of local unskilled jobseekers with more than 25 diverse employers. The board is working with companies such as Halfords to develop bespoke apprenticeship packages, ensuring that young people and adults can access high-quality training and job opportunities. None of this would be possible without the dedication of our partner organisations like Birmingham Metropolitan college, IM Properties, Pioneer Group and Witton Lodge Community Association.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this debate on the voluntary sector and its role in supporting people into education, training and employment. We have some good examples in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, with Youth Employment Skills, the Chell Area Family Action Group and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust all playing a vital role. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Government move forward with their plans to support young people into training and on into employment, they would be wise to consider the role that the voluntary sector plays in local communities?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I absolutely agree with what he says.
The commitment of the partner organisations in my constituency has been the driving force behind our shared vision, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. I am sure the Minister will join me as I extend my heartfelt thanks. However, progress does not come without its challenges.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has focused on the benefits of partnerships. Does she agree that employability partnerships led by third sector organisations have been shown to be more successful than traditional approaches to employability support, because they involve organisations with a wide range of expertise? Similarly, in Scotland, we have the All In partnerships led by the disability charity Enable Works, for which I used to work. Fife Gingerbread in my constituency works very successfully in partnership with other organisations to deliver employability support to lone parents.
Paulette Hamilton
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is so important for us to work together to get what we need for our local communities.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Small organisations can often have the biggest impact. Chocolate and Co. in York is taking people out of the criminal justice system and people who have had a life of addiction and turning their lives around with employment. However, it costs money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see a long-term cost-benefit analysis of what these organisations can bring, to ensure they get the funding they need to transform these people’s lives?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend raises the valuable point that we cannot do anything without money, so we must ensure that the funding is there to support these organisations to deliver what we need in our local communities.
The challenges that we face in Erdington and north Birmingham are not unique. The UK has long grappled with the skills shortages that holds back economic growth. According to the Department for Education, skills shortages have doubled between 2017 and 2022, to more than half a million, and now account for 36% of job vacancies. This a national crisis that demands a national response. That is why I was encouraged by the Labour Government’s announcement of Skills England last year. The initiative, which brings together stakeholders to meet the skills needs of the future, is exactly the kind of bold, collective approach we need. By creating a more integrated and responsive training system, Skills England will provide new opportunities for young people and support businesses in building a skilled workforce.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
In Wolverhampton, we have the Wolves at Work programme. It is co-ordinated by the City of Wolverhampton council, but involves partnership working with local employers and partner organisations. The programme provides one-to-one support to highly skilled professionals and those with no experience at all, so that they can get jobs or advance their careers. It also provides assistance to employers. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need collaborative working, with local authorities involved, and with that goes investment for authorities as well?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need collaboration. Such programmes will not work if organisations work in isolation.
There is always room for improvement. I firmly believe that the Government should look at the success of place-based partnerships and professional support, as demonstrated by the north Birmingham economic recovery board. I urge the Minister to consider the approach as a potential model for national policy.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the debate to the House. Does she agree that the third sector has to be taken into account when we are developing economic strategies? For example, in Scotland, 135,000 people are employed in the third sector in comparison to life sciences, which employs only 40,000 people. However, life sciences get a lot of public sector and university funding. In my own seat, the Aberlour children’s charity employs 94 people directly, but supports a much larger voluntary network.
Paulette Hamilton
Everybody heard my hon. Friend’s contribution and agreed with what she said.
Earlier this year, I was delighted to welcome the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), to my constituency of Birmingham Erdington. During her visit, we saw the impact of personalised assistance and wrap-around support. At the Witton Lodge Community Association, we heard from young people and local partners about their shared experiences and ideas for expanding opportunities. At Erdington jobcentre, we met dedicated work coaches who are helping residents achieve their goals, but we also heard about the challenges. Residents are waiting over three years to access English language courses, limiting their ability to find work, while others are making two-hour journeys and catching three buses for a 15-minute appointment, only to face harsh sanctions for being a few minutes late, regardless of their circumstances.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. I pay tribute to our local jobcentres, particularly in North West Leicestershire, which are working tirelessly alongside local employers and the voluntary and community sector to ensure that my constituents are equipped to enter the workforce. Does she agree that such support delivered in partnership for our young people will help them to prepare for the world of work?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes a critical point. If we want to see people grow, we have to give them the support they need; that is vital. I would not have got to Parliament without the support that I received earlier in my life.
These stories are not unique to the Birmingham Erdington constituency. Many in the Chamber will no doubt have their own stories to tell from their own constituencies, so I urge the Minister to consider the need for greater compassion and a flexible approach to employment support.
It is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work. Each community is unique and requires its own tailored support. We must not let rigid structures limit the full potential of initiatives that are already achieving extraordinary things in communities like mine. That is why I urge the Government to take a deep look at how the Department for Work and Pensions operates across the country. By incorporating local variables and using the expertise of the third sector, we can address the skills gap to help people into employment.
Matt Turmaine
Watford Workshop in my constituency does incredible work offering employment to disabled people and those with learning disabilities as well as by supporting local business in the constituency and the wider region. Does my hon. Friend agree that community and third sector organisations offer particularly invaluable work to disabled people seeking not just employment but focus and meaning?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Communities working together with people makes a difference, and as leaders it is vital that we not only encourage that but press Governments to support us to make that happen.
The work that we are doing in Erdington and north Birmingham is a testament to the power of a community, with people working together, determined to make a difference. It is a reminder that politics at its core is about helping each other, being there for one another and creating opportunities for everyone. That is what I believed when I first became a councillor 21 years ago, and it is what I believe today as an MP.
Helping people flourish in the world of work is not just an economic necessity but a moral imperative. It is how we build a brighter future for all. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the points that I have raised.
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who brought the debate to the House this evening. All hon. Members will agree that her passion and commitment to her constituency and this subject shine through. I can only say what an absolute honour it was to visit her constituency to discuss the work of the north Birmingham economic recovery board. I will come shortly to the situation in Birmingham and the approach that my hon. Friend recommends that the Government take. I hope that her remarks at the end of her speech on the purpose of politics and the role we all must play in giving everybody a chance and an opportunity in our society would be supported across the House, but she makes the case well for that approach.
And so to Birmingham. This debate is important for many reasons, not least because some parts of our country suffer much worse than others with poor employment outcomes. The Government are committed to moving towards our goal of an 80% employment rate, though some places in our country are already there. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Birmingham where the employment rate is around just 66%. That is not acceptable because when some parts of our country fall behind economically, it is bad for those places and bad for all of us, because it means that some people in our country cannot play their full role in our economic growth.
Economic inactivity is also higher than the average, and that is why our reform plans take a different approach. We are no longer doing the same thing everywhere, but trying to tailor and personalise our employment support to where people are and what they need.
Richard Baker
Does the Minister agree that one of the challenges with previous models of employability support is that they have not been tailored and they have not meet the needs of people for sustained support in that employment? Does she agree that one of the benefits of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) said is that those third sector partnerships, which bring together organisations with great expertise in certain areas in a consortium model, provide the best opportunity for a one-stop shop for people to get the tailored support that will sustain them in employment, as well as helping them find that job in the first place?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right. When I was in Erdington, my Department for Work and Pensions colleagues and I met the college, Witton Lodge and other community partners. By bringing those people together around a common goal, we can change the fortunes of a place. As I will explain in a moment, that approach is knitted into what we set out in the White Paper in November.
I want to mention my DWP colleague Lucy Divers, who has worked as part of the north Birmingham economic recovery board to bring DWP right to the heart of this local community approach. That is the right way to have a partnership where people can bring their different expertise to tackling the ingrained problems of economic disadvantage and unemployment. I met colleagues in Erdington, and we talked through the various challenges. I was struck by the importance of skills and the need to address the skills deficit, but we also need to ensure that young people—Birmingham is quite a young city—have access to the best possible jobs.
I want to mention a few ways in which the Government have redesigned employment support to try to bring this new localised approach to enable us to work better with community and third sector partners. The last Parliament saw the biggest increase in economic inactivity in nearly 40 years. We remain the only G7 country with a higher rate of economic inactivity now than before the pandemic. We have a near-record 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and, tragically, almost a million young people are not in education, employment or training and many more are stuck in low-paid work. This is an absolute crisis. It is the biggest unemployment crisis in our generation.
We know that we have to learn the lessons of the failures of the past 14 years. We cannot keep going in the same direction; we needed to change course. For me, that means localising our services, so we pay attention to the specific features of each place that we are trying to help.
David Williams
On localised services, other programmes of years gone by, such as the Work programme, had big contract package areas and moved towards nationalised models, and a lot of voluntary groups would describe themselves as “bid candy”—they were included as subcontractor partners, but they did not have any ownership of how services were delivered on the ground. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to move away from that model and towards understanding what local groups, which are rooted in their communities, can do to really play their part?
Alison McGovern
It is testament to the importance of this issue, and to how strongly Members feel about tackling unemployment in their constituencies and working across and in partnership with community groups, that so many have stayed for the Adjournment in order to make detailed points, as my hon. Friend has, on a matter that is the biggest challenge in some constituencies. I thank him for bringing that expertise and hope that we can continue this conversation as the DWP moves forward with our change programme.
As I was saying, the challenge is great. We need a totally different approach and much more local collaboration. That is why our “Get Britain Working” plan sets out three major reforms. The first is creating a new jobs and careers service that will test, trial and develop different ways of working to get much closer to communities. We are already seeing work coaches take their role out into communities to connect with people where they are, using the expertise of local community groups. We have also set up a number of trailblazers, including in the west midlands, to collaborate with the NHS and other organisations to give young people and those who are out of work because of ill health the support they need to get back into work, develop their talents and take up the opportunities on offer.
I know that we will not do that without better support for employers. That is one of the reasons I was so heartened to have a conversation in Erdington about the different employers and opportunities in Birmingham and across the midlands, and about ensuring that the DWP plays its role in serving employers better and getting the best-quality roles into jobcentres so that they are available to people who might otherwise be overlooked. That has been a crucial part of the north Birmingham economic recovery board, about which I learned, and it is a great example of how local leaders can take action, through work with employers, to get to the heart of unemployment and inequality.
I will respond to one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about enabling community groups and third sector organisations to test the efficacy of their work. She comes from the great social research city of York, so there is nobody better to make that point. Organisations can use the DWP’s data lab to establish the effectiveness of their employment programme. I encourage third sector organisations, charities and beyond to work with us to get to the heart of how we can effectively support people into work and into better work.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I am encouraged by the collaborative approach that the Minister is describing. Business and the third sector have demonstrated the power of an approach that involves just beginning and focusing on the person—the end user—and then iterating rapidly. That responsive, agile approach is really effective. Does she agree that the Government need to adopt that approach more and more as we try to address these big challenges?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think he has described the approach that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has recommended to us all: testing and trialling things quickly and reviewing what works and what does not work, and trying to respond swiftly and change quickly, rather than setting out a huge great plan that takes years to develop. That is an approach that the DWP is trying to model now. Only this morning, I was in Bolton with some work coaches who have developed a jobcentre on wheels—a van that we can take out to communities. They have done that pretty swiftly, and as my hon. Friend has described, they are trying to work out what works on the ground there so that they can feed back to us.
I will conclude now, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I fear that collectively, all of us in the Chamber could probably speak about this topic for about three hours uninterrupted. We had better not do that, but I want to finish by saying how important it is that we have had this debate this evening. The “Get Britain Working” plan sets out the requirement for all places to have such a plan for themselves, so that they can work out where their employment challenges are and work collectively to address them. Everywhere in our country must have a plan for growth, and our reforms nationally are in the spirit of the local action that we have seen in the north Birmingham area. Economic growth needs us all to pull together, and we know that when we do so, the benefits will be widely spread.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Noswaith dda, Mrs Harris; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I hope not to detain colleagues long. The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 18 December 2024, are quite straightforward and relate to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which received Royal Assent in May of that year. They amend legislation in consequence of parts 3 and 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the Act.
Part 3 of the Act updates and strengthens enforcement of consumer protection law. Part 4 updates the legislative framework on consumer protections against unfair trading, introduces substantive new consumer rights in relation to subscription contracts and consumer saving schemes, and introduces reforms to alternative dispute resolution. Chapter 2 of part 5 allows UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators with corresponding functions in relation to competition, consumer protection and digital markets. To ensure that the provisions of the Act take effect as Parliament intended, it is necessary to make consequential amendments to the enactments listed in the schedule to the regulations. These relatively minor changes do not materially alter policy, but they are needed to ensure the seamless functioning of consumer protection law and enforcement.
The amendments in the instrument fall into three broad categories. First, they extend the application of legislative provisions that permit public authorities to share certain information with consumer enforcers. At present, persons or bodies that gather information using powers under certain statutes may share that information to facilitate consumer enforcement, consumer protection or overseas investigatory assistance, in certain circumstances. The sharing is permitted by sections of the relevant statutes, which I will refer to as information gateways; these list the consumer protection legislation in relation to which information may be shared. For example, where Ofcom gathers information using powers in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the information gateway in section 101 of that Act permits it to share that information with the Competition and Markets Authority for the purpose of enforcement of, among other measures, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
As I said, the DMCC Act introduces a new consumer enforcement framework, new and updated consumer protections and new provisions on investigative assistance to overseas regulators. It is therefore necessary to add references to these provisions to the information gateways in various statutes. Were these provisions not to be updated, the current approach whereby information may be shared by public bodies to facilitate consumer protection would be unavailable in respect of the new provisions in the DMCC Act. That would compromise consumer protection, which could lead to consumer harm.
The second group of amendments are made to schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which sets out the investigatory powers of consumer law enforcers. These amendments ensure the CMA can use relevant investigatory powers to monitor compliance with certain of its new direct enforcement notices as it may do in relation to other direct or court enforcement orders. For example, at present the CMA may require a person to provide information for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person is complying with a court enforcement order against them. This enables the CMA to ensure that enforcement orders are being complied with, and that the enforcement proceedings are therefore having the desired effect. Under the DMCC Act, the CMA will also be able to use investigatory powers to monitor compliance with certain of its direct enforcement functions.
The DMCC Act introduces a new power for the CMA to give final enforcement notices for failing to respond to an information notice alongside its other direct enforcement powers. The amendments in the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the CMA is empowered to monitor compliance with this new power in the same way as in relation to the rest of the court-based and direct enforcement regime.
Finally, the draft instrument updates references to consumer laws that have been repealed and replaced by the DMCC Act, with references to the new relevant provisions introduced. Again, the amendments do not materially change the policy or the effect of the underlying law; they simply keep the statute book up-to-date in the way we all want.
I hope it is clear the intention in the regulations is to update and maintain the frameworks that underpin consumer law and its enforcement, in order to ensure that the consumer reforms can be introduced seamlessly and with no inadvertent detriment to consumers. I invite the Committee to support the instrument.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I am pleased to see that this statutory instrument builds on the good work of the previous Conservative Government in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
As the Minister said, the instrument amends legislation in consequence of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which I shall refer to as the DMCCA henceforth. Part 3 of the DMCCA updates powers to investigate and enforce consumer protection law. Part 4 gives consumers protections in respect of unfair commercial practices, subscription contracts and prepayments to savings schemes, and regulates the provision of alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes. Chapter 2 of part 5 confers statutory authority for UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators that have functions corresponding to those of UK regulators in relation to competition consumer protection and digital markets. The draft regulations update references across the statute book to the legislation that parts 3 and 4 of the Act replace, ensuring that regulators and others can disclose information to enable consumer enforcers to investigate and enforce breaches of consumer protections.
I welcome the measures taken by the Government in this statutory instrument, which builds on the work of the previous Government, but given the importance of the legislation, I would like the Minister to provide further clarity on a couple of points. The instrument updates various pieces of legislation that restrict disclosure of information to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 4 of the DMCCA. It also amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the DMCCA. Will the Minister elaborate on the protections in place to ensure that information sharing is handled appropriately and remains secure?
On perhaps more of a political note, my second question is about one of the DMCCA’s purposes, which is to provide consumers with protections against subscription traps. As the Minister well knows from our long time together in the Employment Rights Bill Committee, the Employment Rights Bill will automatically opt in trade union members to a political fund unless they expressly opt out. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on subscription traps? Are they holding businesses and trade unions to different standards?
Justin Madders
I congratulate the shadow Minister on taking a second bite of the cherry on the argument around subscription traps and trade union subscriptions. On the data protection issue, this instrument comes with basically the same safeguards that have always been in place, and that will not change. It is just the legislative envelope that is being updated, so those protections will remain.
On the shadow Minister’s political point, he is of course aware that membership of a trade union is not akin to a Netflix subscription. To be a member is to be part of an important industrial body and a society that represents people at work and provides collective bargaining in appropriate circumstances. It is not like ordering a film or something on Amazon. It is completely different and our contention is that this instrument is about people having rights as consumers, not rights as workers. That is why we make the distinction. On that note, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
This statutory instrument will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which are due to expire after 31 March this year. It will remove the expiry date and amend the five-year period from which the regulations are required to be reviewed. Prior to the laying of this SI, the principal regulations required review every five years from 1 April 2015. The first post-implementation review was delayed until 2022 due to the pandemic. We therefore wish to conduct the next review in 2028. These regulations do not change any existing policy.
The 2014 regulations set out the activities that are regulated by the Care Quality Commission and the fundamental standards with which all health and social care providers registered with it need to comply. These regulations are before the House now because if we do not amend the 2014 regulations, they will automatically expire and the CQC will have no powers to fulfil the requirements in the 2008 Act. Nor will there be an obligation on providers that are currently required to register with the CQC to comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations.
I know that some Members may have been expecting to see further changes following the report by Dr Penny Dash on the CQC’s operational effectiveness, which uncovered significant failings in its internal workings. Its operational failings, however, do not require changes to legislation. The new chief executive Sir Julian Hartley has put in place measures to address them urgently.
The regulations are silent on provisions relating to the use of restraint and on the regulation of medical care at temporary cultural and sporting events, on which the Department consulted last year. We have not overlooked those sensitive areas, and we continue to progress the work on finalising policies on them. The consultation responses on the proposal to make the use of restrictive practices notifiable to the CQC within 72 hours showed support for the measure, but highlighted a number of practical concerns, primarily that the proposed timeframe could place an additional burden on staff and risk an impact on patient care. As the Government said in their response to the consultation, further work is needed to ensure that we have the right definitions, systems and processes in place before we proceed with legislative changes.
The Government will lay a statutory instrument in due course to remove the exemption relating to the regulation of medical care at temporary cultural and sporting events. With this change, providers of such care will be required to register with the CQC for the first time.
I commend the regulations to the Committee and hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the amendments that they make.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
I thank the Minister for stepping in, and we agree that this SI needs to be passed with urgency. I also agree that it is not the place for a discussion of the CQC and its failings. She highlighted a couple of issues of concern, on which I would like to probe the Government a little, such as ending the exemption for sports arenas and cultural events. Given the Manchester Arena bombing and inquiry, it is clear that protections need to be in place, but the Opposition are concerned about the burden on small businesses and charity groups, which may well have to deal with the red tape involved in being regulated by the CQC. I would therefore be grateful if the Government considered producing an impact assessment of that red tape and how it will work in practice. CQC registration makes perfect sense when there are medical interventions in arenas, but how is it likely to work for a small football club run on a voluntary basis, or for a charity? At this point, I declare an interest: my brother is a sport and exercise medicine consultant and the medical director of the Lawn Tennis Association and so could in theory come within scope of some of these changes.
As part of the consultation response, the Government stated that
“further policy and operational consideration”
was needed. Will the Minister clarify what that means in practice? I also want to ask the Minister a question about regulation 5 of the 2014 regulations, which set out the criteria for an individual to be considered a fit and proper person to take up a role as a director of a health service body or provider. The last Government started a review of the duty of candour expected of healthcare professionals. Will the Minister provide an update on when the Department will publish the outcome of that consultation, and have the Government made an assessment of how the outcome of the consultation may affect the provisions of the 2014 regulations as they relate to criteria for directors of health and care providers?
Overall, the Opposition are supportive of the direction in which the Government want to go with this legislation. We understand the urgency of the timetable in front of us, but the concerns felt by Opposition Members will need to be addressed, so that we do not inadvertently overburden some of these institutions, which are already feeling difficulties when it comes to regulation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members for their support for the regulations. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point regarding care at sporting and temporary cultural events. We all remember the awful events at Manchester Arena and the lessons to be learnt from there. Although there is some good practice in healthcare provided at some of these events, there remain examples of poor, unregulated healthcare that does not sufficiently protect members of the public, so it is right that the CQC has oversight of the sector.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points about proportionality—that is essentially the word I would ascribe to these measures. People need to be assured that there is safety and some proportionality, and I think those points should be taken on board for the next phase of this work. If we need to come back to him specifically on that or write to him about how it proceeds, we will absolutely do that. We all want to support events in our communities and support the volunteers and people who come forward for such things. They are a really important part of the fabric of our lives, so I think it is very important that people have assurances around that.
I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the further questions that the he asked about the CQC and the fit and proper persons test. As he rightly says, they are not a matter for this SI, but as the work goes on and as we listen to our colleagues in the other House, and their debate about the Mental Health Act in particular, there will be a number of issues that we want to make sure are dealt with properly and that will come into the next phase. We will endeavour to make sure we update him on progress with that work as well.
Patient safety is a top priority for us, and the CQC plays an important role in ensuring that providers meet the standards of care that we expect for the public—patients, carers, and families and loved ones. Its purpose is to monitor, inspect and regulate health and care services and make sure that providers meet the fundamental standards of quality and safety.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister quite rightly raised the important issue of patient safety. In October, the Government appointed a new boss of the CQC. The Minister will be aware that, in January, following a BBC investigation and whistleblower evidence, families alleged serious wrongdoing regarding a number of baby deaths at the hospital of which the new CQC boss had been chief executive for the past 10 years. Can the Minister say how that has been factored into the appointment of the new CQC boss or whether the families, in the view of the Minister, were wrong in the concerns they raised?
Karin Smyth
In appointing Sir Julian Hartley, proper processes were conducted. He was seen to be fit and proper to lead the CQC, and we have confidence in his ability to do so.
Steve Barclay
He was appointed in October. Whistleblowers, the BBC investigation and families have raised concerns regarding maternity services at Leeds. The Minister will be aware that there is renewed scrutiny of maternity safety and rightly so. That is a key issue for the CQC. Were the families wrong in their concerns? What has the Minister done to investigate them? Quite rightly, she highlighted the point of patient safety.
Karin Smyth
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about maternity care, which is very sadly an issue of concern in many places across the country. Of course, those patients and families are absolutely right to call out poor care where they have seen it. It is absolutely right that that is fully investigated, and that is what we would expect at Leeds and in other places around the country.
The CQC’s leadership in ensuring that we have safety and confidence is critical for the role. On that basis, we would like to move forward with this SI to remove the expiry date in the 2014 regulations, to amend the five-year period and to ensure that health and care providers continue to be required to register with the CQC and comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations after 31 March this year. We also want to make sure that services continue to be required to provide a safe and high quality standard of care.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) to move the motion, I should inform Members that during today’s debate the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming for its series on procedural explainers.
Forty-nine colleagues have asked to speak in the debate, so if everyone is to get in, I have to impose from the beginning a three-minute limit on everybody taking part after the opener, apart from the winding-up speeches. Every time Members intervene, they will ensure that one of their colleagues will not get in at the end. If the hon. Member for South Norfolk, in his opening speech, takes too many interventions, or his speech goes on too long, he will prevent others from taking part. Let us all bear that in mind—short speeches of no more than three minutes, please.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700138 relating to Inheritance Tax relief for working farms.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. To date, the petition in question has received just shy of 150,000 signatures, which is a mark of the strength of feeling that exists about the proposed policy change. The petitioners argue that
“changing inheritance tax relief for agricultural land will devastate farms nationwide, forcing families to sell land and assets just to stay on their property.”
I put on the record my thanks to the diligent staff of the Petitions Committee who have secured for me, as a representative of the petitioners, meetings with the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tax Policy Associates, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rural Accountancy Group. As the Member of Parliament for the rural constituency of South Norfolk, which is formed of a patchwork quilt of farms, I am honoured to lead this debate and, in doing so, to give a voice to the farmers in my constituency who have contacted me to share their thoughts about the planned changes to inheritance tax on agricultural businesses.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
In 2012, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and I opposed the then Chancellor’s proposal to impose VAT on static caravans, as it was clearly wrong when we looked into it. Will the hon. Gentleman do the right thing, represent his rural constituents and recognise that this ruinous policy will not only destroy family farms across the country but put up food prices and worsen our national energy security? He should do the right thing, challenge his Chancellor and take some of his colleagues with him.
Ben Goldsborough
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention after one minute and 26 seconds. I will try to get through my speech so that he can hear what I am about to say. As I was saying, I want to give a voice to the farmers in my constituency who have contacted me to share their thoughts about the planned changes to inheritance tax on agricultural businesses. It is their views, not mine, that I will focus on today.
Not many petitions submitted to the Petitions Committee can demonstrate not just a willingness to engage in online activism but real-world engagement with Parliament. Campaigns by the NFU, the CLA and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have been effective in drawing attention to petitioners’ concerns, as has the “Stop the family farm tax” campaign, which has placed banners across many constituencies, including mine. No matter what our opinions on the proposed policy changes, this issue has created public engagement with politics from the countryside that has not been seen in over 20 years. That is why this debate is both needed and important to demonstrate to farmers that, by peacefully engaging with Parliament, their voices can be heard. They have been effective in successfully shedding light on the daily challenges that face this fundamental sector. I thank them for that and encourage them to continue to advocate positively for rural Britain.
I want to touch on three key areas that I have discussed with the NFU, the CLA and others: first, the feeling of many farmers about the planned policy changes; secondly, the statistics that underpin the debate; and thirdly, proposals put forward by petitioners, stakeholders and experts that it is important for the Minister to hear and respond to based on the Government’s current thinking. I will aim to cover those topics on behalf of petitioners without being sensationalist. After all, a lot of emotion and politics has been attached to this debate so far, and understandably so. Nonetheless, that has arguably been done at times to obscure the rational arguments that many farmers, MPs and organisations have been making, some of which accept that agricultural property relief is likely to change but advocate for more graduated approaches.
Today is a day for calm, thoughtful debate on behalf of the petitioners, and I welcome all Members’ contributions in that spirit. I suggest that the endgame—a more acceptable policy for farmers—will not be achieved by bashing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Treasury or the Minister, or by simply repeating the well-worn arguments we have heard over the past few months. Let this debate be a reflection of what this House does best, which is to consider a complex problem from all sides and seek to offer potential solutions to the Government.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
If we take it that the Government are trying to address the large tax avoiders—the Dysons and the billionaires who invest to avoid tax—and that they want to protect real farmers, it is perfectly possible for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to do so. Farmers are not on pay-as-you-earn; they all make submissions, every year, on the amount of time, work and effort they put in, and the money they make from farming. Would it not be possible to give an unlimited exemption to people who are real farmers, based on their HMRC submissions?
Ben Goldsborough
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I will cover that later in my speech.
Since being elected as the MP for South Norfolk, I have made a conscious choice to sit around as many farmhouse tables as humanly possible. It has been clear to me that South Norfolk needed politics to be done differently and, instead of being on broadcast mode, I have done all I can to listen, engage and try to deliver for all constituents in my little slice of Norfolk. I know that many of my colleagues on the Government Benches have done exactly the same.
Not all conversations have been smooth but, as I said to my recent meeting with the NFU’s Norwich and Loddon branch, I will never shirk away from my responsibility to be their voice in Parliament and to raise their views with Ministers. Today, I have had the opportunity to do that as a member of the Petitions Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to lay out the arguments I have heard over the past few weeks in preparation for this debate.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Listening is really important. I have heard from my local farmers that they are caught between thinking, “Is this a mistake?” and thinking, “Is this done on purpose?” Did the Government mistakenly not realise that they were going to bring all these family farmers into inheritance tax and agricultural change? Or, worse still, was it planned all along as a way to get the land for housing and some of the net zero targets? Either could be true. Does the hon. Gentleman have a preference over which one it is? Farmers want to know whether it was a mistake that should be rectified or it is an ideal policy driven by the Government.
Ben Goldsborough
I am about to share the testimonies of my local farmers in South Norfolk. All too often as politicians we are keen to take the limelight for ourselves instead of listening to those on the ground who want us to put forward their opinions, which is what I am about to do.
One of my local farmers, Will, asked me to share his words:
“The government’s decision to make major changes to APR and BPR”—
business property relief—
“will spell the end for many family farms. Before this announcement, agriculture was already going through a difficult period and for many farmers, this news has left them without hope.”
Another farmer, Robert, wished for me to say:
“We are trapped with no way to mitigate against the effects of this cruel tax. Farming is who we are, it’s in our blood, it’s all we want to do.”
And another farmer, Tim, requested that I share this:
“I have spent my entire working life trying to build this farm up and have added about 200 acres in my time. I see myself as a custodian of the land which I know like the back of my hand and I feel responsible for it…to have to sell would be devastating and would go against all that I have worked for.”
Will, Robert and Tim all fear the significant consequences of the proposed APR changes on smaller family farmers, and I believe that their views are shared by many farmers who have historically operated under a 100% agricultural property relief system. There is no getting away from their genuine concerns and I know that, in his response, my hon. Friend the Minister will address those feelings in the sensitive manner required.
There can be no doubt that the arguments that land values are artificially high due to APR have credence. It is also undeniably true that we see non-farmers buying land for tax-efficiency reasons. Neither of those trends are positive but, to be clear, that does not mean that farmers are wrong when they raise concerns about paying a large one-off inheritance tax bill with anything other than the land they need to keep their heads above water, even if the bill is spread over 10 years.
The proposed policy change has arguably pointed to a fundamental issue for agriculture, which is the annual profitability of British farms. There is significant work for the Government to do to ensure that farms up and down the UK become more profitable during this Parliament, and I know the Minister is working hard on that.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the petition, which some Monmouthshire farmers have signed. Does he agree with the policy of our Labour Government to protect farmers through trade deals, unlike the Conservative party, which unfortunately signed trade deals that flooded our high streets and towns with foreign imports? That protection would really help the profitability of farms.
Ben Goldsborough
This debate has created a space in which we can talk about other issues that affect farms. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and I had an amazing debate on biosecurity in the UK, and there was cross-party consensus on many issues. There are also the issues with the sustainable farming initiative, payments through the basic payment schemes and the future of the environmental land management schemes. There is so much we need to do, including through trade deals. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
I have touched on some of our farmers’ concerns, but facts and figures are also important. I apologise in advance, but the next bit of my speech may be a bit dry. The most recent data shows that the top 7% of inheritance tax relief claims accounts for 40% of the total cost of agricultural property relief—that is a value of £219 million. The top 2%—just 37 claims—accounted for 22% of the total cost of the relief and was worth £119 million. This is factual data, and in this context the Government’s ambition for implementing this policy is sound: to end the system by which the very wealthiest in this country can avoid huge sums of inheritance tax by buying up land.
The petitioners argue that the proposed policy changes will not achieve that ambition because not just the wealthiest landowners will be impacted. The CLA estimates that capping agricultural property relief at £1 million could impact 70,000 UK farms. The NFU estimates that 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million cap, which of course can rise to £3 million under certain conditions. Petitioners and local farmers regularly remind me that not every farmer is married or lives in a farmhouse in their own name.
By contrast, the Treasury projects that around only 500 estates will be affected each year, based on historical claims. The IFS and the CLA both independently acknowledged in discussions with me that it is hard to project revenue or impact because behavioural changes are extremely hard to account for. It is clear, however, that the behavioural changes required by farmers will be enormous.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ben Goldsborough
I will continue for a little while.
There is a deep uncertainty among farmers about what the changes will mean for them. Uncertainty is bad for business and it is bad for farmers’ mental health, so I encourage the Government to offer as much proactive engagement and clarity to farmers as possible, including in their response to this debate.
Another primary reason why farmers are so concerned is that they already face a challenge in keeping their businesses profitable. The CLA modelled a typical 350-acre arable farm. They told me that even if they spread the cost over 10 years, the farmer would be paying 100% of their annual profits for each of those 10 years to cover the proposed inheritance tax bill. That is a decade without profit. It should be acknowledged that all individuals across the UK are subject to rules that encourage gifting in advance of death. Farmers look likely to enter this world. It is true that farmers have held on to assets for longer than the average person because of APR, and the habit is unlikely to continue.
Ben Goldsborough
I am sorry but I have taken a lot of interventions and want to move on to the next part of my speech.
I will now touch on solutions. The petition is clear that it seeks the scrapping of the policy. I will leave it for the Minister to respond with the official position; suffice it to say that all Members in this debate can agree that land banking for inheritance tax purposes is wrong, and that land values are prohibitively expensive for many farms to be able to expand and, even more so, for new farmers looking to enter the industry. Many farmers would like to see those things change over the coming years.
Farmers have told me that if the policy is not scrapped altogether, alternatives could be considered to give the sector more stability at the same time as helping the Government to achieve their ambition of a thriving rural economy. One such alternative is a shortened taper rate for older farmers. Under that proposal, a farmer aged 70, for example, would be given two to three years to hand over their property with a 33% or 50% taper rate after one year. Farmers in my constituency would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal, as it was raised with me at a recent meeting I had with the NFU eastern team. There are, of course, various ways of tweaking such approach by age or taper time but, according to farmers, movement on that front would give those who have worked the longest under the existing APR rules the ability to arrange their affairs more quickly.
Steve Barclay
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am confused by his argument. He is talking about the crux of the issue: what is the scope of this tax? He voted in favour of it. He was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press as saying that it would not hit “proper farming families”. Is it his position that this tax does not hit proper farming families, or should the scope of the tax be changed? That is the crux of the issue, and with respect to the argument he has set out, I do not know what his position is, other than that he voted not to change the scope.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member has spoken for 15 minutes, so could he bring his remarks to a close to allow others to speak?
Ben Goldsborough
To reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I said at the start of my speech that the problem is that the issue has been turned into a political football, and that undermines our ability to speak in clear-minded ways about options and opportunities. It is really sad that across from me is a shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who has worked very hard on this issue, and with whom I have worked cross-party, but the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), does not want to work in a manner that could get the best outcome for our farmers.
David Davis
On a point of order, Sir Edward. Could you give us guidance? I thought—perhaps wrongly, because of my inexperience—that somebody representing petitioners in the Chamber had to make the argument for them and believe in what they are asking for. We have had absolutely the opposite today; the petitioners have had no service in this debate up until now.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
That is a matter for debate, but I am sure that plenty of Members present will give the argument for the petitioners, so I would not worry much about it.
Ben Goldsborough
There is one other option that it is important to consider before I finish. Mr Neidle, a tax specialist, recently said that the Government should consider a clawback system, potentially raising the threshold and looking at repayment.
My job today has been to represent the views of the 150,000 people who signed the petition and, by pulling together the various options that people would like to see, I believe I have done so. I thank friends from all political parties around the Chamber for engaging and showing interest in this issue. It is important that we all stand up for our communities, and I thank everyone for doing that. I thank the Minister for listening to my contribution and hope he takes it in the spirit of friendship with which it was meant. I hope I have set out the options on the table in respect of which those outside the Chamber would like to hear a response from the Government about what action will be taken.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Today I will highlight the shortsighted, reckless and misguided Labour policy to increase tax on farmers. I start by paying tribute to the petitioner for raising this important issue, and to the hundreds if not thousands of farmers outside this place showing how much they hate the policy.
It is an issue that has dismayed and appalled my constituents in the Scottish Borders. They are bitterly disappointed because this decision by the Prime Minister will mean the sad—even tragic—end of many family farms. Many farmers will no longer be able to pass their property, on which their ancestors may have worked for decades or longer, on to the next generation. That is not right. It is not why they have worked so hard to look after the countryside, and why they have got up early and worked late all their days.
What makes it worse is that they feel betrayed by a Labour Government that promised this would not happen. Labour made it abundantly clear that it would not increase taxes on farmers. But just like with the winter fuel payment to pensioners, and national insurance rises on businesses, Labour did not tell the truth. It broke its promises, and the consequences of it not keeping its word will be profound to people in the Borders, Scotland and the United Kingdom.
It is not only farmers in my constituency that the policy impacts, nor only workers in the rural economy, nor businesses in the food and drink industry. If the policy continues, it will affect everyone in one way or another. Labour’s decision will force the breaking up of many family farms, which will be tragic for those families. But it will also mean higher prices in shops and supermarkets for the rest of us. It will put our food security at risk and harm the environment, as we are forced to rely on costly imports that are not as high quality and that are flown in from much further away. How does any of that make sense?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, with the Government showing their inability to crack a good deal when they go into negotiations, they may well give in on any potential trade deal with America and allow cheaper products to undermine our beef and chicken farms?
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are no longer self-sufficient in food production, we will become much more dependent on lower quality overseas imports.
Labour has made a grave error, which will cost our farmers and our country dearly. That is why so many people in the borders and across the whole United Kingdom are concerned by this decision. It will have negative consequences that last generations, and that may not be reparable. Unlike any other businesses, farms cannot come back once they close; they are often gone for good.
Labour simply is not listening. The Government even admitted as much to me lately: I submitted a question to the Secretary of State for DEFRA to ask how much correspondence his Department had received from individuals making representations on changes to APR and business property relief for inheritance tax since October, and the only response I got was that Ministers do not know—they do not have this information. That shows a stunning lack of respect for farmers and food producers. The Labour Government simply do not care.
Labour needs to rethink its family farm tax policy. Labour said “change” often enough in the run-up to the general election, and that is exactly what needs to happen now: this deeply damaging policy needs to change. It needs to be scrapped, or family farms will be lost, supermarket prices will go up, food security will be at risk and our environment will suffer. The Scottish and British people have spoken on this policy; now, Labour needs to listen.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I will keep my comments brief. Every week when I am out in the constituency, I take the time to visit a farm, and this issue always comes up. It is concerning for many in my constituency. They are clear that it is not as though everything was ticking along nicely and then suddenly this hit; they were sold down the river by the Conservative party, with the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. But this has caused a great deal of consternation.
A chap I visited last month said, “I don’t want to tell a tale of woe. I am doing okay. There are good farmers and there are bad farmers, and that affects profitability, but I am concerned that this policy is going to rob me of my inheritance, which several generations of my family have worked incredibly hard to build up.” This level of concern, justified or not, merits the Government’s listening. I hope that they will do so.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Government have said they are listening. I also hope they hear the tractors and farmers from across this country outside this building today. They are showing their disgust at this proposal.
I want to bring the Northern Ireland angle to this debate. Some 150,000 petitioners signed the petition. I had the pleasure of presenting a similar petition, on behalf of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, signed by 15,000 people from Northern Ireland who oppose the Government’s proposal, which will decimate the Northern Ireland family farm and family farming industry. Because of the structure and size of our family farms, it will hit us disproportionately compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
This is where the Treasury’s figures do not match up with those of the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers’ Association. We have recently had bare agricultural land sell for £28,000 per acre. I want to emphasise that that is per acre because, when this proposal was first made, some in the Treasury got acres and hectares mixed up. That price of land starts to put the bare minimum small family farm in the scope of this financial grab, which will see the end of what generations of farmers have built up.
Figures from our own Department, DAERA, show that 80% of Northern Ireland’s total farmland, 90% of its dairy industry and 70% of its beef and sheep farming will fall within this scope, so when it comes to the wrecking that this proposed financial tax-grab will do to Northern Ireland farmers, as well as farmers across the United Kingdom, this Government have not fully listened to what has come out of DAERA or DEFRA here. It is, as a Member said earlier, simply a Treasury grab at a balance. It looks at a spreadsheet, but does not have a true understanding of the impact that this will have on families and generations across our country, so I ask the Government and the Minister to engage—and to make sure that the Treasury engages—with the farm unions across this nation, because they do not fully grasp the impact that this will have.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. There is no doubt that farmers have suffered hugely over the past 14 years, with the damaging impact of botched Tory trade deals and trade barriers doing a huge amount to undermine their hard work. I know that there is so much that the Government can do and are doing to support farmers.
I welcome the £5 billion pledged over two years to support farming, which is the biggest sustainable food production investment we have ever seen. That will make a huge difference, but I must be honest: some farmers in my constituency have raised concerns with me about the tax changes announced in the Budget, including the 40 or so farmers that I met this morning in my constituency. That is why I felt it was important to speak in this debate: to give them a voice and convey their concerns directly to the Minister.
First, I support Government efforts to tackle the actions of some of the wealthiest people in our society, who are buying up farmland to avoid inheritance tax. Those selfish individuals are not only starving our public services of much needed funds, but are undermining farming by inflating the price of farmland and preventing young farmers from entering the sector. Tackling that fundamental problem is something that many farmers in my constituency support.
I will list some of the concerns raised by farmers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, starting with Robert, from Overhouse farm in Dordon, who asked whether the inheritance tax threshold could be raised beyond £1 million. Joe and Martin Brandreth, famers from Fillongley and Bedworth in my constituency, asked what steps the Treasury has taken to forecast future farmland valuations of how much this tax will raise, to ensure the policy has been calculated on the basis of valuations of properties at the point of tax, and not on historic values.
Helen Fisher from Grendon expressed her concerns that changes to inheritance tax will reduce the incentive for farms to invest in improving their productivity. Will the Minister confirm what action is being taken to ensure that farmers are incentivised to make their farms more productive? Chris Corbett from Atherstone raised concerns about the impact that erratic weather is having on the productivity of his farm, with a 30% drop in harvests this year. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to support farmers to adapt to the challenge of climate change and improve productivity?
Ralph Arnold from Seckington, which is near Tamworth, asked whether the Government could consider rethinking nitrogen fertiliser tax, or exempting double-cab pick-ups from vehicle taxation when they are in use as essential farm vehicles. Finally, Adam Beaty is a tenant farmer who is concerned about the impact on him should his landlord try to sell to cover an inheritance tax liability.
I wanted to make a number of other points, but time is short. Farming is fundamental to the fabric of our nation, and is at the heart of my constituency.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
This is a flagrant reversal of the promises that were made. The Prime Minister appeared before the National Farmers Union conference and shed crocodile tears as he said to the hundreds of farmers assembled, as well as the widely listening electorate in rural areas, that he knew what it meant to lose a family farm. His voice trembled with that emotional resonance as he conveyed to those people in my constituency, across England and in all the regions of this great country that he would never impose upon them the tax that he has imposed upon them. It is a cynical breach of a promise made by a man seeking the highest office in this land, and upon his promises, thousands of people relied: the elderly widower whose deceased spouse cannot transfer her allowance, the widows, the elderly farmers who now fear that if they do not survive for seven years, their family farm, often the work of a century of their ancestors with herds cultivated and nurtured over decades, will be lost because the family will have to sell off great portions of their farms.
The farms are farmed not necessarily for the profit they make, because the profit is exiguous, but for the love of the life farmers lead and for the support of the fabric of the rural communities that we who represent them cherish and adore. It is that blow, aimed with unerring accuracy at the very heart of rural life, that is the reason for the outrage we do not hear only upon these Benches today. Listen to the horns blowing outside. That is the voice of real democracy. That is the voice of the people crying out to those of us here to change direction on this harmful and damaging decision.
I appeal to the Minister, for whom I feel sorry. He has been sent out like a nightwatchman to face the fast bowling in the twilight of the evening on the test match’s last day, and it is Michael Holding coming in to bowl. I do not envy him his task. He should go back to his seniors and tell them to change direction. The time has come for the Ministry and the Ministers to accept that they are wrong. Their figures are wrong. They should change the policy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, I have not been short of opportunities to speak about this issue in recent months, so I shall keep my remarks short so that others might place their constituents’ concerns on the record. I should declare that I am a farmer and landowner. That is entered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), introducing the debate, said that what is necessary now is meaningful engagement with the Government. He is absolutely right. May I say to the Minister who is replying to that debate that that engagement has to come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer herself? For her not yet to have met with representatives of the farming unions from across the four nations of this country is unacceptable, and that has to change soon.
Farmers are not, as the Secretary of State said to the Select Committee on 19 November, wrong in their understanding of this issue. What is wrong are the numbers on which the Government have based the policy that they have brought forward. It will affect many more farmers and estates than is currently believed or admitted by the Treasury. As Jeremy Moody said when he gave evidence to the Committee, this is a policy that penalises those whom the Government want to protect while protecting those whom they say they want to penalise.
The whole policy needs to be paused and reconsidered. It needs to be done because no proper consideration was given in the first instance to the full range of unintended consequences. In that regard, I have one question that I want the Minister to answer today: before the policy announcement was made, what consideration was given in the Treasury to the very particular position of tenants in Scotland who hold their tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991? Essentially, the situation there is that a 1991 tenancy gives rise to an asset that is a chargeable asset for taxation purposes, which survives death; but because they are tenants, they do not have an asset that they can sell on in order to pay their tax bill. That seems to me to be a point of fundamental inequity.
If Ministers did not consider that before they put their proposals in the Budget, what else was given insufficient consideration? There is a need to reform inheritance tax. There are good things that, with proper consideration, we could do for agriculture, but in order to do that, the policy must first of all be paused, and the proper engagement that we have spoken of needs to happen.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I am delighted to see such fantastic attendance at this debate.
I have two simple things to say. A week ago yesterday, I attended the farmers’ rally in John O’ Groats, at the other end of the United Kingdom. I was the only politician there. It was a cold, blowy day and the farmers and their tractors were out in force. I spoke to many of them and heard their concern. Even that far away from Westminster, it was exactly the same as we are hearing expressed in this debate: their fear of losing the farm.
That takes me to my second simple point. I was brought up on a dairy farm. Bought by my great-great grandfather, Donald Fraser, it was in the family from the early-to-mid-19th century—a long, long time—but due to financial circumstances, my father had to sell almost all of it. Today, my brother and I own the princely sum of two fields. Here is the point: not a day goes by that I do not look toward the fields we used to own, on the shores of the Dornoch firth, and wish that we still owned them.
The farm is in my blood. It is not like selling stocks and shares, or selling a holiday home in Spain; it is in the blood, it is in the family. Unless I were to win the lottery, I will never be able to buy back those fields. I am not likely to win the lottery and even then, land goes up in value. It is emotional, and that attachment makes it very different from other things one might own. This point has already been made, but once the farm is gone, it is gone forever.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I have held dozens and dozens of conversations with farmers across my constituency of North Northumberland. It has become clear to me that they welcome the principle of this policy, which is to stop the super-wealthy from minimising their tax liabilities by land banking with agricultural land. Not one of those farmers told me that they have a problem with the aim of the policy: to stop the wealthy avoiding tax. However, in the same conversations, many of the farmers told me that they are concerned that their businesses will be adversely affected. I wonder, therefore, if the relief element of the policy could be recalibrated.
The Government’s aim is to support our farmers and our food security, but we are doing that in a context where Tory inaction over 14 years has left great challenges, including climate change, a muddled and chaotic Brexit, and, as we have heard, deals on lamb and beef that our farmers are concerned about. We are not working in a vacuum. I am the first Labour MP in history for the vast majority of my constituency; that is not because the population were happy with what the Conservatives delivered for the countryside and farmers. I ask the Government to consider whether the balance is right. I have spoken to farmers in my constituency whose farms are worth £5 million, £8 million, £20 million and everything in between.
Catherine Fookes
Yesterday I visited Emma, a dairy farmer in my constituency. She still has a mortgage on her farm, which means that she cannot pass it on now. How might the inheritance tax work for her?
David Smith
Our farmers are facing a great many challenges, including being very over-leveraged in debt, and we should consider that. I spoke to one farmer whose land is valued at £16 million, so their new inheritance tax liability will be about £2.8 million, but they make just £96,000 profit per year. There are several examples of farmers who have low profits but face enormous bills.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
My farmers in my Shrewsbury constituency have told me that they have struggled to make a profit for many years now. Indeed, they say, “The only game in town is to go big or go bust.” In other words, 12,000 small farmers have gone under because, over the last decade, farming has not been a profitable business. They tell me that they are ready to make some of the behavioural changes needed to pass the asset down to the next generation, who have just come out of agricultural college and learned all these new techniques, so that it can be profitable, sustainable and environmentally friendly. However, they also want me to pass on the information that our oldest farmers will not be able to make that behaviour change quickly enough. Will the Minister consider a temporary transitional extension to the taper, perhaps at year two, to help them to make the changes, which they are willing to do, and to make this policy work?
David Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend that these are some of the challenges our farmers are facing. As these examples show, the value of the land often bears no relation to the limited cash flow and the profit that is made. It is reassuring that a few tweaks to the policy would remove most of the pressure on family farms while maintaining the pressure on land bankers, who are the focus of the policy. Hardly a single North Northumberland farm will enjoy 100% relief, even with the nil-rate band, so raising the threshold would give instant peace of mind to family farmers.
I suspect that the Government could use data from the Rural Payments Agency and DEFRA to implement an active farmer test and judge whether the land is being put to public use and is therefore eligible for relief. That would differentiate intergenerational farmers and those simply buying farmland to reduce their tax liability. If a clawback mechanism is added and the land is then sold, for example, 10 years after gifting, the Government can reserve the right to claw the relief back for the public purse. Many of these measures have been in place in Ireland since 2015.
I know that the Minister is hearing the same thing that I am from farmers across the country. I urge him and his colleagues to work together to consider whether this policy can be recalibrated to achieve both the Government’s aims of supporting our nation’s family farms and of closing the loopholes that have distorted our land values for too long.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Government talk a lot about growth, and we often debate economic growth both here and in the main Chamber, but when we talk about farming, we talk instead about food production, sufficiency and security. We talk about land stewardship, we talk about fairness, and we talk about rural communities and the countryside way of life. All those things are true and relevant, but this is also a debate about economic growth.
Economic growth requires productivity gains and productivity gains require investment, and this policy is clearly going to hit investment in the vital rural sector badly. That is intuitively obvious, because there is now a new liability that agricultural businesses have to plan for. It also chimes entirely with what I hear in and around Hampshire from agricultural suppliers and machinery dealers about redundancies, depot closures and projects being cancelled. My question to the Minister is: what monitoring are the Government doing of investment in the agricultural sector and the harm that this policy may do to productivity?
It is often said, and it has been said again today, that farming is not a normal business. My East Hampshire farmers are very quick to remind us that it is a business, and they have to be able to make a living, but it is abnormal in one key sense: economists talk about normal profit and supernormal profit, but there is no such thing as sub-normal profit. If a business is not making enough to be economic, the idea is that it is not in business, and many of these farming businesses are not. These are farmers who accept a sub-economic return on capital employed, and they do that because while their farm is a business, it is more than just a business, a job or an investment. Ministers should not expect the same approach to be taken if family farms are broken up and replaced by something else.
The Government have repeatedly said, “Don’t worry. The effect of this will be reduced because couples can pass on assets between them.” However, we know from a written question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), that only half of farmers are in couples. Almost half are individuals, and this policy will affect far more farms than I think, to be fair to them, the Treasury or officials even realised to begin with, and certainly far more than the numbers we have discussed in this House. There are reasons why agricultural relief was first brought in. It was not a loophole or an accident; it was brought in to achieve a purpose, and there are reasons why it has been retained all these years.
It is not unheard of for a Government to discover that when they bring in a tax, its effect in practice is not quite as they expected when they did the spreadsheet and when the Minister signed off the sub. It is not too late for this Minister and this Government to change their minds and to make significant changes. There is no shame in it, and I urge them to do so.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am here to speak up for the farmers in my constituency of Bishop Auckland, which is a Labour farming community. Farmers in my area are worried. They put their trust in us at the general election, and why did they do so? Because they had been so badly let down for 14 years and they knew that the previous Government could have done more on things like trade deals, supply chains, flood defences and crime.
Let me tell the House what farmers in my constituency are telling me. They say that they have no problem with the principle that we should be closing tax loopholes. To quote the Telegraph, they want to stop billionaires “hoovering up agricultural land”, which they know is pushing up land prices. They even support the principle of paying tax and raising revenue for the Treasury, because they know that Treasury revenue is necessary to improve the NHS and improve schools in their communities, as well as having a strong agricultural budget. They are not asking for a full U-turn, by the way; they are asking for some meaningful tweaks that will help the policy to better target the goals that it intends to achieve.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
We have heard quite a few suggestions already of ways in which this policy could be tweaked or amended. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to get Treasury officials to at least model some of those changes, to help to advance the debate in the coming months?
Sam Rushworth
I welcome that intervention. There are two areas in particular on which I think farmers in my constituency would like some answers. One is thresholds. Because the policy still keeps the 50% agricultural property relief, it does not actually close a tax loophole at all for the very wealthiest. My constituents would like to see the modelling from the Treasury that says that it would. Meanwhile, because the threshold is quite low, it means that sadly some of the family farms in my constituency will really struggle to pay their inheritance tax bill. They would like to see what modelling has been done around the thresholds; they are not asking for a U-turn, because they understand that it should be neutral for the Treasury, but they would be interested to know whether we could lift the threshold but go to 40% tax at another threshold. Would that better protect the small family farms and do a better job of closing the tax loophole at the same time?
Another point on which my constituents would welcome some consideration is the proposal for a clawback. Someone who inherits a £5 million farm is not a millionaire; they are the custodian of agricultural land, with a responsibility to farm it to produce food for the nation. If they sell a £5 million farm they become a millionaire, but they do not become one simply by inheriting it. Farmers in my constituency would be interested to look at the proposal, and it would be helpful for them to understand the modelling that the Treasury has done. Among that Labour farming community, there is good will for this Government on many things we are trying to achieve. That good will can be retained. There would be no shame in looking at this again.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful contribution. He is clearly looking at ways in which the policy can be amended to make it more palatable to the farming community. That may be the reality that we are looking at, rather than getting rid of it altogether. Does he therefore agree that we should look at changing the transitional arrangements so that succession planning can be properly undertaken, which at present it clearly cannot, or indeed that we should look at leaseback arrangements to enable viable farms to continue?
Sam Rushworth
There are a variety of things that could be looked at. I met the NFU this morning and we discussed various points. I feel that these are all things that should be considered. I reiterate that I believe that the community I represent still has good will toward this Government and the intentions of this Government, but there are aspects of the policy that could be tweaked to better achieve their intentions.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I rise to speak for the 468 signatories to this petition who are residents of my constituency. I have to tell you that that is about 11 times more Angus and Perthshire Glens constituents than have signed any other petition from this place. Never in my time in this Parliament have I seen MPs perched on windowsills to be in the room for a debate. There are mass demonstrations outside, and there was a demonstration on the South Inch in Perth at the weekend.
This policy is fundamentally unjust. The Government said that they would not do it, and they have gone ahead and done it. They have applied it without any warning. There is no taper into the new regime. It gives no time for farmers to adjust their tax arrangements. It is diametrically opposed to current tax advice, which is grossly unfair. It ignores the fact that there is no actual financial enrichment; farmers simply become the custodian of an asset. It does not go after the non-farming interests that are avoiding tax. It ignores the disproportionate effect on Scotland. It ignores the fact that a quarter of Scottish farms are tenanted—it has zero provision for those—and it does not take cognisance of the 15,000 Scottish crofts that are grossly adversely affected by it.
This policy is economically incoherent. It is a tax on the production of food. It will precipitate a reduction in investment. That will mean lower yields, which will mean higher prices. That will be inflationary, which is the last thing that this economy needs. It is not just farmers who will be undone by this policy; it is the entire agricultural supply chain.
This policy undermines the reinvestment model from generation to generation. It ignores the societal benefit of agriculture to our rural communities. With BPR, it is a betrayal of the divestment drive to which farmers have so dutifully been applying themselves over the past 20 years. It risks the sell-off of family farms across places such as Angus and Perthshire Glens to faceless international corporations that will not leave anything positive behind—certainly not any profit.
This policy is anti-growth. As I suspect the Government now fully realise behind closed doors, it is a disastrous mis-step. It plays fast and loose with the mental health of farmers. Let me echo the chorus from the National Farmers Union Scotland that this policy must be paused and the industry must be properly consulted. The outcome must be the removal of this iniquitous threat to all that we hold dear in our agricultural and rural communities and economies.
On behalf of the agricultural sector in Angus and Perthshire Glens and across the whole of Scotland—in fact, the whole of the United Kingdom, to which I do not often make reference in a speech—it is not too late to do the right thing. I implore the Minister to do so.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Having participated in the previous debate on the subject in the main Chamber, I welcome the different tone from Government Back Benchers. They will get much further with their constituents by reflecting their concerns than by reading out Whips’ points in these debates.
One issue that I want to highlight, because it goes against some suggestions that have been made in relation to so-called land banking, is that when agricultural land is currently sold in my constituency, it is acquired by private equity firms that want to go down the route of industrial tree planting or solar farm production. If we require farms to be sold to meet inheritance tax demands, they will not be sold to new family farmers or new entrants; they will be sold to private equity firms that want not to produce food on our land, but to maximise tax benefits such as carbon offset and other environmental tax benefits. In addition, they do not employ anyone within the constituency—there is no ongoing employment.
Farming does not just produce food and create generational and environmental benefits; it is at the heart of the economy. I have seen that directly: to counter the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak in my constituency, virtually every hoofed animal was destroyed. When farming closed down, the economy closed down. Everybody in the constituency lost out. People were not in the shops, were not buying cars and were not using other businesses. Farming is not just about all the things we have heard about today; it is right at the heart of the economy.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Changes to inheritance tax can be made that will prevent people from gaming the system and buying up land to avoid tax. That can be done without an impact on existing farming businesses. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the Government not to have even considered such changes in their previous responses is not only unacceptable, but a dereliction when it comes to food security and national security?
David Mundell
What will be unacceptable is if the Minister stands up at the end of this debate and gives the same response that he has given in previous debates, having heard the points that his own colleagues have put forward about how damaging and ill thought through this policy proposal has been. I am looking for a change in tone not just from Government Back Benchers, but from the Minister.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour leadership is in serious jeopardy of stubbornly painting itself into a corner, when what is needed is pragmatism and for the Labour leadership to listen to the farmers, the public and its own Back Benchers? For today’s debate to mean anything, for Labour Back Benchers to mean anything and for their words not to be cheap, it is time for the leadership to actually listen and find a way to graciously stop this farm food tax.
David Mundell
I absolutely agree. Labour MPs have listened to their constituents—that is being reflected back to us today—and now we need the Minister to listen to Labour MPs.
The other point that I want to get on the record is the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, about the specific issue of tenanted farming holdings in Scotland. For tenanted farmers to raise the funds required, they would have to give up their whole holding. They might not even be able to. That has clearly not been thought through as part of this exercise.
What people outside want is a debate that changes policy. They want a debate that shows that the Government are listening, have heard what they have to say and will do something about it. I hope that that will be evident in the Minister’s contribution at the end.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I should explain that if a Member wants to speak in this debate, they have to be sitting in the hemicycle. That is why I am sitting next to the Minister: because it was the only seat available. [Laughter.] I just wanted to declare that at the very beginning. I am very much opposed to the agricultural farm inheritance tax. The Minister is sitting next to me, so I am going to try to nudge him a wee bit—nudge nudge, elbow elbow, wink wink and all the things we would normally do.
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union; I understand that there are some people from the Ulster Farmers Union in the Public Gallery today. I am a landowner and a farmer in my constituency of Strangford, and I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents on a subject that will have an effect on every single one of them, whether they realise it or not. Every one of my neighbours’ farms has been passed down from generation to generation. I cannot think of one neighbour who has not had a farm handed down, generation to generation.
[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]
I thank the Ulster Farmers Union, which has worked so hard to provide the information that I will share today. It indicates the depth of the folly of the decision to implement inheritance tax on working farms, and the devastating impact that it will undoubtedly have on food security for the entirety of the UK. For my neighbours, for me and for all the people I know in the Ulster Farmers Union and in Northern Ireland, the land is the farmers’ lifeblood. It is more than land: it is their very reason for existence.
The Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association, in conjunction with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, has used available data to look at the impact of the changes to inheritance tax proposed in October’s Budget. They tell me that 6,000 farming taxpayers in Northern Ireland will be affected by the tax change over a generation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) referred to the value of the land. The value of the land in Northern Ireland is more than the value of the land here. I say with great respect to all my English, Scottish and Welsh compatriots—to all my friends in this Chamber—our land is better.
What are the solutions? The Minister is sitting beside me, and I hope he is listening—of course he is. There is a way forward. The Ulster Farmers Union said to me that the value of the land was done in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and noughties, which gives an unreal rateable value for today. I suggest that the answer is quite simple: take the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, and all the farmers in Northern Ireland—and in Wales, Scotland and England—will benefit. The threshold is too low, so change the threshold. I say to Ministers and the Chancellor that it is quite simple.
I understand that farmers will be meeting the Chancellor shortly; I look forward to the outcome of that. But I will say one thing: let us change the threshold. Let us give the farmers in Northern Ireland some hope for the future. Let us keep those farms that have been handed down from generation to generation. That is what this debate is all about, or it is for me—I hope the Minister is listening.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I rise to represent North Herefordshire, where this is an issue of huge concern. Some 914 people in my constituency have signed the petition; I think it is the second highest number of signatories in a constituency. I know that there is a great deal of concern because I hear it from farmers in my surgeries, and I have met dozens of them here in Parliament. I have heard from them loud and clear just how much anxiety and distress this policy is causing, so I want to represent their voices.
I feel that the way the policy has been introduced is deeply regrettable, not only because it has caused such huge distress to the farming community—we are all aware of the mental health challenges that those in the community face anyway, and this has made it worse—but because it hugely undermines the much more positive and constructive conversations that Government and farmers desperately need to have in order to face the challenges of food production, job generation, tackling climate change and protecting biodiversity. Those are areas where farmers and Government need to work hand in hand for the long term, but all of that has been blown up in the air by the way the policy has been introduced—it is super frustrating.
In his introductory speech, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) spoke about the need to consider complexity and offer solutions, and I agree. I feel that we should be doing that in politics all the time—not just tossing insults at one another across the Chamber, but really working to grapple with this issue. In that spirit, if we are talking about addressing and understanding the complexity, we desperately need a set of figures that we can use as a common basis for discussion. We still have Government saying one thing and farmers saying another. Indeed, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board recently said that 76% of farmers will be affected. When will we get some statistics and modelling that we can agree with as a basis for understanding the impact? [Interruption.] Sorry, I will not give way because of the demands on time.
Several solutions have been raised today, such as reviewing the thresholds and the rates. As many have referred to, farmers recognise the problem of the use of land as a tax loophole, but this policy does not plug that gap properly. We should think about the thresholds and their impact on farming. Perhaps we also need to address the issues facing older farmers—those over 75 who have not had any opportunity to engage in tax planning. But fundamentally, we have to fix the problem of farming being insufficiently profit-making to enable people to secure their livelihoods long term. That has got to be the focus of Government policy.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Last week, I was invited to Goodens farm in Stoborough in my constituency. Phil Randall is a third-generation farmer, and he hosted us with other Purbeck dairy, beef and arable farmers. I saw the investment he has made in his equipment, buildings and livestock. I was really impressed with the innovations he has already put in place to protect him and his business from the steep increases in fertiliser costs after the invasion of Ukraine, as well as the investment he has made in the care of his dairy and beef cows to improve their welfare and his yield. I was so excited to meet his newest calf, which was born by caesarean section and nurtured through its early days by Phil and his children.
I was shocked when Phil told me that his farm is run entirely by him, his wife, his children and two members of staff, which gives me the impression that there is no money left to pay anybody else on the farm. It was really clear that Phil and the other Purbeck farmers, including Ian, Chris, Nicki and Catherine, care deeply about their farms. However, they also care about the wider sector, protecting the countryside, ensuring food security and making sure that they have a sustainable business. One farmer shared with me that the margins on his farm are just 1%. I can think of no other industry in which a business would carry on with a profit margin of 1%.
The farmers are deeply angry about what happened last year, but they have now come to the conclusion that it is unlikely the Chancellor is going to make a U-turn, so they asked me to convey their ideas of what they want from the Government. They want a consultation with them about how these changes can be modified. They recognise that there are people buying up land in the countryside who are not producing food and are not supporting the environmental aims of the Government to mitigate climate change.
The farmers support the introduction of a family farm tax, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, and the transfer of the inheritance tax liability to the point of sale of assets, not inheritance. They want a temporary relief to create time for estate planning, not just for elderly farmers, but for anyone who dies unexpectedly in the next three to four years, as they noted that farming is an incredibly dangerous profession at any age. They want to see institutional investors forced to be more transparent, having raised concerns about wealth being hidden in their land. They want APR and BPR to be separated and to have separate thresholds.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Lady spoke about the pessimism that the Government will U-turn on this, but does she share my optimism that they may well U-turn if enough of their Back Benchers make a point?
Vikki Slade
That is not really for me to say, but I hope that they are listening. The important thing is that there is time. We have until April next year, and that is why the consultation and listening to all these people is so important.
I saw just how much was being invested in tractors, muck-spreaders, equipment to cut and bale the grass, milking equipment and water storage systems. If we want our farms to be more efficient and more profitable, it is ridiculous to tax farmers on investments in making their farms work better. So I implore the Minister—this tax is going to harm the countryside and food security, and if we end up increasing imports it will also have negative impacts on climate change and animal welfare. It is so important that the Minister hears our message—that of Opposition Members, and the people in the Gallery and in the tractors outside—and I hope that the Minister takes this opportunity to at least reform if not scrap this tax.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I stand to speak on behalf of the 800 signatories of this petition from my constituency, and I also speak in this debate as chair of the all-party group on dairy. Almost all of the financial advice that farmers had sought until the Budget had included APR relief in their financial planning and how they would pass on their family farms to the next generation without this ill-thought-through tax. These changes will hit hundreds of family-run farms, many of which have been proudly looked after generation after generation by the same family. I must add that the mental health of my North Cornwall farmers has plummeted since this was introduced.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency have told me that the Government’s changes to agricultural property relief have damaged their mental health, and some of my constituents have taken their own life. Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than worsening the mental health crisis in farming, the Government should address it by scrapping this family farm tax, investing properly in rural mental health services and establishing a national working group on suicide prevention, focusing on agricultural and veterinary occupations?
Ben Maguire
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree and wholeheartedly support those suggestions.
The changes have not even taken effect yet, but their harsh effects are already on show. If no full U-turn is on the horizon, surely we can urge the Minister, with one voice, to look for an alternative to this ill-thought-through tax. The change will not hit the wealthy investors that the Government have taken aim at.
Mr Carmichael
I do not think I can listen to many more people say that. When I questioned the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee before Christmas, he specifically said that what rich people do with their money within the rules was a matter for them, and that the policy did not have a target audience. Does that not point to an inconsistency in messaging among the Treasury and Downing Street?
Ben Maguire
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I urge the Minister to look for alternatives. We have heard about the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for a working farm test. Other hon. Members have suggested some kind of clawback scheme in cases in which the farm is sold within, say, 10 years of inheriting it.
I will draw my remarks to a close, because I know that other hon. Members want to come in. This family farm tax will raise around £500 million a year—not an insignificant sum—but is it a price worth paying to kill farming in this country and, crucially, risk our food security? The Liberal Democrats have proposed restoring the cut that the Conservative party made to the big bank levy in 2016. That would have raised around £4 billion a year, which certainly puts this family farm tax into perspective.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, but I have a sense of déjà vu: a month ago, I stood in my place, the Minister sat in his, and we hoped that the Government would listen. They did not listen. I suppose that we should try to be optimistic. That time, apart from the Minister’s aide, there was not a single Labour MP to be found, but they are all here today. Their approaches have varied. I do not mean to rude to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), but in nearly 20 years in Parliament, I have never heard a speech that expressed no opinion on the subject in hand. He gets the vanilla award.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) was perhaps tentative and timid, but none the less wanted to hint that it was possible that the perfect selection of policies put forward by Labour might need a little tweak—congratulations on that. However, the award should go to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who was pretty clear that he does not think this policy is right and that it needs to be changed. Praise the Lord that someone on the Government Benches was prepared to come out and say so! That is what they were sent here for—not to do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to.
As I mentioned earlier, when the 2012 Budget proposed the caravan tax, which would have devastated the industry in East Yorkshire—it happens to be based there—and down the coast, because that is where caravans are deployed, we stood against it and opposed it.
Graham Stuart
I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman is going to stand up and find his inner rebel.
Sam Rushworth
There is absolutely nothing timid about what I am telling the right hon. Gentleman: farmers in my community were massively let down by the previous Government.
Sam Rushworth
I do not know why the right hon. Lady keeps saying that. We have not voted on the policy yet. There was a vote against a motion that was put forward by the Opposition. It was a cynical motion that was designed to make us want to vote against it, because it was so ridiculous.
Graham Stuart
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shrunk inside his shell, and the farmers in his constituency will have heard that.
It is possible to challenge one’s Government. I said to my Whips then that the best service we could do the Government was to prevent them from doing something stupid, harmful and alienating to voters. I hope that Government Members can see that, because the Opposition cannot change this. People outside say to me, “Can we get this changed?” It is actually up to Labour MPs. They have the majority. Democracy is not about having a majority and doing what one likes. Democracy is about listening and doing what the now Prime Minister told the NFU when he said:
“You deserve a Government that listens, that heeds early warnings”.
There are one or two warnings about. Listen, change: if the Government change, four years on, no one will remember the U-turn. Whatever civil servants say—they are always very keen to stick with a policy—if it is wrong, stop doing it. And this is wrong. In the minute and 20 seconds I have left, let me say why it is so wrong. We have touched on the various elements, but I am not sure we have pulled it all together.
We have a really peculiar group of businesspeople in this country; they are called farmers. They take a return on capital—the millions they have invested in their farms—that is typically less than 1%. There is nobody that I am aware of—no business I was ever involved in—that would remotely consider continuing in an industry that paid less than 1%. These farmers take a pittance and get up at 4 o’clock in the morning for the privilege. They look after the animals and it does not matter if they are ill; they cannot carry their employment rights and go, “I’m not well, I shouldn’t have to go out,” because the cows do not care: they have to go out and look after them, and then they get less than 1% return. Those farmers, the most beneficent public-minded businesspeople in the whole country, then provide excellent food at among the lowest prices in Europe. If ever there were a business that we would not want to go and mess with, it is these—I should not say it, because I will make enemies of them.
David Smith
I thank the hon. Member for his scoring system, but can he confirm whether he was part of the last Government, which failed to get £300 million of subsidies to farmers out the door?
Graham Stuart
For the hon. Gentleman’s political career, as he has been so brave today, I entirely forgive him that piece of whataboutery.
We must understand how remarkable it is that there is a whole group of businesspeople who take practically nothing from their business, work all the hours God gives, and provide us with some of the finest food in the world at among the lowest prices in Europe. Why would we want to mess with that? Not only do they do that, but they brainwash their children from the earliest age so that they carry on doing it. These people are in indentured service to the nation, providing food while making very little profit. They do it willingly and, in fact, love it: it is their life. To go and mess with them out of some stupid, socialist spite is ridiculous and absurd, and Government Members know that—the hon. Member for North Northumberland certainly does, and he should lead his colleagues to tell the Chancellor to change course, just as we did in 2012 when George Osborne got it wrong.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In the 103 days since the Budget and the Chancellor turned farmers’ lives upside down in this country, we have heard stories from farmers across the UK, and will hear more today. Labour Members marched out stories of their own farmers; a few months ago, they did not hear anything from their farmers, but suddenly they have a voice. It is good to hear that they have been listening and now are actually representing those farmers’ voices.
Farmers have been telling us for months about the impact the IHT change will have. I have spoken about the 90-year-old farmer in my constituency whose son is now resigned to the fact that he will have to sell the farm and give up on the livelihood and life he thought he was going to have. I have spoken about the farmer whose wife died earlier last year, who also realised by the end of the year that they were going to lose their farm. However, the Government did not want to listen. They would not to listen to the stories coming from our farmers.
We have heard about the fact that farmers only make 1% profit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, what other businessperson would take a 1% profit and want to continue that life? We have also heard about how investment in farms has fallen off a cliff since this policy was introduced. If we do not invest in or encourage investment in farms, how will we increase profitability? Profit and productivity are linked; if we have poor productivity and profitability, we will never get to a stage where any sort of IHT bill—let alone the one proposed by the Government—can be managed by farmers.
It is not just farmers making the Government aware of where they stand; we have heard the NFU and NFUS say that three quarters of commercial farms will be impacted. Experts in valuing the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers says that 75,000 farms will be impacted. The CLA says that an eighth of farms over 350 acres will have to sell land in order to cover the bill. Savills, the property experts, says that 88% of UK farmland will be impacted, yet, as the Treasury says it is only 20% to 25%, that is the figure we stick with. We stick with the Government figure because it fits the narrative; we do not listen to the industry or the experts, which is how we have got into the situation we are now in.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
When Jane’s husband died just under three years ago, their farm passed to their son—the fifth generation of the family to farm that land. Their accountant says that if that had happened after the Government’s changes, the farm would be looking at an inheritance tax bill of between £80,000 and £100,000. Does my hon. Friend know of any farmer who has that kind of money available without selling off a huge chunk of their farm?
Harriet Cross
No, I do not know of any family farmer who has the sort of money to cover that bill. That is the issue. We are penalising the very people who have fed us, who have supported our rural communities and who have been custodians of the land for generations, to fit whatever the Government’s narrative is with this policy.
The unintended consequences also have impacts. There is an impact on hauliers, vets, rural communities, farm shops and workers—they will all be impacted by the policy. It is not just family farmers; they are the start, but the result of the policy spreads through rural communities the length and breadth of the country.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In my constituency we did a survey of all the farmers to see whether the Government’s figures stood up. The Government claim that 73% of family farms will be unaffected by the change in tax relief, but 85% of the farmers who responded to our survey believed they would be affected, with an average inheritance tax bill of £637,000 because of the extortionate cost of land in South Devon. That is nearly £64,000 a year in tax every year for 10 years. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is unworkable, and will see the decimation of our family farms?
Harriet Cross
Absolutely. I agree 100% with what the hon. Member says, and it will be repeated across the country in rural Labour constituencies and in our constituencies. It does not matter where they are in the country, our farmers will face hundreds of thousands of pounds in IHT bills because of this Government’s decisions—for no other reason.
Some balance sheets might say one thing and the Treasury’s might say another, but the reality in rural constituencies up and down the country is that the policy will devastate our family farmers and rural communities. The Government must change course before it is too late.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. It is the first time that North Shropshire has been in the top 10 constituencies in a petition—713 people have signed, which is not surprising when we consider that there are over 1,000 farms in the constituency, covering 62,000 hectares. It is one of the 20 most rural constituencies in the country. Producing food for the country is our main activity, not just through farming and the thousands of people who support those farms. Food production, storage and distribution are all major industries as well.
Farmers have had a tough time: incomes are historically low and farmers can ill-afford to pay inheritance tax when an estate sadly passes on. The Government estimate that 288 farms will be affected in North Shropshire. Even if that is not an underestimate, which we strongly suspect it is, that is a whopping 27% of the farms in my constituency—more than a quarter—that will have to sell off land rather than further invest in the rural economy. That is shocking.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
This policy could force hundreds of family farmers in my constituency to sell their productive land. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as causing uncertainty to tenant farmers, the policy undermines our ability to address the threat to food security, without discouraging those who land bank for tax purposes?
Helen Morgan
I agree with my hon. Friend, and will come on to that point in a moment.
I want to mention Robert, whose family has farmed a traditional mixed dairy and arable farm near Oswestry for 120 years. Their farm is valued at £6 million, which sounds like a lot, but their income is only £60,000 a year. Even if the £3 million dual relief that we have been told about by the Treasury applied, paying it off would wipe out their income for 10 years. In fact, they estimate their liability would be higher than that. It is not just traditional farms that are affected: rental businesses, nurseries, and horticultural businesses all fear that they cannot pass on their business at the time of death as a result of this ill-thought-through policy.
The Chancellor wanted to put wealthy non-farmers off buying land to avoid inheritance tax, but I reckon being charged 20% with 10 years to pay it off is a pretty attractive alternative to paying 40% now. With such a low threshold of £1 million, many small farmers will be left with a liability they simply cannot afford to pay because land does not translate to cash unless they sell it.
This tax does not achieve its mission at all. The idea that farms can survive it is not true. Years of being taken for granted by the Conservatives have left farms in a desperate state. Some 8,000 farms shut their doors last year—one in 25—and farm incomes have been dropping year on year. That is down to a number of factors, including soaring inflation, which is beyond the Government’s control, and the botched implementation of the sustainable farming incentive, which was not. The disastrous trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership have set an alarming precedent, especially while the President of the United States is holding anyone who does not give him what he wants to ransom with trade tariffs.
The Government must protect the farming budget. We need our family farms to thrive: for economic growth, which is so crucial in rural areas; to produce our food; and to protect our environment. There is still time to reverse this disastrous decision. I urge the Government to listen to the valid concerns and to demonstrate their commitment to rural Britain. Let us axe this family farm tax.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I represent Dumfries and Galloway, which is the land of milk and slurry. With due deference to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his super-valuable land, we have some of the most productive grassland in the whole country. The point that the farmers there make to me all the time—they do not, by the way, have the large estates, but are small and often tenant farmers—is that Treasury Ministers, like accountants, often know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. That is the situation.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the reliefs. They are not loopholes; they were specifically put in place to allow multigenerational farming to continue. One of my farmers, Robert, who farms near Moniaive, said:
“APR and BPR are not, as has been suggested, ‘loopholes’ but targeted and necessary reliefs designed to allow multi-generational farming businesses to contribute towards food production and economic growth.”
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Labour Members have made several attempts to project possible tweaks to the legislation, with feedback from our members. On that point about loopholes, however, I do not think that anyone is saying that family farms have tried to abuse loopholes; it is the big billion-dollar corporations and land banks that have started to exploit them—[Interruption.]
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as he can hear from Opposition Members it has repeatedly been called a loophole. I have been told in the main Chamber that I am scaremongering, which is not right either. That is nonsense—the fear out there is real. Listen to the noise outside. The people outside are not multimillionaires; they are not shroud waving for the sake of it and are not exploiting a loophole. This is a bit like red diesel—again, I suspect, the Minister does not even know what that is. Red diesel is priced cheaply, and that has a direct link with, and effect on, the price of food that we pay in our shops. The whole system is designed, first and foremost, to ensure food security and to deliver quality food at low prices.
We have heard about tweaks and so forth, but it is not for me to suggest tweaks. The Government are in power with a huge majority; they must think again and it is not, as I say, for me to sit down to write out specifics for them. They have the ability not to make a great screeching U-turn, but to make the tweaks that can protect this most important and vital industry. Will the Minister please take away the message he has heard today—including the change of tone from those on the Benches behind him—that this is a real and serious problem? Changes can be made. It is not too late.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
Today, farmers are descending on Whitehall for the third time in as many months. All Members present here, I suspect, know that the Government’s proposals to change APR—and BPR, which we must not forget—have been an exercise in failure: a failure in political judgment and in communication. Based on the latest OBR analysis, they will not even achieve their policy outcomes.
A number of Members have suggested different ways of mitigating this impact, but I point out that there was a report about the half a billion in additional costs to HMRC spent on recouping tax. Funnily enough, that is the same as the £500 million that it is estimated this policy will bring into the Treasury, so perhaps we need fewer loopholes, simpler tax and a way to help working people in this country.
I want to raise an issue mentioned by a number of Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), about agricultural tenancies and their impact particularly in Scotland. Agricultural tenancies have an inheritable value; there are circumstances in which a tenancy can be passed on via a will, the rules of intestacy or, in some conditions, as a lifetime gift. It is not purely a Scottish occurrence, but it is many times more common in Scotland, because of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. Any tenancy to which that law applies can be passed on by the tenant as part of their estate.
The tenancy is valued per acre according to the difference between market rates and the actual rent, because these tenancies have much lower, preferential rates. According to the CAAV— I know it has written to the Chancellor about this, and I am grateful for its explanation—that means the average value of lowland arable land, for example, would be £3,000 to £4,000 per acre. Therefore, a tenancy of 300 acres breaches the APR threshold and starts paying APR—and that is before taking into account the value of machinery.
Although we have heard broad concerns about the future of farms if they are forced to sell land piecemeal, that just is not an option available to tenant farmers. This is complicated and technical, but I think the Government just have not thought about the impact on Scottish tenant farmers. I have raised this four times in the last three months, both at Scotland Office questions and in the urgent question that the Minister replied to a couple of weeks ago, and I got platitudes. I do not think they have looked at this at all.
I am conscious of the perception that farmers are wealthy. We have made it clear today that this debate is about people who have cash held in their land, but cannot release that without selling it. A constituent I spoke to last week is a farmer, previously a tenant farmer; she bought her farm eight years ago with her family, under a mortgage, and is now transitioning from working tax credits to universal credit. We need to deal with that myth, and I urge the Government to pause this policy.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I have heard no one in this debate defend the land-banking corporations, but I have heard many Members objecting to genuine farmers’ being treated in the same way as if they were the land-banking corporations. That is fundamentally wrong, and therein lies the basic flaw in this proposal.
It is useful to cast our minds back to why, 40 years ago, this concession was introduced. We were told at the time that it was for two reasons—two reasons that still apply today: to enable retention by the next generation, and to allow long-term planning without fear of a crippling death tax. Those two reasons were good then and they are equally good today.
Yet now we have arrived at a situation where the Government tell us—or some of its Members do—that they are bringing this policy in to chase the land-banking corporations, even though the policy, if implemented, will enhance the land banking of those corporations. It is the small, genuine family farms that will not be able to meet the tax and will sell—and who will the buyers be? The buyers will be the land-banking corporations. It is a self-defeating policy if that is its purpose, and it is a policy that will cripple many family farms.
The Government tell us, “Oh, it will affect only 500 farms a year.” The Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association, a body of professional valuers, has done a massive piece of work on this and has concluded that, in Northern Ireland alone, 200 farms will be affected per annum. If the total is meant to be 500 in the UK and Northern Ireland, which represents only a 40th of this nation, can produce 200 in a year, it is quite clear that the Government are wholly wrong in their statistics and in their evaluation.
Frankly, my local farmers are not particularly interested in Labour chiding the Tories and the Tories chiding Labour about who did what when. They are interested in getting a solution. I say to this Government that strong government is not about driving a policy through because you have a big majority; strong Government is about doing what is right. It is patently right here to have the courage to acknowledge that this is a flawed policy and therefore the Government need to find reverse gear. I trust that they do.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
The petition that we debate has been signed by 494 of my constituents. Many of those signatories will be farmers operating on multi-generational farms across Cheshire but, signing alongside those farmers and families, there are many more who are deeply concerned about the changes to agricultural property relief and its wider impact on shop owners, food producers and the wider local economy, which will suffer as a result of this policy. Our community has come together to speak up because people understand how important farming is to our local economy, to our food security and to the sustainability of our countryside. Without farming, the local economy in Chester South and Eddisbury would greatly suffer. I will briefly share some of the knock-on impacts of this ill-thought-through policy.
In Cheshire, we have some of the best beef and dairy stock in the country and have therefore attracted national and multinational suppliers, who have brought millions of pounds into our economy. If hon. Members had a Müller yoghurt for breakfast this morning, it was probably produced in my constituency, in Chester, with Cheshire dairy produce. Or maybe they enjoyed some Cheshire cheese for lunch—again, a product of the Cheshire food industry. I personally recommend Cheshire ice cream—without doubt the best in the country.
Suppliers and manufacturers from across Cheshire provide a significant boost to our local economy. They are employers, innovators and investors, but they cannot do what they do without the supply produced by farmers. Cheshire food produce is vital to some of our best-loved brands but, as in many rural areas, it is often the independent retailers and high street shops that stimulate our economy the most. Without sustainable local produce, shops will lose the unique selling point that sets them apart and our local economy will suffer as a result.
Less than a fortnight ago, I was delighted to welcome to my constituency the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). We started the day at Top O The Town farm in Broomhall, farmed by Richard Davenport, his son Sam and his father John—three generations working together, and one of many local examples of a multi-generational dairy farm, sharing knowledge from one generation to the next, learning, innovating and growing the farm, while employing people locally. Yet the incentives to invest capital on the farm or in measures to improve sustainability and ensure the continuation of farming for the long term are under serious threat as a result of this policy decision.
The economic case is clear, but I will also briefly mention the impact on the mental health of rural and agricultural communities. Farmers face adversity, challenges and stress every single day. There is little that they can control, and this Budget has now taken away their one security: the ability to leave their farm to the next generation. The implications for mental health have already been seen in the most tragic circumstances. We must all stand together and tell the Government that the family farm tax must stop.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I speak today on behalf of the 392 signatories from North Norfolk, and our wider community as a whole. A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of spending Saturday morning with farmers outside a supermarket in my constituency; many people who might not have initially been supportive of their cause really appreciated the opportunity to hear directly from farmers.
Historically, North Norfolk has relied heavily on agriculture for employment and economic prosperity. We still have a lot of agricultural employment, but the knock-on is also felt in other sectors. Farmers supply local businesses with high-quality, locally sourced produce. They are custodians of our natural environment and more and more are using their land for sustainable farming and natural flood management, to protect the wider community. Farming is a beating heart ever present at the core of our rural economy, but the changes proposed by the Government run a real risk of ripping that heart out altogether.
While our area is diversifying in a number of innovative and exciting ways, the simple fact is that our farmers will always be there to put food on the table. Keeping farming alive locally allows us to be part of the exciting progress that science and agriculture can make together. The Norwich Research Park, in the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough)—undertakes incredible agri-science and is very near to us, so family farms in Norfolk are the perfect test bed for latest in gene editing of crops, which can bring about higher yields, smaller carbon footprints and less need for pesticides.
This is not a debate about protecting exemptions for multimillionaires and tax dodgers. If the Government had proposals to truly tackle that issue, I would fully support them, and I am sure my local farmers would too. However, this proposal is hugely damaging for family farmers who, year on year and generation on generation, hope to stay in a business that has been made virtually unprofitable by years of Government failure. They are being dragged into a punitive tax by spiralling land costs that are out of their control.
If these were greedy individuals looking to duck tax, they would have left this tough industry many years ago. No one would take on a relentless job that involves hard, lonely labour in all weathers—a job with skyrocketing rates of suicide—just for a tax exemption. People do it because they value the family farm, the people they employ, the supply chains they support and the communities they have served for generations. I urge the Government to listen to farmers, listen to their communities and think again.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the petitioner and the hundreds of people in my constituency who signed the petition.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) eloquently put it, it is encouraging to see many more MPs present on the Government Benches. I mean that genuinely; previous debates have been a little sparsely attended on those Benches, so I hope this is a sign that things are slowly turning and that there may be change to come.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said that we should not be treating this issue as a political football. That message did not quite reach the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), but I agree that, although it has become a political football, the problem is that the people outside right now feel that they have not been listened to by this Government. The reason there are again hundreds of tractors and thousands of people outside on Whitehall is that people feel their voices are not being heard. That is why we are in here and they are out there: because nobody has listened to them up to this point.
I want to go back to a point well made by the NFU president in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in December. He said that the Government should set the sector the exam question and say what they are trying to achieve here. Then the sector can work with Government to reach that agreed point: either to prevent land banking by very wealthy individuals or to raise revenue to support rural public services. Whichever it is, let us get round the table and find a solution that works for all.
However, I fear that those in the Treasury have become like modern-day flat earthers—holding their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, whether from agricultural organisations, tax experts, supermarkets or MPs from across the political divide questioning the impact of this tax. We know that the modelling does not take into account the full impact of business property relief. It largely focuses on agricultural property relief claims, but many people, including tenants, family businesses and farming businesses, will only use a BPR claim and not an APR claim. That is why we need to look at this policy again in its entirety.
I ask the Minister once again—dare I say beg him—to please pause this process. Let us get round the table with farming organisations and representatives, and find a better way forwards.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I hope that colleagues who want to speak are on my list. If you are on the list, that is great, but you must still bob; otherwise, I will assume that you no longer wish to speak.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Earlier today I had the opportunity to meet a constituent, Darcy Johnson, and I want to share her and her family’s story. Four generations of Darcy’s family have worked Dogwood farm, which is a small, family-run beef and arable farm of about 250 acres. Her grandfather is the current owner. The plan was always to follow the sensible business advice that they and other farmers were given: to wait until her grandfather’s death to pass the farm on to the next generation. Her parents currently manage the farm, and Darcy is studying agricultural business, hoping to take it on herself later.
Generations-worth of planning has followed the suggested advice, but that was suddenly changed overnight with the Budget announcement. Because Darcy’s grandfather is now 92, beyond insurable age, they do not have seven years to wait. If the Government’s plan comes into effect unchanged, Darcy and her family will somehow have to find nearly £500,000 to keep their farm, with barely any notice. If they cannot find the money, because they, like most small farmers, do not have hundreds of thousands of pounds to spare, they will lose their farm—a small, sustainable family business that will likely be replaced by a corporate with no connection to the local community.
The Government need to acknowledge the effect that this sudden rise in inheritance tax will have on small family farms—on people whose families have been working hard for generations to put food on Britain’s tables.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a fundamental principle that legislation should not be retrospective, but here we have a tax that requires farmers to have acted seven years before they ever knew the tax was going to exist. It is fundamentally wrong and I ask the Government to withdraw the measure.
Brian Mathew
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. These small family-run businesses cannot afford it. If the plan continues, many will be wiped out completely. Such farms are often the backbone of rural communities, doing everything from clearing snow in winter to providing hay bales for village fairs. The loss of the farms will not only devastate the families that own them, but completely change rural life in England— I would argue for the worse. Farmers like Darcy, who is here with us and travelled up for the day to make her voice heard, need to be given a seat at the table so that they can give the Government useful advice on how to dig themselves out of the hole they have unfortunately dug.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I rise to speak on behalf of the 477 people in South Devon who signed the petition, which is almost exactly the same as the number of farms in my constituency. It is clear from the number of people in this room and the number of people outside what the strength of feeling is about a tax that has caused severe distress across the farming community, yet is expected to raise only around £115 million a year, which is less than 0.01% of Government spending, or less than 0.3% of the tax rises announced in the Budget. Does the Minister think it is really worth all the pain for that amount of gain?
We have talked a lot today about farmers. The rural economy is heavily dependent on farmers but goes much wider than just the farmers themselves. The impact of the change will be enormous in rural communities like mine. The knock-on effect will affect feed, equipment and machinery suppliers, agricultural engineers, the shops that stock high-quality local meat and vegetables, seasonal employment, and all those who benefit from the visitors who camp on farms or stay in farm-based holiday accommodation. I urge the Minister to think about that.
Farmers are key to tackling climate change and the nature crisis and are crucial to our food security, so why do we want to place them under yet more pressure after all the challenges they have already faced in the last decade, including the damaging trade deals, the poorly managed transition to environmental land management schemes, a botched deal with the EU that has limited their ability to export, higher input and energy prices, and of course floods?
This is a toxic mess for farmers, so we carried out a survey of all the farms in my South Devon constituency to find out exactly what the reality is on the ground in the face of this tax change. Of the farmers who responded to our survey, 85% believe they will be affected by the changes, and 90% of the farms are likely to be inherited by the direct descendants of the current owner. The average farm value is £4.15 million, with the highest being £15 million. The price of land in South Hams is among the highest in the country. Farmers did not cause those land prices to skyrocket. The influx of rich second home owners and the honeypot effect has done that, and farmers in my constituency are having to pay for it.
The average bill in South Devon will be £637,000. That is nearly £64,000 in tax every year for 10 years. That tax will not only decimate the family farms of South Devon but have a major knock-on effect on food production. One farmer said:
“The policy as it currently stands will halve food production in a generation.”
I have hundreds of quotes that I cannot read out, but I will cite a family whose farm has been in their family since the Domesday Book. They said they will have to sell at least 25% of the farm assets, which could mean that their children are unable to inherit a farm that goes back to the Domesday Book.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Dwight Eisenhower said that
“farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”
Too often, this Government appear to be a thousand miles away from the cornfield. I urge them to review their changes to the agricultural property relief, listen to farmers and put their needs and the best interests of this country front and centre.
This subject has aroused strong emotions in my South Cotswolds constituency, where we have both ends of the spectrum, from the many small family farms to Dyson’s UK headquarters. Our 750 farm holdings employ more than 2,000 people—including Mike, who is in the Public Gallery today—who all demonstrably contribute to feeding our country and caring for our natural environment. These farmers are distraught. As we seek to reverse the destruction of nature in our severely nature-depleted country, it is clear that we need the participation of the sector that manages 70% of our land.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
A small farmer with a farm near Frampton Cotterell, in my Thornbury and Yate constituency, highlighted the fact that, as well as high land costs, some of the machinery needed to farm that land costs upwards of £100,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that for farmers to have the confidence to invest in the modern, sustainable farming practices that are needed, we need a policy that recognises the high-capital, low-income nature of farming?
Dr Savage
I thank my hon. Friend for a good point well made.
From waking up before the crack of dawn in the lambing and calving seasons, to often finishing the working day beyond midnight during the harvest, it is not hard to recognise the long and draining hours that farmers put in, the huge financial pressures that they work under and the toll that the lifestyle takes on their mental and physical health.
Farmers have to be able to plan for the long term, with their meteorological, financial, logistical and agricultural predictions having impacts for generations to come. Being such forward planners, and having been promised by the current Government when in opposition that there would be no change to APR, it came as a great and not pleasant surprise in Labour’s autumn 2024 Budget to hear that they would indeed be subjected to a change in inheritance tax. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for his point earlier about the injustice of retrospective legislation.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, but some of the farmers in my constituents are concerned that the Liberal Democrats have talked about a land tax and a wealth tax. Will she tell us how that would affect the farmers in her constituency and mine?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not Liberal Democrat policy any more.
The Government claim they are targeting the big wealthy landowners, not family farmers, and they say that once inheritance tax allowances are taken into account, most farms will not be affected, but here is what I do not understand: on the one hand the Government are saying they need to raise money to fill a big black hole, but on the other hand they are saying most farms will not be affected by the change. They cannot have it both ways.
Likewise, the Government say that only 25% of farms will be affected, while the National Farmers Union says that 75% of farmers will be. We seem to have two parallel realities, and never the twain shall meet. Persisting with this policy is bad for our family farms, our food security, nature and future generations. I beg the Government to reconsider and have the good grace to back down on this disastrous miscalculation.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
Like many here, I prepared a short speech, but I would rather pull out some of its highlights, because this has probably been the most interesting debate I have been involved in, and all the more interesting for being rather one-sided.
Let us go through this issue. First and foremost, the change will achieve the opposite of food security. I could stop there. But if we carry on, we will see farms forced to sell, bought by private equity firms, and half our food production could be lost within a generation. It will be hugely damaging to mental health, and I say with all sadness and sombreness that I believe lives have been lost already.
This policy is damaging and ill thought through. Laws should not be made retrospectively—that is a fine point that has already been raised. Farmers would have had to be aware of this change seven years ago in order to be in a good position for it today, and I want to add to that point. As I understand it, this is also a breach of a promise. If a policy is wrong, stop doing it—that makes pretty good sense to me. It is a self-defeating policy because it will not raise the money that it is supposed to, and it may be rather counter-productive.
That brings me to my rather limited experience of farmers in my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock. We do not have a huge amount of farmland, but where we have farmers, they share the exact same concerns as those in the rest of the country. One gentleman shared the story of his finances with me, and this policy will cover essentially every penny that his farm will make over the next decade. Guess what his point was? He was concerned not in the least bit about money for himself but about investing in his business.
We also have in Essex a rather large New Holland plant. If our farmers do not have any money to invest in their businesses then businesses such as New Holland, which produces vehicles worth £200,000 or £300,000, will not have any customers. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. As I understand it, he is a reasonable man, and I hope he has reasonable things to say. From my perspective—and I believe from the perspective of Reform—this is a disastrous new policy and I hope the Government change course.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Labour’s family farm tax will be a disaster for hard-working farmers in Ely and East Cambridgeshire, and throughout the country, and they are farmers who have already suffered under years of Conservative cuts. This new tax policy threatens to devastate farms nationwide, potentially forcing families to sell the land that they have farmed for generations.
As we have heard, farming is not just a job but a way of life: it is a legacy passed down through generations. By imposing this tax change, we risk breaking that cycle and undermining the very foundation of our agriculture industry. I have met farmers across Ely and East Cambridgeshire and they feel angry and dismayed. More than that, they are hurt because they feel their voices are not being heard and their concerns are being ignored.
The impact of this tax was brought home to me when I visited a family farm in my constituency and sat around the kitchen table with three generations. The third generation had handed the farm to the fourth generation, who were now unsure whether they could hand it on to the fifth generation without inheritance tax and a tax bill that could not be paid from the farm’s income. They showed me around the developments that various generations had made to the farm, including hedgerows, ponds and a horse-riding facility for the local community. Many of those could be lost to raise funds to pay the inheritance tax, or lost if the land was sold on.
Remember, these people feed us and care for vast areas of our green and pleasant land, yet we allow wholesale food prices to be kept low, make them compete with foreign food imports that are produced to lower standards, and reduce agricultural support grants. We stand by while climate change delays their planting, reduces their harvests and increases pests and disease. Making farmers pay inheritance tax could be the final straw for British farms. The Government need to restore the inheritance tax exemptions to save our family farms.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison.
I rise to speak up for the 337 signatories to this petition from my Taunton and Wellington constituency. One thing that we should have learned—surely, I hope, the Treasury must have done—is that farms are asset-rich but cash-poor, and that especially applies to smaller family farms. The Treasury’s figure that only 27% of farms will be affected is therefore an underestimate. As the NFU has pointed out, it is more like 75%, because Government figures often leave out the fact that changes are being made to both business property relief and agricultural property relief. That means that more farms will experience an impact, since the maximum allowance applies to both combined.
More importantly, this measure fundamentally misunderstands that the value of a farm is wrapped up in the land and is about not just pounds and pence, but the integrity of that farm. If one starts selling off chunks of that farm piecemeal, time after time, one eliminates the value of that farm as a whole. The Government need to accept the damage that this family farm tax could do.
The Minister might say, “The money can be borrowed—why do they not just borrow the money and pay it off over time?” Ed Hawkins from Cutsey farm in Trull came to see me and explained that if he annualised that payment over a number of years, it would wipe out the very small margin that he depends on to live. We have heard the same thing from other Members. It is not realistic. Robbie Vile from Higher Lillesdon farm in North Curry came to see me with his son, Charlie, who is hoping to go into farming. However, looking at how farming has been treated recently—the delays in the SFI payments, the underspend of a full £358 million of the agricultural budget over the last three years, massive advantage given to Australia and New Zealand, cheap imports after Brexit and now inheritance tax—they ask: why would any young person be encouraged to go into farming in those circumstances?
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be useful for the Minister to say from the Treasury Front Bench what the average profitability is in British farming? It would be useful to have that on the record, because it is in that context that we have to look at this. If we do not see it in context, we just compare farming with other businesses and can easily mislead ourselves as to the reality for farmers across the country.
Gideon Amos
I agree; that would be a very useful statistic. If the Minister is not willing to look it up, I hope he might ask the House of Commons Library to do so, because it would certainly reveal the vast number of farms that would be affected by the scale of the tax that is proposed for them.
In short, I have no objection to the taxing of super-large landowners who use farms as a loophole to avoid inheritance tax—in fact, I would support it. But the irony of this policy is that it will drive more land into the hands of those super-large landowners, because every time farmers have to sell off some of their land, it will go to one of those bigger companies. Seeing that land being sold piecemeal time after time will only damage British farming as a whole. Drawing this tax down to some of the smallest family farms in Taunton and Wellington, and across the country, is unjust. It will not raise the money that the Government say it will. It will mean piecemeal disposal of farms up and down the country. The Government really must raise the threshold for this policy or extend the transitional relief. If they do not do that, the policy needs to go and it needs to go now. That is what the Liberal Democrats would do.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Colleagues, we have some time available, so I am prepared to give a bit of latitude for the Front Bench speeches. I would suggest an indicative 15 minutes, starting with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Dyke.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this incredibly important issue. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which highlight clearly the strength of feeling from around the country. I also thank the people who signed the petition, especially the 520 from Glastonbury and Somerton.
As has been well rehearsed, British agriculture is staring over a cliff edge. It has suffered from an almost never-ending list of difficulties over recent years: Brexit, energy prices, the war in Ukraine, the terrible Tory trade deals and a botched transition from BPS to ELMs. Against that background, the Government’s decision to implement changes to APR and BPR has rightly drawn criticism and anger from across the sector. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about the impact that the family farming tax will have on farmers and rural communities right across the country.
I am in constant dialogue with farmers from across Glastonbury and Somerton. A consistent message from many is that this decision will inevitably lead to many family farms closing their gates for the very last time over the next few years. Just this weekend, I met a farmer’s son, who is in his 40s, on his family farm in Low Ham. He explained that he hoped to move away from his career as a civil engineer and go back to the farm full time, keeping the beef suckler herd at the heart of the business but introducing diversification projects to maintain a baseload of income for when agricultural markets fluctuate. He told me that the changes to IHT
“will be the end of any chances we have of keeping our farm going. I feel totally demoralised.”
Wendy Chamberlain
My hon. Friend is outlining the impact of this policy. The example that she gave about her constituent reminds us that there is a multigenerational element to farming, and families often live together. The Government have said that farmers should consider tax planning, but one challenge with tax planning is that a donor cannot keep any benefit from a gift. Do we think the Government intend to suggest that older parent farmers who tax plan need to move off the farm?
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for a very well made point, and farming is indeed often multigenerational. This is putting huge stress on farming families. I myself am from a farming family. My mother is 81, and my father died about a year ago. The pressure that it is putting on her to think about whether she can survive another seven years is so distressing, and I know that she is not alone.
Dave Doogan
For very good reason, we do not apply tax to food. Does the hon. Lady agree that for the same good reason, we should presumably not apply tax to the production of food? Does it not amount to the same thing?
Sarah Dyke
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Levels of confidence among the farming community are at a worryingly low ebb. The National Audit Office reports that only one in three farmers are confident that DEFRA and its agencies can deliver their proposed changes to schemes and regulations. The family farm tax will only increase pressure on farmers, while burdening with extra uncertainty and anxiety farmers who are already suffering with their mental health. Today marks the beginning of Mind Your Head week. Now in its eighth year, it is a campaign that amplifies mental health awareness, run by the Farm Safety Foundation and Yellow Wellies. This year’s themes are love, positivity and resilience—three characteristics we should show to our farmers.
Recently, the Office for Budget Responsibility assigned any revenue from this tax a high uncertainty rating, stating that any
“yield from this measure is not likely to reach a steady state for at least 20 years.”
The Treasury projects that the combined changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise approximately £520 million annually. Using HMRC figures on the total cost of each relief, however, the Liberal Democrats have calculated that the proportion attributed to the APR changes will be only around £115 million, confirming that this misguided tax will penalise British farmers for essentially no benefit.
In its report, the OBR reiterates that the measure will hit older farmers hardest, because they will find it difficult to quickly put in place the transitional arrangements to restructure their affairs in response to the pending changes. I recently spoke to a farmer from Martock who told me that their parents, who are in their late 80s, are horrified by this tax raid. They do not want to lose their home and their business, but the lack of time to implement the changes may make that their sad reality. They implore the Government to consult on transitional arrangements that work with them and for them.
I fear that these family farms will instead be broken up and parcels of land will be sold off at a deflated land value to already wealthy landowners, who will simply add to their large land portfolios.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech. I echo what she says about the stress experienced by the elderly generation—the mums and dads. They are probably getting ready for the future and settling themselves into handing the land over to their families, but the situation is causing stress, anxiety and depression. She has been at the forefront in addressing mental health in the countryside. It is not only the young farmers who will feel the pressures of this change; it will also be the mums and the dads, the aunts and the uncles, the grannies and the grandads.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, a recent survey shows that 95% of young farmers under 40 see mental health as their biggest concern. It is so significant.
I agree with farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton who feel that the thresholds have been set far too low. Some of them have told me that the figures that the Government have arrived at are just plain insulting. Many farms have a land value that is way in excess of any returns that can be earned on their land. As we have heard, farmers are capital-rich but asset-poor.
A dairy farm near Broughton has been a family farm for five generations and more than 100 years. The farmers there have told me that they already struggle to make a living as it is, without having to face the prospect of thousands of pounds each year being eked away from their business when they pass away. Their son wants to come into the farming business, but the proposed changes will destroy his chances of success. The changes will destroy everything that that family has worked so hard for throughout their lives, trying to secure the business for the next generation.
What is so galling is that the family farm tax fails to address the key issue of land being snapped up by wealthy individuals as a tax haven. Like others, I am desperately concerned about the actual number of farmers who will be impacted by the IHT changes. The Government resolutely refer to a figure of only 500. In my view, however, one farm is one farm too many. My point is: where has this figure of 500 come from? The Government claim that it is from the OBR, but the OBR says that is not the case. If it is not, perhaps the Minister can confirm today where this figure has originated from, and how.
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of summing up the debate. Lots of residential houses in rural areas such as mine have a couple of acres at the back, which people might use for hobby farming. They are not commercially viable farms. Does she agree that if the Treasury have taken those into account, it will have grossly underestimated the impact of this change?
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many in the industry feel that that figure is a vast underestimate, with inflation likely to bring yet more farms over the threshold within the next generation.
I hope that the Government will look again at their modelling to see how they can protect family farms and target those who use agricultural land to avoid paying tax. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to reconsider and raise revenue for public services more fairly by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, increasing the remote gaming duty on online gambling profits and raising the digital service tax on social media companies and tech giants. We urge the Government to support British farming by investing £1 billion annually in profitable, sustainable and nature-friendly farming; reducing trade barriers with Europe, including with a comprehensive veterinary agreement; and strengthening the Groceries Code Adjudicator to protect consumers and farmers from unfair price rises while supporting our producers.
The food security of the nation is imperative to national security, but I fear that these latest measures may have a negative impact on it. It is deeply disappointing that after years of the Conservatives taking rural communities for granted, we now see more of the same from this Government. I urge the Minister to rethink his attitude to farming and rural communities. My colleagues and I on the Liberal Democrat Benches will be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that no family farm receives a hammer blow to their business from these changes. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in urging the Minister to please pause and reconsider.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Here we are again! As we speak, thousands of farmers are once again rallying outside the gates of this building. Over the past six months, our farmers have repeatedly been told by this Labour Government that their way of life is expendable and that their hard work, their sacrifice and their future can simply be priced up and taken away. Is it any wonder that our farmers have shown up in such vast numbers again today?
Make no mistake: it is not just our farmers who are outside our gates. Across the country, more than 148,000 people have signed the petition because they know, just as Opposition Members do, that the family farm tax is wrong, is vindictive and must be scrapped now. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for leading this petitions debate, but I have to say that he did a disservice to the petitioners, who put their faith in him to lead this debate, by not actually forming an opinion. He communicated strong arguments, but he did not form an opinion. He was a mere spokesman and did not use his opportunity in this debate to voice properly their concerns.
What an image for our farming community to take away from this debate! Where on earth is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is sitting beside me. Where on earth is the farming Minister? He is absent. What message does it send that the Labour party has filled up its Benches but that only five Labour Members spoke, despite having the opportunity to voice their concerns in this three-hour petitions debate, and that all five of them voted against scrapping the family farm tax when we brought the motion to the House? This is probably one of the most important debates we could have on this issue, and yet once again those with responsibility for rural areas and our farmers are missing in action. There are Labour Members who have turned up but have not even contributed to the debate, despite representing large rural constituencies.
Where is this Government, who claim to be on the side of rural Britain? If they had actually visited some of their farming communities, they would know just how damaging to our farming community their choice to implement the family farm tax is. They might have had some of the devastating conversations that I and many Conservative Members, including the shadow Secretary of State, have had. I would like to share some of them.
Just last week, in Northamptonshire, I met George, who has worked on his farm all his life and is nearly in his 80s. Unfortunately, he is extremely ill. He knows from his diagnosis that he does not have long to live, but he is not sure whether he will live beyond 26 April. He knows that if he should pass away before 26 April, his IHT bill will be zero, but if he passes away after 26 April, the tax bill for his family will be well over £1 million—a debt that his family simply cannot sustain. Taking his own life was an option that was put forward to me. These are horrific choices and unthinkable amounts of pressure for any individual or family to be put under, never mind some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is giving a very powerful speech. It is true that George was given no notice and no ability to plan for this important impact on his life and on everything he has worked for—but is it not worse than that, because he explicitly relied on a promise not to do this? That makes it particularly unforgivable.
Robbie Moore
I will answer this point before giving way. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart): the electorate were sold false promises in the run-up to the general election. They were specifically told that this Labour Government would not change agricultural property relief, but that is exactly what the Government have done.
How will the Minister communicate with George? What will he tell George, based on the promises that were given in the run-up to the general election? I cannot believe how many times I have asked this, but will the Government commit to recording suicide statistics across the farming sector as we move closer to April 2026? If the Minister is so determined to carry on with his family farming death tax, will he at least look at changing the abruptness of the tax’s implementation, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our farming community? It cannot be right that this Government are forcing people to make those decisions.
Another point that has been made is that the tax also hits our next generation, the very young people we need to power our industry forward. What does the Minister say to Gemma, the granddaughter of a lifelong farmer who has been forced to split up the family’s farm, leaving their future in doubt? What does the Minister say to the thousands of young farmers up and down the country, many of whom are outside this building right now, who are in a similar situation because of this Government’s choices? I spoke to a few of them outside, before coming into this House. The same concerns have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
Then there are the tenant farmers. About a third of agricultural land is farmed by tenants. I spoke recently to Tom, a tenant farmer who stands to lose not only his livelihood but his family home, as his landlords scramble to reduce their IHT liability before April 2026. The Tenant Farmers Association is already warning of the mass renegotiation of many agricultural tenancies ahead of the family farm tax kicking in. For the tenant farmers there is no protection, because the Government did not see fit to recognise their unique situation. Will the Minister recognise the injustice to which tenants like Tom are being exposed through this Government’s choices? Will he provide protections for those with tenancies and for the whole agricultural sector?
Many points have been made by Opposition Members, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who talked about the wider implications on our food sector. Just last week, I was at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, where I met a tractor dealer who is also in a family business and struggling to stay afloat. Why? Because confidence is draining from the farming sector, and orders for new tractors, machinery and equipment have reduced significantly.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for his sterling work. He will know that early mornings, late nights, no holidays and low profit margins make up a typical day in the life of British farmers. They do it because they love the land, and they do it to feed our nation and sustain our rural communities. Does the hon. Member agree that this tax grab is a wrecking ball that will decimate our family farms? If Labour proceeds with it, it will have the death of rural Britain and rural Ulster on its hands. We need to stand up, stop this tax grab and ensure that the farmers outside this building today are heard in this place.
Robbie Moore
I could not agree more. It is telling that we have had strong representation in this debate not only from Northern Ireland, but from Scotland and every part of this United Kingdom. All Members have voiced their concerns that Labour’s choice to bring in the family farm tax will have catastrophic consequences not only for the hard-working families who are outside the gates of the Houses of Parliament right now, but for the wider agricultural sector.
Similar comments were made to me at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, which I attended earlier this week. Machinery dealers told me that they are being impacted not only by the lack of confidence resulting from Labour’s choices to reduce inheritance tax relief, but by the consequences of employer national insurance and other pressures being put on the wider sector. As if that were not bad enough, the business owner I spoke to will, by their own calculation, face a nearly £800,000 tax liability on death as a result of the changes to business property relief. That business has been trading for over 130 years and now faces the end of the line.
The impact is not just on farming family businesses, but on the wider agricultural sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said, the NFU has undertaken research that suggests that unfortunately 75% of farming businesses will be affected. Research released recently by Savills suggests that 88% of farmland will be affected. Research conducted by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers suggests that the Government underestimate fivefold the tax impact. These are professionals in the industry, and the Government are not even willing to listen to their points.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is speaking powerfully about the issues that will affect the farming community. He mentioned the NFU; I met NFU representatives in Scotland recently and was appalled that the Treasury had refused to meet them. The representative body of farmers in Scotland is reaching out repeatedly to Treasury officials for a meeting to discuss its concerns, but Treasury Ministers and their teams are refusing to engage. They are just not listening. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury is just not taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should to understand the impact?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes the point powerfully: collectively, all industry bodies and professionals in the sector are united. The NFU, the CLA, the CAAV—of which I put it on record that I am a fellow, having previously practised as a rural practice surveyor, so I understand the implications on the value of farmland—and Savills, as a key land agent, are all saying exactly the same thing: that this Government’s policy will have catastrophic consequences. My understanding is that the Chancellor has not yet even bothered to reach out to any of those professional organisations to sit round a table and try to understand their concerns. That point was made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst).
Dave Doogan
The shadow Minister is articulating the substance of the issue with great passion. Does he agree that at the heart of this fiscal misadventure is classic Treasury dogma, whereby the principal objective is to quantify the price of something and take no cognisance of its value? APR and BPR will unravel for this Government. Does he agree that it would be far better for them to take steps to row back on this policy now, rather than waiting for it to go absolutely pear-shaped?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes a very powerful point: this is about the choices that the Labour Government are imposing on many of our family farming businesses. Those families are now having to make difficult decisions about whether to look at disposing of land, plant and machinery or livestock to fit an IHT liability that may come down the line. All of that is reducing their productivity, which will have an impact not only on those family farming businesses, but on UK food production and UK food security. That is why I join all Opposition Members in calling on the Government to change course immediately.
Farmers are not multimillionaires. Many struggle to break even. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) have said, the vast majority of returns for our farming businesses are less than 1%, yet in most cases the value of the land on which they sit will be severely affected by the IHT changes, because the threshold that the Government are bringing out is £1 million. When the average size of a farm in England is 200 acres, and we take into account the farmland, the cottage that might exist on the farm, the plant and machinery, the livestock and the growing crops or stocks that may be in store, the value will be significantly higher than £1 million. That is why the Government need to listen to the NFU and its statistics.
Jim Shannon
I commend the shadow Minister. He is speaking exceptionally well and encapsulating the opinion of almost everyone in this Chamber. I thank him for that. In my contribution, I referred to the threshold. Instead of being £1 million on a rateable value in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and the whole way through, it should be at today’s value. Does he therefore agree that the threshold should be not £1 million, but at least £5 million?
Robbie Moore
I say to the hon. Member that the Conservatives have been absolutely clear: we would axe the family farm tax, and we would reverse the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief, which have such huge and catastrophic implications. In my view, the Government need to go further—not tinker with thresholds, but provide proper, decent certainty to the whole agricultural community by reversing this provision, which will have catastrophic implications that they admit themselves will give the Treasury revenue of only about £500 million. In my understanding, that would keep the NHS going for about 20 hours. Given the detrimental impact that the changes will have, the Government should think about reversing this disastrous policy.
For the 10th time of asking in this place, what impact assessment has the Treasury made of the effect on growth within our entire agricultural sector as a result of the autumn Budget? What about all the other negative implications—employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage increase, the de-linked payments significantly reducing, and capital grants disappearing—even before we start talking about the family farm tax?
When this tax was first announced at the Budget, I thought that maybe our new Labour Government were being naive. Perhaps they did not understand the catastrophic impact their Budget would have on our farming businesses, and would soon change course. After six months, however, the Government have consistently refused to listen to the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the CAAV, Opposition Members and others who have repeatedly tried to expose the damaging impact of the tax.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. One group he has not yet mentioned is the supermarkets: Tesco, Asda, Marks & Spencer, Lidl, Aldi, the Co-op, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have all urged the Labour Government to pause and consult, because the UK’s future food security is at risk as a result of this policy.
Robbie Moore
That is absolutely the point. Others outside the sector, including all our supermarkets, have come together in agreement to say how catastrophic the damage caused to the farming sector by this Labour Government will be. Indeed, the 250,000 who signed the petition launched by the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, which was presented to the Treasury a month ago, all agree with the comments that Opposition Members are making.
The Labour Government have wilfully ignored the farming community, the machinery dealers, the feed merchants, the auction marts, the supermarkets, the wider agricultural sector, including accountants, bank managers and land agents, and indeed the wider public. All have voiced their concerns that the family farm tax will have a crippling impact on UK agriculture. On top of that, as I said, the Chancellor continues not to meet any stakeholders. Today, as we have seen, no DEFRA Minister has even had the decency to turn up to this debate, despite its being of incredible importance.
No, the Government were not being naive. The reality is much worse. What is now clear is that this Government’s family farm tax is purposely vindictive. Indeed, I now believe that it was designed to be this way. The Government’s actual intent is to send a strong message to our farmers that they are not needed, that they do not matter and that they do not play a vital part in our national agenda.
As someone who has been involved in agriculture all my life since entering this place, this is personal to me. That is why we on the Conservative Benches do value our farmers. That is why the Conservatives will axe the family farm tax and reverse the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief—no ifs, no buts.
As I have said, I can only hope that the Minister is about to get to his feet to confirm, right now, today—with all of our farming community watching this debate and many others on the streets of Westminster after travelling from far afield to get here—that his Government will listen, make changes and, hopefully, axe their vindictive family farm tax. If he does not, I can tell him that Opposition Members will keep coming back, again and again, until he and his Government finally stand up for our farmers up and down this country.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I begin by extending my thanks, as other Members have, to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening today’s debate. I recognise his commitment to making sure that his constituents’ opinions are heard here today. I also thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate for setting out their views.
I appreciate that some Members disagree with either the principle or the detail of the changes that the Government have announced to agricultural and business property reliefs. It is important to be able to debate this issue here today, given the public interest in this topic. I am aware of the strength of feeling, both within the room today and outside, including from the almost 150,000 people who have signed this petition. I understand, as the petition sets out, that there are concerns about the impacts of the reforms to the reliefs, particularly on working farms.
I will seek to address the points that hon. Members have raised in a moment, but, first, I would like to emphasise the fact that the decision to reform agricultural and business property reliefs was not taken lightly. It was one of many tough decisions that we had to take at the autumn Budget in 2024, given the incredibly challenging fiscal position we inherited from the previous Administration.
Rachel Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that, until we improve the living standards of ordinary working people, we will never drive up the profitability or sustainability of family farms? It is the Conservative party, with its Budget choices, that devastated our rural communities, and only a Labour Government will focus on improving living standards for every single person living in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right about the importance of repairing the public finances and supporting public services, for her constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth and indeed for all of our constituents across the country.
I noted that, in her contribution earlier, my hon. Friend made a point about what this Government are doing to support the profitability of the farming sector. She may have seen that, at the Oxford farming conference in January, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs set out the Government’s long-term vision. That includes reforms to use the Government’s own purchasing power to make sure that we are buying more British food, planning reforms to speed up the delivery of infrastructure, and work to ensure supply chain fairness, which will help people involved in the farming industry and more widely, across her constituency and those of other Members here today.
As I said, the decision that we took to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was one of the difficult but necessary decisions that we needed to take on tax, welfare and spending to restore economic stability, to fix the public finances and to support public services, including an NHS in crisis. We have taken those decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.
The reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will still maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others. The Government recognise the role that these reliefs play, particularly in supporting small farms and businesses, and, under our reforms, they will continue to play that role.
The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full, unlimited exemption, as introduced in 1992, has become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, and as hon. Members have mentioned, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims—that is 117 estates claiming £219 million-worth of relief.
Dave Doogan
On the point the Minister just made about the notional value of estates, I think I can help him, because that is where he is going wrong, and where he has taken his Government up an agricultural cul-de-sac. When it comes to agriculture, what is important is not the notional value of the estate, but how someone came by that estate—whether they used billions of pounds of money on which they should have been paying tax in order not to pay tax, or whether they inherited the family farm from the generation that went before. That is the differentiation that the Treasury should be making. The value is irrelevant; the Minister should focus on the nature of the inheritance or acquisition.
James Murray
What has driven the Government in making the decision to reform agricultural and business property relief is the overwhelming priority of fixing the public finances in a fair and sustainable way. That is why the statistics to which I just referred, about how agricultural and business property relief have come to be used in recent years, are important for understanding the context in which we decided that the time for reform was now.
James Murray
I will respond fully to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) first. As I was saying before he intervened, the data from HMRC, to which other Members have referred, shows that 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates. It is a similar picture for business property relief, more than 50% of which is claimed by just 4% of estates—that equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Given the wider pressures on the public finances, we do not believe that that is fair or sustainable, and we felt it was appropriate to reform how the reliefs operate.
Graham Stuart
To follow up on the earlier question that I channelled in the Minister’s direction, will he say something about the average profitability of family farms? That puts this in context.
James Murray
Earlier in the debate, we heard that the average return on capital is 0.5%, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 10% of farms in England have made a return on capital of 10%, so it is perhaps a more complicated picture than the one presented earlier. Similarly, farm business income, which is net profit, shows a wide variation. In designing the reforms, we obviously considered the fact that those who have assets on which they currently claim agricultural or business property relief still need to have generous relief. That is inherent in the design of the reforms that we are proposing: there is full 100% relief for the first £1 million of assets—above other nil-rate bands, spousal transfers and so on—and then effectively an unlimited 50% relief thereafter.
Graham Stuart
I thank the Minister for his answer and for telling us about the variation, which I am sure is there, but will he provide the average or median, to give us a sense of the situation for the vast bulk, rather than the top 10%? What does the average or median look like? What is the reality for most farms up and down this country?
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. In understanding how the reliefs are reformed, the important point is to focus our conclusions on the data on claims. In understanding how many estates are likely to be affected by the changes, the data that matters is the data on claims. That is why the information that I was setting out around where the bulk of the relief currently goes is based on claims data. In a moment I will come to some other statistics that were referred to in the debate.
James Murray
I will make a little progress, and then take interventions in a second.
The data that I just referred to on where the relief currently goes—I was going to address in a moment the data on how many estates making claims we think will be affected in 2026-27—is based on actual claims, so we believe it is the right data on which to base the reforms.
James Murray
I will take interventions in a moment, but let me make a little progress. Based on the statistics I have just set out, which show where the bulk of the benefit from agricultural property relief and business property relief has been going, we felt it was appropriate to reform how those reliefs operate. That is why the Government decided to change how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. As I have said, we are doing so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for all estates, including for small farms and businesses, while making sure that we repair the public finances.
Under the reforms that we have announced, all individuals will, of course, be able to access the general nil-rate bands and spousal exemptions that apply within the inheritance tax system. On top of those allowances, any business and agricultural property within people’s estates will benefit from 100% relief on a further £1 million of combined assets, except in cases of shares designated as “not listed” on the markets of recognised stock exchanges. Beyond the £1 million of full relief, a further 50% relief will apply with no limit. That means that any inheritance tax paid will be at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.
Mr Carmichael
Does the Minister not understand that by penalising family farming at the same time as offering the 20% threshold, he leaves a situation in which purchasing land is still an attractive option for those who wish to shelter their wealth? He penalises those he wants to protect while protecting those he seeks to penalise.
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but let us consider those who will still have generous protection from inheritance tax under the reformed system that we have announced. I point the right hon. Gentleman towards the fact that the reliefs in the reformed system, when taken together with the spousal exemptions and the nil-rate bands, will mean that, depending on people’s individual circumstances, up to £3 million can be passed on by a couple to their children or grandchildren, free of any inheritance tax.
Ben Lake
There has been much debate about the discrepancies between the estimate of the Treasury, which states that some 500 farms will be affected every year, and the estimates from the NFU, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, the CAAV, the AHDB—I could name a few more. Is the Minister not concerned, and should it not give the Government pause for thought, that the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers has estimated that in Wales alone the proposals will make an extra 200 family farms subject to an inheritance tax liability? If we are to believe the Government’s estimates, that would constitute 40% of the UK total.
James Murray
I am about to come to some of the statistics to which the hon. Gentleman and others referred. I do not have much time, so I will make a little progress before answering some of those questions.
On the point of how the nil-rate band and spousal exemption allowances work together, anything beyond the nil-rate band, the spousal transfers and the 100% full relief will receive unlimited 50% relief, and heirs can spread any payments due over 10 years, interest free. That is a benefit not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.
James Murray
I will make some progress and turn to the impact that the reforms will have on taxpayers, because there has been a lot of discussion of the impacts, and of the numbers that various Members have highlighted during the debate. As the Government have set out in recent months, in ’26-27 up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to pay more as a result of this change. That means that around three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, will not pay more tax as a result of the changes.
James Murray
I will make some progress.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), asked how the figures were arrived at. The figure to which I referred—520 estates likely to be affected in ’26-27—comes from taking the historical data and projecting it forward using economic determinants. She may have seen the letter sent by the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee in November, which set out how that calculation was done. I suggest that all Members read that letter to understand the basis for that 520 number.
The statistics also show how many estates claiming business property relief are likely to be affected. Around three quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone, excluding those only holding alternative investment market shares, will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.
I recognise the disagreement over this policy, but Ministers and officials have been listening carefully to the views of the farming sector and rural communities. Ahead of the Budget, there was media speculation that the Government were going to abolish the reliefs altogether. In reaction to that speculation, the Treasury received and considered several representations from the farming sector with views on retaining the reliefs. I responded to a debate on the matter in this very room on 17 October.
James Murray
I have only a few minutes left, so I will not.
I have also participated in several meetings with farming bodies since the autumn Budget 2024, and I am meeting farming bodies again shortly to discuss their concerns further. At the same time, it is important to recognise that other organisations have called for the reliefs to be abolished or restricted. Commentators have highlighted that the reliefs currently contribute to an inheritance tax system that means that the very largest estates pay lower effective tax rates than smaller estates. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has set out since the Budget, the changes we announced will still leave farmland much more lightly taxed than other assets.
I want to address as many of the points that Members made during the debate as possible, but it is worth saying first that it is important to see the changes in the context of wider support for farmers and the rural community. The Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including the biggest budget for sustainable food production in our history. It committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last year, and we are protecting farms and rural businesses by committing £2.4 billion over the next two years to rebuild crumbling flood defences.
We will also continue to provide existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. That includes, for example, the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, and the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use red diesel, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) mentioned.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the inheritance tax treatment of Scottish agricultural leases, the Government are aware of the issue and officials have already discussed it with their counterparts in the Scottish Government. There is an existing provision in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 that deals explicitly with the Scottish agricultural leases. Section 177 of the Inheritance Tax Act means that Scottish agricultural leases passed down on death are not included in the value of the estate.
James Murray
I have only a few moments, so I will not.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) asked about introducing a working farmer test. I draw his attention to the fact that a test where relief was provided only if, among other things, the individual received 75% of their income from agriculture did exist in the UK for a short period, between 1975 and 1981. It was removed, however, because of concerns about its impact on the availability of land for tenant farming.
Finally, I will address an issue raised by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), about mental health among the farming community. The Government are committed to supporting farmers and agricultural workers in accessing the support they need to protect their mental health. DEFRA already works with a range of farming charities including the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution and Yellow Wellies, which was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Those organisations have highlighted the mental health challenges for farming communities more generally.
To conclude, as we have heard, the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views, and I understand that. I recognise that a small number of estates will have to pay more tax, but the reform of the reliefs is necessary given the fiscal challenge that confronts us and the fact that the bulk of the cost of the reliefs had become skewed towards the wealthiest estates. We must put our public finances back on a stable footing and repair our broken public services. We are doing so in a way that involves tough decisions but is as fair as possible and preserves significant relief from inheritance tax for small farms and businesses.
Julia Buckley
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. The manner in which the shadow Minister described the view that a farmer was better off if he committed suicide before April 2026 was highly irresponsible. This is a public debate on a very emotive subject. It is televised and it is being shared across social media in real time. This is not the moment to encourage anyone to consider suicide. Farmers’ anxiety and concerns about mental health are running high, and this is the moment to engage constructively with the Treasury, and with farmers and the NFU, who have been in dialogue, to seek the transition to tapered support that I referred to in my intervention, to avoid the very scenario that the shadow Minister repeated.
Every Member here cares for our farmers; it is the reason that has brought us all from different parties together to discuss this matter in a respectful manner. In the interests—[Interruption.] Dr Murrison, may I finish? In the interests of mature and responsible debate, will the shadow Minister kindly correct the record to show that he does not condone suicide but encourages constructive dialogue?
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As she probably knows, it is not a point of order, but her remarks are now on the record.
Robbie Moore
Further to that point of order, Dr Murrison. In my contribution, I was making very clear the live and real conversations, concerns, queries and frustrations that have been brought forward not only to me in my position as shadow farming Minister but to other Members on this side of the House and, indeed, to organisations that sit outside this House, namely those representing the farming community. These are real live issues and representations that have been brought to us. Therefore, I do think it is just and right to use my role as the shadow farming Minister to bring before this House, in front of the Government Minister, those very live concerns and real conversations that are happening in many family farm homes just now.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
The shadow Minister will know that is not a point or order either, but his remarks are on the record.
Ben Goldsborough
Time is short. The tradition is that I would normally thank every individual who has spoken, but there is not enough time for that. I thank everyone for the wide engagement across all political parties in Parliament, and I thank everyone for trying to take this debate forward in a better sense, with honesty, openness and transparency.
I also thank colleagues in the NFU. Today, I hosted an event in Parliament, and I know they have been sitting patiently not only at the back of the Chamber but outside, listening to the words that we say, because the words that we say in this Chamber carry a huge amount of weight. Going forward, these conversations will continue in the back rooms and in the corridors, to make sure that our farmers’ voices are heard and that we do not use events like this for grandstanding. As much as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) may regard my style as vanilla, I say to him in jest that vanilla is the favourite flavour of ice cream in the United Kingdom, so I will take that as a win.
Question put,
That this House has considered e-petition 700138 relating to Inheritance Tax relief for working farms.
The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.
Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).
Written Corrections
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Spencer
What assessment she has made of the potential impact of means-testing the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty.
Sir Ashley Fox
What assessment she has made of the potential impact of means-testing the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty.
Torsten Bell
This Government have run the biggest ever take-up campaign on pension credit, which is worth around £400 on average to those eligible.
[Official Report, 3 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 534.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):
Torsten Bell
This Government have run the biggest ever take-up campaign on pension credit, which is worth around £4,200 a year on average to those eligible.
Education
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
On delivery, I want to reassure the shadow Minister that schools will be funded and supported to deliver the new breakfast clubs. We are working with more than 750 early adopter schools from this April to ensure that we get the implementation, funding and support to resources right, before national roll-out of the new clubs.
[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 252.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan):
Stephen Morgan
On delivery, I want to reassure the shadow Minister that schools will be funded and supported to deliver the new breakfast clubs. We are working with up to 750 early adopter schools from this April to ensure that we get the implementation, funding and support to resources right, before national roll-out of the new clubs.
The following extract is from the seventh sitting of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Public Bill Committee on 30 January 2025.
Stephen Morgan
I also give a firm commitment today to Parliament that we will be publishing the outcomes of the early-adopter programme and the data on the national roll-out; it is crucial for the programme’s success to have robust data on the clubs in the public domain. Our grant for early adopters already realises that intent. With over 750 early adopters, we will be regularly monitoring delivery, including the roll-out and take-up of breakfast clubs.
[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 260.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan):
Stephen Morgan
I also give a firm commitment today to Parliament that we will be publishing the outcomes of the early-adopter programme and the data on the national roll-out; it is crucial for the programme’s success to have robust data on the clubs in the public domain. Our grant for early adopters already realises that intent. With up to 750 early adopters, we will be regularly monitoring delivery, including the roll-out and take-up of breakfast clubs.
Written Statements
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I am today publishing the Government’s response to the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report, “Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust”.
Public inquiries are a valued and well-established part of our administrative justice system. Recent years have provided ample demonstration of their value. They are widely considered to be an independent, legitimate and trusted method of investigating complex issues of deep public concern. Inquiries have shown themselves to be a way to shed light on injustices of the past, and have provided a means for victims and survivors to finally have their voices heard, and to help to rebuild trust in national institutions.
The House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was appointed last year to consider the efficacy and practice of inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The evidence it heard and the thoughtful report it published recognised that despite the value of inquiries, there is scope for improvements to make them more efficient and effective, and in particular, to ensure greater transparency and accountability in response to inquiry recommendations.
The Committee’s report is a valuable contribution to a timely discussion and the Government are grateful to Lord Norton and his colleagues for their report. Our response, which is published on gov.uk, signals my intention to build on this important work with a wider review of the policy and operational framework around public inquiries and I look forward to providing an update to Parliament on this work in due course.
[HCWS425]
Energy Performance of Privately Rented Homes: England and Wales
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is today publishing a consultation on reforms to the minimum energy efficiency standards that are applied to private rented sector homes under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. Improving the energy efficiency of private rented homes is essential to cutting bills, tackling fuel poverty, reducing carbon emissions and increasing our energy independence.
Everyone deserves the security and comfort of a warm home. Our aim is to raise as many households in the private rented sector out of fuel poverty as possible. This consultation is a key step towards meeting our fuel poverty target and ensuring tenants have the warmer homes that they deserve. We are seeking views on a range of proposals to address poorly insulated homes, to help improve living standards and the enforcement of regulations, so that we ensure that tenants are better protected.
The Government are also seeking views on how best to support landlords in delivering effective and high-quality changes, such as changes relating to the energy performance certificate metrics that the new standard should be set against, the implementation timeline, and the maximum required investment, including whether the maximum required investment should be the same for all properties, or whether it should be varied, and under what circumstances a reduced investment might be allowed. Government also seek views on whether short-term let properties should be regulated under these standards, as well as on what role smart meter installation and letting agents should play.
Once we have considered the responses to the consultation, we intend, subject to availability of parliamentary time and approvals, to bring forward changes to both primary and secondary legislation so that we can implement improvements to the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015.
Government welcome responses to the consultation from all stakeholders, tenants, landlords, letting agencies and local authorities. We look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation and working with all those with an interest in improving the domestic private rented sector and tackling fuel poverty.
[HCWS429]
Drax Power Station: Biomass
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
In January 2024, the previous Government launched a consultation on supporting large-scale biomass generators when existing support ends in 2027. Since this Government came to office, we have carefully considered responses to the consultation and assessed the case for a new support mechanism.
Biomass currently plays an important role in our energy system, but we are conscious of concerns about sustainability and the level of subsidy biomass plants have received in the past.
The Department will very shortly publish our response to the consultation. Alongside it, I want to report on our conclusions about the role of Drax power station in Yorkshire in the years 2027 to 2031.
In coming to this view, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator on security of supply, analysed the effect on consumers of support for biomass versus alternatives, looked at issues around subsidy and sustainability in existing arrangements, and considered longer-term issues around decarbonisation.
First, on security of supply, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where there was no long-term planning for our energy system and its resilience. In the system we have inherited, large-scale biomass provides around 5% of our annual electricity generation, serving a specific role as a source of firm power.
To meet our needs between 2027 and 2031, we could seek to replace Drax with new gas-fired power stations, but in the timescale we have, there would be significant risks to relying on this approach. In that context, NESO has advised us that Drax plays an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031.
Secondly, on price, we have undertaken comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections show that, on the right terms and in a much more limited role than today, biomass generation at Drax is the lowest-cost option, including when compared to gas-fired power stations, for bill payers during this period.
Thirdly, we have looked at previous arrangements for subsidy and sustainability. We believe that they simply did not deliver a good enough deal for bill payers and enabled Drax to make unacceptably large profits. At the same time, they demanded levels of sustainability that are not now in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice, including supply chain emissions well above the European standards. We have concluded that if Drax is to continue to play a role in our power system, these arrangements must urgently be improved going forward.
Fourthly, we have looked at issues around decarbonisation. Our finding is that there is a potential role for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or power BECCS, but realistically this will take time to implement and therefore cannot form the primary basis of this decision.
Following this assessment, and given the circumstances we have inherited, the clear evidence is that Drax is important to delivering a secure, value-for-money power system in the period 2027 to 2031. But we have also concluded that we cannot allow Drax to operate in the way it has done before, or with the level of subsidy it received in the past. On this basis, we have secured heads of terms that will form the basis of a very different agreement with Drax for support during the period 2027 to 2031. A summary of this agreement is included at the end of this statement. First, it will ensure that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when it is really needed.
Drax currently operates as a baseload plant, running around two thirds of the time. This means that it provides power even when other renewable sources are abundant. This must not continue in the same way. Under the new arrangement, Drax will be supported to operate at a maximum load factor of just 27%—operating less than half as often as it currently does. This will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that we have agreed. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate, and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.
Secondly, the contract will deliver much better value for consumers. It will significantly reduce the amount paid in subsidies compared to the existing support mechanism. This new deal halves the subsidies for Drax —equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, our analysis shows this will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement, compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market.
The deal limits the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem. But while this is our central estimate, we are not prepared to take the risk of prices soaring in response to volatile fossil fuel markets. As a result, the agreement includes a built-in windfall mechanism with rates of 30% and 60% that would claw back excess profits made by Drax. This will guarantee a much fairer deal for consumers than in the past.
Thirdly, we will introduce tough new measures on sustainability. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will also significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the much stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, and we will exclude material sourced from primary forests and old-growth forests from receiving support payments. There will be substantial penalties on Drax if these criteria are not met.
We will go further to ensure greater confidence that these standards will be met. The Government will appoint an independent sustainability adviser to work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to ensure our monitoring and enforcement measures are robust and keep pace with the science.
These measures represent a profound shift from the past on sustainability and on value for money. In this context, this is the right deal for security of supply and price in the period 2027 to 2031, given the circumstances we have inherited from the previous Government.
But nevertheless, we recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. We are determined that the next time these decisions are made, Government are not left in the circumstances we have been left in. We will do the work that was not done by the previous Administration on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives, so that we have proper options in 4 years’ time.
To help that process, we are setting up an independent review to consider how respective greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and direct air carbon capture and storage, can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets and ensuring security of supply, out to 2050. Further details of the review will be shared in due course.
These steps are about fulfilling our duty to ensure security of supply and the best deal for bill payers. We have faced up to the circumstances left by the previous Government and delivered a step change in value for money and sustainability. This Government will do whatever it takes to deliver energy security and protect billpayers now and into the future.
Overview of heads of terms for a low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference with Drax Power Ltd—related to electricity generation at its Selby plant.
Overview
Government have agreed heads of terms with Drax Power Ltd for a low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference at its 2.6 GW Selby power station. The heads of terms define the commercial terms that will underpin a new contract to be finalised over the coming months.
Following advice from the National Energy System Operator as to the utility of this plant for security of supply purposes, the heads of terms for a four-year CFD was agreed that ensures Drax will provide low-carbon dispatchable electricity when the system, and in turn consumers, most require it.
Heads of terms summary
The key terms are as follows:
Duration—1 April 2027 to 31 March 2031. This arrangement will commence on 1 April, the day after existing support arrangements conclude, and be limited to four years in duration.
Strike price—£113 per MWh (2012 prices).
Generation collar that caps the annual load factor eligible for subsidy at 27%. Together the strike price and the capped load factor are projected to halve the subsidy that Drax will receive during this contract period, compared against Drax’s current arrangements (under the renewables obligation and CFD). This is equivalent to savings of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, Drax is obliged to generate to a minimum annual contract floor of 22%, ensuring the system, and consumers, can rely on its presence.
Excess returns mechanism on profit. This contract has been calibrated to provide Drax with a limited return over the contract period. However, should Drax make higher than anticipated profits in an extreme price scenario, a profit clawback mechanism is in place to protect the consumer.
Enhanced sustainability criteria. The CFD substantially tightens sustainability criteria. It increases the proportion of biomass that must be sustainably sourced from 70% to 100%, reduces the supply chain emission threshold from 55.6 grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule to 36.6 grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule (aligned with international best practice—for example, the EU’s RED III), and, will include provisions to exclude material sourced from primary and old-growth forests from receiving support payments.
Robust contract compliance arrangements. Should Drax not comply with the sustainability criteria, then subsidy payments for electricity generated from whole consignments of biomass generation can be revoked, and there is a termination right for repeated breaches of those requirements.
[HCWS424]
Local Authority Public Health Grant
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
On 7 February, the Government published the public health grant allocations to local authorities in England for 2025-26.
Funding for local government’s health responsibilities is an essential element of our commitment to invest in preventing ill health, promoting healthier lives and addressing health disparities.
It is an important component of our plan for change in health, through which we will build an NHS fit for the future, tackle the underlying drivers of ill health and health inequalities, and deliver three fundamental shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention.
In 2025-26 we are increasing funding through the public health grant, and the 100% retained business rate arrangement for local authorities in Greater Manchester, to £3.858 billion. This represents an average 5.4% cash increase, or 3.0% real-terms increase, compared to 2024-25.
The 2025-26 public health grant will continue to be subject to conditions, including a ringfence requiring local authorities to use the grant exclusively for public health activity.
Following the next phase of the spending review in spring, we will aim to issue multi-year allocations from 2026-27 and will also consider whether further funding reforms could support local authorities to improve health outcomes for their local populations.
Full details of the public health grant allocations to local authorities for 2025-26 can be found on www.gov.uk. This information has been communicated to local authorities in a local authority circular.
[HCWS431]
Reform of Home Buying and Selling: Next Steps
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
The current home buying and selling process is notoriously slow, with transactions taking 21 weeks on average, while countries like Norway manage this in as little as four weeks. This is costly and uncertain for households, with one in three transactions falling through. The cost of these failed transactions is felt by households, who lose around £400 million each year in direct costs alone as a result, and there are much larger indirect impacts on people’s ability to make the right choices for their work and families. This Government are committed to reforming the housing market, making transactions easier and giving people more control over the management of their homes.
That is why, this week, the Government have set out new plans to modernise and streamline the way in which people buy and sell property. These modern, digital transactions will revolutionise the information available to consumers, delivering the right data at the right time, reducing the number of collapsing chains. The system will be enabled by accessible, standardised data, meaning that trusted information can be shared easily between customers and property professionals. This improved system will support our economy, increasing the volume of property transactions, and facilitating the labour market.
We have unveiled a package of measures to push this vision forwards. This includes: piloting approaches to digitalising and opening up crucial property data; committing to the introduction of common data standards across the home buying and selling sector, and continuing to drive adoption of digital identity services and electronic signatures in home buying and selling; and harnessing the information and expertise held by His Majesty’s Land Registry to drive innovation in the prop-tech sector and develop new services.
We know that this Government cannot do this on their own. That is why this work will be carried out in conjunction with the Digital Property Market Steering Group: representatives of industry and Government experts committed to digitalising home buying and selling, and delivering this change that is so badly needed.
Our vision is for a housing market that works for people of all ages, across all tenures, and in communities across the country. We therefore intend to publish a long-term housing strategy later this year setting out this vision, the steps we will take to achieve this, and how we will provide long-term certainty to the market.
[HCWS427]
Plan for Barrow
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
Economic stability, secure borders and national security are the foundations of the Government’s plan for change. To deliver long-term change and achieve the Government’s missions, everything possible must be done to secure these foundations.
This Government are committed to supporting the town of Barrow-in-Furness to play its crucial role in supporting and sustaining the defence nuclear enterprise. BAE Systems’ Barrow shipyard is the only facility in the UK with the infrastructure, site licence and resource to design and build the UK’s nuclear submarines—including the new Dreadnought class. At the heart of that role is Barrow’s community, and that is why the £200 million Barrow transformation fund is a long-term investment in the people of Barrow.
The Barrow Delivery Board is the local governance institution that will decide on use of the transformation fund and deliver the plan for Barrow. The board, including representation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Defence, will embody this Government’s commitment to empowering local leadership, taking independent and bold decisions in Barrow’s best interests.
The Government are today announcing the appointment of Dr Simon Case as chair of the Barrow Delivery Board. This is a crucial, outward-facing role that will set the strategic vision of the board, deliver the plan for Barrow, and ensure that Barrow’s community sees the fullest benefits. Dr Simon Case was most recently Cabinet Secretary and head of the UK civil service, bringing with him a wealth of leadership experience and understanding of complex policy and delivery challenges. As Cabinet Secretary, Dr Case was part of the development of the plan for Barrow, providing him with an understanding of both the area and the defence imperative of the work required.
The Government are confident in the board’s ability to deliver the plan for Barrow and committed to continuing to work with local partners on this important priority.
[HCWS428]
Prison Capacity Review
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson), has made the following statement:
Unlike the previous Government, this Government have a plan to ensure we are never again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places. We have launched the independent sentencing review to ensure that our future prison system is sustainable, in balance and that there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders. In December, we published the 10-year prison capacity strategy and the first annual statement on prison capacity. Our strategy is detailed, setting our commitment to build the 14,000 places the last Government failed to deliver, with the aim of completing the build programme by 2031. Our plan is realistic, recognising that prison building is complex. We are also committed to improving transparency via the publication of an annual statement on prison capacity.
The Lord Chancellor announced that we would be launching a review into the handling of prison capacity. The previous Government’s approach to the criminal justice system was flawed and this review will consider the reasons why prison supply and demand did not meet, making recommendations that may help future Governments avoid the cycle of repeated prison capacity crises, helping to guide our strategy.
Specifically, the review will consider strategic supply and demand choices and how these choices affected remaining prison capacity. It will shine a light on relevant decision making and an analysis of impacts on the wider criminal justice system. Alongside this written ministerial statement, the terms of reference for the review have been published on www.gov.uk.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Dame Anne Owers to lead the review. Her extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system means that this review will be conducted to the highest standards. The review will report its findings in spring 2025.
[HCWS426]
Requirements on Ukrainian Drivers and Vehicles
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The UK is continuing to support Ukrainians following the illegal invasion by Putin.
The Government are extending by 13 months the period for which certain Ukrainian driving licence holders can drive mopeds, motor bicycles and cars—category B—in Great Britain (GB), beyond the current 36 months. This will allow certain Ukrainian licence holders to drive in GB for a period of up to 54 months—four years and six months—after becoming resident.
This will continue to support Ukrainian licence holders’ ability to get around and adapt to living in GB.
Separate to the driving licensing extension statutory instrument, the Government will extend the existing exemption for certain Ukrainians on specific visa schemes from registering and paying vehicle excise duty (VED) on their Ukrainian-plated and registered vehicles to align with the length of their UK visas. The extension is effective from 4 March 2025, to ensure that Ukrainians can continue to use their vehicles without needing to register or pay VED. Further information will be posted on www.gov.uk.
Finally, driver licensing is devolved in Northern Ireland, so the relevant regulations would need to be followed by those Ukrainian refugees resident there.
[HCWS430]
Grand Committee
Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, missile defence is a critical thread in our tapestry of national security. The threats we face, highlighted by Russia’s reckless targeting of Dnipro with a ballistic missile, underline the need to be prepared. We test and train regularly with our allies, and our next missile defence testing and training exercise, codenamed Exercise Formidable Shield, is in May 2025.
Formidable Shield is a US-led exercise, hosted by the UK Government, at the MoD’s Outer Hebrides air weapon range, on behalf of NATO and our other defence partners. It is one of the most advanced and comprehensive missile defence training exercises in the world. It involves the UK and allied forces conducting live-fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world scenario-based training.
These activities are critical to the defence and security of the UK and the strength of our military alliances. First, they enhance interoperability. Exercise Formidable Shield will bring 10 nations together, each with distinct systems, targets and technologies. It will allow us to align these different systems and work in concert effectively in real-world operations, so that the UK and our allies can respond quickly and cohesively to any threats.
Secondly, Formidable Shield improves our collective missile defence capabilities, and our ability to adapt to evolving ballistic missile and other threats. This is why the live-fire element of Exercise Formidable Shield is particularly valuable.
Thirdly, Exercise Formidable Shield reinforces strategic deterrence, which is vital in maintaining stability and preventing conflicts escalating. The exercise sends a strong message to our adversaries that the UK, NATO and its allies are prepared to defend ourselves and our territories against any form of aggression.
In order to replicate operational conditions for these exercises, the UK and allied nations need to operate ever more sophisticated defence missiles, capable of climbing above the stratosphere. This would bring them within the scope of the licensing regime within the Space Industry Act 2018 and its associated secondary legislation. The Space Industry Act 2018 was never intended to regulate military activity. It was passed into law to ensure the safety and appropriate governance of the commercial spaceflight industry and is regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Government seek licensing exemptions under the Space Industry Act and associated secondary legislation for allied armed forces activities. This exemption is very narrow. It allows only allied armed forces, their operatives and international military organisations, such as NATO, to fire sub-orbital—that is, non-orbiting—uncrewed rockets from MoD sites or platforms, with MoD permission and under the control of the MoD’s regulator. To clarify the SLSC report, this exemption will not cover activities from UK spaceports, only MoD sites.
The exemption would bring multinational exercises into line with sovereign ones. Similar stratospheric tests conducted solely by the MoD are not affected by the Space Industry Act 2018 and its accompanying licensing regime on the basis that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Act must not bind the Crown. Exercises above the stratosphere, which would be exempt under this instrument, would be under the expert supervision of the defence regulator, which has monitored military activities for decades, including MoD rocket launches above the stratosphere. Unlike the civilian authorities, the defence regulator has the infrastructure and expertise to oversee the safety of these exercises properly. The amendments the Government seek would avoid putting an increased and new burden on civil authorities.
This instrument will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is subject to the affirmative procedure, as set out under Section 68(6) of the Space Industry Act 2018.
To conclude, the UK’s missile defence capability is a critical component of national and global security but, like all defence capabilities, to be effective it must be constantly maintained, updated, exercised and tested. Exercise Formidable Shield, planned for May 2025, is the next essential opportunity to conduct live-fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world scenario-based training. An enormous amount of military planning has gone into it from all the nations involved, and the Government seek appropriate regulatory certainty by the end of February in order to get maximum value from the exercise.
Approving this exemption in a timely manner will send a clear signal that the UK Parliament is united on the defence of our national security, united against our adversaries and united in its support for NATO. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it would be easy simply to stand up and thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument clearly, and it goes without saying that it should have the support of the opposition parties, in particular for the reasons that she outlined at the end—to demonstrate that we stand united with our NATO allies on a cross-party basis—but I have a few comments to make.
On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we considered whether somebody on the defence side or the transport side should respond, but the sad circumstance is that today my noble friend Lady Pidgeon is in Cardiff for the funeral of our late lamented friend Baroness Randerson, so it was agreed that, almost regardless of the subject matter, I would take the business today. In doing so, I pay tribute to Baroness Randerson, who would in many ways have been the perfect person to lead on this because her interests were in transport but she also had a real interest in the international.
With those words of introduction, I came to this statutory instrument rather cold. When we take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, we are very much told that air, sea, land, cyber and space are so important for defence. It is very clear that we need to ensure that space is safe, so we absolutely support the principle of the statutory instrument. In particular, as the Minister said, it is vital that Exercise Formidable Shield can take place, but a few questions come up.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has on various occasions pointed out that, if the UK were subject to the sort of attacks that Israel faced from Iran, we would not have been able to defend ourselves in the way that Israel was able to do with its Iron Dome. One of my questions, therefore, is: will the exercise that takes place in May, which, as the Minister said, brings together our NATO allies, be replicated in various ways and places to assist in our securing space? I realise that that may be a defence question on which she may wish to write, but I thought I would raise it here and now.
I also have a couple of other questions. Clearly, the Minister is right that the regulation can be done better by the MoD than by the Civil Aviation Authority, but if actions are being undertaken by our service personnel under the auspices of the MoD and therefore military law, there are various issues at stake and, if something went wrong, we would know whom to hold accountable. With our partners and allies, how will that be dealt with? Are there international agreements that would enable us to ensure that any accidents, errors or misdemeanours could be dealt with in an appropriate way? This is not to suggest that the statutory instrument should not go ahead but rather to understand how matters will be dealt with if there is some flaw in the system that means we might need legal measures.
I also have a query—nothing of great import—that I was slightly wondering about. The statutory instrument refers to the “Crown interest” and “Crown land”, as well as to the “Duchy interest”, which is:
“an interest belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”.
Does that mean the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall currently, which belongs to the Prince of Wales, or are there Duchy lands that still adhere to His Majesty the King? That is purely a question that puzzled me slightly.
Apart from those few questions, there is nothing else for me to say other than that we wish the statutory instrument well.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, with reference to her friend and colleague Baroness Randerson.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, comes to this cold, I come to the issue out of the deep freeze, but let me do my best. The Minister has helpfully laid out the primary purpose of the draft statutory instrument, by describing the exemptions that the draft instrument creates; of course, these activities, unless exempted, would otherwise be caught by the civilian-focused regulations. Therefore, let me say first that I accept the priority that must be accorded to defence operational flexibility, and I not only support but applaud the Government’s desire to ensure such flexibility is not compromised.
Having said that, while I support the statutory instrument, developments in the space domain are fast-moving and, while protecting our defence capability activity is of course vital, broader questions arise as to how the Government will keep abreast of that fast-moving scene. I have a number of questions, on which I will be very happy if the Minister wishes to write to me. My first question is: welcome though this SI is, how do the Government align this exemption with consistent principles of oversight and accountability, which are central to the overall integrity of space operations?
To minimise risk, do the Government propose to review the operation of this exemption in practice, perhaps after a year, to ensure that there are no unintended and potentially dangerous consequences and that there is transparency about how the exemption is operating? We must be satisfied that the shift of power from civilian regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority, to the MoD is not inadvertently reducing accountability unacceptably and potentially sidelining important safety protocols that are in place for good reason. I seek the Minister’s reassurance about that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for those very thoughtful questions, which covered quite a range of activities. I ask them to give me a moment to gather my thoughts.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments about Baroness Randerson. It is my great privilege that the last meeting that I had before Christmas was with Baroness Randerson, as well as my noble friend Lord Hendy, on a great passion of hers: the buses Bill. I hope that we can do her justice in the passage of that Bill through the House because I know just how much it meant to her.
I will take up the generous offers from the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and will write to them on the more technical issues that they raised.
This is a very important subject. We can sum up its importance by saying, as was expressed in both sets of comments from the noble Baronesses, that the threat we face is advancing, proliferating and converging; it is probably the most acute it has been in over 30 years. The UK employs a broad approach to deterring and defeating air and missile threats, including through NATO. I assure noble Lords that, of course, the UK continually reviews our air and missile defence requirements to ensure that we are adequately defended against the evolving threats that we face. Further developments in these capabilities are being considered in conjunction with the strategic defence review. I hope that that brings some reassurance.
On experience, the MoD has been firing rockets safely from its sites since the 1950s. The MoD and allies would carry the liability, as they were already doing before the Act, for activity in respect of firing allied rockets.
With respect to the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown Estate, I am grateful for the offer for me to write just to clarify the matters that the noble Baroness raised around those issues.
Regarding the MoD regulations, again allies have been undertaking activity, including firing rockets below the stratosphere, alongside UK military at MoD sites under defence regulation for decades. All activities conducted by foreign allies in the UK need MoD permission and must conform to MoD regulations, be overseen by the MoD regulator and be on MoD sites. I hope that this addresses the concerns.
In terms of the environmental questions that were raised, I will write and hopefully give the reassurance that it goes without saying that those considerations will be taken into account in everything that we do.
I hope that I have addressed the points that were raised. I reinforce my thanks to both parties opposite in their support for this, particularly regarding the time pressures that we are under and in ensuring that we have a very successful operation in May from our site in the Hebrides. We must ensure that the legislation that we bring through enables our defences to outpace the malign ambitions of our adversaries.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The PSTI regulatory regime is comprised of Part 1 of the 2022 Act together with the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 regulations.
This world-leading regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products. The law now requires these products that are made available to customers in the UK to meet baseline cybersecurity requirements. This is a world first, and a world-leading regulatory regime, with many other countries now mandating similar requirements based on the world-leading European Telecommunications Standards Institute standard which the UK helped create.
For instance, manufacturers cannot use universal default or easily guessable default passwords, such as “admin123”; this reduces one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide much-needed security updates that patch these vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues. Importers also have important duties they must comply with, as they play an important role in ensuring that more vulnerable products are not imported into the country. The same applies for distributors, as they are often the last line of defence against non-compliant products making their way to consumers.
Subject to the approval of this Committee, this draft instrument will add three new categories of products to the list of excepted products at Schedule 3 to the 2023 regulations, as well as making a correction to those regulations. In their 2020 call for views for this regime, the Government indicated that products would be excepted from the product security regime if it is deemed inappropriate to include them prior to further investigation, they are already covered by robust legislation or they will be covered by future legislation that is particularly relevant to that product category.
DSIT committed to except certain categories of automotive vehicles on 29 April 2023. The Department for Transport has been working at an international level to agree regulations setting cybersecurity requirements for vehicles. This would allow the cybersecurity of these products to be addressed by requirements that are specific to the sector and their functionality. The Department for Transport intends to mandate UN Regulation 155 on cybersecurity and cybersecurity management systems in Great Britain for all new cars, vans, buses, trucks and motorbikes. Its requirements are more appropriate, as it was created in response to the expanding capability and connectivity of vehicle systems.
A consultation is expected to be published with a proposal to lay, via a negative SI, Article 57 GB approval of assimilated EU Regulation 2018/858 in the first half of this year, with the requirements beginning to take effect from February 2026. Additionally, the automotive industry and its supply chain are already beginning to comply with UN Regulation 155, as it has been mandatory for new types of passenger and goods vehicles in the European Union from July 2022. To avoid dual regulation and unintentionally placing undue burden on the automotive industry and trade, the Government are seeking to except specific vehicle categories from the scope of this regime.
First, through the amendment made by Regulation 4, this draft instrument seeks to except consumer-connectable products that fall in scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/858, Regulation (EU) 168/2013 and Regulation (EU) 167/2013 from the scope of the PSTI product security regulatory regime in Great Britain. The consumer connectable products in scope of these regulations include cars, vans, buses, motorcycles, mopeds, quadbikes and tractors. These products are already excepted from the PSTI product security regulatory regime when they are made available for supply in Northern Ireland, as a result of the Windsor Framework.
Secondly, the amendment made by Regulation 3 will correct a minor error in the current language. Adding “period” ensures that the original intent of the paragraph is preserved.
The UK’s product security regulatory regime is world-leading. It cements our position as a world leader in consumer internet-of-things security. This measure will ensure that the regime works as intended and that the security of vehicles can be addressed through appropriate sector-specific regulations, and it will remove unnecessary burdens from the vehicles sector.
I hope the Committee will recognise the importance of excepting these additional products from the scope of the PSTI product security regulatory regime. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his introduction, but I am slightly baffled by this SI. I looked up whether the Commons had had its debate on it and found that it took place on 21 May 2024. Then I looked at the impact assessment, which seems to be dated 2023. I do not quite know why we are dealing with a historic SI almost a year later. What has happened in the intervening period? The Minister did not mention anything to do with that. Is this some oversight by the department? Has something happened? Was somebody ill and could not deal with this in the House of Lords? It is a rather peculiar situation.
The second rather strange aspect of this is that, when the Automated Vehicles Bill was going through, my noble friend the late Baroness Randerson, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Smith—it is rather coincidental that this was one of her big issues: automated vehicles and the data relating to them—raised questions about protection of personal privacy and the national security implications of the data being retained by manufacturers of automated vehicles. She also raised the possibility of a cyberattack that could paralyse traffic over a considerable area. Those concerns were also raised by my honourable friend Wera Hobhouse in the Commons at the same time. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, might be interested in this: we were assured at that time by Ministers in the previous Government that GDPR was good enough protection in respect of automated vehicles, despite the concerns expressed by my late noble friend Baroness Randerson. Now it turns out, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, that special provisions are needed.
Again, this is rather baffling. We seem to be hearing either that we have an administrative problem or that there was a misunderstanding about the intended policy. In some respects, I should be pleased that the Explanatory Memorandum sets out more safeguards, because if we are going to exempt these three areas—in particular, automated vehicles—we need to know that those safeguards will be in place through other mechanisms. I will go through what those might be and put questions to the Minister about them.
How will the collection, storage and use of personal data by automated vehicles be regulated to ensure compliance with data protection laws? What specific criteria must be met for a person or body to be authorised as a self-driving entity, particularly concerning data protection? Do they need to obtain a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the ICO, for instance? How can the public be reassured that their personal data will be protected? How will the regulations ensure that personal data is protected, not only during vehicle operation but after the ownership of a vehicle has ended? What are these robust personal data practices that need to be in place for companies to be authorised as self-driving entities?
What information about the data for the authorisation of automated vehicles must be provided and to whom? Will the Secretary of State consult the Information Commissioner’s Office before making regulations relating to the provision of personal data in automated vehicles, and will the ICO be including elements to do with personal data and automated vehicles in its annual report to Parliament? How will the Government protect against potential cyberattacks on automated vehicle systems?
Specifically, how do the regulations for consumer connectable products under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act interact with those that apply to automated vehicles and their components? Does this exempt the whole of the automated vehicle or, rather, particular connectable items in automated vehicles that would in fact be covered by the PSTI Act? How will the regulations prevent anti-competitive practices by vehicle manufacturers who might use data to restrict competition between them and independent operators?
The Explanatory Memorandum talks about the CAVPASS programme, which provides some information that is relevant. Currently, however, it does not deal directly with these specific questions regarding data handling in automated vehicles. We are promised, I think, that something is coming down the track in 2025. There is mention of a staged approach to regulations, which suggests that future measures will be introduced. When can we expect more information of the kind that I have raised? Is it not long overdue, given the speed of development of these vehicles? They are already in pilot form and we need to know that our data is secure. We are still left with questions, despite all that. I doubt whether CAVPASS is necessarily going to cover how data is collected in relation to cybersecurity and how they will be protected in that respect.
There are quite a lot of questions here, and it is rather peculiar that we were not in a position to ask these questions at the same time as the House of Commons last May. I am therefore looking forward to what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that something did happen, and that was the general election, which we, unfortunately, lost. That no doubt explains something of the delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has asked some pertinent questions. I will keep mine a little more general, because this SI amends the original regulations and broadens the exceptions under Schedule 3. The most notable change concerns the automotive sector, as has been noted, where vehicles were previously exempt from certain cybersecurity provisions.
The new regulations align the UK’s approach with international standards. They recognise the unique nature of vehicle systems and the need for specialised cybersecurity measures. UN Regulation No. 155 on cyber security and cybersecurity management systems, which governs the security of vehicles, is now set to be the primary framework for automotive security. As far as it goes, that would obviously seem eminently sensible, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has highlighted that there are a number of broader, perhaps more philosophical, questions about the direction of travel—that is not a pun—with regard to EVs, self-driving vehicles and vehicle autonomy, which we will have to grapple with at some point in the future. I imagine that this is a subject to which we will return.
My questions are a little more general. The regulations are undoubtedly important for protecting consumers and securing digital infrastructure, but we must consider the broader implications. The automotive sector is rapidly evolving, as has been noted, and the development of automated vehicles holds significant economic and societal potential. However, with innovation comes the risk of regulatory frameworks that struggle to keep pace; that is self-evident. How do we ensure that these cybersecurity measures do not inadvertently stifle technological advancement in areas and sectors such as the automotive sector? How do we end up striking the right balance between securing the technologies and enabling them to flourish?
There is also a question here around consumer awareness; again, this was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. How long would an individual’s data be attached to a particular vehicle, for example, even after it is sold? These regulations require manufacturers to disclose the duration of product security support, but how well are consumers equipped to understand and act on this information? Are we confident that the public are sufficiently informed about the critical nature of cybersecurity? Will the Government commit to taking the necessary steps to help customers and consumers protect their devices and data? It seems to us that this is an area where the education of the public must go beyond the bare minimum. We need to ensure that consumers are not left in the dark about the sorts of security risks that they may face.
We must also consider enforcement. With the proliferation of smart products entering the market at such an unprecedented rate, how will we ensure consistent and effective compliance across such a diverse range of industries, from household appliances to vehicles? As new technologies emerge and evolve, the enforcement mechanisms that are in place today may not be enough. Are we allocating the necessary resources to monitor and enforce these standards effectively? Are the Government allocating additional resources to help those things along? Does the current enforcement mechanism system adequately address the rising complexity and scale of the challenges ahead?
As I said, these are broader, more philosophical questions—I do not expect the Minister to be in a position to answer them and there is no need to write—but these are the sorts of things that we all need to consider as a society. Obviously, that will have political, economic and societal ramifications that we all need to consider, but the Opposition have no objection to these regulations; they make perfect sense for now. I suspect, however, that this is a subject to which we will return.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sharpe, for their contributions.
I will first address the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: why the delay? As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, it was a result of the general election. At the same time, we were waiting for the Department for Transport to progress UN regulation No. 155, until such time as we knew that we must take this exception out of the current regulations. That is the reason for the delay, basically; it was also about finding parliamentary time to table these regulations. That is that on the delay.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but, frankly, this is the same instrument as the one that was debated last May. Nothing has changed apart from the lack of parliamentary time. We could have done this in September, October or whenever. I forget quite when we had the King’s Speech—in July? We could have done this at any time in the past few months.
Lord Leong (Lab)
This is beyond my pay grade, I am afraid. I will need to ask my leader, the Chief Whip, why we could not allocate any parliamentary time for this legislation.
As far as personal data is concerned, the GDPR is still the lead legislation. I respectfully say to the noble Lord that, for the purposes of today’s regulations, the whole issue of such data is outside the scope of this instrument for now. However, I am sure that we will be talking about personal data in the months and, probably, years to come in other forms of legislation, or even about it being regulated itself.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Out of scope? On the basis that we are being asked to exempt automated vehicles, is it not proper that we ask for reassurance about automated vehicles and the implications for safety, data or whatever else? We are exempting them from these connected product regulations, so we need to be reassured that there are other ways of regulating them other than through these regulations. So this is not out of scope; the debate is about whether we should be exempting them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I take the point, but the instrument is about the two amendments to the regulations. I take the noble Lord’s point about data. Yes, it is important, and we must preserve the data, but this instrument is not within that scope.
Moving on to cybersecurity within autonomous vehicles, cybersecurity is at the heart of the Government’s priorities for the rollout of all self-driving vehicles. The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 enables an obligation to be placed on those responsible for self-driving vehicles to maintain a vehicle’s software and ensure that appropriate cybersecurity measures are in place throughout its service life.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about innovation, the Government are committed to supporting the development and deployment of self-driving vehicles in the UK. Our permissive trialling regime means that self-driving cars, buses and freight vehicles are already on UK roads with safety drivers. The Automated Vehicles Act will pave the way to scale deployments beyond trials. The Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind anywhere in the world for self-driving vehicles, with safety at its core. It sets out clear legal responsibilities, establishes a safety framework and creates the necessary powers to regulate this new industry.
On the point about cybersecurity from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Government take national security extremely seriously and are actively monitoring threats to the UK. The Department for Transport works closely with the transport sector, the National Cyber Security Centre and other government departments to understand and respond to cybersecurity issues associated with connected vehicles. UN regulation No. 155 more comprehensively addresses cybersecurity risks with automotive vehicles and has adequate provisions to deal with the prospect of self-driving vehicles. The PSTI regime is designed for consumer contactable devices or products and is not fully equipped to address the specific needs and complexities of vehicle cybersecurity. UN regulation No. 155, which was developed through international collaboration, provides a more suitable and rigorous framework for ensuring the security of vehicles.
More everyday products than ever are now connected to the internet. The Government have taken action to ensure that UK consumers and businesses purchasing consumer connectable products are better protected from the risks of cyberattack, fraud, or even, in the most serious cases, physical danger. The PSTI product security regulatory regime builds on the ETSI international standard and is the first of its kind in the world to come into force.
The cybersecurity regulatory landscape will continue to evolve. The Government need to be agile to ensure that there is synergy between existing and new laws. Through this draft instrument, the Government are delivering on the commitment in 2021 to except certain categories of automotive vehicles from the scope of the PSTI products security regulatory regime. This is because the Government, via the Department for Transport, are in the process of introducing sector-specific regulations that have been developed at an international level to address the cybersecurity of these products. These requirements, which are specifically tailored to these vehicles and their functionality, will create a more precise regime for the sector. This draft instrument therefore ensures that the automotive industry, which contributed £13.3 billion to the economy in 2022, will not be placed under undue burdens from dual regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has not mentioned the point raised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which was designed, I think, to give us comfort about cybersecurity and data: the Government’s Connected and Automated Vehicles: Process for Assuring Safety and Security—CAVPASS—which I mentioned. I did not hear him give us an assurance that that will be developed during 2025 to ensure the safety and cybersecurity of self-driving vehicles. As well as reiterating that the GDPR is an absolutely splendid way of regulating these automated vehicles, I hope that he will reiterate that this will be produced, because I have had a look at what CAVPASS currently says in the area of data, and it is not very much. After all, these connected regulations from which we are exempting automated vehicles are about safety, data and everything else.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. Rather than waiting for my officials to give me a briefing note, I will ensure that I write to him on all the points that he has just mentioned.
Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these amendments, which represent the most substantial reform of UK clinical trials regulation in over two decades.
Clinical trials are vital for developing safe and effective medicines, especially for those with limited treatment options, such as the estimated 3 million people living with cancer in the UK and the 17.5 million people managing long-term conditions. Last week, I saw for myself how innovative UK researchers are transforming cancer diagnosis and treatment. I joined the Science Minister, my noble friend Lord Vallance, at the Royal Marsden to learn about a research initiative that is using cutting-edge AI tools to improve breast cancer detection.
To support innovation, our regulations need to be flexible and proportionate. This legislation will do just that by delivering streamlined and efficient regulations, removing barriers to innovation and creating a patient-focused research environment—something that noble Lords called for during Questions on the Statement repeat that we just dealt with in the Chamber. These reforms will support the development of new life-changing treatments for those in need and strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in clinical trials.
I turn briefly to why this change is necessary and timely. The reason is that the current legislation is based on the now-repealed EU clinical trials directive, so it therefore no longer aligns with the rapid advancements in medicine and technology. We have the opportunity to create a world-class regulatory environment for clinical trials, if we can deliver a modernised framework that supports the safe development of innovative treatments.
I will outline, for the benefit of the Committee, the key aspects of the reforms. First, on risk-proportionate regulation, regulatory requirements will align with the risk level of a clinical trial. Low-risk trials will receive faster approval through automatic authorisation, without compromising patient safety. The second aspect is that of future-proofing. We have removed duplicative and granular legal requirements in favour of tailored guidance, ensuring flexibility for future innovations and moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. On international alignment, the UK will remain aligned to global standards, ensuring that trial data is recognised internationally and strengthening its position as a preferred site for multinational clinical trials. Then there is the important point of cementing the UK as a destination for international clinical trials. Streamlined processes will simplify applications and deliver globally competitive approval timelines. The final change that these regulations deliver is increased transparency. We want to ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all.
New legal requirements will thus be introduced to register a clinical trial, and publish a summary of results, including an easy-to-read summary for participants. These changes will build public trust in research by improving access to information about ongoing research and enabling informed decisions.
Of course, these reforms will also bring benefits to the National Health Service. Evidence shows that hospitals that undertake research have better patient care outcomes and improved staff retention. Improved efficiency in conducting clinical trials will therefore enhance research efforts and foster innovation in prevention, diagnosis and treatment across various conditions. Those conducting clinical trials will also benefit from a streamlined and risk-proportionate regulatory framework, reducing delays and admin burdens. These reforms, I am glad to say, will stimulate growth in the UK’s life sciences sector and position the UK as a global hub for clinical trials.
I beg the Committee’s indulgence as I correct an administrative error made in the Explanatory Memorandum. It incorrectly stated that an impact assessment was produced. However, since the projected costs and benefits to business were below £5 million annually, a de minimis assessment was conducted and published instead.
Before I conclude, I re-emphasise that participant safety remains absolutely paramount. While this legislation streamlines processes and removes barriers to innovation, what it does is to prioritise robust oversight of all clinical trials, ensuring that the safety of trial participants is never compromised. By modernising our approach, I believe we can strengthen the UK’s position as that global leader, as well as fostering innovation and having the highest safety standards. These reformed regulations accelerate the delivery of tomorrow’s emerging medicines into today’s reality for patients. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her clear introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly welcome. There are some important factors here. I particularly welcome the requirement to register clinical trials and publish a summary of the results within 12 months. It has been widely and long acknowledged, in the research community broadly, that there is an issue where less successful or failed trials, or those that are not seen to have interesting results, are not published. They can be as important, or more important, than the successful ones. The failure to publish them is driven by academic, publishing and promotion imperatives—and, I am afraid, by the profit motive in healthcare, where companies have very much sought to find the successful stories and bury the less successful ones. That is really positive and, if I would say one thing, it would be to encourage the Government to speak more about that, because it is important that people understand it. Given the issues that we have with trust across the board at the moment, I encourage them to highlight that we are actually strengthening and improving regulation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister; I hear her sniffles. She has been a champion of her brief in having to deal with two statutory instruments, as well as a Statement in the House. I thank her for being here.
As the Minister said, the reforms proposed in this statutory instrument aim to create a more streamlined and flexible regulatory environment for clinical trials in the United Kingdom, while balancing safeguarding the interests of trial participants. The amendments seek to uphold the paramount importance of participant safety, ensuring that their rights and well-being remain central to the regulatory framework. By refining the evaluation and development process for new or improved medicines, these changes aim to expedite the delivery of therapeutic benefits to patients and society at large, and we on these Benches recognise that.
The instrument will formalise the combined review process, which has been piloted since 2018 and become the exclusive route for clinical trial applications. This process offers a single application pathway and co-ordinated regulatory and ethics committee review, ending in a unified UK decision for clinical trials. That would be helpful for practitioners and those seeking to innovate, but there are still points that require clarification, and while the objectives of these amendments are commendable, I seek clarification from the Minister on several aspects.
What measures are in place to ensure that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the ethics committees will be adequately resourced to manage the anticipated increase in workload resulting from the streamlined process? If no impact assessment has been made, what working assumptions are the department and NHS England working to regarding the workload that this new process will bring?
Can the Minister provide detailed guidance on how the risk-based approach will be operationalised to ensure consistency across different types of trials? I note that she talked about international alignment, but how do the Government plan to align these regulatory changes with international standards to facilitate seamless multinational trials? What frameworks will be established to monitor the impact of these regulatory changes on trial efficacy and patient safety, which is really important? How will these findings be reported locally within the NHS? Will they be reported to Parliament at any point?
Finally, can the Minister explain and elaborate on the consultation process undertaken with key stakeholders regarding these changes, including patient groups, industry representatives and academic researchers, in the development of these amendments? Were there any differences that emerged from the stakeholders and how have the Government dealt with them?
In conclusion, while we on these Benches support the intention behind these regulations, it is imperative to ensure that the implementation is robust and effective. I look forward to the Minister’s responses on the matters I have raised—less croaky responses, I hope.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the laying of this statutory instrument. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I commend her on her valour and robustness, as well as the speed at which she managed to transport herself from the Chamber to here after the Statement repeat, having prepared for that and having been briefed by her officials.
Like many other noble Lords, we welcome these regulations, which are grounded in the review by my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and the subsequent consultation with stakeholders, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and Health Research Authority, aimed at modernising the regulatory framework that governs clinical trials in the UK. We know that the landscape for clinical research in the UK faced significant disruption during the Covid-19 pandemic, but we also know that we learned quite a lot from trying to get vaccines out very quickly in terms of ways to speed up trials and to make sure that we get the right balance between efficiency and processes, as well as making sure that people are safe. We need to make sure that we can boost the volume of clinical trials and boost patient recruitment.
The O’Shaughnessy review identified the need for a more flexible and risk-proportionate approach to clinical trials. One very important point is that, while we cannot eliminate risk altogether, we can manage it. Where there is low risk, we should maybe not be placing so much emphasis on processes as compared with when there is high risk, but I also know that there may always be unintended consequences.
Stakeholders such as the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry were vocal in their support for these reforms and had in fact been calling for them. The ABPI 2024 report, The Road to Recovery for UK Industry Clinical Trials, highlighted that the number of pharmaceutical industry trials initiated in the UK increased—it was just over 400—between 2022 and 2023, although that still remained 36% below the 2017 level. We therefore understand the need to bring forward these regulations to make sure that we improve the regulatory environment to further increase clinical trial activity.
I turn to the detail of the regulations. One major change that noble Lords have already alluded to is the consolidation of the regulatory and ethics review process, enabling researchers to submit a single application for both regulatory approval and ethics review. While this change is aimed at improving efficiency—which we completely accept and welcome—there is a concern that any changes from consolidating these processes may put additional pressure on the regulators and ethics committees. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to that. If the single application process becomes overloaded, we risk delays in review times rather than the acceleration that was intended by these measures in the first place. It is essential that we have the resources and infrastructure in place to handle the increased workload effectively. Can the Minister therefore say how the Government will make sure to avoid that sort of overload? We completely understand why they want to consolidate the processes, but will it add extra pressure and will the resource be there to make sure that they are not overloaded and we do not just end up going back to square one, or even make things worse?
In addition, for low-risk trials, automatic regulatory authorisation will be granted, which will further streamline the approval process and free up resources for the more complex, higher-risk trials. Once again, while this makes sense, we have to be aware of possible unintended consequences or concerns that will be raised. The automatic approval of low-risk trials could, for example, raise concerns over oversight and monitoring. The intention to expedite the approval process for those with lower-risk profiles is laudable, but will there be clear criteria in place to ensure that the appropriate level of scrutiny is maintained, particularly in ensuring patient safety? As I said, while we support the intention, particularly for low-risk trials, we must always be aware of unintended consequences or unforeseen complications. Nevertheless, we completely understand why this is being done, and it is something to be welcomed.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their time and their constructive contributions. I feel that we are all moving in the same direction, and I appreciate the welcome for these regulations. I also appreciate the understanding that I am not firing on all cylinders, but be warned: I will be at some point.
Noble Lords have heard the details of the amendments, which, as I said in my opening speech, represent the most significant reform of UK clinical trials regulation in more than 20 years. As I said in my opening comments, I am conscious of the fact that I have just come from the Chamber, where we heard questions about this very area. So these regulations do seem very timely. If I miss anything in response, I will of course be very pleased to write to noble Lords.
In delivering a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, and in accelerating life-saving treatment through streamlined and future-proof processes, the reforms will put patients at the heart of clinical trial processes, as we well as strengthening the UK’s position.
I turn to some of the key points that noble Lords have raised. On the matter of safety clinical trials of course carry varying levels of risk. No clinical trial is entirely without risk, but the MHRA maintains a rigorous regulatory oversight to safeguard patient safety in all clinical trials, and this legislation does not change that. There will be no compromise on the protection of participants. However, we are removing requirements from the current legislation that simply offer duplication or no additional value when it comes to identifying safety risks. As I and other noble Lords have acknowledged, this is about removing obstacles but ensuring that safety is paramount to ensure that regulators, researchers and participants are all aware of potential risks and can take action to deal with them as appropriate.
I very much welcome the removal of unnecessary administrative burdens; I am sure that all noble Lords do. By increasing the opportunities in the UK to access innovative medicines at an earlier stage, we will expand patient access to new therapies and reinforce the reputation of the NHS as a world-leading platform for health and life sciences.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett rightly highlighted the matters of transparency and public trust. I am very glad to see the new transparency requirements because, for the first time, there will be a legal requirement for sponsors to register a clinical trial, publish a summary of results and offer to provide participants with an easy-to-understand summary of what the research has found. Clear guidance is being produced to ensure that the summary for participants is accurate, tailored and appropriate for the audience, which includes translation into different languages and an awareness of suitable formats, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
A recent study commissioned by the HRA highlighted the importance of transparency, with 69% of respondents stating that they would have greater confidence in research if participants were informed of the outcomes. These measures will therefore foster greater trust and engagement with clinical research, and I certainly welcome that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about the protection of pharmaceutical companies’ legitimate interests in protecting commercially sensitive information, and asked what safeguards are in place. I can assure him that we absolutely respect and understand the need for commercial confidentiality. The new regulations will permit research sponsors to request deferrals for registration and the publication of results, including offering to share these with participants where this is necessary to protect commercially confidential information. Deferrals could be granted for up to 30 months, with the possibility of further deferrals, where justified, up to a maximum of 10 years. I hope that these provisions will safeguard the very legitimate interests of companies, while also maintaining the overall goal of transparency, to which we are all committed.
We recognise the scale and the vibrancy of the UK’s life sciences industry, particularly those conducting clinical trials. Throughout the development of the reforms, we have engaged with the clinical trial community and received widespread support across key stakeholders, including businesses, academics and charities. The public consultation generated over 2,000 responses and demonstrated a strong appetite from the research community for updating and improving clinical trial regulations. We will continue working closely with the research community to produce guidance that supports the smooth implementation of these new regulations.
Noble Lords were very helpful in raising a number of considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about the criteria for automatic authorisation and for information about low-risk trials. The criteria have been designed to ensure that sufficient scientific evidence already exists regarding the safety of the product and the methodology that has been used in the clinical trial—essentially, that we can be assured that the medicine is safe. The evidence must have been reviewed previously and approved by the MHRA or, where applicable, by regulatory authorities in the EU, the EEA or the USA. Additionally, the legislation defines the criteria for a clinical trial to be eligible for automatic authorisation. I hope that this is helpful to the noble Lord, as his point is very valid.
On the matter of implementation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, particularly regarding guidance on risk proportionality, guidance will be published in advance of the regulations coming into force. This will ensure that researchers and those undertaking clinical trials understand the changes and have time to prepare. We are working with stakeholders across the sector and taking views into account to ensure that the guidance is as clear and helpful as possible. The guidance will be promoted by a wide range of channels to ensure that it reaches stakeholders across the research and clinical trial participant community. This is vital as we bring in this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also raised a point relating to the performance of the MHRA. Since September 2023, all regulatory assessments for clinical trial initial applications and substantial amendments to protocols have been completed within the current statutory timescales of 30 days and 35 days, respectively. The latest performance information about the MHRA regarding clinical trials assessment shows strong consistency and, I am glad to say, no backlogs. The updated legislation will introduce key measures to make it easier and faster for applicants to gain approval. Noble Lords have acknowledged the need to ensure that the UK remains a prime destination for clinical trials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised questions about automatic authorisation. I understand why noble Lords are raising these matters. This is new territory and noble Lords need to be reassured. There are clear criteria embedded in the legislation to ensure that only appropriate clinical trials can use this automatic authorisation route. The criteria are based upon the MHRA stakeholders who were consulted on their extensive experience of clinical trials and the participant safety risks associated with them. I can give the reassurance that, where there is a significant safety concern with the product, clinical trials will not be eligible for automatic authorisation and must undergo full regulatory assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned stakeholder engagement. Following the public consultation, a number of policies were adapted to ensure that the regulations did not have any unintended consequences, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said. Let me give one example. The feedback indicated that patient and public involvement would be best addressed in guidance rather than in legal requirements, in order to give that flexibility and to enable it to be kept up to date.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the environmental impact at the stage of clinical trials. I will be pleased to write to her on that point.
As I believe this debate has shown, we are in agreement that, by improving the clinical trial regulatory framework, these changes will expand patient access to cutting-edge therapies, boost the UK’s life sciences sector and reinforce the reputation of the NHS as a leader in health research. On this basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support these vital regulatory changes.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this SI amends the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which are due to expire after 31 March this year. It removes that expiry date and amends the five-year period from which the regulations are required to be reviewed. Prior to laying this SI, the principal regulations required review every five years from 1 April 2015. The first post-implementation review was delayed until 2022 due to the pandemic. We therefore wish to conduct the next review in 2028.
This SI does not change any existing policy. The 2014 regulations set out the activities that are regulated by the CQC and the fundamental standards with which all health and social care providers registered with it need to comply. This is coming before your Lordships’ Committee because, if we do not amend the 2014 regulations, they will automatically expire and the CQC will have no powers to fulfil the requirements in the 2008 Act. Neither will there be an obligation on providers, which are currently required to register with the CQC, to comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations.
I am aware that there may have been an expectation to see further changes following the report by Dr Penny Dash into the CQC’s operational requirements, which uncovered significant failings in the CQC’s internal workings. However, dealing with those operational failings does not require changes to legislation; as we have debated in the Chamber on previous occasions, measures have been put in place by the CQC’s new chief executive, Sir Julian Hartley, to urgently address the failures, including the introduction of new governance at the board level.
Noble Lords may also have observed that this SI is silent on provisions relating to the use of restraint and the regulation of medical care at temporary cultural and sporting events, on which we also consulted last year. I can give an assurance that these sensitive areas have not been overlooked and that we are continuing to progress work on finalising these policies.
The consultation responses on the proposal to make restrictive practices notifiable to the CQC within 72 hours showed support for the measures but highlighted a number of practical concerns, primarily that the proposed timeline could place an additional burden on staff, with the potential risk of impacting patient care. As the Government said in their response to the consultation, further work is needed to ensure that we have the right definitions, systems and processes in place before proceeding with legislative changes.
I can tell the Committee that the Government will lay a statutory instrument to remove the exemption relating to regulation of medical care at temporary and cultural sporting events. With this change, providers of such care will be required to register with the CQC for the first time. I hope that will be helpful in setting out what this SI is, and is not, about. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, again I thank the Minister for clearly and aptly outlining what the statutory instrument is for. I am not going to go over the reasons for this but, broadly, these Benches support what is happening and understand why the streamlining is required. However, like all streamlining where common sense seems to take the central point, it is worth testing just how common and sensical the requirements are, and whether the Government have thought through some of the consequences—or unintended consequences—of what may happen. Although the intention to maintain regulatory oversight and uphold care standards is obviously commendable, several points warrant further investigation and probing. I hope that the Minister will answer in her normal way; she is usually quite thorough and detailed.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review conducted in July 2022 had limited responses, providing insufficient evidence to suggest that the 2014 regulations did not meet their original objectives. Could the Minister elaborate on the steps taken to engage stakeholders during this review? What measures will be implemented to ensure that, when statutory instruments are extended in future, more comprehensive stakeholder participation will be sought? The amendment mandates having a review every five years. Given the dynamic nature of health and social care, how will the Government ensure that the regulations are monitored and remain responsive to emerging challenges and innovations within the review period?
Removing the expiry date also extends the regulations indefinitely. Have the Government assessed the potential long-term impacts of this permanency on service providers and the CQC’s regulatory capacity? I think the noble Baroness knows why this question is being asked. Although I heard what she said about the operational issues that the CQC is undergoing at the moment, the regulatory changes that we are discussing may have some operational impact on the CQC.
In particular at the moment, when the CQC’s backlog is significant and its chief executive has said that it has no idea how it will deal with it—indeed, there are certain things stuck in the computer system that they do not know how to get out—how will the Government ensure in the interim that any application made to the CQC regarding this instrument is dealt with in a timely and safe manner?
Finally, on the policy areas that the Minister said were outwith these regulations due to further consultation and the sensitivity required, when will the statutory instrument be laid before Parliament? What is the timescale? Are any interim measures being put in place to ensure that any safety issues or regulatory issues with these sporting events are dealt with before the statutory instrument is laid before Parliament?
With those questions, we are, as I say, very supportive of this instrument in a broad sense, but the Minister’s normal detailed response would be welcome.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank the Minister for the statutory instrument before us. We understand the reason for it: making sure, in particular, that this continues to be in effect after March this year, and setting the next review for 2028. Maybe that is where some of the questions arise—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, alluded to some of these concerns.
We have just finished debating an SI on adapting for innovation—particularly in relation to speeding up clinical trials, which is to be welcomed. It showed that we need to be flexible with the emergence of new technology, knowledge and capabilities in health and social care. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, we wonder about a five-year review cycle, which may not allow for sufficient flexibility, given some of the fast-paced developments in healthcare. We have seen massive strides in digital health and mental health services. In our debate earlier in the Chamber, we asked about the use of AI in analysing data that the NHS already has. Will five years be too long to wait? Could it slow down the adoption or reviews, if you like, of some of these new technologies? Could the delay in reviewing regulations lead to some important issues being unaddressed for far too long? There may be new awareness of some emerging patient safety risks, for example. I just wonder: how do we get the right balance? I understand why the Government have extended this for five years, but we want to make sure that, within those five years, the Government, the NHS, the regulations and the CQC are flexible enough to take account of innovations.
The absence of interim mechanisms for addressing pressing issues during this review period could also foster a sense of regulatory stagnation. There may well be a case where providers and stakeholders feel that concerns are not being acted on quickly enough, especially as challenges arise before that next review. Although we understand the need for a stable framework, we want to understand how to get the balance between stability and responsiveness right. Could that delay necessary regulatory adjustments?
The other point here is extending the scope of the regulations to all patients being assessed or treated for a mental health disorder in a mental health unit. Obviously, this coincides with the debate that noble Lords are having on the Mental Health Bill. In this case, it extends beyond only those with learning disabilities and autism. This expansion is generally welcomed, but, once again, it raises questions—which were raised on the last SI—about resources and capacity. I know that the Minister has heard this a number of times, particularly during the passage of the Mental Health Bill. Will there be sufficient support for providers so that they can meet these expanded requirements? How will the Government monitor and address any challenges that may arise from this broader scope?
Fortunately, the Minister pre-empted one of the questions that I was going to ask about the regulations’ provisions on temporary healthcare settings, particularly at large sporting and cultural events. We understand the need to remove those regulations, but what thought has been given to the unintended consequences of doing so? I am generally supportive of removing regulations, but I understand why we need them: to make sure that enough account is taken of safety but also that someone is held responsible and there is some accountability when things go wrong.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and questions. The summary of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, of what we are looking for is exactly right. It is all about balance: we need efficiency and speed, but it has to be right. I certainly share that view. As I set out in my opening remarks, the dual purpose of this SI is to remove the expiry date of the 2014 regs and to amend the five-year period from which they should be reviewed. As I mentioned, this is to ensure that health and care providers will continue to be required to register with the CQC and comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations after 31 March this year, and also, as we all agree, to ensure that services will continue to be required to provide a safe and high-quality standard of care.
I turn to the points raised by noble Lords. If I find, on review, that I have not adequately answered or have inadvertently missed any questions, I will of course write with the requisite information.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to the post-implementation review of the 2014 regs. That review ran from May to July 2022, and there were 86 responses. Interestingly, there was insufficient evidence in the responses to suggest whether the objectives of the 2014 regulations remain appropriate and whether there is an alternative system of regulation that would impose less regulation on the health and social care sector. I think we can safely say that it was not conclusive in pointing us in a particular direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also asked when the statutory instrument to remove the exemption relating to the regulation of medical care at temporary cultural and sporting events will be laid. I can say to him that it will be in the summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also raised the question of the performance of the CQC, which I completely understand. He asked what is happening, how we are dealing with the backlog of registrations and what is our assessment of its long-term impact on regulatory capacity. I understand that. I re-emphasise that the chief executive of the CQC has commissioned an independent review to look specifically at the CQC’s technology. That will help reduce the backlog, which can be tracked back to 2023, when there were a number of difficulties that now need to be resolved. I absolutely agree that the backlog in registrations is a problem particularly for small providers trying to set up a new care home or service. That problem can mean lost revenues and investment, and that has a knock-on impact on capacity, which we very much need to expand.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is really helpful that the Minister says that, but a review in itself does not solve the problem. Have the Government given the CQC a timescale, not just regarding a review but for when they expect the operational difficulties to have been addressed? It is important for those who are registering to understand that. What is the timescale, not for the review but for dealing with the consequences of the backlog?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised this with me in the Chamber and in a Parliamentary Question, if I am not mistaken. While I cannot be specific, as I have mentioned before, the fortnightly meetings with CQC—after which a report also goes to the Secretary of State—are an example of focus which, I hope, give some sense of the pace and intensity in putting this right. The CQC not being fit for purpose is an unsustainable situation which is causing great difficulty. When I can update your Lordships’ House about timelines, I will be very pleased to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about interim plans being in place. This is kept under review. We are working with the CQC on its recovery and will review whether further changes are needed. There is nothing to stop us from reviewing regulations in the interim. Five years is the statutory requirement, but it does not mean that we cannot act sooner. It is a point well made about time. Similarly, the noble Lord asked whether the reviews being every five years would slow down the adoption of technology. The intention is that it would absolutely not. The reason for keeping the regulations under review is that that would not be regarded as getting the right balance which we all seek.
Regarding capacity issues to meet the expanding requirement, we are very conscious of the consequences. The Government will work with the CQC, NHSE and its partners on a workable mechanism for notifying restraint within 72 hours, which was the point raised.
With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps I can assure them that, in some ways, this is for me a work in progress, on many sides. We will continue to do that.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay
Introduction: Lord Katz
Death of a Member: Lord Elis-Thomas
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on Friday 7 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
National Lottery: Contribution to Good Causes
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Viscount Chandos
To ask His Majesty’s Government what they expect the National Lottery’s contribution to good causes to be in the first twelve months under the new operator, compared to the last twelve months under the previous operator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Good cause returns generated from ticket sales are expected to be £1.6 billion in the year 2024-25. This is consistent with returns last year and in line with performance over the last five years. Allwyn, the new operator, has publicly committed to safely doubling returns to good causes by the end of its licence. Its first year has focused on delivering stable good cause returns while completing its modernisation programme to build strong foundations for the future.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, but note that this is unchanged year on year, when, as she said, Allwyn committed to doubling or more. It pledged at the time of the licence being awarded to give £38 billion in the next 10 years, which looks fanciful now, to put it mildly. Will my noble friend say what the Government will do to hold Allwyn to its pledge—or was the Gambling Commission taken for a ride?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend is correct that Allwyn is committed to increasing the amount of funding going to good causes over the course of the licence—from £30 million to £60 million a week. The Gambling Commission has direct oversight of Allwyn and its implementation of the technology transformation needed to realise its bid commitments, to ensure that these are delivered safely and effectively. In addition, I have met with Allwyn on a couple of occasions, including last Wednesday, to receive additional assurance around delivery.
Baroness Lampard (Non-Afl)
May I remind the Minister that the National Lottery is a gambling exercise? With that in mind, what contribution is the new lottery operator making, or does it intend to make, towards research, education and treatment of gambling harms? Do the Government consider that the contribution is fair and adequate, given the significant number of problem gamblers who participate in the lottery? During my time as chair of GambleAware, the lottery’s contribution towards research, education and treatment of gambling harms could only be described as derisory.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The fourth licence requires Allwyn to contribute to research, prevention and treatment for gambling-related harm, or we will make a payment of £1.6 million annually, which triples the amount given under the third licence.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, further to that point, the Government will be well aware that almost half of National Lottery income now comes from instant win games, including scratchcards, which, unlike weekly draws, have a notable risk of gambling harm. It is welcome that Allwyn has introduced a limit of 10 scratchcards per shop visit, but does the Minister agree that this is wholly inadequate, since it allows determined gamblers to make repeat visits, even on the same day? Does she agree that Allwyn should be required to do more, and to have independent published verification of compliance?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Allwyn is introducing further measures compared to the previous licence. The noble Lord will be aware that while some players do experience gambling harm, that experienced by National Lottery players is the lowest of all gambling products. Allwyn is also implementing further protections. As was noted, this includes introducing a maximum of 10 scratchcards per transaction, as of last October, and an extensive mystery shopper programme to test retailers’ enforcement of the age-verification measures. We are clear that protecting participants is an overriding statutory duty of the Government and the Gambling Commission. It is embedded within the fourth licence, with a significantly strengthened requirement on the operator to protect people exposed to the National Lottery as well as those directly participating in it, which goes further than under previous licences.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, when I was Minister for Gambling in the Conservative Government, we turned our backs very much against the idea of increasing gambling advertising, particularly on television and at sports facilities during games. I put it to the Minister that matters have got completely out of hand, and that there is far too much of this visual advertising of gambling, which is doing much damage to a lot of people, particularly the younger people in our country.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a good point about the need to protect children from gambling advertising. As he will be aware, operators are prohibited from targeting advertising at children. The Advertising Standards Authority strengthened the rules in 2022 to ban content of strong appeal to children from gambling ads. The wider issue of advertising involves the Gambling Commission introducing new requirements for operators to allow customers to have greater control over any direct marketing they receive. I have personally set the industry a clear task to raise standards further in this area.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the Fundraising Regulator. Can the Minister comment on media speculation that a legal challenge to the Gambling Commission’s decision is possibly being mounted by one of the unsuccessful bidders for the franchise? The Gambling Commission reportedly said that, if that proceeds, it could lead to a reduction in the moneys available for good causes. Can the Minister explain why the good causes will be affected, rather than this being a matter between the Gambling Commission and the unsuccessful bidder?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
While I understand the legitimate interest of my noble friend and others, it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage on the legal process. The Gambling Commission is confident that it ran a fair and robust competition to award the fourth licence. As my noble friend noted, legal challenges relating to the award of the fourth licence are ongoing. DCMS is not a party to those, so it would not be appropriate to comment at this time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it was reported on Friday that the Gambling Commission had accidentally handed over more than 4,000 sensitive documents to the lawyers acting against it in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, mentioned. I know that the Minister cannot mention the ongoing case, but what conclusions have she, as Gambling Minister, and her department drawn about what that says about the Gambling Commission’s competence to perform its oversight functions, and about the appropriate oversight of our regulators by her department?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have confidence in the Gambling Commission. I will not go into details about media reports. It is clear that legal challenges are ongoing, and while I understand the legitimate interest from Members, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in a previous life, I sold National Lottery tickets for years and years, and I always got the impression that it was a tax on the poor. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot agree with my noble friend’s suggestion that the National Lottery is a tax on the poor. It is an incredible national institution, founded by Sir John Major’s Government, and which had great ambitions to become part of the lifeblood of DCMS sectors. If we had not had the National Lottery, by default, it could not have contributed money to such incredible iconic national treasures as the Angel of the North—a particular favourite of mine—Shakespeare’s Globe, the Wales Millennium Centre, the Glasgow Science Centre, the Ulster Museum and many more local projects.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, on that point, does the Minister feel that more could be done to publicise the good causes to which people contribute when they buy a lottery ticket, particularly at the point of sale?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a very good point, and I hope that this will start happening as Allwyn progresses its stewardship of the lottery during the course of the fourth licence. Having reached its 30th birthday year, the National Lottery has raised over £50 billion for good causes, with over £94 billion in prizes to players and over £21 billion in lottery duty to the Exchequer.
Government of Syria: Freedom of Expression, Religion and Belief
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carey of Clifton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new government of Syria’s commitment to freedom of expression, religion and belief.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the interim Syrian President has stated that he will form a transitional Government who are representative of Syria’s diversity and has pledged to protect religious groups. We are monitoring how the interim authorities treat all civilians in areas they control. We will judge them by their actions. We will continue to advocate for the right of freedom of religion or belief in Syria and for a political transition leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful and helpful reply. While accepting that the new rulers in Damascus have taken steps to reassure some minorities of the desire to create an open society, how do our Government intend to monitor the actual situation? How do they intend to verify whether assurances are followed up, bearing in mind the intense disquiet felt in some groups, such as the Christian churches, about increasing Islamisation, particularly as it bears on women, and the creation of an environment unwelcoming to minorities?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I said last week that we have a special envoy who has visited Syria. We are in close contact with the interim authorities. We are working closely with our allies in the region and we are carefully monitoring the situation. As I said, we are judging them by their actions, not simply on their words. We are concerned by reports of attacks on minorities, including Christians, and attempts to stoke sectarian tensions. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that it is early days and that the point is currently in both directions? Would he agree that one potentially positive sign is that Turkey, our good ally, has close relations with the new regime? Should we not therefore be ready to encourage Turkey to play a positive role in influencing the new regime in these areas?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point. We are concerned by increased tensions in northern Syria and the impact that this may have on civilians and stability in the region. Turkey has been playing a critical role there and we have been in regular contact with it, as well as with Syrian democratic forces. Our priority across the board is de-escalation.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, security and prosperity are vital in Syria. What action is being taken with others to try to halt the spread of revenge attacks? The EU has lifted some economic sanctions. We have always said—and the Minister has always said—that sanctions are more effective if we act together. Why have we not done likewise?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the latter point, we are reviewing both actions and the Prime Minister has made that clear in the other place. As the noble Baroness knows, we do not comment on future designations or de-designations. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear on that. I think she is right that there are forces within Syria that may stoke sectarian violence and instability. As my noble friend raised, we are trying to work with allies, across the board, to ensure that there is de-escalation, and to take the interim authority at its word and make sure that we monitor it on a regular basis. The noble Baroness is right to point this out.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, as a former ambassador to Syria, I speak in support of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton. I spent three years as ambassador in Damascus, in the dying days of President Assad, and I saw that regime first hand. His son’s regime was no better. In answer to an Oral Question last Thursday, the Minister described the present time as a
“critical but fragile moment for Syria”.—[Official Report, 6/2/25; col. 803.]
Indeed so; Syria could fold up and the regime would be widely affected. Does the Minister accept that there is a real risk of a backlash against western involvement in Syria, and, accordingly, that we need to be firm but careful about what we say in public and how we say it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have been diplomatic in response to the Questions we have had last week and this week. We should not take immediate decisions but rather focus on the interim authorities and their words, which we should ensure they keep to. We are monitoring that situation closely. As I said, we have an envoy for Syria, who is doing excellent work—I think she is engaged with parliamentarians here. The noble Lord is right to suggest caution, but we have some reason to be optimistic for the future for Syria. We must not forget what Syria went through under the Assad regime, during which horrendous crimes were committed.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the consequences of the withdrawal of 2,000 US troops from Syria, who were working with Syrian Kurdish forces, in particular to contain some 9,000 ISIS—Islamic State—fighters in prison camps. There is a danger of those fighters breaking out and not just damaging religious tolerance but imposing their reign of terror on the whole region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To reiterate what I said last week, the first duty of every Government is to protect its citizens, and we are certainly cognisant of that in relation to those camps. The United Kingdom notes the decision of the US to pause foreign aid funding for three months pending a review; that is a matter for the United States. As I say, we are working with our allies to ensure that there is stability in Syria and that Daesh’s territorial defeat endures and that it can never, ever resurge. We are working closely with US colleagues and humanitarian partners to understand and assess the impact of the pause, but we are fairly confident that there will be continued support for the IDP camps in the north.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, on Wednesday, will the Minister carefully follow the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as it continues its inquiry into the failure to bring to justice members of ISIS who were responsible for genocidal crimes against Yazidis, Christians, gay people, and other minorities in Syria and Iraq? In Raqqa alone, the headquarters of ISIS, the number of Christians was reduced from 11,000 to 100, and throughout Syria 80% of that community has disappeared. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has just said about the thousands of people who are still in the camps, can the Minister say what is being done to bring to justice British nationals in those camps who are members of ISIS and responsible for many of these crimes?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I follow the work of the committee and I congratulate the noble Lord on his chairmanship. One thing he knows we have been absolutely committed to is accountability, not just for ISIS but for the crimes committed by the former Assad regime. We have given practical support to NGOs and INGOs, to ensure that we can gather credible evidence and hold these people to account for the crimes that they committed. This year alone, we have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programmes. We will continue to work with our international partners and civil society to advocate for the UN charter and support mechanisms to ensure full compliance with it.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the stability and future of Syria are in the interests of not just the Middle East but the entire region? Does he accept that we must avoid repeating mistakes made in earlier experiences in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and learn the lessons? The most important lesson is that any process on the road to stability and a plural democracy should be led by Syrians and supported by the international community, and not the other way round, and especially not by those who supported the murderous Assad regime over the years.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me focus on the thrust of the noble Baroness’s question. She is absolutely right that this should be Syrian-led, Syrian democracy; that is what we are focused on. We are engaging with the interim authorities and international partners to do precisely that: to support the political process and civil society. I have often said that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is particularly true of Syria. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, raised last week the involvement of women in this process. We have been absolutely committed to that and we will continue to be so.
Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan on 13 January, what plans they have to introduce legislation in 2025 for regulating artificial intelligence in areas including intellectual property, automated decision-making, and data labelling.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interest as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
As set out in the manifesto, the Government are developing legislative proposals which will allow us to safely realise the benefits of the most powerful AI systems. The Government are also consulting on AI and copyright. Next steps, including on potential legislation, will be decided once all evidence is considered. The Data (Use and Access) Bill will enable the responsible deployment of solely automated decision-making, with stringent safeguards in place for individuals.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, with the world talking AI in Paris this week and with parts of the EU AI Act already brought into force earlier this month, is it not over time for the Government to bring forward AI legislation in the UK: for the jobseeker who constantly finds herself not making the shortlist, not even knowing that AI is in the mix, or for the creative constantly finding her work stolen by AI with no consent, no remuneration and no respect? Does the Minister agree that sector-wide AI legislation, ushering in right-sized regulation, is good for investment, good for innovation, good for creatives, good for citizens and good for all our AI futures?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord points out, getting regulation right here is good for investment and good for business. We are taking the approach of regulation by the existing regulators for the use of AI. We intend to bring forward legislation which allows us to safely realise the enormous benefits of AI in the frontier space. Of course, in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, some of the issues the noble Lord raised are already addressed.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, last week, the Startup Coalition of AI companies told a House of Commons Joint Committee that the Government should support a full commercial text and data mining model for AI training which would get rid of all copyright licensing for commercial AI training in the UK. Does the Minister support this suggestion?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I think I have made clear on several occasions at this Dispatch Box, we do not support that position. We believe that there needs to be control for creators; we need much better transparency in the system, and there needs to be access to use those images for AI. Those three things go hand in hand.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the creative industries are the second-most important industry in the UK. Will the Minister guarantee that under the legislation creators’ work will be protected and they will be properly rewarded for the work that they do?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We absolutely agree that creators need to be appropriately recognised and rewarded. That is why the system being developed will give greater transparency on what is being used for what purposes and will allow access while also protecting the rights of creators. It is important to have a technological solution to allow this and to prevent access where creators did not want it to occur.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, ideally, as your Lordships agreed recently, proposals for an opt-out from a mechanism for text and data mining exceptions should be dropped, but if the Government continue, the Minister has made it clear that it will be adopted only if a workable solution can be found and that the views of the creative industries will be taken into account. Can he go further and agree to rule out any mechanism unless it has the full support of rights holders, and if not, why not?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord may find that not all rights holders have the same views, so I do not think it is possible to give the assurance he asked for, but I am very clear that we need a workable solution, and that means for creators as well as for access.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, according to the Government’s own recent survey, 43% of the public trust that the impact of AI will be positive, but 33% believe it will be negative. Given this very narrow gap and the critical importance of building trust in embracing new technologies, what specific steps are the Government planning to take to improve that public trust as they embed AI in the nation’s most trusted institutions, not least in the NHS?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that important question. Trust is key to all this, and it is why we are committed to maintaining high standards of data protection in whichever context the AI system is deployed. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to raise the question of the NHS, where already AI is being used to read scans, to improve performance in terms of missed appointments and to advance pathology services, many of which are narrow AI uses which are extremely important.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, in opposition and in government, the party opposite has promised an AI Bill, but it continues to say very little about what it will do. This uncertainty is creating real challenges for AI labs and their customers, as well as for copyright holders and civil society groups. In short, everyone needs to feel more confident about the scope, the timing and the intentions of the Bill. What can the Minister say here and now to reassure us that there is actually a plan?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Viscount says, this is an urgent matter. A summit is going on in Paris at the moment discussing many of these issues. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation. We are continuing to refine the proposals and look forward to engaging extensively in due course to ensure that our approach is future-proofed and effective against what is a fast-evolving technology.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if the UK were to consider AI regulation, which specific areas that are not covered currently by a whole bunch of other regulations does the Minister think would be worth regulating?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
That is precisely the point that I was trying to get to in the last few questions. There is regulation by the existing regulators, all of whom will need to deal with AI, and there is regulation which is covered in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, leaving frontier model control as the unregulated area. That is the area in which we seek to bring in some form of legislation in due course. We want to consult on it; it is a very complicated, fast-moving area, and an important one, and it is why the AI Safety Institute is such an important body in the UK.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that AI has the potential to be a liberating force for workers in terms of repetitive work and so on if workers have strong rights and the gains are shared fairly? Is he aware of the TUC manifesto on AI, and does he agree that workers should have the right to a human review when it comes to recruitment and indeed sackings?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend that the aim of AI should be to increase the opportunity for those things that humans can do, and that includes, of course, human-to-human interaction. It is a very important point to consider as this is rolled out, including across the NHS. On automated decision-making, we have been clear that there needs to be human involvement in terms of somebody who knows what they are doing having the opportunity to review a decision and to alter it if necessary.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Government will have heard clearly enough by now—consultation or no consultation—that the creative industries want, and indeed require, an opt-in on the use of their own data. Will the Government simply listen and do this?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are clearly in the middle of a consultation. It is due to read out on 25 February. We are accumulating evidence both on how this would work and on the technologies necessary to make it work. It would be inappropriate to jump to a conclusion before we hear all that.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my interests as declared in the register and as vice-chair of the APPG on AI. I have a simple question about the AI Opportunities Action Plan. I have been speaking to many AI SMEs in the UK—UK businesses that are booming and growing—and they feel that the conversation about regulation and safety drowns out their success stories. What activities are the Government pursuing to hear from those SMEs and how can the Government help them? Those businesses are so successful that they are being drawn into other markets, such as the US, via investment and taken away from the growth opportunities in the UK.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Ranger. We have a thriving start-up scene in AI. We need to encourage that; they need to grow. The AI action plan is about exactly that. The 50 recommendations in it are very much geared towards opportunities. We should grasp those opportunities and make sure that those small companies grow into big, sustainable companies in the UK.
Belarus: Elections
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the outcome of the elections held in Belarus on 26 January, and what advice, if any, they have given to the Belarusian democratic movement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the sham presidential election in Belarus on 26 January represented only a self-reappointment of Lukashenko and his regime, which continues to undermine fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms. While it is not for us to advise the Belarusian democratic forces, the UK supports their tireless efforts to realise the democratic rights of the people of Belarus. We will continue to support the aspirations of the Belarusian people for a free, democratic and independent Belarus.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me on two points: first, that the sham re-election of Lukashenko has strengthened the alignment of Belarus with Russia, giving President Putin greater use of Belarus as a tool against western security; and, secondly, that this really is the time to give greater support to the independent media and civil society in Belarus, because they provide the basis for democratic infrastructure, which at the moment Lukashenko is tearing apart every day?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is completely right in what she says and I thank her for securing this question and allowing us to discuss the matter this afternoon. I agree with everything she said. We are working hard to make sure, as far as we can, that the people of Belarus have the opportunity to elect a government who represent their wishes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I welcome the speed with which the Government imposed sanctions on those who were involved in the sham election. Is the Minister aware of the excellent scheme organised by Libereco, whereby parliamentarians become “godparents” to political prisoners in Belarus and keep in touch with them on a regular basis, so they know they are not forgotten? Will the Minister take up the role of godmother to a political prisoner and encourage all members of this House to do so? It really does encourage those who fight against the dictatorship.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think it is an excellent scheme. I understand that the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government have done this. I would be very happy to take part in this scheme and encourage any others here who wish to do so to take it up as well. I thank the noble Lord for raising this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what happens in Belarus depends, more than anything else, on the outcome of the war in Ukraine? In the support we give Ukraine, we must all bear in mind that the future of Belarus is also at stake. Do the Government assess that it is possible to maintain contact with groups and organisations within Belarus to encourage the further development of civil society; or have we, in the Government’s opinion, reached a point when we can work only with democratic groups and movements outside Belarus under the current circumstances?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an interesting question. One of the reasons that we maintain an embassy in Minsk is to send a signal to the people of Belarus that they have not been abandoned by us, that we are there and that we will advocate on their behalf. It is difficult to work in the way that we want, of course, but we will continue to do what we can.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way she summarised government policy. I think she said that she wants a free, democratic and independent Belarus. We can all agree that it is not free and democratic, but does there come a point when it is not independent either? Since 2020, whatever autonomy there had been in foreign policy has been lost. Under the union state treaty, the Russians are now deploying not just troops but tactical nuclear weapons there; any pretence of a separate foreign policy has gone. Does there come a point when we face reality and talk about this as what it is, which is a Russian annexation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is completely right about the state of democracy in Belarus, such as it is. This situation saddens us all. We look at what has happened in Moldova and in Ukraine, and we cannot help but see the future if we leave some of those activities unchecked. Russia is clearly intent on strengthening its grip on nations outside its borders, which is exactly what we have seen in Belarus, as the noble Lord said.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Belarus Free Theatre has played a crucial role in the last 10 years in spreading the truth about what is going on within Belarus. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the theatre company achieves the crucial financial support that it needs to carry on with this vital work?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not know about the specific theatre company that the noble Lord describes, but its work does sound incredibly important. At times as desperate and bleak as these for Belarus, this kind of activity has all the more value.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, given what the Minister said about the importance of reaching out to the people of Belarus and over the heads of the dictatorship, can she tell us what broadcasts are made by the BBC World Service into Belarus and assure us that there is no limitation on the funding required to maintain them?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The World Service is a tremendous asset and I am pleased that, this year, we have been able to secure additional funding for it. We work with it incredibly closely, although it is and will always be fully independent in its decisions about how it operates and its content. It is important that we remember that. It is good to highlight just how vital the work of the World Service is in countering some of the disinformation and misinformation that we see in Belarus and in other parts of the world.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking my noble friend for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. While I understand that His Majesty’s Government do not comment on the possible imposition of future sanctions, could the Minister say what criteria are used to determine election fraud and human rights abuses in Belarus?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been proactive in this area and have introduced a raft of sanctions that tackle the problems that the noble Earl described. The exact criteria are legal and technical; I will not attempt to get into the details today, but they are all laid out, should the noble Earl wish to examine them more carefully. I would be very happy to brief him properly on this, because sanctions are an important tool when we are combating what has been going on in Belarus.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective contributions we can make to keeping the flame of democracy alive for the democratic movement in Belarus is to fight for and achieve a settlement that keeps Ukraine free and independent and gives the people of Belarus a sense that there is life beyond being a vassal state of Russia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Whenever we have spoken about Ukraine in this Chamber, one of the key messages has been that, if we do not fight for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, that will not be the end of Russian aggression and destabilisation in this area. The noble Lord makes the case very well as to why it is important that we stand firm, and shoulder to shoulder, and continue to support the people of Ukraine.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, in relation to this issue and, in particular, to the release of further hostages, can the Minister tell the House what actions the Government are utilising for humanitarian access to those still being held hostage? In addition, does the Minister have any plans to further investigate UNRWA, after Emily Damari’s testimony as to where she was being held hostage? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look again into funding for UNRWA after those disturbing allegations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I join the noble Earl in welcoming the release so far of 21 hostages, including British national Emily Damari and, of course, the UK-linked Eli Sharabi. The Prime Minister spoke to Emily on 31 January and was deeply moved by her personal story. We continue to call for the release of all hostages. The real solution is their release; that is what we want to see as soon as possible.
In relation to UNRWA, that is quite a serious matter, and I know that UNRWA has responded and is calling for an independent inquiry into it. UNRWA was, of course, excluded from those facilities but nevertheless it is important that there is a thorough independent inquiry. We look forward to seeing that when it happens.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, in the light of President Trump’s totally destabilising statements, do the Government share the view of the German Foreign Minister that Gaza is for the Palestinians, not for Israel, nor for the United States? What communications have the Government had with the leaderships of Egypt and Jordan to reassure them that the UK does not support the removal of Palestinians in Gaza to their countries? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to recognise Palestine as a state before it is too late?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure the noble Baroness that we see the ceasefire as the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region, bringing much-needed stability. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts over the past 15 months in getting us to this moment.
I reiterate our very clear policy: we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. As we have repeatedly said, Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza, must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild. As the Prime Minister has said, we should be with them as they rebuild on the way to a two-state solution. That is the way to ensure peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.
In terms of recognition, the Foreign Secretary has made this clear on numerous occasions. We see that as one of the tools for seeking and establishing that two-state solution. We want to be able to use it as strong leverage to maintain that course for a two-state solution, so that when the time is right, we are committed to recognise.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in the light of Hamas’s abhorrent policy of torturing hostages, what action is being taken by His Majesty’s Government, together with our allies, to prevent Hamas from continuing to occupy any position of power and authority in Gaza? Does the Minister accept that the two-state solution, which he mentioned and which I and many others support, is not going to happen until Hamas is removed from power and authority?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have made it absolutely clear on previous occasions, and I repeat, that there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build a consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. As part of that process, we have committed financial support of £5 million to support the PA in relation to this. We have also established two key roles in the Palestinian Authority to ensure that recovery and this new form of governance. We are absolutely committed that there is no role for Hamas in the future.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their decision to spend an extra £17 million to support the needs of Gazans for food, housing and shelter. Will he tell the House how that £17 million is going to be spent, particularly in the absence of UNRWA, which has disgracefully been denied its continued operation in East Jerusalem? If there are no other agencies with the right experience to deliver that aid, it is hard to think how Gazans are going to get it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As my noble friend said, on 28 January, the Minister for Development announced that further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reach tens of thousands of civilians and support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Territories and in neighbouring countries. We have also delivered life-saving UK-funded medical supplies via Jordanian helicopters, an operation supported by the UK military.
On UNRWA, the United Kingdom continues to lead international action to press for a resolution to this issue. On 31 January, the Foreign Secretary joined his French and German counterparts to call on Israel to abide by its international obligations. We are in close contact with the United Nations on next steps. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General on 30 January, and the Minister for Development spoke to the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, on 24 January. It is my hope that I shall be meeting him tomorrow to reiterate the message in terms of access for humanitarian aid into the Occupied Territories.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
Reports coming out of the country show the desperate need to get not only aid but medical supplies there. I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Government for all that they have done so far, but the issue is how we get aid and medical supplies in. In particular, reports are coming out that the Anglican-run al-Ahli Hospital is in a desperate state. What else can His Majesty’s Government do to ensure that we get medicine and supplies in there and to other medical facilities?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right. The United Nations and other partners are continuing to monitor and update figures for the volumes and types of aid currently entering Gaza but, given that that is a key element of the ceasefire agreement, the UN can publicly share only overall truck figures for now. So we do not currently have the usual level of detailed information, but we will continue to work closely with trusted partners on the ground to understand how UK aid is being distributed. All UK delivery partners are required, as per our agreements with them, to collate this information, so we expect that in due course.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way of instilling greater confidence in this three-stage process is to allow the international press into Gaza? What discussions has he had with the Government of Israel on allowing the international press in? Further to that, what discussions has he had with his UN counterparts and colleagues about the whole issue of allowing people in to see whether crimes have been committed by either side?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid point. One of the reasons given for no access was the conflict and the troops, but now that we have a ceasefire, we can ensure that there is proper access, which is why I am focusing on the humanitarian aid and support going in. The noble Lord makes the valid point that upholding international law, and ensuring that all sides are subject to it, is right. We will continue to support the ICC and other efforts to ensure that that is held to.
National Cancer Plan
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who work tirelessly to treat and help others who are suffering from cancer—not only the wonderful clinicians and medical professionals but also the many cancer charities, some of which I have met, which support people living with cancer and fund the important research that has led to significant increases in survival rates for some cancers and will lead to the future breakthroughs that we all want to see. Their dedication is an example to us all. We owe them a great deal of gratitude; it is something that we can all be proud of.
Cancer will affect us all in some way or another. Almost everyone knows someone who has been diagnosed with it or may have had to live with the big C themselves, so it is vital that we do everything we can to beat this disease. It is highly reassuring that cancer care and treatment are constantly improving. Over the past 50 years, the survival rates for all cancers have doubled. The one-year survival rates for cancer increased by almost 6% between 2010 and 2020, while the five-year survival rate has increased by more than 4%. However, we know that more can and must be done. Despite these improvements, we are not in the place we all want to be in. We should be honest about that.
These Benches welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to try to improve cancer care and research. It is welcome that there will be a greater focus on prevention and early diagnosis, which we know to be one of the best ways of improving quality of care. We are also grateful to this Government for continuing the rollout of community diagnostic centres started by the last Government.
When I was a Health Minister, I was advised by officials that 80% of those on the waiting list were waiting for diagnosis. That statistic may no longer be true but more community diagnostic centres are clearly needed, not just for early diagnosis but because their being placed in local communities might help reluctant patients who are scared or worried about going to hospital or who suffer from white coat syndrome to seek a diagnosis—at a more friendly place such as their local sports centre or shopping centre, so it does not become a daunting task. We welcome the fact that the Government will continue to roll these centres out.
Technology will be an accelerator for cancer treatment. Coupled with innovative methods of utilising data, machine learning and AI, there are real opportunities to drive better outcomes. If we can identify those who are more at risk or likely to be at risk from certain types of cancer and streamline them into treatment pathways using the best data available, then we could increase our survival rates further. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships that there will be a strong focus on harnessing new technologies in the cancer plan when it is published and will the Department of Health and Social Care engage with the many innovative companies—start-ups and others, and rollouts and spin-outs from many research places—that produce such technologies and can help the NHS synthesise and restratify the available data?
While we welcome the Government’s commitment to cancer care, we have questions about the timescale. I appreciate that the Minister has been honest that some announcements by the Government are aspirations while others are firm commitments. I note that this announcement launches the call for evidence for the national cancer plan, but we have already heard that the Government have launched a number of other reviews and plans. We have the NHS 10-year plan, the elective reform plan, the commission on building the national care service and the review of the new hospital programme. I believe noble Lords would like to know when we will see action from these plans, and today in particular from the cancer plan. If the Minister cannot give further details now, can she give an indication of when we can expect them? That would be greatly appreciated when it comes to understanding the Government’s commitment to this plan.
Finally, while we have made great progress in tackling certain types of cancer, what more could be done to speed up treatment of the hard-to-treat or less survivable cancers? I recently met Pancreatic Cancer UK, which told me that one of the reasons for lower survivability is that, by the time the cancer is spotted, it has often reached a late stage: stage 3 or 4. It also told me about a breath test being trialled that captures vapours and gases which can be analysed to detect the presence of biomarkers of certain cancers. To be clear, I appreciate that this is being trialled, but I wonder what changes to processes the Government and the NHS may be looking at to speed up the rollout of such innovations, especially relatively low-cost tests. I appreciate that there might be unintended consequences, false negatives or false positives, but could the Minister write to noble Lords with more details of such forthcoming breakthroughs and trials in England? I look forward to her response.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I thank those individuals who work day in, day out with people who have been diagnosed with cancer, and with their families, for the great work they do. This cancer plan represents an opportunity to make significant progress in the country’s fight against this terrible disease. The Statement and the plan, while containing some promising elements, require careful scrutiny. In the view of these Benches, further action is required if we are truly to make the necessary strides in the fight against this devastating disease.
Cancer, as we all know, touches every family in the country. It is a relentless adversary and our response must be equally determined. The plan before us rightly acknowledges the importance of early diagnosis and I commend the focus on initiatives such as the expansion of screening programmes and the innovative use of technology to detect cancers earlier. Early detection is, without question, the single most powerful tool we have to improve patient outcomes.
However, we have some concerns. While the rhetoric around early diagnosis is welcome, the plan lacks sufficient detail on how we will address the very real workforce shortages that plague the NHS. We cannot diagnose cancers early if we do not have the radiologists, pathologists and oncologists to interpret results and deliver timely treatment. The Government need a concrete plan for recruitment and retention of these vital professionals. I urge them to address these critical gaps and ask the Minister exactly how these gaps will be plugged.
Furthermore, the plan’s ambition for personalised medicine is laudable, but it seems somewhat detached from the realities on the ground. Access to cross-cutting treatments and clinical trials remains uneven across the country. We must ensure that one’s postcode does not determine a patient’s access to the most innovative therapies. This requires not only increased funding for research and development but a streamlined process for bringing new treatments to patients as quickly and safely as possible. What plans do the Government have to ensure that these treatments are brought forward quickly across the country?
Another area of concern is the plan’s approach to palliative care. While the focus on early diagnosis is crucial, we must not forget those for whom a cure is no longer possible. Palliative care is not simply about end-of-life care; it is also about maximising quality of life for patients and their families throughout their cancer journey. What are the Government doing to ensure a renewed focus on funding and resourcing for palliative care services, ensuring that every patient receives the compassion and holistic care they deserve?
We need to do more to tackle what is happening. I will ask two further questions and give the Minister a suggestion that may be taken forward. First, it is pleasing to see that radiotherapy is in the Statement, which is a step forward. However, evidence shows that currently the United Kingdom allocates only 5% of its cancer budget to radiotherapy, compared with the OECD average of 9%. This discrepancy is a contributing factor to the UK’s low cancer survival rates, particularly in cancers such as lung and colorectal. Countries such as Australia and Canada, which allocate a higher percentage of their cancer budgets to radiotherapy, have seen improvements in survival outcomes. Will the Minister commit to addressing this funding gap and set specific targets for cancer budget allocation for radiotherapy to ensure better survival rates for patients in the UK?
Secondly, with over 500,000 people waiting more than two weeks for vital cancer treatment, how do the Government intend to tackle these extensive delays in the immediate term? What concrete measures will be taken to ensure that the national cancer plan leads to real improvements, rather than remaining a set of unmet promises?
I wish to give the Minister a suggestion, which I hope she will take forward. Many of us in this House understand the significant difference in outcomes between early and late-stage diagnosis of cancers. On these Benches, we are strong advocates of utilising AI in early detection. The UK, with its unique history of the National Health Service, benefits from a collection of historical tissue samples. Given this, would the Government implement a programme in which AI performs a retrospective analysis of these samples in order to identify patterns that would improve the speed and accuracy of cancer diagnosis in the future?
I urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and, most importantly, by patients and their families during the consultation period. These insights will strengthen this plan and ensure that it delivers real and lasting improvements to the lives of those affected by cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to both Front Benches for welcoming the plan and coming forward with very constructive points to strengthen our hand. I am sure we all agree that the prevalence of cancer and the way it touches everybody’s lives, either directly or indirectly, are considerable; cancer affects one in two people in this country. I also thank the staff, volunteers, researchers and everybody who is involved, including carers—paid and unpaid—for their work in this area.
The Statement was made on World Cancer Day. There were two aspects to it; both have been raised, but the one on which I want to focus is the national cancer plan. We have opened a call for evidence to gather views from the public, health partners and parliamentarians on what should go in the national cancer plan, because it seeks to improve every aspect of cancer care and to improve the experience and outcomes for people with cancer, including key goals and actions. The call for evidence is open until 29 April and, to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it will report in the second half of this year, which, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, in government terms is quite prompt. It will follow the publication of the 10-year plan. In the Front-Bench questions, there was reference to various plans. They all chime in with and build on each other, but we feel that, as noble Lords have said, cancer is absolutely something on which we have to focus.
On radiotherapy access—an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—this is a priority, which is why this year we will spend £70 million in investment to replace older radiotherapy machines with newer and more efficient models. This will mean at least 27 machines to trusts across England, because we are keen that improvement is made.
It has come up in previous debates that NHS England and integrated care boards are responsible for ensuring that the healthcare needs of local communities are met. I take on board the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about concerns over differences of availability of care. In my view it is a good thing to move to give more decision-making and powers locally to meet the needs of local communities, rather than be instructed from the centre. Responsibilities for local provision include considering adequate healthcare provision, such as radiotherapy treatment, care and wider support, including in remote and rural areas. Of course, addressing healthcare inequity is a core focus of the 10-year health plan. We have established working groups focused on how care should be designed and delivered to improve equity and make sure that services are effective and responsive.
Cancer survival is indeed an area in which this country lags behind. That is a consequence of a number of issues, including diagnosis not being where it should be. Improving early diagnosis of cancer is integral for improving survival rates, and it is a priority both for the Government and for the cancer plan. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, talked about recent successes, including the CDCs, but there is also, for example, the targeted lung cancer screening programme, which has been a tremendous boost to survival rates and to diagnosing cancer earlier in the groups and individuals who are more at risk and yet were not coming forward. We will continue to work from that.
The noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Scriven, both raised rare cancers and research. There will be careful consideration of how the plan is going to deal with rare cancers so that they are not left behind. We absolutely recognise the importance of research and harnessing the powers of new technology to improve outcomes. That is why we invest more than £1.5 billion per year through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which will help that prevention and detection.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the important matter of AI. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the other part of the cancer plan was to launch a world-leading artificial intelligence trial, involving nearly 700,000 women and using the latest AI technologies to catch breast cancer earlier. The noble Lord asked a specific question about the use of AI retrospectively, which I would be pleased to look into and get back to him on.
With regard to shortages in the workforce, we have already announced plans for a revised NHS Long Term Workforce Plan for the summer of this year, to make sure that the NHS has the right people in place.
To go back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on clinical trials, I should add that the TRANSFORM trial will look for better ways to detect prostate cancer and address the health inequalities that we know are there by ensuring that one in every 10 of the participants are black men.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the important matter of palliative care. We will consider palliative care and other care for people living with and beyond cancer as a part of the cancer plan. We would very much welcome responses to our call for evidence on this.
On waiting lists, on 6 January 2025, a new elective reform plan was published to set out a whole-system approach to reaching and meeting the 18-week referral to treatment target by the end of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about harnessing data, which is very important. As I mentioned, we have launched a world-leading AI trial, which will provide us with the kind of data we need to improve women’s health screening.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their support and suggestions. I look forward to this cancer plan making significant changes for so many in this country.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House today. I remind noble Lords of my interests as chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research and King’s Health Partners.
The Minister will recognise well that one of the most important determinants of achieving improved outcomes for cancer patients is access to innovative therapies. It has recently been suggested by the major pharma industry that there are fiscal and regulatory matters that impede the adoption of such innovative therapies across the NHS in England. Can the Minister confirm that, when His Majesty’s Government start to develop the cancer plan, they will look at matters of regulation and fiscal intervention to ensure not only the opportunity for broader support for clinical research but that a continued enthusiasm will be provided for those who have developed innovations to bring them to the UK and make them available to our fellow citizens?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about what I would call unnecessary obstacles to innovation and technology—something which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, also raised. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that engagement with industry is extensive. We seek to identify blocks to improving healthcare provision in this country so that we can take the necessary steps. I agree that there are obstacles. We will continue to identify them—working with industry, which is crucial—and to seek to fix them.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions the amount of money being spent on cancer research, but it is a small proportion compared with what the life sciences actually earn in Britain through patent and basic research. As UKRI recently pointed out, £3.7 billion has been raised as a result. Does the Minister agree that the Government should perhaps consider reinvesting some more of that money into much-needed basic research, which is currently regarded as being underfunded, with very many projects not being funded as they should be?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As my noble friend is aware, the NIHR very much welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including all cancers. As with other government funders of health research, it does not allocate funding for specific disease areas. My noble friend is well aware that applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition—in other words, to make awards on the basis of the importance of the research to patients and on value for money. I appreciate his observation about investment. It is an area to which we are committed and will continue to be.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, a year ago this very afternoon, this very moment, I was in a surgery having a radical prostatectomy. I pay tribute to Professor Vasdev and his amazing team at Lister Hospital for the exceptional treatment I received. He is one of many fabulous people working in our NHS. The discrepancies, though, of diagnosis and treatment are stark in different parts of the country. Having worked in some of the more disadvantaged areas in the past, I am acutely aware of those. What are His Majesty’s Government’s going to do, as the plan is developed, to ensure that we look at the religious, social and ethnic barriers which are stopping groups coming forward to receive diagnosis and treatment? Will they particularly focus on how we can address these to try to support those in the most disadvantaged parts of our country?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is an extremely important point which will very much feature in the cancer plan. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in being glad to see the right reverend Prelate in rude health. I share his comments about the quality of care that is offered. I was fortunate enough to visit the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research on the day of the launch of the national cancer plan and the AI-assisted trial for women to tackle breast cancer. I assure the right reverend Prelate that that is crucial. I say from the Dispatch Box that I would expect any plan and work to take account of inequalities. I mentioned earlier targeting lung cancer; that is exactly what it does, and we need to see more of that.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the fact is that our best cancer services deliver as good a result as any in the world; they are second to none. We do not need to focus on what might happen in the future, with the promise of AI, etcetera. It may promise utopia, but we need the same degree of care as our best delivery provided universally to every cancer patient in our health service. That is what I hope the cancer plan will focus on, and not get carried away by a future that may look promising and bright but which may not deliver. I am delighted that there will be a separate children’s cancer plan, because that is needed. I hope that, in the meantime, it will stop any discussion about shutting down about our best children’s cancer hospital, for whatever reasons—which I think might be political.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I want to clarify that while the cancer plan is not specifically aimed at children and young people, such evidence will be welcomed. Also, the taskforce will be relaunched this year, alongside the national cancer plan. As we do with adults, equally, we want to identify ways to improve outcomes and patient experience.
I hear the noble Lord’s point about AI. It is not a utopia, but it is a tool in the box that we would absolutely be right to look at. I am also struck by how AI is not something separate from human beings; it is human beings who guide it, and it has great potential. On the noble Lord’s point about tackling inequalities in access, which was also made by the right reverend Prelate, he is absolutely right. It is not acceptable that some people, because of where they live or who they are, are not accessing care. This is a constant issue for us, and we continue to tackle it.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I have to start by declaring an interest. I lost my wife of 55 years in April last year due to breast cancer. I have a simple question for the Minister: when, oh when, are we going to find a cure for this dreadful disease?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My condolences to the noble Lord; I am sorry to hear of the loss of his dear wife. I am afraid I cannot say when there will be a cure, but I can reassure him, as I have said previously, about the importance of research and research expenditure. We continue to make great strides, and we will continue on that trajectory.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as someone who is going through cancer treatment; I add my thanks to the doctors and our wonderful NHS workers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who said that early detection is the main thing affecting whether someone survives cancer or not. I urge the Government to look at prostate cancer, particularly the PSA test, which we have to ask for now. Clearly, there is inequality throughout the country: in middle-class communities, where people ask for it, they get it; in poorer communities—certainly in Afro-Caribbean communities, which the right reverend Prelate referred to—detection is later and survival rates are poorer. If we cannot have a national screening plan straight away, can we not have a pilot to start with?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I wish my noble friend well with his treatment. Screening for prostate cancer is not currently recommended in the UK because of the inaccuracy of the current best test available, which is the PSA. The advice we are given is that the PSA-based screening programme could harm men, as some could be diagnosed with a cancer that would not have caused them problems during their life; equally, some cancers may be missed. That is why we are investing £16 million towards the Prostate Cancer UK-led TRANSFORM programme, which is the name of the screening trial. On health inequalities, as I mentioned earlier, the trial is seeking to find better ways to detect prostate cancer, which is necessary, and to address the health inequalities.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned screening for lung cancer, and I am sure the whole House will welcome the progress made in recent years. Can she confirm whether the Government now commit to taking forward the plans for earlier screening of lung cancer, as recommended by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation does excellent work and keeps our minds very focused. The point raised by the noble Baroness will be considered as part of the cancer plan.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the Cancer Research UK website clearly says:
“Drinking less alcohol can prevent”
at least seven types of cancer. The Statement refers to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Will the Government seriously consider a minimum unit price for alcohol to further reduce cancers across the board, particularly throat and bowel cancers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give that specific commitment to the noble Baroness. However, as I know your Lordships’ House is aware, one of the three major shifts we seek through the 10-year plan—this is very relevant to the noble Baroness’s point—is from sickness to prevention. Improved health absolutely is preventive for a number of conditions, including cancer. We need to get that message across, as well as supporting people to make improvements to their health.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all the staff at the Whittington Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital for the excellent treatment and ongoing care I have received for my own skin cancer. I will return to the question of early detection. What additional steps are being taken to try to counter the reluctance people sometimes feel to participate in screening programmes? I am thinking of bowel cancer screening and the embarrassment some people still feel, and cervical cancer screening, which many women find a very painful procedure. There is evidence that some younger women are no longer having this screening because they find it too painful. What steps are being taken to try to alleviate that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad to hear the noble Baroness making statements about the quality of care she continues to receive, and I wish her well. She makes a good point about screening; some 15 million people are invited to screenings and about 10 million take them up. For bowel cancer screening, we have reduced the age to 50 to incorporate more people. That is very welcome, but I take on board exactly what the noble Baroness said: the tests that are painful or embarrassing all have to be dealt with. As part of the review of screening programmes, there is a constant, repeated look at how communications can be improved to target those who need the screening, and to try to be more creative. I refer again to the community diagnostic centres, which are where people need them to be and are less worrying than, for example, going to a hospital. I take the point about painful screenings, but, for us, it is also important to talk about the alternative, because without that screening I am afraid that the outcomes will be far worse.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the health service for saving me. Come this Friday, it will be six months since I was in the Royal Marsden—last summer, on my holiday—having my bladder and prostate removed. Here I am now, surviving. I had to struggle today to get into Parliament; farmers are protesting about money that needs to be raised to fund the NHS.
I return to the point about honesty that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised at the beginning. You can have all the plans under the sun, but if you do not have the money or the will—and the plans to raise the money—you will not deliver them. I believe there is a question missing at the end of this invitation on the consultation: “Could you please suggest some ideas on how to raise the additional funds required to deliver these plans?” There are alternatives to those that we currently use. It is beholden on both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to be giving some attention to suggestions—which they would support—whereby we would raise additional money to fund the NHS, as our Government are endeavouring to do at the moment.
I would like the Minister to consider exploring a variety of options: how we might be more flexible in raising funds for the NHS, get the private sector more involved in new experimentation that needs to take place, and get the wider public more involved—perhaps by share interest in PPPs to fund particular operations and exercises; say, for a hospital such as the Chelsea and Westminster. Ask all the hospitals around the country what they would like to have. Could they involve their people? Could they involve the private sector? Could we explore a new model? It will not be done overnight but it needs to be done.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that my noble friend is in the health that he is. I am sure that those who have supported him will appreciate his thanks and ours.
The considerations my noble friend raises are very much part of the considerations of the national cancer plan and the 10-year plan. With respect to funding, the allocation to healthcare in the recent Budget has allowed us to take steps to arrest a continuing decline and to fix the foundations. The fact is we are spending more and we are getting less. We have to do things differently. That will mean not just looking at money but reforming care, using solutions such as technology and AI to go further still.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I warmly welcome the national cancer plan. The Minister will be aware that there still is an unacceptable wait time of 62 days. Will she use her good offices to ensure that there is early referral from GPs and that more funding is made available—for this purpose and longer appointments with GPs—if that is needed to make the case for earlier diagnosis and referral?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that the overall trend for cancer performance is improving but it still needs to improve further. We will take all the necessary steps. The planning guidance set stretching targets for cancer, which will see around 100,000 more people every year having cancer confirmed—or ruled out—within 28 days, and about 17,000 more people beginning treatment within two months of diagnosis. The key to all of this has to be early diagnosis and treatment and ensuring that people do not get missed out, as we have discussed earlier. The trajectory is in the right direction, but they are small steps and we need to ratchet it up.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (10 Feb 2025)
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove a Henry VIII Clause which will otherwise give the Minister power by regulation to alter (including by making more onerous) the range of public protection procedures in subsection (3) which were decided upon after full consultation and will after passage of the Bill have been endorsed by Parliament.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group, with thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who have variously signed them. I thank also the Minister, not only for being generous with his time but for his indication in Committee on Wednesday that he had some sympathy with these amendments. What form that sympathy will take we look forward to finding out.
Standing back, the Bill has two principal elements: it stipulates the capacity of events and premises that are subject to its provisions, and it stipulates the types of procedures and measures which must be followed by those responsible for such premises and events. Those things are not matters of detail—they define the policy that underlies Martyn’s law. We are asked, quite properly, to sign off on those provisions by giving our approval to Clauses 2 and 3 on capacity, and to Clauses 5 and 6 on procedures and measures.
The amendments in this group all relate to Henry VIII clauses: provisions in the Bill that allow the Minister, by the affirmative procedure, to amend provisions of statute. It is not just any statute: this statute, the one we are being asked to pass into law; and not just any provisions—the provisions in Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 that lie right at its heart.
Delegated powers are a fact of life and, although some of us may regret it, we are even seeing the normalisation of Henry VIII powers, which allow statutes to be amended in points of detail by regulation. But I suggest that these Henry VIII clauses simply go too far in giving Ministers the power to retake policy decisions that have been taken after much debate by Parliament.
The first pair of amendments in my name, Amendments 21 and 23, would remove the Henry VIII clauses in Clauses 5 and 6. These were singled out for concern by the Constitution Committee in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to the Minister of 14 January. As a member of that committee, fortunate to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, I will briefly explain why.
The lists at Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) dictate what may lawfully be required of those responsible for premises falling within scope. Clause 5(3) specifies the “Public protection procedures” to be followed if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur. They are of limited scope: little more than procedures for evacuation and invacuation, barring entrances and providing information.
Clause 6(3) lists the public protection measures that must additionally be in place in enhanced duty premises or in qualifying events. These are potentially much more extensive: measures relating to monitoring, movement, the physical safety and security of the premises, and security of information. Unlike the public protection procedures that are the subject of Clause 5, they must be in place at all times and may have as their objective to reduce the vulnerability of the premises as well as risk to individuals.
Clauses 5(4) to (6), and 6(4) to (6), which these amendments would remove, allow both lists—the list of procedures and the list of measures—to be amended, not only by regulation but without meaningful precondition and without even the safeguard of consultation. What could that mean in practice? Take Clause 6, where the range of public protection measures is already almost limitlessly broad: anything relating to monitoring of a premises or event; anything relating to the physical safety or security of the premises; anything relating to the movement of individuals or the security of information. Clause 6(4) would allow yet further measures, not relating to the safety and security of the premises, monitoring, movement, and so on, to be introduced by regulations. What regulations could the Government have in mind? They sound as though they are well outside the normal range of protections that we might think useful and acceptable. If any such categories can be thought of, why can they not be brought forward and debated in the Bill? If they cannot be thought of, how can this power be justified?
The range of procedures in Clause 5 is much more limited, and understandably so, because these procedures are to be activated only once a terrorist attack is immediately anticipated or already under way, and because some of the venues to which they apply are relatively small. But, because the range is so limited, the potential for its expansion is commensurately large. What new and more onerous categories of procedure might be in prospect, what will be their additional cost and why are they not already in the Bill so that we can debate and decide on them now?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. In particular, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 23 and 39, but I support the other one too. We have to remember that we have to uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, these are Henry VIII clauses. They will effectively bypass the scrutiny of Parliament. They will allow Ministers to change key aspects of public protection measures and to do so by means that should be employed only in exceptional circumstances.
This is particularly ironic in the light of two recent statements by this Government’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. In his maiden speech in July last year, he said that the Government would
“seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate”
and seek
“to increase … accessibility and certainty”.—[Official Report, 23/7/24; col. 372.]
in how we make law, including not abusing the use of secondary legislation—I remind the House of that. On 22 November, in the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, he addressed the erosion of the separation of powers and the usurpation—his word—of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial authority. He stressed the importance of the separation of powers and public confidence in democratic institutions.
In the present instance, we have procedures in the Bill that have been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny. They will have been endorsed by both Houses of Parliament upon the Bill’s passage; that will be put to one side if they are then changed by regulation. Such sweeping powers undermine legal certainty; they are simply not appropriate in this instance. If we are to have effective measures—we have looked at the detail and found that these measures must have everyone working together to be effective: members of the public, the police, the emergency services and the SIA—it is important that everyone feels bound in and supportive.
If, having been through a long and tough series of debates in these Houses, the primary legislation is then just put to one side by successive Secretaries of State, we have all wasted our time. The public will perceive that and there will be a serious loss of democratic accountability and confidence.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and Amendments 23 and 38.
I am very concerned about what I consider to be the introduction of an anti-democratic part to this Bill, which is worrying and unnecessary in terms of delegated powers and secondary legislation. It opens up the potential for an overreach of powers in relation to the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained brilliantly how the regulations can be amended in terms of the list of public protection procedures and measures that qualifying events and premises will be obliged to put in place. It feels as though that makes a mockery of the hours that we are spending here. I do not know why we are examining every line to ensure proportionality and those of us who raise concerns about overreach and so on are reassured that this will proceed carefully and not get out of hand, when all that could be wiped away with a pen stroke. Allowing this particular policy to be, potentially, reshaped to create further obligations on premises, venues and businesses and so on, fuels my fear of an excessive expansion of this policy and the aims of the Bill through regulation, without any of us having any oversight.
Those of us who worry about mission creep—or, what is more, who know the way in which the fear of terrorism and the call for safety have been used over many years as a potential restriction on freedom and civil liberties—will therefore at least want to pause and receive an adequate explanation of why on earth these Henry VIII powers are necessary if, as the Government assure us, this will not be a disproportionate Bill.
The regulator created by the Bill will already have immense powers to issue fines for non-compliance, restriction notices and so on. Many venues fear that this will kill them off financially; we have heard much testimony on that. There is already a sort of fear of God among many organisations associated with civil society and the public square, let alone the already decimated hospitality industry, about how they are to cope with the requirements of the Bill and to plan to deal with its requirements. It might well be argued that this is the price we pay for protecting the public, but that would be if they knew exactly what they had to do to plan for the Bill. These Henry VIII powers give the Secretary of State the power to make those threats to venues far more onerous. They cannot possibly plan for them.
This is all in a context in which a whole range of committees and consultations that have looked at this legislation have noted that there is no evidence that the measures listed in the Bill will have any effect on reducing the threat of terrorism, particularly in relation to smaller venues. One does not want to feel that we are in a situation of introducing legislation that could destroy businesses and aspects of civil society without evidence and that would allow the state to have ever-greater power in relation to surveillance—what those venues do and so on—just so that you can say to the public that you are protecting them, when in fact you might not be protecting them at all.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments on delegated powers and the Henry VIII clauses is a key area of contention in the Bill. On behalf of these Benches, I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 38 in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they were beautifully and comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, so I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.
It is true to say that the amendments in this group are now truly cross-party. I suspect that there are several noble Lords on the Government Benches who would rather agree with them too. I note in passing, as an observation of more than 11 years in your Lordships’ House, that parties tend to oppose Henry VIII clauses when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches, whereas they tend to introduce them once they are in government. If the previous draft Bill under the previous Government was perhaps too prescriptive, many of the concerns about this Bill now stem from the fact that it lacks clarity and leaves too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without parliamentary oversight. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I very much agree with the Constitution Committee’s letter in that regard, in particular the sentence that says that
“delegated powers are not an appropriate route for policy change”.
I think that is a truism, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
As the Bill currently stands, we are concerned that there is too much power left in the hands of the Home Secretary. In particular, there is a risk that if at some point in the future, God forbid, there is a horrendous terrorist attack, the Government may feel under huge pressure to react and, indeed, sometimes potentially to overreact. In such circumstances, there is always a tremendous amount of pressure to respond to events. In those circumstances, it is all the more important that Parliament can debate such measures and that there is proper and full consultation with the sector.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that any change to the threshold would have to be justified by a change to the terrorist threat. We touched on this in earlier debates in Committee and it strikes me as a reasonable and common-sense approach. I hope that the Minister responds positively to these comments and concerns and that, if the Government feel unable to accept the amendments as currently drafted, they bring forward their own amendments before Report.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has put forward an important group of amendments. When I think about this, I am guided by two principles. The first is that anything the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says about terrorism is probably worth listening to extremely carefully.
Secondly, I strive to be consistent in your Lordships’ House. I appreciate that that is not something that all noble Lords, particularly some who were recently in government, have necessarily embraced, but I cannot forget the number of occasions in the last 14 years when I have trooped through the Lobbies against Henry VIII clauses—for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlighted. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on precisely that point of why Henry VIII clauses might be needed in this case. If he is not so minded, perhaps he might give us an indication of the alternative.
The other point—again, I hope it is consistent with what I have already said—is that I am aware that the Bill has been through a large amount of consultation in reaching this House. That consultation has led to a series of compromises. I said earlier that my preference would have been for the limits to be set at lower levels and for the provisions to kick in at venues of 100. It is the Government’s judgment, from listening to that consultation, that 200 is a better figure to go for. I would be uneasy if we were saying that these major provisions, having been through such extensive consultations, could be changed without a consultation process and certainly without a proper process of parliamentary endorsement.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. These amendments propose the removal of Clauses 5(4) to 5(6) and 6(4) to 6(6), which currently contain Henry VIII provisions granting Ministers the power to amend by regulation primary legislation relating to public protection procedures, including the ability to make them more onerous.
These are important amendments and I support them for several key reasons. First, they uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The inclusion of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill would, in effect, bypass the scrutiny of Parliament by allowing Ministers to unilaterally change key aspects of public protection procedures. Such powers should be granted in only the most exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear and pressing need for flexibility.
In this case, however, the procedures in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) have already been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny, and will be endorsed by Parliament upon the Bill’s passage. It is therefore difficult to justify granting Ministers the ability to unpick these provisions without returning to Parliament for proper debate and approval.
Secondly, granting such sweeping powers undermines legal certainty. The security landscape is undoubtedly complex and may evolve over time, but that is precisely why legislation must provide a stable and predictable framework. If Ministers can alter public protection procedures by regulation, it will create uncertainty for the businesses, public authorities and other stakeholders that will implement these security measures. This uncertainty could hinder the very objective that the Bill seeks to achieve in enhancing public protection.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Henry VIII clauses risks undermining public trust. Effective public protection measures require the co-operation and confidence of the public and stakeholders alike. If these measures can be altered without consultation or parliamentary oversight through the proper primary legislation process, it may lead to perceptions of arbitrary governance and erode confidence in the fairness and transparency of security regulations.
I am not blind to the Government’s need for flexibility in responding to emerging security threats. However, existing mechanisms allow for swift and proportionate responses without the need for unchecked ministerial power. Maintaining proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential to preserving the legitimacy of any regulatory framework. The amendment strikes a necessary balance between security and democratic accountability. It ensures that any future changes to public protection procedures remain, as they should, subject to the robust oversight of Parliament. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and demonstrate their commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty and public trust.
I will now speak to the important amendments to Clause 32 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. They address the regulatory powers granted to the Secretary of State regarding the thresholds for qualifying premises and events under the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to require that any reduction in the thresholds for qualifying premises and events be justified by a change in the threat level from terrorism. While I appreciate and respect the intention behind this amendment, I must approach it with some caution. The need to ensure that security regulations are proportionate to the prevailing threat level is, of course, essential. However, linking regulatory changes exclusively to a shift in the formal threat assessment may create unnecessary rigidity.
Security risks are often multifaceted and not always captured by changes in official threat levels. Local intelligence, emerging patterns of behaviour or other factors may necessitate adjustments to security requirements even when the formal threat level remains static. For this reason, although I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire for transparency and justification, I am somewhat hesitant to fully support his amendment. None the less, I commend the focus it places on ensuring that regulatory changes are evidence based and justified.
I am more supportive of his approach in Amendment 39, which would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section. This is a measured and sensible proposal that aligns with the principles of good governance. The wording, adapted from the Fire Safety Act 2021, provides a strong precedent for such consultation requirements.
Consultation is essential not only for ensuring that regulatory changes are practical and effective but for fostering buy-in from those directly affected by these measures. Venues, event organisers, local authorities and security experts are on the front lines of implementing public protection measures. Their insights and experiences are invaluable in shaping regulations that are both proportionate and workable. Moreover, consultation promotes transparency and accountability, helping to build public trust in the regulatory framework. In a democracy, it is only right that those affected by significant changes to security requirements have the opportunity to contribute their views and understand the rationale behind decisions.
In conclusion, while I take a cautious approach to Amendment 38, Amendment 39 takes a better approach. I urge the Government to look at this proposal as a possible safeguard for ensuring that regulations are both effective and democratically accountable.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Dispatch Box can sometimes be a lonely place, but such is life. I hope I can give some comfort to noble Lords who have contributed on the points that they have raised, while also explaining where the Government are coming from.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his amendments and his constructive approach to the Bill’s proposals. It was good to talk to him outside the Chamber as well as having this debate. He has had support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey also made strong comments on the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from His Majesty’s Opposition Front Benches broadly speaking supported the bulk of the noble Lord’s amendments, with some concerns over Amendment 38. Ironically, it is on Amendment 38 that I can potentially offer the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, most warmth today. I shall try to give the House some comfort on these points and, hopefully, some explanation.
I welcomed the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and of the Constitution Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a member. The Government carefully assessed each of the delegated powers in the Bill so as to draw them as narrowly as possible and to find alternative mechanisms which remove the need for secondary legislation where possible. Our view, and this is consistent with what we said in opposition, is that Henry VIII powers should be included only where they are necessary to ensure that the legislation continues to operate as intended and where there is a justification for those changes. I believe that is reflected in the scrutiny of the two committees, as the only concern raised was about the linked powers in Clauses 5(4) and 6(4). For the reasons I will set out, the Government still consider the powers covered by these amendments to be necessary.
On Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I take everything he says to the Committee—and to the Government outside the House—as important and serious. His amendments seek to remove powers that would enable the Secretary of State to add, remove or otherwise amend the public protection measures listed in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3). Members of the Committee will remember that Clause 5 covers a number of measures, such as evacuation, invacuation, preventing individuals leaving premises or providing information to individuals on premises or at an event. They are reasonable measures that can be taken, but the changing nature of terrorism means that over time methodologies may change.
As the ways in which acts of terrorism are carried out change, so too may the many ways in which we need to respond to them. The Government want to keep the legislation under review to ensure that it effectively deals with the terrorist threat while being—this goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—appropriate, proportionate and done in a reasonable way. These powers better enable the Government to respond to changes appropriately and maintain this balance.
The measures in Clause 5(3) are already constrained. They can be used only to achieve the public protection outcomes of the future Act. The Secretary of State may add further procedures only if it is considered that they would reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the risk of physical harm to individuals. The powers in Clause 6(3) are similarly restricted. The Secretary of State may add further measures only if it is considered that they would reduce the vulnerability of premises or events or reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the vulnerability of premises or events.
There are limited, straightforward proposals in Clauses 5 and 6, which set down a number of potential measures that are in place. Any change under those Henry VIII powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Before any regulations under these provisions are made, both Houses of Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise changes to the public protection procedures and measures through these powers. Those limitations will help safeguard against unnecessary use of those powers by any future Secretary of State, in line with making sure that the public protection measures in Clauses 5 and 6 are met.
I believe, although I may be in a minority of one among today’s speakers, that the proposals in the Bill are sufficient for any Henry VIII power used in this circumstance to be brought back to the House for affirmative resolution and for the House of Commons to have a similar potential vote in due course. I do not have sympathy with those amendments, although I understand where they are coming from.
However, I will be honest; when I first saw Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I said to colleagues that I thought he has a point—and, if the Committee will bear with me, I think he does. Amendment 38 proposes to look at how we can reduce the qualifying threshold figures, saying that regulations can be made
“only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the reduction is justified by a change in the threat from terrorism”.
There is potentially room there for discussion with the noble Lord outside this Chamber before Report, which is not too far hence, to look at whether we can reach an accommodation to agree that broad principle.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I shall not try to summarise the excellent speeches that were made—they will come much more clearly in the form that they were made than they would from any summary of mine—but I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who emphasised consultation. As I said at Second Reading, this Bill has in many ways been a model of careful consideration. Look at the work that the Home Affairs Select Committee did on it, the work that was done in another place, the way that this Government have listened, and the way that people right around the country were consulted before these measures, procedures and thresholds were reached. In previous groups, the Minister, quite rightly, has sought credit for the depth of that consultation and the care with which those crucial figures, procedures and measures were arrived at. So although I might not have used exactly the same words as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she said that to introduce Henry VIII clauses and apply them to these central elements of the Bill when it has already been consulted on makes a mockery of it—I entirely understand where she is coming from.
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I think he described it as a half concession—and one must take what one can get—on Amendment 38 and the idea that changes to the thresholds should be motivated by a change to the terrorist threat. However, I urge him, while he is in that generous mood, to heed the very strong terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, expressed himself on Amendment 39. If you were seeking a Henry VIII clause in these circumstances, and claiming as your model the Fire Safety Act 2021 which has a duty to consult—I might say a very weak duty to consult only such people as seem to the Secretary of State appropriate—why can that not be followed through into the text of this Bill?
The Minister gave an assurance from the Dispatch Box that there would be appropriate consultation—I think he said that; I do not want to put words into his mouth—although he did say that, on some minor issues, it might be internal consultation only. If the Minister is prepared to say that from the Dispatch Box, let us hope that all his successors are as well inclined to the idea of consultation. But is it really a great stretch to put those words into the Bill as well? I hope that, just as we reflect before Report, the Minister will reflect as well.
If the consultation power is too wide—and I think the Minister took the point that perhaps Amendment 39 applies to a whole range of changes—it could of course be narrowed. Amendment 38 is restricted to specific aspects of the Bill and it would be quite possible to redraft a consultation power that was equally narrow.
While I am on my feet and we are all beginning the process of reflection before Report, might the Minister consider applying the logic that he has brought to Amendment 38 to the lists in Clauses 5 and 6? After all, if reductions in the threshold, as the Minister seems minded to accept, require a change in the terrorist threat—or that there could at least be debate as to whether that is an appropriate precondition—why should not an expansion of the lists similarly require a change in the threat?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The reason I would put is that a change in the threshold would involve bringing a large number of other potential businesses and outlets into the scope of the provisions of the Bill. The changes in Clauses 5 and 6 may tweak or look at the protections available or what other support and training should be given, but they do not bring into scope further premises.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful for that clarification and answer, but Amendments 38 and 39 are not just about a changing of the threat; they are also about consultation. While the Minister is thinking about consultation in relation to the thresholds, I wonder whether he might think about something similar in relation to changing the lists.
The Minister has offered me half a concession. What I was offering him just now was perhaps half an olive branch. It was a way of possibly coming back on Report with something slightly different from my amendments to Clauses 5 and 6. I think we all have reflecting to do. I am extremely grateful for what I think has been a most useful debate. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the impact of Clause 8 in relation to commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s Note on the Bill, published on 9th December 2024.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel beleaguered or besieged by this amendment, which is a probing amendment prompted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill published on his website.
Clause 8 is about co-ordination and co-operation. I have always found it a bit difficult to get my head around the notion of a statutory requirement to co-operate, although co-ordination might be a bit different. The amendment addresses subsections (5) and (6), which place a duty on someone who is not responsible for the premises but who has
“control to any other extent of the premises”.
The duty is subject to enforcement by the regulator. The amendment is to ask what “control to any other extent” means. The Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to apply to the freehold owner of the premises or the superior landlord who leases to the person who is primarily responsible under the Bill.
The independent reviewer gives a particular example. The owner of a premises rents them out to the responsible person, who uses them, in this example, as a bingo hall with a capacity of more than 800. The lease has 12 months to run and provides that no alteration may be made to the structure of the premises without the owner’s consent. There are no plans to renew the lease—indeed, the owner of the premises wants to sell them to a developer. The responsible person decides that, to comply with his duty under the legislation, he must make a structural change, putting in a new exit where there are currently windows. The owner would be entitled to refuse the alterations, particularly because they would adversely affect the value of the premises. There are conflicting considerations. Does Clause 8(6) mean that the owner has a duty to give consent? It is practicable for him to do so, but is it reasonable? What is the policy intention? Does it matter that the lease gives the ultimate say to the owner over building alterations, or is the lease now overwritten?
All this amounts to a question whether Clause 8 is intended to overwrite commercial considerations. The clause has the capacity to impose new terrorism-related duties on many building owners and landowners, not only in the property investment sector. Its effect, the independent reviewer writes, is “uncertain”. He suggests that
“since the Bill imposes unprecedented terrorism-related duties on members of the public, and has the capacity to interfere with commercial relationships, the intended impact … should be clearer”.
In this group, Amendments 24A and 24B are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will leave it to him to introduce those. However, on Amendment 24B, in which he proposes that the tribunal must issue its determinations within a reasonable time—that being defined in regulations by the Secretary of State—I wonder whether he can tell the Committee whether this is entirely novel. He will know far better than I do, given his background and experience, whether the tribunal is required to meet a timeframe in other equivalent contexts. That is my question on his amendment. I beg to move my Amendment 24.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, in this group, I have Amendments 24A and 24B. Amendment 24A to Clause 10 is very simple. It gives the option in the case of non-enhanced duty—that is, standard duty—premises for the responsible body to delegate responsibility to more than one person. That will not dilute responsibility but, if we suppose that two people were given responsibility where it was a small and informal group, it would allow for a degree of flexibility. That is important in small, informal organisations which normally have fewer than 200 people but, in any case, fewer than 800 at an event. This is for smaller events—I do not mean that they are unimportant—and those in charge are likely to be smaller and much less formal organisations than for big places. If such organisations are to engage with all this, very often, if there are volunteers, person A may not be available because they may be on holiday, so we say let us have person B. It is not a big, structured organisation that we are talking about, necessarily.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 24B to Clause 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Clause 11 requires determinations by a tribunal to be made on a perfectly reasonable list of subjects; I hope and expect that the tribunals would respond proportionately to the urgency of the questions asked. However, Clause 11 raises the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority—SIA.
As those of us who are interested in the Bill know, it gives the SIA very new functions to which it is not yet accustomed—unlike anything it has done before. With that in mind, I have met and corresponded with Heather Baily QPM, who is the chair of the SIA. Although she has been very helpful, I remain unsatisfied at this stage with what we know about what the SIA is going to be doing. We know it is being given two years to learn the skills and measures it has to comply with and deal with, but we need something more than that before the Bill reaches Report.
I wrote to the SIA and suggested a list of issues it should inform your Lordships’ House about before we debated these amendments. At the very least, I urge the Minister to ensure, by Report, that the SIA—which I know has done a lot of work on the Bill already—sets out a proposed, not definitive, timetable for what it is going to do over the next two years to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities under the Bill. That would include giving information about the sorts of issues and how they would be raised by the SIA under Clause 11.
We are not going to have a complete picture of what will happen under the Bill, unless the SIA informs us in some detail. We need to know, as soon as possible, about what affected organisations and we, as the public and Parliament, are expected to accept from it as its responsibility under the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 24B. It is quite unusual for a tribunal or a court to be required by statute to deliver its judgment within a “reasonable time”. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, realises that a proposition of that kind—which is so general—requires definition.
That brings me to the second point, which is the power given to the Secretary of State to define the length of a “reasonable time”. The problem the Secretary of State faces is that if he gives a definition, it will have to last, presumably, until some further exercise of the power is resorted to. Looking ahead, it is very difficult to know what exactly the reasonable time would be. At the very least, I would expect that if the Minister were attracted by that amendment, it would be qualified by “after consultation with the tribunal”. To do this without consultation with a tribunal would be really dangerous because it might set out a time which, realistically, given its resources, the tribunal cannot meet.
I see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, but it has difficulties. To try to define “reasonable time”, even with the assistance of a tribunal, is a task that would not be easily achieved.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to Amendments 24A and 24B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 24 seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 8, probing the implications of this clause for commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill.
The amendment rightly seeks to probe how these provisions will affect contractual relationships between private sector actors. There is a genuine concern that the current wording could place undue financial and legal burdens on businesses by interfering with existing agreements. This could lead to significant commercial disputes and unnecessary litigation, ultimately hindering the smooth operation of commercial partnerships.
While public safety is undoubtedly a priority, we must ensure that our approach to security does not inadvertently create a minefield of legal uncertainty for businesses. Subsections (5) and (6) appear to grant broad and potentially disruptive powers that may override established contractual terms. In doing so, they risk undermining commercial stability and discouraging investment in venues and events that play an important role in our social and economic life.
Furthermore, these provisions may disproportionately impact small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the legal and financial resources to navigate complex contractual adjustments. Removing subsections (5) and (6) would encourage a more co-operative and practical approach, allowing businesses to work with public authorities to achieve security objectives without unnecessary interference in their commercial arrangements.
The independent reviewer’s concerns highlight the need for clarity and a balanced approach. Instead of imposing rigid requirements that disrupt commercial agreements, we should be looking to develop guidance that promotes collaboration between duty holders and security authorities. With this amendment, this House can signal our intention to maintain security measures that are both effective and commercially workable.
Amendment 24A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is a simple amendment which seeks to establish the Government’s reasons for requiring one senior individual to be responsible for the duties under the Bill for those premises and events with an enhanced duty. This should be something that the Minister can resolve with a clear answer today, and I hope he will be able to give that answer today.
Amendment 24B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to establish the timeframe in which decisions by the tribunal have to be made. Clearly, events will need swift decisions from the tribunal if the decisions are to be made before the events themselves are held, and it is surely right that all organisations deserve timely determinations from the tribunal. Can the Minister tell us what his expectations are in this regard? Can he confirm that the Government have assessed the impact of this new duty on the tribunal on waiting times for determinations?
I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of these subsections and to work toward a more proportionate and practical solution.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. I will try to deal with both in due course.
First, Clause 8(5) and (6) introduce a co-operation requirement between persons responsible for those premises under the Bill and those with any other form of control of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. I make it clear to the Committee that this clause relates to the enhanced tier of premises, not the standard tier, so this would be responsible for the very top end of the arena-type premises. The responsibility for implementing the Bill’s requirements will always remain with a responsible person. Nevertheless, for reasons that have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there may be areas where they require permission, support or co-operative steps from other parties to have some level of control of the premises or the event, in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill.
The noble Baroness gave an example which I can repeat back to her, in essence, where the person is a leaseholder who might identify that in order to put in place public protection measures, some changes are required to the building, such as replacing glass or providing alternative exit routes. In order to do that, the lease agreement may specify that permission must be obtained from the freeholder before any alterations are made. The purpose of this would be that if the freeholder were to refuse, or fail to respond to, such a request, this would compromise the responsible person’s ability to take forward reasonably practicable measures and frustrate the potential protection afforded to the premises. Clause 8(5) and (6) have been designed to require in such circumstances the freeholder
“so far as is reasonably practicable”—
the key phrase in the legislation—to co-operate with the leaseholder for the purposes of allowing the Bill’s requirements to be met.
I re-emphasise
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
The clause does not require those subject to Clause 8(5) and (6) to habitually co-operate; they must co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable. What is reasonably practicable are the very issues that the Committee has already referred to, such as costs, benefits and the difficulties in making the respective relevant change, including considering the longer-term use of the premises.
I should also emphasise that Clause 8 does not automatically override commercial contracts or agreements. There is the co-operative principle that where there are parties with control of premises or events, there will be parties who will work readily with those responsible to take forward appropriate requirements. However, where that is not the case and where there is a dispute, Clause 11—which we will come to in a moment—gives the persons the right to apply for determination at a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine
“whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible”
for the duty. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will recognise that there is a reasonable test in the clause as determined, and that the safeguard of the tribunal is there for where there are disagreements in due course.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister, and for his assurance. Of course, I was aware of the substantial sum of money that is being given to the SIA to enable it to carry out these activities. However, if it is well in hand, surely we have reached the point at which at least an outline plan could be given by the SIA as to what it is proposing to do with that money? This relates to a number of amendments that we are going to be considering later, and I thought I would get my blow in on this early. I suspect that there are going to be real concerns about a regulatory authority that has never regulated anything like this. Surely it would be right for us to be given at least a two- or three-page outline of what its proposals are, because it must have at least reached that point.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am in danger of straying into a future set of amendments, or indeed a general Second Reading debate on the Security Industry Authority. I say to the noble Lord that the SIA currently has a very good record of processing licensing applications—93% within 25 days—and has an 86% satisfaction rating by individuals in terms of their interaction with the authority. Ministers are going to be accountable for the performance in the event of this Bill becoming an Act. We have said, particularly my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister in the House of Commons, that there will be key ministerial engagement with the SIA in helping to develop and shape that plan over the two-year period between the Bill potentially receiving Royal Assent, and its implementation by the SIA and this scheme becoming live.
We may have that Second Reading debate in later groups of amendments. I hope I will be able to reassure the noble Lord then that Ministers have taken decisions to put the SIA in the prime spot of the regulator. Ministers want that to succeed, and they will be making sure that the plans are put in place to make sure that it succeeds, because this legislation is meaningless without the regulation, delivery, oversight, guidance and training that we believe the SIA can put into place. We will revisit that downstream.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his contribution; I think he stole some of the lines that I was going to use. He made the very clear point that the tribunal has a responsibility for setting its timescales and its deadlines, and that it is not for ministerial direction to do that. The tribunal system is well established, with statutory rules and experienced judges and officials who understand the need to make timely decisions in a variety of contexts. It is these rules and processes that should determine how that tribunal operates: with appropriate parliamentary and ministerial oversight—certainly—through amendments to legislation relating to courts and tribunals.
I note the potentially positive objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. He wants to see a definitive timescale set, but if we included that provision in the Bill, it would set an unhelpful precedent and cut across the roles of the Tribunal Procedure Committee and the tribunal procedure rules. I do not anticipate a large number of cases coming before a tribunal anyway, because I hope that—again, as with most of the issues in the proposed legislation—we can resolve these matters well downstream. In the event of an issue coming to a tribunal, it is right and proper—and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned this—that the tribunal itself is able to operate effectively, with its own well-established framework to deliver its own fair decision, and not be hampered by timescales set by legislation which may not anticipate what will happen two, three, four or five years down the line. Therefore, I will take support where I can get it and thank the noble Lord for his contribution.
The tribunal has an overarching duty to deal with cases fairly and justly. If an arbitrary time limit is imposed, the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, may undermine that existing duty.
I hope that, in my response, I have given some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, why I wish them both not to press their amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can see force in what the Minister has said, so I will not press my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will not pursue his amendment. As noble, and noble and learned, Lords will have understood, my question to him was a coded form of opposition. He said “It doesn’t matter that there’s no precedent”, but I think that it matters very much.
On my Amendment 24, I hope it is appropriate to summarise the Minister’s response as saying that there are two conditions for subsection (6) to apply: practicality and reasonableness. He is nodding—I say that so that we will get it into Hansard, because it answers the question raised by the independent reviewer. If we need to come back for any clarity, or if I am misconstruing him, perhaps there will be an opportunity.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I gave the words “reasonable” and “practical”; they are the tenors on which the legislation would be interpreted.
“TrainingThe Secretary of State may provide resources to support the provision of initial training and advice to support persons with control of relevant premises to establish the skills required to implement the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would permit the Secretary of State to make provision for training and advice to support relevant person meet their obligations under the Act.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for adding their names to Amendment 25; I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, with which I spent the weekend at its award ceremony in Newcastle.
Our Amendment 25 deals with training and public awareness. It has been grouped with Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. All these amendments are designed to ensure that those responsible for premises where public access is provided are aware of their responsibilities and are properly trained to fulfil their obligations under the Act. They are necessary because the somewhat neutral statement of requirements in the Bill masks the huge effort that will be required across the country by those who have to implement its provisions. This is particularly true of the great number of venues that will be run or staffed by volunteers.
I have two important points to make here. First, volunteers give their services freely, and this legislation imposes further obligations on them, which they may not be prepared to undertake in a voluntary capacity. The concern is that some of these volunteers may simply walk away from the need to undertake further obligations if they are perceived to be too onerous, leaving organisers with a choice of either employing more paid staff or, if that proves not to be possible, simply closing the venue or limiting the scope of events.
Secondly, in cases where volunteers are prepared to undertake additional responsibilities, they will need to be trained to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Bill. At least initially, such training will require the services of professional trainers, and there will be a cost to this. There is no indication in the Bill of how these additional costs are to be met. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that the costs of training will be hugely increased where volunteers are used, compared with paid staff. Where paid staff are used, and one security officer will be required, four or five volunteers may be needed as, in the voluntary sector, these tasks are shared between several people, commensurate with their age and stamina relative to the duties required of them.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
This is an absolutely key group of amendments. The many organisations which contacted us about the Bill always raised, without exception, training and information campaigns. Last week, I spoke to a friend who manages a theatre in east London. She told me that she has already put in place most of the measures contained in the Bill and already done the training. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, in reality that applies to the larger venues; these amendments are particularly targeted to the smaller venues, which have not yet put in place, or even thought about, many of the provisions in the Bill.
Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that the proper provisions are in place, so that staff at venues—especially smaller venues—are adequately equipped and trained to respond to threats. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, many smaller venues are run by volunteers or communities with little or no formal training in event management or public protection procedures. Amendment 26 would address this by ensuring that all venue staff and volunteers—whether in a pub, a church hall or another venue—would be equipped with the right training to prepare them to keep the public safe or to minimise casualties if there were to be an attack. Many organisations have expressed their concern to us about the lack of clarity in the Bill and said that, while the Bill would be helpful, training would be absolutely essential to make it work properly.
Amendment 26 would cover evacuation procedures, the monitoring of premises, physical safety and security, and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress was being made. Crucially, it would also ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need to plan. The public deserve to know that, wherever they are, staff are properly trained to respond to any such emergencies or attacks. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, it would be helpful to provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they have to meet under this law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are concerns from many of the smaller venues and businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring, which is why the new clause that we have tabled proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden with scalable and specific training.
Amendment 29 is connected to this. As there is currently no specific requirement for training in this Bill—unlike the draft Bill presented by the previous Government—there is nothing to ensure that any training that could be provided is of a sufficiently high standard, quality or value for money. There were many speeches at Second Reading about the flourishing number of consultants offering their training services.
More tailored training will increase protection and raise awareness of the threat of terrorism for not only staff but volunteers. It is important to ensure that venues, staff and volunteers not only know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack but are confident that such training is delivered by competent and well-qualified professionals. In Amendment 29, we therefore suggest that an approval scheme is established for training—something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to as a sort of kitemark for training.
Amendment 27 requires the Secretary of State or the SIA to provide information and material to assist in the understanding of, and compliance with, the requirements under the Bill, including by way of an information awareness campaign. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide resources to implement this. Although advice is available online at ProtectUK, many businesses are unaware of this or find the information difficult to understand. This could lead to difficulties in implementing or complying with this legislation. A similar concern applies to parish and town councils, which typically own a range of premises—both indoor and outdoor spaces. They are also responsible for a large number of public events. It is therefore vital for the local council sector to have ongoing support and funding to assist with compliance with the new legislation.
Will the Government undertake a significant communications campaign to raise awareness of the new duties in this Bill? Will they provide a dedicated programme of tailored support and guidance? Will they undertake to provide clear, relevant and accessible information as well as online resources and tools on implementing and complying with this legislation?
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, my experience of smaller venues is that they are significantly more adept, knowledgeable and willing to explain security and safety procedures in advance of any event. I cannot recall this ever happening in a larger venue. This morning, I was at a once-Jewish theatre where, a very long time ago, a false alarm was called. There was some panic and 19 people were trampled to death while leaving the venue. In some of the large venues across the world—including in this country, specifically sports venues such as football venues—many major tragedies have taken place when there has been a chaotic leaving of a venue.
This Bill is highly appropriate and worthy. One can see the rationale and the urgency with which the Government—with cross-party support—brought it forward. However, it strikes me that there is a danger that we miss one key aspect. The risk of terrorist attacks is the risk of the attack, but it is also the risk of panic and chaos at any perception of one, however falsely or maliciously the panic or evacuation is created.
Judging from how things have been developing since this Bill was announced, I have noted that, for example, elderly, somewhat disabled football fans—those with walking sticks—have been told that they cannot sit in certain seats because their ability to evacuate in an emergency may not meet the time criteria. So, people who have willingly sat very safely and require—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—assistance have in recent months been told: “You may not sit in this seat because you will be a risk”. I would put that as one of the unforeseen consequences.
Let me turn that round into the positive, in the context of Amendment 24 on training. If we take a football stadium of any team in the top two divisions in England, we find a set of stewards whose turnover—not always, but usually—is very high. I have met stewards who were not aware of the layout of the stadium at all and could not solve basic problems, because they were new and did not have that knowledge. Usually this is in attempting to get into stadiums, where one interacts with the stewards.
At the football stadium I go to most regularly, like most other major stadiums, two-thirds of the people who attend go every single week. They sit in the same seat in the same part of the stadium. I know where my seat is. I know the people alongside me. I know people in the row behind and the row in front. In any emergency, we know what the flow is at any one time when leaving the stadium. We know where to go because we are there on every single occasion. The average will be 20 to 25 times a year in the same seats and the same venue.
Therefore, if one wants to maximise safety in the context of terrorism—an actual attack or anything thought to be one which could create an emergency evacuation—should one train up 300 to 500 regular attenders in the basics of what to be looking out for and to do in any eventuality, I put it to the Minister that the chances of success would be significantly higher. That does not fit all venues: not all venues will have a majority of people who know the venue better than anybody because they go to the same seat regularly, but that is a strength that should be capitalised on. I would like to see customers who regularly sit in the same location in the same venue trained up; I have proposed it to one major football club, in this case suggesting 500 supporters. This would be a free resource, not instead of but additional. On the objective of this Bill, that would not just bring some buy-in but make major venues significantly safer for all of us. Training by the venue of those who attend on a regular basis ought to be part of the mix in taking this forward.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 25, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and to which, as he set out in opening the debate on this group of amendments, I added my name. I did so because this amendment sits very well alongside the other amendments that he has brought forward on behalf of the heritage rail sector and which we debated earlier in Committee. As with those amendments, it applies to a huge range of organisations, well beyond heritage rail or indeed heritage alone. It follows the thoughts that we expressed previously in Committee, and as many noble Lords did at Second Reading, about the importance of volunteers to so much of the cultural, sporting and heritage voluntary sector that we are championing and have very much in mind as we look at the Bill.
I am very glad that noble Lords have had smaller venues in mind as they have looked at this amendment. They are particularly reliant on volunteers—some of them all the more so since the changes in the Budget to national insurance contributions, which have made organisations that are run on a very tight margin more reliant on people who give their time freely.
There are so many barriers to people being volunteers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned briefly the cost of transport: if you are travelling to a heritage railway, you often travel many miles at your own expense, filling the car with petrol in order to get there. There are many barriers that put people off volunteering and enriching our lives, and we must make sure that this does not become another of them.
The people who volunteer and look after the public in these venues are no less diligent, professional and concerned about the safety of those who come to enjoy those venues, but they certainly need the help, assistance and training that the noble Lord envisages through his amendment. It must be provided in a different way from the way in which is mandated and applied to full-time employees. As the noble Lord says, many volunteers are seasonal and sporadic, so it is important that they are able to refresh their training—for example, students who have volunteered, gone away to university and come back, will need a way of being trained up again and refreshed in these responsibilities.
It is important to note that, because of the serious nature of these new duties on people who look after our cultural venues, they might appear scary. It is important that the training disabuses volunteers of such notions. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, rightly says, we want to avoid the sort of panic and chaos that come if people are not prepared mentally and practically for how they will deal with the sorts of scenarios that we envisage as we look at the Bill but hope do not come to pass.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, says, the alternative, if there is not the provision that the noble Lord sets out in his Amendment 25, is the snake-oil salesmen that we heard about at Second Reading. They are already offering their views on how to implement the provisions in the Bill before it is an Act of Parliament, and charging small venues huge amounts of money to do it. They are leaving them worse prepared and more frightened about the scenarios that they have to think about.
The noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has been very modest in his amendment: it is a “may” and not a “must” duty. There is much to commend the amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, but those are “must” amendments while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is a “may”. It would make the voluntary job of people who look after these venues a lot easier, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have an interest to declare, in that I have 250 or 300 church buildings in my diocese that will come under the terms of the Bill when it is enacted.
I turn first to the provision of training. When, about 20 years ago, I first became a trustee of a large defined benefit pension scheme, it was quite scary, but I found that the Pensions Regulator provided me with training, which, as far I could work out, was free for me at the point of access. The principle that training should be provided and not just left to the private sector—to the snake-oil sales men or women, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, just referred to—is important, so that the state can provide good training or enable it to be provided. Similarly, back in 2000, I was involved with a group of friends when the asylum seeker dispersal scheme first began. I set up and won the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber to prove that this could be done morally and effectively, and not simply as a rent-seeking exercise at the expense of the asylum seeker.
State provision, ideally of a good standard that would drive up the quality of standards provided by alternative providers—the amendment does not say it all has to be done through the state—is much to be welcomed.
I recall the difference between volunteers and paid staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, for something that might be covered by one full-time staff member, it takes quite a number of volunteers, each giving small amounts of their time, to make happen. In my churches I have many volunteers—probably several thousand in the diocese of Manchester—who require DBS clearance for their work with children or vulnerable adults. The law is that those who are volunteers get the DBS clearance process for free; I have to pay for clergy and other paid staff of the diocese, but for volunteers it is provided free of charge. It is a good idea to find ways to help the many volunteers who enable small organisations, whether they are churches, heritage railways or small football clubs. My football club, Salford City, is in a rather lower league than the top two, but, again, there are many volunteers on duty to make sure that things are carried out properly.
I support the amendments in this group and hope that we can find some way of ensuring that good-quality training is provided that will avoid voluntary organisations in particular falling into the hands of those who will either charge them so much that they give up or exploit them for their own ends.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am genuinely torn and confused by this group of amendments. As this is Committee, I want to try to probe it a little because I do not know which way to go.
I was pleased that the Government listened to the consultations about training and, it seemed to me at least, dropped the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach. I thought that was commendable and still do. I know from my experience of organising events that at the same venue you can, for example, have different kinds of events that will have different requirements and need different types of training. I absolutely do not want to go against the idea of listening and thinking to ensure that training is not a source of problems for venues.
I also have a certain dread of training. Noble Lords have already noted that there are a lot of rackets about. When I looked into the original Martyn’s law provisions when they were proposed under the other Government, I saw how many adverts there were from consultants offering to prepare organisations for the legislative change. I got very anxious about that, because they were expensive and no one knew whether they were of the right calibre and so on. There was a worry that security firms in particular would make a packet. Having said that, it is the case that, inevitably, smaller organisations will not necessarily know how to do the training themselves and will turn to third parties.
I am not sure what I think about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I think there is something in this. On the one hand, the thing which has worried most voluntary organisations is what they will do about training. I know from my work in the voluntary sector that a lot of volunteers are put off by the notion that they will all be sent off on safety training courses. It is the dread of your life: you are giving up your time for a good cause to help people, and you think, “Oh God, am I going to be jumping through those hoops?” On the other hand, it is understandable that smaller organisations are not going to have expert trainers on hand and so will need to bring in third parties. That is where one becomes unsure about what they are going to get, and there have been some suggestions in the amendments.
The other thing is that there has been quite a move to reassure venues that there will be signposting of suitable free training offers online. Those kinds of box-ticking exercises are really not worth even being free. There is a danger that training, if it is treated as a box-ticking exercise, will lack quality control and give a false sense of security that the measures are being followed.
Obviously, what I have just said is contradictory, because I do not actually know quite how one should tackle this, but the Government cannot just brush aside the concerns; these are genuine dilemmas that I do not think the Bill addresses at present. There will be real on-the-ground issues that venues face if this legislation is passed.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 25. We all know that if training is provided badly, it is actually better if there was no training given in the first instance, because it will do far more damage. When we are considering mandating training for public safety, it is imperative that only suitably qualified persons from legitimate organisations are permitted to offer that training. Only two or three weeks ago, those of us who are interested were reading about problems with fire legislation, where incorrect training was being provided and had caused major problems for a number of home owners, so this is essential. It is also worth bearing in mind that this training will require recognised people who will be able to train on threats, counterterrorism awareness, emergency trauma care and co-ordinating with the security services. All this will require people who know what they are doing. That is my first point.
While I am on my feet, I will also talk about Amendment 27 and support it. To achieve the end goal of enhancing public safety through the mitigation of risk, it is self-evident that public awareness is going to be key. I therefore encourage noble Lords to support the amendment. To achieve public awareness, government must be mandated to provide information and material to the SIA and relevant bodies such as local authorities—something we have not really talked about. Proposed new subsection (2) in that amendment is imperative, as the financial burden that could fall on local authorities is going to be significant—as it is on the SIA, but of course that is getting funding.
In its submission of evidence on this, back in July 2023, the council of local authorities said that this could run into millions of pounds. It would have to include familiarisation costs. Councils would have to fund risk assessments and do comprehensive training for staff and councillors. There would need to be tailored advice. All this is costly and time consuming, and it is important to reiterate that local authorities are already under pressure because of spiralling costs. Therefore, it is important that the Government clarify what funding will be available to local authorities. Will they be covered by the new burdens doctrine, which states that any additional costs incurred by local authorities by new legislation will be covered by government?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. These amendments address vital areas where the Bill can be further strengthened to enhance public safety and ensure that all relevant stakeholders are equipped to fulfil their duties under the legislation.
The horrific events have that blighted public spaces over recent decades remind us of the importance of constant vigilance and robust security measures. As policymakers, it is our duty to ensure that we not only legislate to protect the public but provide practical support to those responsible for implementing these protections. These amendments, focused on training, public protection procedures and public awareness, are an interesting approach to ensuring that this legislation is properly implemented.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for tabling the first of this group of amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Udny-Lister, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Suttie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Mann for their contributions.
I would like to just stand back for a moment. All the amendments and comments are about making sure that somebody in a responsible position understands what the provisions of the Bill are so they can make sure that the people who are with them, on a voluntary or professional basis, are seen to understand and are able to implement the legislation in the event, which we hope will never happen, of a further terrorist attack.
The specific question of training is an important one, but I remind noble Lords that there is no requirement in the Bill currently. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, that was a step back that the Government took to ensure that we carry out specific training on any particular issue. It is essential that we have those public protection measures in place and that people understand them, but is it essential for all the issues that have been raised today to be fully put down and for those “burdens” to be put on to voluntary organisations and organisations in the higher tier?
In Clause 5(3) we are asking for public protection measures, which include invacuation, assessing windows and a whole range of issues about a particular site; and in Clause 6 there are some more detailed observations for the larger premises. What my honourable friend Dan Jarvis in the House of Commons and I are trying to do with the Bill is establish good practice. Accordingly, as has been mentioned in the Chamber tonight, training and instruction will vary according to the types of premises and workers—whether it is a professional building or a small village hall with amateur individuals being trustees and responsible for those areas. The Government consider that the focus should be on how to ensure that people can carry out their roles effectively, rather than requiring the completion of generic or, indeed, one-size-fits-all modules or courses. If no one working at a qualified premises has been informed how to carry out an evacuation procedure, the procedure is, self-evidently, not properly in place and the requirements under this legislation have not been met.
The Government recognise the vital importance of proper instruction, and, as such, the Bill will require some form of guidance and strategy, but I would suggest it does not require prescriptive training along the lines that have been discussed in the range of amendments brought before the Committee today.
Under this legislation, the Secretary of State, the right honourable Yvette Cooper, and any future Secretary of State, must provide guidance under Clause 27 and lay it before this House and the House of Commons so that there is public scrutiny of what that guidance will be in the event of this Bill becoming an Act and Clause 27 passing into law. That guidance will be produced with the specific purpose of helping those in scope in the standard or enhanced tiers to understand the requirements that are required of them and to understand how to comply with them.
Moreover, in Clause 12, one of the functions of the Security Industry Association will be to provide the appropriate advice to those in scope of the requirements. Where provided, such advice cannot replace, but may be complementary to, the statutory guidance produced by the Secretary of State. It is intended that the Security Industry Association will support and guide those who are responsible for the premises and events and will seek to educate rather than enforce in the first instance. Through the process of implementation, the Home Office is intending—I hope I have given reassurance previously on this—to support the SIA, to ensure that the advice it provides and the guidance it produces assists those who fall within scope, drawing appropriately on relevant stakeholders. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the SIA brings in the right people with suitable qualifications and expertise to ensure effective performance.
I hope that that reassures the Committee. It does not set down a template for training because training is not required, but it will set down guidance for organisations in the standard or enhanced tiers to ensure that they know what is required of them, and the legislation is clear in Clauses 5 and 6 as to what that is.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Has he given more thought to the sector-specific guidance, as we have touched on previously in Committee? He relies on the guidance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to bring forward but, as this debate has shown, the application for a heritage railway association or a small football club varies hugely. If he and his department were willing to look at sector-specific guidance that would take in all the specific situations that volunteers and staff in those organisations face, that would go some way to helping.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valuable point. But consider, for example, that the provisions were for a standard-tier building. The standard-tier building under Clause 5(3) requires “public protection procedures”: evacuating individuals; moving individuals; preventing individuals from entering or leaving; and providing information to individuals on the premises. Those requirements in Clause 5(3)(a) to (d) apply to a heritage railway, a village hall, a small football club, or a small church—they apply to any particular premises. What that clause and therefore what the training/understanding is about is making sure that, be it a railway, church, village hall or football club, those provisions are understood by the people who, in the event of an attack, would be in the building and would be directed by the responsible person, or their delegated named person, to understand—if this building were a village hall—which entrances they need to lock or open, which windows to shut or not, and what the evacuation procedure for the building is.
There is a training element in that, but it is really in the understanding. The guidance that the SIA and the Home Office will produce downstream—it is downstream because this is not yet an Act and there is a two-year implementation period—will be designed to make sure that whatever the circumstances, individuals who are responsible people under the legislation understand what their responsibilities are. I am acutely aware that there are, as there are now, a number of individuals offering types of training before this Bill is even legislation and has Royal Assent.
Do we, as the noble Baroness says, produce a Home Office list of “supported individuals”? Our aim is to try to simplify and de-bureaucratise this, as far as possible, so that it is easily understood by those who are “responsible individuals”, and the costs are not excessive. The requirements in the legislative amendments being discussed today would add potential layers of bureaucracy and would not achieve the fundamental objective, which is, “What do I have to do in the event of a terrorist attack in the premises that I am responsible for, whatever size those premises are?”
Lord Mann (Lab)
The Minister is giving a good explanation on bureaucracy and cost, which I think is rational, but I fear I am hearing too much of the Home Office mentality of an “authorised person”. When it comes to dealing with major risk, including dealing with terrorism, the message on the railways, on the London Underground and in airports is that everyone should be vigilant. A huge amount of resource has gone into that messaging.
With the example of parish councils, I do not think anyone is suggesting that parish councils should be required by law to have carried out a training session. Not that long ago, however, I represented about 60 parish councils, and I would expect somebody to be organising a training session for all 60 of those councils to make sure they are all clear about what they should and should not be doing in relation to this. That is a small but crucial event. Is there not a danger that the Home Office thought process of the “responsible person” leaves out the responsibilities of the rest of us and the key role for us to be playing in this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The purpose of this legislation is to provide guidance for the responsible person where buildings and premises are impacted at the time of a terrorist attack to ensure that the responsible person knows what to do. It is not designed to be worrying about the downstream elements of potential terrorism—although we all worry about these things. We all need to be vigilant on trains and in the street; we all need to understand what is happening; we all need to support the police and the security services. As professional forces, they are doing what they can to prevent an attack occurring in the first place—but, in the event of terrorists choosing to attack a village hall in my noble friend’s former parliamentary constituency, or another railway heritage site, what happens when that attack takes place? That is the nub of what this Bill is about.
The provisions under Clause 5, for smaller premises, and Clause 6, for larger premises, and the provisions on having a nominated person are linked to an understanding of what we do in that circumstance. The amendments today are about whether we need to ramp up training to do that. What I am saying to the House is that the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office will provide guidance on how to understand and implement that legislation, but the specific training and vetting and supporting specific training providers is not one of those obligations. Certainly, however, there will be guidance from the Secretary of State and the Security Industry Authority.
Indeed, as I was saying before my noble friend asked to intervene, there are government fact sheets currently. There is social media promotion of the leaflets and there is stakeholder engagement. We have had a massive consultation, in several incarnations, through different Governments and through various rounds of scrutiny by the public and parliamentarians. What we are trying to get to is an understanding of certain responsibilities that individuals have to have to make sure that there are protective measures in place in the event of an attack, which remains unlikely but could happen anywhere, at any time. When it happens, how do people understand their responsibilities and responses?
The two-year implementation period that we are likely to have before the Bill becomes implemented law, as opposed to Royal Assent law, will allow for wider discussion of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned around whether we need to tailor specific advice or not and will include widespread dissemination of the type of information that the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have brought forward today. This is a valuable discussion to have, but the aim of the Government is to try to make this as simple as possible; to give guidance to ensure that it is as simple as possible; and not to overcomplicate things by making everyone think, “I have to have training to do this”. It is not about training, it is about responsibilities. Those responsibilities are set down in the Act and guidance will be given in due course.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply at the end of the debate. If I may, I will come back to that in a second. I first want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, many of them on the other side of the Chamber from me, and one on my side, on the Back Bench here, because there is clearly great public support for the Bill. We are determined that it should pass and that it should work, but we believe that, for it to work effectively, there must be a commitment by the Home Office, the Security Industry Authority and other interested bodies to make certain that there are people in place in the organisations affected who are properly informed and trained in what their duties and responsibilities are going to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spotted the fact that I had the word “may” in my amendment, and not “must”, which does, I hope, leave the Government with some discretion as to how it wants to implement the two-year consultation and implementation period. I hope that there was enough in my noble friend’s speech to indicate that, if it is going to be necessary for some form of structure to be established, it will be necessary not only for guidance to be available; the implementation of that guidance will need to be properly organised, either with public funds or through some other means of providing trainers who are able to do that. I hope that that opportunity is not ruled out and that there is going to be determination to ensure that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be implemented effectively and that the organisations that are required to implement it feel comfortable and are not affected financially by having to take on these responsibilities.
For the moment, I will of course ask the Committee to allow me to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my noble friend is clear: there is a lot of support for the propositions that all of us have been making in this debate and I hope that we can come back to this at a later stage to see how we can implement them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures(1) The responsible person for any qualifying premises may fulfil their duties under sections 5 or 6 by contracting with an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and provide ongoing security services.(2) The Secretary of State must maintain a list of certified private security firms authorised to provide such services.(3) Security providers must comply with the national guidelines for counter-terrorism risk assessments and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to explore reducing the burden on public sector resources by encouraging the engagement of qualified private security companies. It leverages private expertise to enhance the resilience of high-risk premises against terrorism threats while maintaining government oversight to ensure quality and compliance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the amendment in my name, the sole amendment in this group, which concerns private sector engagement in counterterrorism measures. The Committee will be aware that this amendment, as part of my approach in other amendments proposed to the Bill, seeks to soften the effect of the measures in the Bill on small businesses and community ventures.
As the Committee is aware, on page 2 of the Government’s impact assessment prepared by the Home Office, in the “Summary: Analysis & Evidence” section of the policy options signed off by the Minister, is a box giving the range of costs to business of implementing Martyn’s law. The high estimate is £4.87 billion; the low estimate is £563 million, and the Home Office’s best estimate is £1.785 billion. These figures, which are to be carefully borne in mind by the Committee and House in considering the Bill, are the subject of considerable concern on these Benches, particularly given how they must chime with the other problems presently faced by businesses and in light of the Government’s growth agenda.
That disquiet is amplified, particularly in light of the debate we have just had, by the detailed analysis provided by officials on how they reached those figures. On page 27 of the impact assessment, at paragraph 119, we are told that, in drawing up these figures:
“The cost of training is assumed to not be financial, there is no prescribed format requiring the use of particular resource and some training material will be provided for free”.
Then we are told:
“It is assumed that all sites will take up the offer of free training material. This means the only applicable cost”,
taken into account in reaching those startling appraisals of the cost,
“is the loss of employee time when doing the training”.
We are further told:
“Some large businesses may use a commercial provider, which would increase the costs to business. This has not been estimated within the impact assessment due to the absence of specific data on the number of sites who will use a commercial provider for training and a lack of understanding of the costs charged by commercial providers for this training”.
This amendment attempts to address, in some part, the problems that arise from having an imposition on small businesses. It seems most unlikely that small businesses will take up solely free training offerings. Given the level of penalties imposed by the Bill and the criminal liability, they will look to private contractors to advise them on the implementation of measures to meet their new duties under the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, some of these may be snake-oil salesmen or racketeers.
The amendment is designed to allow a business faced with an obligation to take steps under the Bill to contract out, to a degree, their duties under Clauses 5 or 6 by using an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and to provide ongoing security services to the firm. This would have two effects. The first would be to allow businesses to use the private security sector to help them meet their security objectives. This would result in a better set of security plans. Through the operation of the free market in the provision of such advice, it would also allow a company or community venture seeking such assistance to choose a package that they could afford.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will have realised from the last debate, my noble friend and I are rather keen on accreditation of training—I will come back to that in a moment—but I should make it clear that we should not be using the term “kitemark”; I know I always do. Apparently, that is the term used by the British Standards Institution for products—as I discovered a while ago when I got this wrong in another context.
Accreditation of training is not quite the same as accreditation of the trainer or the provider. I am a little confused about some of this amendment: the terms “accredited” and “certified” are both used, and I do not know whether it is intended that there is a difference between them. When the noble Lord winds up this debate, perhaps he could tell us—that may be something or nothing.
I had written down, “Is this delegation of responsibility or liability?” The noble Lord just talked about sharing liability, but I do think that that is the direction that the Bill is going or should go in. I find quite a lot of difficulties with this amendment, although there are points where our thinking coincides. As it stands, I do not think we could wholly support it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility.
The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor.
I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that
“consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”.
He recommended, therefore,
“that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”,
under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am slightly concerned about this amendment. We have had, in previous stages of the Bill and in previous debates in Committee, concerns about the number of private contractors—the snake oil salesmen whom the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, talked about—who will crawl out of the woodwork and offer advice to people that they do not need, because either it will be common sense or there will be perfectly clear guidance issued by the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority that will make clear the sorts of things they need to do.
I am worried that, after all the discussion we have heard from His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee about the costs and burdens that will be placed on village halls, small enterprises and so on, they will now be encouraged by this amendment to go down the route of employing contractors who will seek to make a profit out of the arrangements, which will in fact add to the costs, when the reality is that they could do this themselves using the advice and guidance that we expect will be provided by the Security Industry Authority.
I am reminded of those companies that used to advertise themselves as being able to secure you a European health insurance card. I am not trying to raise any issue about the EU, Brexit or remain. This was, as noble Lords know, a system whereby all you had to do was put into the Department of Health’s website your name, address and national insurance number and you then got your European health insurance card, which would help defray the costs of falling ill within the EU. There were companies that would charge £15, £20 or more, simply for filling in the details you would provide them. I wonder whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, might inadvertently create a market in which companies would recycle the guidance and advice issued by the Security Industry Authority and charge people for it.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I have listened to this amendment with some interest, and I understand the noble Lord’s reasoning for tabling it—sometimes such things require expertise. But I do not accept taking it away from public finances into the private sector, because the private sector will probably be financially burdened enough by this legislation.
My concern is that it might provide the opposite of the noble Lord’s intended idea. It might be very costly, as has been outlined, and you might not get the expert advice you need. But I do not disagree with the principle of allowing outside advice. That could be done through a training system for each individual company rather than being provided by an independent company. If there was a terrorist incident, one of the first things that might be asked is “What advice and what training did you take in respect of securing your premises and ensuring public safety?” So I understand the basis of the amendment, but I am not so sure that it is entirely there.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this group, but I will make a couple of points. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is not necessarily one I support, but the idea that snake oil salesmen are confined to the private sector means the fact that people are not aware of what is happening among NGOs, the voluntary sector and charities, particularly in terms of training. Goodness knows, there is a huge amount of guff being peddled and sold from that direction, so I want to at least acknowledge that it is not just private providers.
Even if I am not particularly moved by the amendment, it is also not entirely fair to suggest that it is trying to sell training certificates that will falsely imply that people will feel safe because they have had some accredited training. If I am honest, my concern about the whole Bill is that the public are being told that if we pass the Bill, they will be kept safe from terrorism. That is mis-selling.
I have raised these points throughout our discussions on the Bill. We face huge challenges when it comes to terrorism, extremism and keeping the public safe, and, of all the pieces of legislation we could bring in, this is the least effective and the most anodyne, and will have no impact at all on public safety. Yet it is heralded as being so important. So it is a bit rich to have a go at one amendment for doing that, when in fact it could be levelled at the legislation as a whole.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment introduces a new clause on private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures. It is designed to allow those responsible for managing high-risk or qualifying premises to contract with accredited private security providers for risk assessments and ongoing security services. It mandates that the Secretary of State maintains a list of certified private security firms and that these firms comply with national guidelines and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.
I commend this amendment for its forward-thinking approach in leveraging private sector expertise to enhance our national security posture. In an era when terrorism remains an ever-present threat, we must not limit ourselves to traditional, often overstretched, public sector resources. Instead, we should embrace innovative partnerships that can deliver rapid, expert responses to evolving threats, while ensuring accountability and the highest standards of practice.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I start by re-emphasising the purpose of this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that she is unconvinced of the need for it. This legislation will save lives. There are people who died because people did not know what to do when a terrorist attack occurred, and there are people whose lives were saved and who are walking the streets today because people took action when a terrorist attack occurred. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place a framework so that individuals know, if a terrorist attack occurs, what their responsibilities are in that moment; it is not to stop terrorism per se, or to worry about what happens afterwards to the perpetrators, but to stop terrorist activity damaging individuals’ lives in that moment. That is the purpose of this legislation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has brought this amendment forward constructively, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Elliott, that it will dilute responsibility, because there is a named person and that named person is a named person whether or not they subcontract to a security consultant. It will increase the very cost that the noble Lord has been seeking to reduce during the passage of the Bill to date. It will add potential burdens, on small organisations in particular. It will create a market for the very snake-oil salesmen that this Committee is trying to avoid engaging with. It will set standards which are unrealistic when compared to the standards being set by the Home Office and/or the Security Industry Association. It will sow confusion, and it will put burdens on the very people who the noble Lord, deep down, wants to make sure do not have such burdens.
The Home Office’s whole approach is to try to make sure that the provisions in Clause 5 for the smaller tier, and the provisions in Clause 6 for the enhanced tier, are in place and can be simply understood and embedded in good practice. That is certainly true for the enhanced tier, because, by and large, it is made up of professional organisations that will embed the requirements in their day-to-day activity. For smaller organisations, it is about a simple level of guidance and support, which has a legislative component in that someone is responsible. Someone needs to make sure that measures are in place, such as simple evacuation, invacuation, shutting windows or hiding under a desk—whatever is appropriate for that local provision—without the need to have expensive tailored security provision on top. The cost estimate we have put in the Bill is around £330 for the standard tier, and that is in time, not necessarily in cash.
The noble Lord’s proposal would create confusion. Someone would undoubtedly say, “I have to have a consultant”, and someone would undoubtedly pay a consultant, and then the next village would say, “They’ve paid a consultant. We have to do the same”. The next village would say the same, and the costs and the burden would rise on those businesses, when the requirements of the Bill are actually simple and straightforward.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Does the Minister not think that, for example, a village hall that has developed a terrorism action plan along the lines of that required by Clause 5 will want to test that to ascertain whether it meets the requirement before the Security Industry Authority comes to inspect it? In the event that it is inspected and its plan is found wanting, it becomes liable for the heavy penalties that we see later in the Bill. It is surely a natural human reaction to want to test that, and they will do it by going to the private market. Is it not sensible to build into the Bill a measure that allows them to do that? It is simply going to happen. People are going to want to test their plans. Surely he must understand that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I would argue that the way to test those plans is to test them against the Home Office guidance and the security industry guidance. It is not potentially to go out and say to Mr or Mrs security consultant, “Please come in at an exorbitant cost to check that the five exits that we’ve got in this village hall and the plan I’ve put down to work on them meet the requirements of the Act”. The Bill has been determined in such a way that the Home Office does not believe that the requirements are onerous for the standard tier organisations, and even for the enhanced tier the anticipated cost is around £5,000. That will be standard practice for a large arena or large organisation, without the requirement to have those further security consultants test it accordingly. In my view, though the House will determine this in due course, the amendment would dilute the responsibility on the responsible person for bringing forward those plans in the first place.
I say to the noble Lord that I know why he has done this. All the way through the Bill, he has argued to reduce the burdens on small organisations, but this amendment would simply increase those burdens. It would create uncertainty, jealousy and cost, and it would not achieve the objectives that he said. I hope that he will not at any stage, either now or on Report, bring this amendment back for this House to determine.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment, particularly the Minister. I might just address one or two of the points raised. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yes, the accreditation referred to in my amendment is the same as the certification.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Of course, I do not seek to replace the contingent liability on a contractor in contract law for faulty advice or workmanship in the floor example that he provided. I am suggesting more that the contractor would share the liability under the statute—the daily penalties and the financial penalties that can be imposed by the SIA and the criminal liability under the Act, which I think is separate from ordinary contractual liability, which would be recoverable under a civil action in the courts.
However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out and reminding me of the passage in the Saunders report saying that the advice provided needs to be clear and to assist the parties that receive that advice. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to achieve. The reality, as I sought to argue to the Minister a moment ago, is that bodies subject to duties under the Bill will look for advice because of the penalty regime, particularly the contingent criminal offence, which would fall upon the responsible person. One therefore expects that there will be a market for advice, and it is important that it is regulated to prevent the snake-oil salesmen that noble Lords across the Committee have expressed an intention to avoid.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support for my amendment, and to all other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Suttie
“(2A) In preparing guidance and providing advice under subsections (2)(a) and (b), the Security Industry Authority must, in particular, take account of existing duties, controls or other legal requirements on qualifying premises, including existing licensing requirements.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe how the requirements of this Act will complement and enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 30 and 31, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, are probing amendments that aim to clarify how the provisions in the Bill will complement or enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.
In speaking ahead of the Bill to a number of organisations with an interest in it, we heard from the live events industry that it is already heavily regulated and subject to a number of legal requirements under existing licensing laws. Music venues, festivals and events are regulated under the Licensing Act 2003 with, where appropriate, highly developed counterterrorism measures secured by licence conditions and overseen by the safety advisory groups, in accordance with long established and authoritative guidance such as the Purple Guide. This is an important local dimension for a number of events. There will already be local regulatory and partnership structures for counterterrorism resilience. LIVE, the live music industry body in the UK, which has spoken to us about the Bill, has told us that for larger festivals measures have already been taken to protect visitors and workers from terrorist attacks. That is because every venue and festival that comes under LIVE has a premises licence, which means they are already considering counterterrorism, safety and security in the running of the premises or events. As part of that, venues and festivals already work closely with safety advisory groups, which take advice from local police forces and counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Amendment 30 therefore asks for reassurance from the Minister that account will be taken of that in preparing guidance and advice under the Bill. I am sure he will agree that it is important to try, wherever possible, to avoid duplication between this Bill and existing requirements under the Licensing Act, and to promote coherence between the two regimes as far as is practicable to do so.
We heard similar concerns from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which has resulted in our tabling of Amendment 31. To be effective, it is crucial that the SIA understands the industries that it is overseeing, including theatre. In particular, it must be familiar with their operations and existing security arrangements. I ask the Minister whether it is the Government’s intention that the SIA will undertake engagement work with sectors, such as theatre, that will be affected by this new legislation to understand their individual complexities and how they currently work.
Paragraph (ii) of our amendment would require the SIA to take account of particular considerations relating to adjacent premises, premises within other premises and areas in the vicinity of buildings. The Bill defines “premise operator” as the freeholder or leaseholder and “event organiser” as the entity overseeing event delivery. However, some theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes. Similarly, many venues hold multiple events concurrently and the security stance changes from time to time. Is the intent that the venue will be required to submit its plans for each change of activity or change of resource? It is important for the guidance to reflect how various duty holders in a multipurpose setting can co-ordinate procedural measures. We urge the Minister in his response to give as much clarity for that industry as possible.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
Having heard the opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the one thing that seems clear to me is that there will be different bodies out there with different responsibilities and we will have the SIA coming in. It is important that, before Report, it is clear who will sit at the top and have the last word, because there may be competing interests from different authorities. I do not know what all the details are, but the noble Baroness has set this out. If it is to be the SIA, so be it, but there may be other bodies which know much more about important matters. There needs to be thought within government about how that is to be addressed with specialist knowledge and so on.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, there is enormous advantage in the various regulatory frameworks being consistent. That is a very basic principle. If you are looking for a holistic approach to protective security—which is what this Bill is about—there is the element of personal responsibility involved in making sure that sensible precautions are taken at a local level, but there will also be responsibilities on licensing authorities. It is my view that the various licensing authorities should proactively put in proportionate requirements for the various organisations concerned. In many cases they do that already, but I am not sure that it is a consistent process because each licensing authority is technically separate. While I am not sure that it is in the scope of this Bill to try to regularise the position of different licensing authorities, a holistic approach to protective security would ensure that licensing authorities behave in a consistent fashion.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has hit on a good point, particularly when you consider that at least four bodies would have a view about evacuation—the Health and Safety Executive, licensing authorities, the SIA and the fire regulators. Each has its own inspection regime, which means that there could be four inspections in one year about the same event. They would all want to make sure that this does not cause more cost but does cause more effectiveness. Whether it is in the Bill or something to reassure the people operating these premises, I think it worth considering at this stage. Nobody is saying that it should not happen, but it is about how it works together. This would be one more body in a similar area if we considered evacuation only, but I suspect that there are other overlapping areas.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 32 in my name would require the Security Industry Authority to notify all local authorities when guidance under the Act has been published. This amendment is a sensible and practical addition that enhances the effectiveness of the guidance regime established by the Bill. Local authorities, as the key regulators of many of the premises affected by this legislation, must be fully informed and equipped to act on the guidance issued by the SIA. Without clear and timely notification, there is a real risk that local authorities may be unaware of updates or new requirements, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and, ultimately, undermining the policy aims of the Bill.
The Security Industry Authority will no doubt invest considerable resources in developing detailed guidance, taking into account the needs of various sectors and types of premises. However, guidance can be effective only if those responsible for its implementation are fully aware of it. Local authorities play a pivotal role in licensing, regulation and compliance, particularly in environments where security is a key concern. Whether dealing with entertainment venues, public spaces or other licensed premises, their ability to respond quickly and efficiently to new guidance is essential for maintaining public safety.
Ensuring that local authorities are promptly notified will support the smooth implementation of the Act and strengthen co-operation between central guidance bodies and local enforcement agencies. It will reduce the risk of delays in adopting best practices and foster a stronger sense of collaboration between stakeholders at the national and local levels. Ultimately, this measure will help create a more coherent and streamlined regulatory environment, benefiting businesses and the public alike.
Furthermore, this amendment underscores the importance of clarity and communication in regulatory frameworks. Given the increasing complexity of the legislative landscape for public safety and licensing, clear channels of communication between central bodies and local authorities are more critical than ever. We must not assume that guidance, once published, will automatically reach all relevant parties without a formal notification requirement. By adopting this amendment, we would take a simple yet effective step to close that potential gap.
I respectfully suggest that the adoption of Amendment 32 would represent a constructive and pragmatic step toward strengthening communication between national and local regulatory bodies. It is a practical measure that will enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and support its successful implement- ation. I urge the Government to give it serious and favourable consideration.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, if there is not communication with local authorities on all the activities under this Bill, I would be horrified. They must have a major part to play. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may be right in thinking that it needs to be put in black and white but, frankly, they are such central players that it had not occurred to me that that was required.
The two amendments to which my noble friend has spoken are about differences in the physical structure of premises and in how and when they are used. The briefing we had from the Society of London Theatre was about the get-out at the end of a run, when there is activity right through the night which affects adjacent premises. This is different from how other businesses are run. A good part of what we are trying to say is that none of us can know how every business operates. It requires wide consultation.
Now I look at Amendment 36A, as happens at this stage, it is not a very good amendment, but it enables me to ask how Clause 27(4) will operate. The subsection provides that, where there is an allegation that there has been a contravention of a requirement,
“proof that the person acted in accordance with … guidance … may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention”.
It uses the words “proof”, “relied” and “tending to establish”. The explanatory statement puts it better, but this probing amendment is to clarify the meaning of this and how it will operate in practice.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
In the Manchester Arena Inquiry report by Sir John Saunders, the Security Industry Authority came in for considerable criticism. I refer particularly to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.38 of volume 1 of his report. In particular, the inquiry found that there was a lack of effective enforcement measures by the SIA, and this gives rise to considerable concerns about the readiness of the SIA to undertake this task. In previous groups, the Minister has said that one of the purposes of the two-year implementation period is to get the SIA ready for this much greater task. One of the points raised by the amendments in this group is that the SIA is compelled to consider other aspects of information which may be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Committee that that is a useful and beneficial thing for the Bill to consider.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the Committee. I think I have said already that guidance will be produced by the Home Office and by the Security Industry Authority. I do not need to go into the detail of that, as I have already covered it.
In relation to that, importantly, on Amendment 30, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, besides investigations and enforcement, a primary function of the Security Industry Authority will be to advise, educate and support those who fall within scope of the legislation. That is part of its role. As well as the general overarching role, the SIA’s guidance will look at how it can exercise those new functions. It already plays a significant role in safeguarding the public, through the regulation of the private security industry. We believe that it has a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation which better protects the public.
I accept that the regulator implementation programme, which is the nub of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is in the early stages of development. However, the Government are clear that we expect the SIA to engage in work with existing public safety bodies—this goes to the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, endorsed—before this new regime comes into effect.
It is important that the provisions under Clauses 5 and 6 are set down, but they have a crossover of responsibility in certain areas, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated. Ultimately, the SIA has a responsibility to regulate the functions of this Bill. The guidance will ensure that that aligns with existing requirements, so far as is relevant to the SIA carrying out its regulatory functions. Therefore, while the amendment highlights this area, I hope it is one that is not developed further, because existing proposals in the Bill, and in the intention I have given, mean that the SIA has responsibilities which I hope are clear.
Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the SIA to consult with stakeholders in different sectors. The amendment would require the SIA to consult in relation to requirements at contiguous premises, premises within other premises, and areas within the vicinity of buildings. I hope I have already set out that we recognise the importance of communication and that understanding the impact on affected sectors is pivotal to ensuring effective implementation. This includes the operational guidance to be issued under Clause 12 by the SIA and the statutory guidance I have referred to several times issued by the Home Office under Clause 27. The Government do not expect that the SIA’s operational guidance will address matters specifically set out in the amendment, such as premises within premises, as it will relate to its functions.
Furthermore, it is already the Government’s clear expectation that the SIA should engage with relevant stakeholders on its guidance, where appropriate. “Relevant stakeholders” means a whole range of bodies, potentially including local authorities. Again, I hope that we do not need to place a statutory duty on the SIA, because that will be part of its core business, as directed by the Government under this legislation, in the event of it becoming law downstream.
Amendment 32 has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I hope I have given sufficient reassurance that the Home Office and the SIA recognise the value of engagement on the implementation of the important legislation before us. The department has already worked with local authorities as key stakeholders, and we expect that to continue. I know what the noble Lord’s intention is with this, but the question is whether we place a statutory duty on the SIA to notify local authorities of the guidance, as opposed to the SIA doing it as part of the general consultation.
The guidance will be published and will be publicly available. I am hoping that the SIA will give appropriate communications to accompany publication. This publication should be no surprise to local authorities, because, two years downstream, when it is potentially implemented, there will be plenty of opportunity to have that discussion.
Amendment 36A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that the intention is to clarify the purpose of Clause 27(4). As I have already set out, the Government are acutely aware of the need to provide help and support in complying with the requirements of the legislation through guidance under Clause 27.
Clause 27(4) applies where it is alleged in proceedings that a person has contravened a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the Bill. In such a case, the clause provides that the person may rely on proof they acted in accordance with this guidance as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. The intention of the clause is to provide comfort and reassurance to those responsible for qualifying premises and events, as it allows the person to rely on proof that they acted in accordance with the guidelines as showing them to have likely met the relevant requirements. It will not provide absolute proof but will be given the appropriate weight in proceedings, as the circumstances and other evidence must be. All of those things will be taken into consideration.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 36A would put beyond doubt only that a person may adduce evidence to that end. The effect of this would be to provide a lesser level of protection to someone faced by allegations than is provided for by the current drafting. I do not believe that is the intention she had in tabling this amendment. Furthermore, the clause has precedent in other regulatory regimes, namely, the Building Safety Act 2022. Its inclusion recognises concern about the implementation of what would be a novel regime.
I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage and accept the comments I have made from this Front Bench.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, these are primarily probing amendments from the live events sector, which wanted clarity on the coherence and the crossover between various regulatory bodies.
I will read Hansard and check what the Minister has said. What is clear is that there needs to be effective communication between the various bodies. There needs to be very clear guidelines and guidance for the organisations, so that they understand what is required of them. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Procurement Act 2023 (Consequential and Other Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 December 2024 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, I start by acknowledging the substantial contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in bringing the new procurement regime to fruition.
This statutory instrument represents the final legislative step in implementing the Procurement Act 2023, the new public procurement regime responsible for over £385 billion in public contracts annually. Commencing on 24 February 2025, the new regime brings our public procurement procedures in line with the Government’s mission-driven approach and will support economic growth by establishing a simpler and more transparent system. It will deliver better value for money across the public sector, lowering costs and burdensome red tape for businesses, and creating a prosperous environment for government and businesses alike.
The legislation being discussed today is a technical statutory instrument, with the purpose of updating existing procurement references in a wide range of UK legislation to align with this new regime. For example, references to the Procurement Contracts Regulations 2015 throughout UK law will now reference the Procurement Act 2023. These types of consequential amendments are, as noble Lords will be very familiar with, a routine and necessary aspect of implementing primary legislation. The SI updates the schedules to the Act to ensure compliance with our international obligations. The threshold values are being revised to bring them in line with the current thresholds applied to public contracts, set by the WTO’s government procurement agreement. This merely amends the Act to match the values that we currently apply to public procurement contracts.
Additionally, the regulations amend Schedule 9 to update the list of specified international agreements, which identify which countries’ suppliers have the right to access UK public procurement. This implements updates to the UK’s market access coverage in our trade agreements with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Albania, removing access to contracts for healthcare services and enabling the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023, introduced in January last year, to work as intended. These updates to the threshold values and schedule allow contracting authorities to correctly grant access to suppliers from partner nations. Further technical amendments include updating the list of central government authorities to reflect the recent machinery of government changes, ensuring that the departmental structures are accurately represented in the new regime.
In addition to these technical adjustments, this instrument enhances transparency in public procurement. It supplements the transparency requirements established by the Procurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024 on detailed procedural points, including matters such as the issuance of tender documents, direct award procedures, contract modification requirements, self-cleaning procedures and payment compliance notices. These measures provide clarity on specific processes, required by the new regime, which are intended to open up more public sector opportunities to a wider variety of businesses, which helps to drive down costs and promote innovation. This instrument updates how key performance indicators are handled in contract details and performance notices. These changes will help improve how suppliers are evaluated, giving the public sector better information to make more effective decisions to promote value for money.
Finally, the regulations outline how to calculate whether the sale of excess electricity, gas or water produced as a by-product of a non-utility activity falls under the Act when the operator wants to sell it to a network. It explains the calculations needed to determine eligibility for vertical and horizontal arrangements, exemptions and the utility contract exemption for affiliated persons.
Given the highly technical nature of the instrument, I was somewhat surprised that an amendment of regret was put before the House in respect of these regulations specifically. The powers under which the regulations are made are limited and do not allow for more substantive policy measures to be introduced. The instrument introduces no additional burdens for business and simply ensures that the Act can be implemented smoothly and efficiently. The regulations have been reviewed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, neither of which has drawn any special attention to it.
Contrary to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the Act introduces a number of reforms to make it easier for small businesses to access public sector supply chains and removes unnecessary burdens and costs. It introduces an obligation on contracting authorities to have regard to the particular barriers facing SMEs through the procurement life cycle and to consider what can be done to overcome them. In particular, the Act makes bidding easier for SMEs by requiring bidding companies to submit their core credentials only once on to a single digital platform, saving them time and money. It makes it clear that contracting authorities may not, in most instances, require audited accounts to test the financial standing of bidders, nor require insurance relating to the performance of a contract to be put in place prior to contract award. This will encourage start-ups that are not legally required to file audited accounts but can instead show financial capability by other means. The Act ensures that prompt payment flows down the supply chain, making it more and not less viable for SMEs to get involved.
Lord Robathan
At the end: “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not simplify the procurement process; that they hinder economic growth; and that they impose unnecessary burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby stifling innovation and competitiveness.”
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I was reading this weekend about the Prime Minister’s comments about various things that are coming forward, and it seemed to me that this was something that needed to be addressed.
The regulations address the Procurement Act 2023. It is a Commons question. What are we to think? Are the drafts okay? Are the pieces that are subject to the regulations to be cancelled? The amounts put forward are extremely good—but are they? Noble Lords will understand that people have concerns about the changes that have been made. How much can be seen? How much is numerable and how much is qualifiable and noticeable?
Then we look at the occupational pension schemes regulations. What about the lenient one? Leaping on to Regulations 42D, 42E and 42F—what is all that about? The amendment on branded health services—what is that? What about the amendment of the Competition Act 1998 order 2022? What about the healthcare services regulations to exclude a provider that is a threat to national security? Why is this necessary? Then there is debarment in Regulation 20D. It seems okay, but is it? What about Part 6 and Regulation 33(1)? Finally, we have repeals and revocation.
Can the Minister tell us what all this is about? It seems good—it seems not too bad. We would like to be certain that this is not a problem. Could the Minister please tell the House how this is to be proceeded with? To be fair, I think that there is a possibility of revocation. Will the Minister please tell us what this is before we let it through?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I was the leader of a local council in south Norfolk for about 17 years. I ran the council as a business—after all, I did not like paying council tax any more than anybody else did. It took me nearly 20 years to instil the sense of enterprise into what could have been the dead hand of the state. I provided the framework, but not only did we hope that our officials would go that extra mile, we became richer in every sense of the word when they did.
Councils do 140 different things. First elected in 2003, I was conceited enough to think you could run the council as a private business in each of those 140 areas, with strong leadership and the other advantages that only accrue to a council. We do not pay corporation tax; we do not pay dividends; nobody can borrow as cheaply as us, at one notch just below sovereign; and it has been a long time since a well-run council went bust. Best of all, we provide the services that everybody wants, in some cases, every week. How difficult can this be?
In my 17 years as a council leader, I outsourced only one thing: legal services, because I objected to paying 1% of the entire council tax take just on the books before we had even hired the staff. However, I did not believe in compulsory competitive tendering. I tried to do everything in-house: it was run as well as the private sector, but without the dividends or corporation tax because the savings got reinvested in the services or passed on to keep council tax down for everybody.
We built 100 houses a year, delivering a gross income of 40% of all the council tax raised in our district. We rented homes to generate a higher return than we would get at the bank. The maintenance people could turn their hand to fixing a shelf for an old lady or get people out of hospital more quickly. We taught youngsters to swim, which was a nearly £1 million per year enterprise, and worked with GPs to prescribe fitness in our leisure centres.
I needed a 17-year run at this, but when I stepped down to come into your Lordships’ House last year, council tax was 30% lower than inflation over the same period. It can be done.
So why am I speaking in this debate? It is because, sad to say, we could have gone further and done more. I direct noble Lords’ attention to new Regulations 42A relating to vertical arrangements and 42B to horizontal ones. A vertical arrangement is where a council wants to run a service itself. A horizontal one is where several councils may club together over a wider area to achieve the same outcome. On too many occasions, having to follow these pointless procurement procedures held us back. They acted as an excuse for work. They were a drag anchor on not just my ambition but that of the talented young graduates we struggled to recruit.
If we are to change the state, if we are to be more agile and if government is to work for the people, not the other way round, we cannot afford the sort of verbiage that decorates pages 12-15 of the public procurement regulations that my noble friend Lord Robathan regrets. They achieve nothing for the taxpayer and even less for residents. They encourage huge amounts to be spent on lawyers. They force delay and everybody else pays more as a result.
Looking at the small print of the regulations, one sees that the well-meaning but counterproductive way they work is to mark down the entrepreneurial councils which can and should be setting an example, especially in rural areas. These are the sorts of councils that want to earn a shilling by collecting the trade waste from a remote bed and breakfast as the bin lorry passes by every Tuesday and whose proprietor is grateful because no other waste company will touch it.
The attributable turnover calculations, the time spent assessments and the relevant period durations are just an excuse to snuff out the sorts of good behaviours that we should be encouraging—not just in councils but across the whole of government. They act as recruiting sergeants for those with an axe to grind. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but in truth they prevent local firms co-operating with their local councils, lest a large corporation cries foul and challenges in the courts. They foster a risk-negative, rather than an ambition-positive, approach to public services. They stand in the way of councils getting together and co-operating to do the right thing in the public good for the public’s benefit.
Where do your Lordships think Birmingham would be if Joseph Chamberlain had had to follow this stuff? Where would the clean water and gas that built that metropolis be if he had had to follow these pettifogging rules?
The Explanatory Note explains how new Regulations 42A and 42B will affect councils by giving waste collection as an example. These regs should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I thought this Government had instructed officials to clear a path through the treacle that holds us back, but no—it was just too much to ask.
My noble friend is right to regret, and it is something we should all reflect on. We are never going to get growth if we carry on like this.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak but as there seem to be so few people here, I will just say a few words. I draw noble Lords’ attention to an organisation called the Procurement Files, which is actually very good at looking in detail at the 300,000-plus contracts on the UK government public database. When you have a glance at that, it raises a lot of questions.
Whenever the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office makes a procurement with a contractor for something happening abroad, does every single Minister sign off on it or is it done by officials? I am particularly interested because £25 million has just been agreed to one contractor to do green urban growth in Somalia. I looked at the detail of what that meant and thought, “My goodness, that is surely not a priority for what is happening in Somalia at the moment”. There is another one where it is spending half a million pounds to send 15 Porsches to the embassy in Tirana to be distributed to prisons in Albania. There are a whole range of these things.
I appreciate that most of what has been said so far is about what is happening in this country. However, if the Minister is unable to respond today, could she send me something about how these decisions are made? Quite honestly, it looks like we need some detail of the goings on, as is happening in the United States of America. I think the public would be horrified if they knew the detail of what some of their taxpayers’ money is going on.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I may be the only person here who actually took part in the Committee and Report stages of the Procurement Act, to which we are considering this SI. The Minister may remember that it was one of the worst-drafted Bills I have seen since coming into this House.
The Conservative Government introduced more than 300 amendments between Second Reading and Committee. The amendment to Clause 1 they produced in Committee was so badly drafted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, intervened to say that it would be wonderful for the legal profession. Therefore, between Committee and Report, the Government had to produce an amendment to its amendment to Clause 1.
That was not an easy experience for the Conservative Government nor, I have to say, for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She began looking at the Bill as a critical Back-Bencher and then, after the resignation of her predecessor, she found herself as the Minister who had to defend the Bill she knew had many flaws. She did her best to struggle through Committee, which included three previous Conservative Ministers, who were very critical of the Bill.
In terms of transparency and simplification, we are struggling with an Act that is imperfect and very complicated. This SI does not make matters much better. I think we are all agreed that transparency and simplification are what we need to pursue, and we do not have them currently. I think we also agree that having public procurement rules which end up unintentionally favouring consultancies which are very good at writing applications and multinational companies that have the staff to write detailed applications over small and medium enterprises and others is not what you want.
The Covid experience showed the very worst of that. I recall the early contracts for setting up testing sites which were given by the Government to two multinational companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami. Surprise, surprise, it put a lot of the local testing sites in the wrong places because they did not know much about where the best places in local communities were.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, while the Government’s proposals may appear to serve the public interest, we have a lot of sympathy with the regret amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan.
This Labour Government promised to “simplify the procurement process” and “reduce micromanagement” to foster innovation—a noble intention. Yet, as we assess Labour’s position on procurement, we must ask whether the Government are creating a more accessible and efficient system and truly simplifying procurement, as the Bill intended, or whether they care more about stifling competition for their friends in the unions or prioritising costly equality and green add-ons.
The Procurement Act 2023, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, aimed to streamline procurement, reduce micromanagement and encourage innovation. Labour claimed to support these principles in its election manifesto, promising a more flexible and accessible procurement landscape, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. However, this Government have since delayed implementing the Act from October 2024 to February 2025 to publish a new national procurement policy statement. Does this not simply prolong uncertainty, making it harder for businesses, especially SMEs, to engage with government contracts?
I turn to the details of the regulations. The regulations propose consequential amendments to align the Procurement Act with previous rules and to comply with international obligations, including the latest updates to the World Trade Organization’s agreement on government procurement. But do these amendments contribute to a more efficient, transparent procurement environment, or are we merely preserving outdated structures that complicate rather than streamline the process?
One notable change being made is the revision of thresholds and direct award justifications. Regulation 8(6), for instance, allows contracting authorities to award contracts to previously excluded suppliers if that is deemed in the public interest. This raises the question: where is the accountability? This provision opens the door to increased discretion in awarding contracts, which could undermine transparency and encourage favouritism. Without clear guidelines, we risk creating a procurement environment that is less competitive and more susceptible to conflicts of interest.
We also see an expansion in reporting requirements, particularly in terms of key performance indicators. While transparency is crucial, can we expect these new requirements to overwhelm contracting authorities, especially smaller ones already struggling with administrative burdens? The regulations mandate reporting on a broader range of metrics, which could impose significant strain on public bodies, diverting scarce resources from public services.
Moreover, these changes place greater responsibility on smaller contracting authorities, local councils and SMEs, which may struggle to comply with a more complex system. Larger organisations may have the resources to absorb these demands, but smaller entities could be disproportionately affected. In our effort to create transparency and accountability, we must be cautious not to stifle innovation or dissuade SMEs from engaging in public procurement.
The revisions to procurement thresholds also risk undermining the Procurement Act’s original intent of promoting fairness and inclusivity, particularly for SMEs. By increasing reporting requirements and complicating the procurement process, we may create a system that is more navigable for larger businesses while leaving smaller ones behind.
One of the key concerns around Labour’s changes is their impact on small businesses. Labour’s manifesto promised
“greater access to government contracts”
for SMEs, but new procurement rules risk introducing more red tape, making it harder for SMEs to compete. Rather than fostering innovation and inclusivity, these regulations enforce the status quo, favouring larger, established players with the resources to navigate complex procurement procedures.
We must also consider the impact on local authorities and public sector bodies. The delay in implementing the Procurement Act has already caused significant disruption. While the Government claim that the delay allows for a smoother transition, we must question whether this justifies the extended uncertainty. How much longer will it take before the Act is fully implemented, and what are the consequences for time-sensitive procurements? Legal experts such as DLA Piper have warned of potential confusion as contracting authorities try to navigate both the old and new systems. Are we setting these authorities up to fail by forcing them to choose between abandoning projects or managing an overwhelming amount of new bureaucracy?
I would also be grateful for clarification on the status of ARIA, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which is one of the great innovations in the British state of recent decades. One of the central features of ARIA is that it is not subject to public procurement rules, as of course it cannot be if it is to serve the mandate that Parliament has set for it. Can the Minister give assurances that ARIA will not be subject to the requirements of the Procurement Act, nor the 2015 regulations?
While we agree with the Government’s supposed intentions to improve public procurement, we remain sceptical and have yet to see evidence of them. I urge the Government to think carefully about their approach to the national procurement policy statement and align with the Procurement Act’s original vision. We need a procurement system that is efficient, transparent and accessible to all businesses, especially SMEs, the true drivers of innovation and growth. We cannot afford to squander this opportunity for meaningful reform; the economy and public sector deserve better.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As I outlined at the start, this legislation will support the commencement of the new Procurement Act 2023, which embodies our ambition to open up public procurement to a more diverse supply base, making it easier for new entrants such as small businesses and social enterprises to compete and win public contracts, including measures to improve prompt payment and transparency of opportunities on a single platform, and enable basic supplier details to be submitted once only.
I am less surprised by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, than by those of the Opposition Front Bench. I have asked repeatedly in briefings about whether this instrument would differ from that of the previous Government, had they introduced it, and have been told that it would not. I am slightly surprised, but I appreciate that we now have a different Government and I very proud to be introducing this on their behalf.
I will go through a number of points to make sure that I respond to the questions raised. The key point that came up from both the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was on the timing of the updated NPPS. We will be publishing this shortly and it will be in time for the commencement of the Procurement Act. It is perfectly reasonable and right to ensure that the NPPS reflects the Government’s approach and the mission, so I cannot accept that we should have just gone ahead with the previous one.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a point about the time that businesses may have to adapt between the publication of the policy statement and the commencement of the Act. As I said, the Government are going to publish this statement in time for the commencement of the Procurement Act on 24 February this year. We have been consulting with stakeholders in developing the statement, and this has included a series of round-table discussions. It is aimed at contracting authorities and should not place burdens on suppliers, and we have trained 16,000 procurement practitioners in the new rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised a point around whether the regulations would be more burdensome. The amendment made by these regulations will ensure that contracting authorities are not incurring an additional burden for having to report against every performance indicator used to manage a contract throughout its life, but only those most material to the performance of the key obligations of the contract at the time the relevant notice is published. This is in line with the original policy intent, as communicated to stakeholders through the passage of the Bill, and the amendment corrects an error in the drafting.
I will now address some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. In doing so, I hope that I will persuade him that he does not need to regret in the way that his amendment suggests. In relation to what the transparency measures would do, changes have been made in response to feedback on the Procurement Regulations 2024 about the potential burden of, for example, raising the thresholds for certain transparency requirements, removing the proposed requirement for publication of tenders received, reducing requirements for publication of valuation details and creating exemptions for schools and private utilities. The Government believe that the revised requirements represent a proportionate approach.
On the noble Lord’s points around what the consequential amendments do in practice, the consequential amendments to existing UK legislation are a technical aspect of this instrument. These regulations amend language and references to the previous procurement regime to reference the 2023 Act and the terminology used in it. The consequential amendments will not impact the way procuring entities conduct procurement as intended under the Act or make new policy decisions. Necessary consultation with departments holding ownership of the legislation to be amended has taken place to ensure that existing legislation can function as intended. For legislation that is relied on by devolved authorities, the Government have consulted officials to ensure that it functions as intended.
The noble Lord asked what amendments the regulations make to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. These amendments help to ensure that the provider selection regime’s exclusion requirements align with those set out in the Procurement Act. This will help to ensure consistency across the two regimes and better protect healthcare services procurement from suppliers that pose a risk.
The noble Lords, Lord Robathan and Lord Fuller, asked questions about the vertical and horizontal and affiliated undertakings exemptions relating to Regulations 42A to 42F. The detailed and technical explanation of various calculations ensures that thresholds for these exemptions are effective as a form of anti-abuse mechanism. This will prevent any abuse of the activities threshold that would give the controlled person an unfair advantage over other suppliers by being subsidised by the controlling contracting authority. Contracting authorities will also benefit from clear and consistent rules on how to apply the rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked why ARIA, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, is an excluded contracted authority. These regulations only repeal an old amendment to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and do not affect the status of ARIA. However, ARIA is now an excluded contracting authority under the Procurement Act. This is due to the nature of ARIA’s work. Most of its procurement would not be considered covered procurement. Therefore, the Act made ARIA exempt from the UK’s domestic procurement legislation.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. We will not push this to a Division. I thank the Minister for what she has given us, and I thank all noble Lords for their time.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (10 Feb 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
“(3A) The Secretary of State must establish an advisory board for the Security Industry Authority, comprising experts from industry, local authorities, and civil society, to guide the implementation and enforcement of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a more collaborative approach to regulation, promoting balanced and informed decision-making.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 33, tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to create an advisory board for the Security Industry Authority comprising experts from industry, local authorities and civil society. The purpose of this board would be to guide the implementation and enforcement of the provisions in the Bill and ensure a more collaborative, transparent and effective approach to regulation.
The primary duty of this House is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. In the case of this Bill, we are tasked with strengthening the security framework for public spaces and premises, without imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses or compromising civil liberties. An advisory board for the SIA would play a critical role in achieving that balance.
First, I wish to emphasise the importance of industry expertise. Those who operate within the security sector possess invaluable insights into the practical challenges of implementing counterterrorism measures. They understand better than anyone how regulatory changes will impact day-to-day operations and how innovations in technology can be leveraged to enhance security. Without their input, there is a risk that regulatory requirements may become detached from the realities of the sector, leading to inefficiencies and potential compliance issues.
Secondly, local authorities have a unique understanding of the communities they serve. They are on the front line when it comes to managing the relationship between security requirements and the public’s right to access and enjoy public spaces. Their inclusion on the advisory board would ensure that local concerns are heard and addressed, fostering a sense of public trust and co-operation.
Thirdly, civil society must have a voice in shaping the implementation of this Bill. The balance between security and civil liberties is delicate, and we must tread carefully to ensure that the measures we introduce do not erode the freedoms we seek to protect. Civil society organisations can provide a vital perspective on these matters, helping to ensure that security measures are proportionate and respectful of individual rights.
Moreover, the establishment of an advisory board would promote a culture of dialogue and shared responsibility. It would encourage collaborative problem-solving and help build trust between the regulator and those it oversees. In turn, this would foster better compliance and more innovative solutions to security challenges.
Some may argue that the SIA already consults stakeholders. While this is true, the creation of a formal advisory board would institutionalise that consultation and provide a clear structure for ongoing engagement. It would ensure that diverse perspectives are consistently and meaningfully included in the decision-making process.
In conclusion, this amendment is not adding unnecessary bureaucracy. It is about strengthening the regulatory framework by ensuring that it is guided by those who understand the challenges and opportunities on the ground. It is about promoting balance and informed decision-making that enhances public safety while respecting individual freedoms. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully and recognise the value that an advisory board could bring to the implementation and enforcement of this important piece of legislation.
Amendment 34 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as a regulator, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of whether its regulatory functions might be more effectively carried out by local authority teams. This is a timely and sensible proposal. When we are dealing with matters of national security and public protection, it is essential that we continually assess whether our regulatory frameworks are fit for purpose, cost effective and well co-ordinated with other enforcement regimes. This amendment would provide the necessary mechanism to ensure that we are delivering the best outcomes for the public and the security sector alike.
The SIA has played a crucial role in regulating the private security industry since its establishment. However, with the evolving threat landscape and an increasing complexity of security requirements, it is essential to ask whether a centralised regulatory model remains the most effective approach.
A review, as proposed by this amendment, would allow us to assess whether local authority teams might be better positioned to handle certain regulatory functions. Local authorities have a deeper understanding of the specific challenges and risks within their communities. They are also well placed to co-ordinate with other locally based enforcement regimes such as environmental health and licensing teams. By comparing the effectiveness of the SIA’s functions with the potential of a localised regulatory approach, we can ensure that our regulatory framework remains agile, responsive and efficient.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very keen on Amendment 33 although I have not put my name to it—it is in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. It suggests an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a collaborative approach to regulation.
I am keen on the amendment because one of my fears about the Bill is that it could be one of those laws that, in effect, means the state abdicating responsibility for public protection and outsourcing it to businesses and community organisations with very much a “You’re responsible for that” attitude, and it is then policed by the regulator. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I am worried about the damage that might do to civil society.
I really like the idea of addressing some of the issues raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about how we ensure that there is a more collaborative approach. I would like civil society not to feel that it is being done to, dumped on or put in charge of public protection on its own. This strikes me as a good way of approaching that.
I put my name down specifically on Amendment 34 because one of the important things about it is a review that considers all the implications of the Bill some way down the line. We need to be able to consider trade-offs all the time. It is wrong to suggest, as I think was suggested in a debate on an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that those of us who were trying to consider cost-benefit analysis and trade-offs were being somehow glib about the possibility of people being killed in a terrorist bomb and that we somehow have a “higher-risk appetite”—the phrase used—or a higher threshold for risk-taking, whereas the important and responsible thing to do would be to ensure that we always considered safety first.
I think we have to acknowledge—
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness is misinterpreting what I said. I said that in making these judgments, you had to have a risk appetite and that you needed to do that explicitly. I was not saying that any particular risk appetite was right or wrong; I was saying it should be made explicit. I certainly was not suggesting that the noble Baroness was therefore glib about people being killed. I was merely saying that that is the trade-off, and anyone making those decisions has to be clear about the trade-off they are making.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and I am relieved to hear it. I think it was the bit where somebody asked, “How would you answer the situation where 199 people were killed if the limit was 200?” All I am saying is there is often a conversation like this when we talk about safety, risk and responsibility.
I like this amendment because it introduces into the debate about the Bill the opportunity—some months down the line—to have a cost-benefit analysis of whether it has worked. I first came into this House at the height of the lockdown period. On a number of occasions—rather tentatively at the time, because I was new—I, along with others, called for a cost-benefit analysis. I kept asking, with lockdown and all those measures in the name of safety, whether we could just assess whether they were the only way that we should proceed. I was told that we had to be very careful because old people were going to die, and so on and so forth—you are familiar with the arguments.
The reason I mention that is that we can now look back and say that many of those old people were locked up in care homes and greatly suffered. We can say about young people—when some of us argued that we should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of closing schools—that we now have a crisis of worrying about pupils and the impact that lockdown had on them. There is a discussion that the Government are initiating about the cost and impact of lockdown on employment people’s habits as we speak.
It is sensible with a Bill such as this to introduce a review that will give us the opportunity to do a cost-benefit analysis. This is particularly important because a regulator is introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained that we need to be able to see whether the regulator is the appropriate way of getting what we would like, which is more public protection, or whether, in fact, it undermines some of the important aspects of local regulatory interventions.
We debated a very interesting group just before the break, when the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised the point about the number of regulatory regimes that each venue already apparently has to adhere to in terms of licensing, and so on. This amendment gives us an opportunity to see whether the central regulator is the appropriate way of ensuring that we keep people safe with respect to premises and terrorism.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 44 in my name, and I can probably be quite brief, as it covers similar ground to Amendments 33, 34 and 36, which have been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Davies. However, my amendment is complementary to the amendments already on the table. It does not replace them; it is consistent with them, but it looks at the problem slightly differently.
I think it is fair to say that those who have engaged with the SIA over the years have mixed views about its effectiveness even now, and that is when it has focused entirely on one fairly discrete industry. Now we are proposing a huge expansion of its role to cover all kinds of premises and organisations of all kinds of sizes, including voluntary and commercial organisations and so on; it is a huge expansion of the authority’s role. All these amendments really speak to the fact that there is some uncertainty about how that is going to be carried out in this very complicated and publicly sensitive area.
My Amendment 44 looks at this in a slightly different way and proposes an independent review panel. Of course, that could sit alongside the various advisory bodies that have already been spoken about, but, for two reasons, there is some value in having an independent panel when looking at these problems. First, it establishes a degree of distance. Its reports to Parliament will have a degree of independence of commentary, of not needing to ingratiate itself necessarily with the regulator and the industry. That is what is needed in this situation of a new area of work for the authority.
More important is the point that is in proposed new subsection (3) in my amendment, which is the specific risk of overreach—I have spoken about this on one or two occasions before as we have considered this Bill—and that, once you establish a bureaucracy, everybody has to pay attention to that bureaucracy; once something is in law, that has to be the priority for those who are operating it. There is a temptation for the legal authority to overreach and to lay down rules for its own convenience, rather than for the genuine good functioning of those that it is regulating; and to maybe not look sensitively at the different sizes and natures of organisations but simply to lay down one set of rules. History suggests that with these regulators the effect is that the regulatory burden goes up and is insensitive to the people being regulated. That is why there is particular value in looking at the issues of overreach and how bureaucracies work in practice and why there is particular value therefore in it being an independent body. So, to conclude, I hope the Government will be able to give serious consideration to this idea, along with others in this group.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
On 16 September 2016—I think I have the date correct—the noble Lord made a very strong statement in which he condemned the layers of bureaucracy and regulation in the European Union. Does he not think it is weird and even bizarre for a serious Conservative to be recommending a regulator of a regulator when just a regulator might do very well?
Lord Frost (Con)
There is a big difference between organisations set up in the framework of the European Union and us deciding how we work our own bureaucracy. There is a lot of value in an independent panel to examine the work of a regulator that is taking over a new and very large area of work. So, no, I would not agree with the parallel; regulation and independent review are appropriate when we are creating a new regulator with a new set of work—that is the issue that is here today.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I had written against the first and last of these, “Does this not have the danger of adding to the bureaucracy?” Perhaps more importantly, these amendments raise the issue of just how the governance of the SIA will operate—I certainly have not yet got a handle on that.
If the SIA itself wants to establish an advisory board, I think that is up to the SIA, but I do not think we are yet clear—and we should be clear very soon. The two years will go by fast and the SIA needs to be operating during the period. As to how it will operate, the amendments also raise the question of just what the responsibility of the Secretary of State is, as against the SIA—although not against it, I hope—in this eco-landscape, as some might say. With regard to a report to Parliament, I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government will keep the operation of the Act under review, although I am not sure the timescales are entirely sensible: things seem to come a bit too soon.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who, on the first day of Committee, suggested that we ought to have subheadings for groups of amendments to tell us what they were generally about. This may or may not be an issue worth pursuing. If we had a subheading for this particular group of amendments, it would be “The quango-fication of Martyn’s law”, because we are talking about two not-quite-superfluous extra bodies that would be created as a result of these amendments.
Normally, the position of His Majesty’s Opposition would be to say that we had too many quangos and public bodies being set up, rather than to suggest some entirely gratuitous ones. For example, Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talks about an advisory board which shall “guide” the implementation and enforcement of the Act. Now it is a strange advisory board that “guides”. This again raises questions about the organisational structure of the Security Industry Authority, its governance structure and its relationship with the Home Office. It seems an unnecessary requirement. If it wants to take advice or consult widely with different sections of communities or organisations affected, that is something it can do. The same applies to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which talks about setting up a review panel to monitor the Security Industry Authority. What, then, is the purpose of the Home Office?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I agree. I am surprised that the Opposition suggested more bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right about the advisory board: if it is a good idea, and it could be, it is for the SIA to decide. Otherwise, if it were a separate body, there would be even more cost.
I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on many things about Europe, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was entirely right: you cannot say that it is bureaucracy in that context but not in this, because it is. It would confuse rather than clarify. Surely the purpose of the SIA board is to do the very thing that he described under the supervision of the Home Office. If it gets it wrong, I presume there would be a change in the legislation. He made a stronger argument for more clarity in the law and that it was the wrong solution for a problem that may materialise.
Finally, this reminded me that, post 9/11, the Americans concluded they had too many intelligence agencies. I think they had 19 at the time, and the result was that they were not communicating. Their solution was to put things called fusion centres outside the major cities—big warehouse buildings in which all these bodies would work together. Instead of reducing the number of intelligence agencies or finding a better solution, they built a place where they could meet better. I did not see the sense in that, so I cannot agree with either of these amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. As I say, my Amendment 33 seeks merely to create an advisory board for the SIA, so that we can have some form of independence—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, just to confirm, the noble Lord will be speaking after the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
As the song used to say, “It Should Have Been Me”, but there we go.
The key starting point in this debate is the relationship between the SIA, its responsibilities, the Home Office and the people it serves. Quite self-evidently, Ministers decide and have responsibilities under Clause 12 to ensure that the SIA produces an annual report on its performance. It enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA on what it should be doing if it is not doing what it should be doing, ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members, including the chair, and requires the Secretary of State’s approval for the SIA’s operational guidance that will be issued in due course. Ministers will be accountable to this House and the House of Commons for the performance of the SIA. If there is to be an advisory board in place, I suggest that the House of Commons and this noble House suit that purpose down to the ground; they will hold Ministers to account for the performance of the SIA.
In the first instance, I am surprised. Obviously the concept of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has not yet floated across the channel to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, or the Opposition Front Bench, because this set of amendments creates another set of bureaucracy to oversee the SIA and an interface between it and Home Office Ministers. It adds bureaucracy and cost, but not a great deal of value. In doing so, it also confuses the relationship between the Home Office’s direct responsibility to this House and Parliament and the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority.
Lord Frost (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the major expansion of bureaucracy in the Bill comes from the regulatory requirement of so many small premises in the first place? That is the expansion of government activity under the Bill and I feel—I cannot speak for others—very sceptical about it. Does he agree that it is a bit rich, having been willing to preside over this huge expansion of activity, to criticise those of us who want to see it properly monitored to do its job efficiently?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord calls it bureaucracy; I call it life-saving measures. The Bill is about putting in place life-saving measures to ensure that, in the event of a terrorist attack, individuals know what to do. That might save lives downstream. That is a type of bureaucracy that I am quite happy to accept. There are many burdens and bureaucracies in life, such as health and safety legislation, mine legislation and road safety legislation. There is a whole range of burdens that are there to save lives and this is the same process.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
As I said earlier, there is no doubt that everyone in this Committee would like to save lives. It is a question of balancing whether the Bill and all that it does is life saving. If that is the answer, then there is no debate. If the narrative is, “We’re on the side of life saving, and anyone who doesn’t go along with this Bill, or is critical of it, doesn’t care about life saving”, then what are we having this debate for?
I want to reflect on the “collaborative nature” put forward in Amendment 33. The very people who really care about life saving are all the different local groups, and the amendment simply suggests that there could be a collaborative approach. I know that it has been described as a quango. I have always thought of the party opposite as people who are interested in stakeholders and local groups. There are so many groups in scope of the Bill that you cannot just go to some big organisation that represents them. The amendment refers to having more of them involved.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that, which is why this Government—and the previous Government—undertook several consultations, opened themselves up to scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee, had widespread consultation on changes to the Bill after this year’s general election, which we reflected on, and have listened to concerns about continuing further bureaucracy. The judgment of the Government is that this legislation is an effective way of helping ensure that we put in place protection measures in the event of a terrorist attack. To do that, we have to issue guidance via the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority. The further level of bureaucracy mentioned in the amendments would not help with that. We have had pre-legislative scrutiny and two public consultations and have engaged with law enforcement groups, victims’ groups, the Martyn’s law campaign team, Survivors Against Terror and parliamentarians generally. The statutory board would be an additional administrative layer that would be unnecessary and unhelpful.
Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that we judge the performance of the SIA at a time when it is not yet up to speed on the actions it will take in relation to this legislation. It is neither possible nor fair to judge the performance of the regulator so early in its lifespan. Ministers will examine that under the issues in Clause 12 that we have responsibility for.
Amendment 36 seeks to ensure that changes are made to the enforcement regime. As we see it, the enforcement regime has been developed drawing on lessons from existing regulators. The SIA will use different measures as appropriate to the breach in question. The SIA’s approach will be aligned with the Regulators’ Code. While Clause 20 sets out particular matters that the SIA must take into account, including the recipient’s ability to pay, the list is not exhaustive. If we impose that statutory duty, for example, to consider the views of local authorities, we will create additional burdens for the SIA and for local authorities that would provide that information.
Amendment 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, again provides an additional level of bureaucracy that is not required to be able to hold the SIA to account. Overall on these amendments, there should be clarity about the SIA’s role. The Bill sets out clarity on that. There are currently powers for Ministers to intervene on a range of matters relating to the SIA, including the appointment of the chair and members. Ministers will be held to account on their performance.
The Government want the Bill to succeed. Therefore, between Royal Assent and any implementation date, Ministers will be on the case week in, week out to make sure that the SIA is fit for the purpose designed by the Bill, delivers, has appropriate guidance, involves all the organisations impacted by the Bill downstream and puts in place a range of measures to help support the training and development of people to make sure the Bill functions as we intend it to. Advice is good, but we have been through a big consultation, and this House and the other House have the ability to hold us to account. The amendments are therefore unnecessary in order to make effective use of the SIA.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I think it is my turn now. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group. As I said, this amendment seeks to create an advisory board for the SIA, mainly from industry experts, local authorities and civil society. It is a collaborative approach that we look for. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Frost, it is about having a degree of independence as well. There is certainly food for thought in what the Minister said in his response. For the time being, I will withdraw my amendment while we go away and have a think about it.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the grace period, where a person who has received a penalty notice is given a short amount of time to pay, to avoid excessive penalisation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 35 seeks to extend the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 days to 42 days. The intention behind this change is to ensure that individuals and businesses who receive a penalty notice are not unduly penalised by an unreasonably short payment window, allowing them more time to address the fine in a manner that is fair and manageable.
In many circumstances, particularly for small businesses and those already facing financial pressure, a 28-day period may not provide sufficient time to arrange payment, especially if the penalty notice is unexpected or substantial. Extending the grace period to 42 days would offer a more reasonable timeframe for individuals and businesses to manage their obligations without rushing into payment or incurring additional costs. A longer grace period would also account for the reality that certain individuals or businesses may face logistical challenges in arranging payment within a short window. This might include delays in receiving the penalty notice, awaiting advice or support on how to address the fine, or having to co-ordinate the payment within the wider operational needs of their business. Extending the period to 42 days would provide the flexibility needed to handle these situations responsibly.
The principle behind penalty notices is not to punish excessively but to deter non-compliance while giving those who have committed an infringement a chance to rectify their actions in a reasonable manner. By extending the payment period, we can help avoid situations where individuals or businesses are unable to pay within the initial 28-day period and, as a result, face additional penalties or other consequences that exacerbate their situation unnecessarily. This amendment would therefore ensure that the penalty system remains proportionate and that the focus remains on encouraging compliance rather than imposing punitive measures that may create further hardship.
Extending the grace period would also encourage greater compliance with the penalty system as a whole. When individuals and businesses are given adequate time to pay, they are more likely to do so in full, reducing the administrative burden on chasing unpaid fines. Furthermore, it would prevent the risk of penalties escalating due to an inability to pay on time, which could of course undermine the effectiveness of the penalty system.
It is also worth noting that longer grace periods are common practice in other areas of regulation and penalty enforcement. For example, when it comes to tax payments, local government fines and other civil penalties, 42 days is frequently viewed as an appropriate balance between giving adequate time to pay and maintaining the deterrent effect of the fine. The amendment would align the penalty notice grace period with that established precedent, ensuring consistency across regulatory frameworks.
Extending the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 to 42 days would strike a fair and reasonable balance between ensuring compliance with public protection requirements and avoiding undue financial hardship. The amendment would provide individuals and businesses with the time they need to manage their responsibilities without excessive penal- isation, fostering a system that is both effective and compassionate. I urge the Government to accept the amendment and support a more balanced and equitable approach to penalty notices.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA. When the Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which reported in July 2023 under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, she said of the Bill—which at that point had a threshold of 100 for the basic tier—with the endorsement of the committee, having heard evidence about the impact of these measures on volunteering:
“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.
That is at paragraph 39 of the report, and I could not have put it better myself.
The committee made that cogent point and it was responded to; in my Second Reading speech, I praised the decision taken by the Home Office under the present Government to increase the threshold for the standard tier from 100 to 200. But I remain concerned that the effect of the measures in the Bill will be to greatly harm village halls and community centres up and down our country. In particular, the effect of the measures in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer in senior roles in village halls and community centres. In an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning, it is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions. One of the unintended effects of the Bill might be that village halls are no longer the beacons of stability and assistance within the communities that they encourage. The amendments that I propose are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer and to become trustees.
The way it works in my amendments—if the Committee were to look at the supplementary Marshalled List—is that Amendment 35A seeks to remove the risk that a volunteer or an unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties. I do not ask for a general exemption, whereby they can act in bad faith and still expect to be exempted.
Amendment 35B would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, which are described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that is a powerful disincentive to volunteers due to the risk to their personal liability.
Amendment 36ZA would exempt from criminal liability those volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the Committee will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures in the Bill.
I appreciate that, as the Minister will tell me, this will be used only in very rare cases and is a maxima. I am sure all of that is right. However, the fact that it is in statute will be a disincentive. People will say that they are happy to volunteer but will not be the responsible person because they do not want to take the risk of having to go to prison. This amendment addresses that concern.
Finally, Amendment 37ZA simply clarifies what I think is probably already clear in the Bill: that there is no right of action generated by the Bill against a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee in the event that a dreadful incident occurs at their venue and that they might be personally liable. Again, that would be a significant disincentive to volunteering.
I hope it is clear why I seek these amendments to the Bill. I very much hope the Government will look carefully at creating the kind of exemptions sought by these amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I understand the concern that those in charge of organising events must act responsibly, and I hope the Committee will accept that all decent people—the sort of people who organise a voluntary event—will want to do so. If things go wrong and there is a disaster in the form of a terrorist event, in particular one that could and should have been prevented, the person responsible—the chairman of the committee or whatever—will not want to be found responsible in the court of public opinion for an outrage occurring at something that they have organised. Quite simply, no decent person who has thought about it for a moment would want that on their conscience. That is the starting point. I cannot deal with rogues and vagabonds, because they are to one side; I am talking about the vast majority of people who get involved in smaller events, not commercial organisations.
Small organisations, if properly advised, will insure against financial penalties. That may be the cost of putting on an event. At a local jubilee event a few years ago in south-west London, in Putney, on a little green we have in our street, we were going to have a bouncy castle. I said that we must get substantial personal injury liability insurance in case a child falls off and breaks their neck and suffers brain damage. It was vast damages then—not as much as it is now but certainly into millions of pounds. We were able to get it fairly cheaply.
However, that was for personal injury damages. What you cannot do is ensure against going to prison. You could certainly get insurance against criminal penalties up to a certain level. If it is known that the fine is not going to be more than £2,000 or something, it will not be terrible, but the insurers will not insure you next year if you are fined this year.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, on tabling these amendments. I think that they talk to some of the concerns raised informally at Second Reading and throughout Committee by some of us, which may not have been explicitly looked at. I very much support the spirit of this group.
I have had constant concerns about the unintended consequence of this legislation damaging the informal realm of civil society and the public square. The invaluable arena of community life allows social cohesion through, sometimes quite loose, local gatherings that are often organised by groups of volunteers and voluntary gatherings. Even though they are quite loose informal organisations, they are the cement that holds society together in many ways. In that sense they are loose; they are not paid and not necessarily professional, but they are the very heart of our communities.
I think we got a sense of that the other day in Committee. When the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke about public protection procedures, he painted a vivid picture of the widest range of public activities that could be affected for any of us who work with small literature festivals—things that I know something about—art exhibitions in local areas that are put on regularly, or debating groups getting together. I was down at the farmers’ protest today. This might not endear me to the Government—although maybe it will—but they have been having lots of local gatherings in barns up and down the country, planning their action. That is what we want politics to be like; these are the very people who are our most active and engaged citizens.
In the arts, debate or politics sphere, it is always really difficult to encourage people to take on the role of trustee, chair of a committee and so on, because these are unpaid roles with responsibilities. It is difficult as it goes, but there are people who are prepared to do it. These amendments are important because they probe whether we can ensure that we do not make it more difficult to keep those people involved through the potential of this Bill to threaten them for a liability way beyond that which they might have signed on for—not because they will all wander around being irresponsible about the threat of terrorist attacks in barn meetings with farmers. It is not that they are recklessly inviting awful things to happen, but they will say, “I’m not going to formally put my name to that, because why would I?” Often people are retired, or they are doing it as public citizens, and it is just too much hassle.
How do I know that, apart from by talking to lots of people? It is because, as the Minister has rightly noted, through this Government and the Government before them, this Bill has had a lot of consultation and discussion. The one thing that consistently gets raised in all the evidence that I have read is that small and community organisations are frightened of it. One key thing they mention is that it will put people off volunteering for their organisations. The Minister is right to say, “We listened to a lot of those consultations”, and I am glad about that—but they did not listen to all of them or agree with all of them. That is fair enough, but it is perfectly reasonable to raise things that came up consistently in all the consultations and ask the Government to think again at this point, with some very creative, positive and constructive probing amendments about what we can do to reassure our most active and engaged citizens that this Bill will not threaten them. I ask the Government to take these amendments away and see whether they can come up with a constructive response to them.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I shall make three quick points. First, I hope the noble Lord can in summing up this debate reassure the Committee about proportionality and that it is not the intention of this Bill to attack or penalise volunteers—it is to encourage volunteers to play their role fully in the understanding of what this Bill is about and the need to prepare for the eventuality of a terrorist attack.
Secondly, I have listened very carefully and I have a lot of sympathy on the issue of volunteers. I am a volunteer trustee on several boards and I know about the liability that you have as a trustee on a board. You do have personal liability—but that does not put me off, and I hope that it will not put lots of other people off. I cannot support these amendments, because I think they water down the core element of individual responsibility in the Bill.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
For what criminal liability is the noble Baroness as a trustee going to be liable, other than the criminal offence of fraud?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
That is a fair point—but you are financially liable as a trustee.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
You can insure against that, and I am sure the noble Baroness is insured as a trustee.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
For me, the amendments water down a core element of the Bill, which is about individual responsibility—people taking responsibility for ensuring that an organisation or an event at a venue has thought about what it will do in the eventuality of an attack. That is the key purpose of this Bill.
Thirdly, it would be useful if the Minister could write a letter or bring forward proposals to illustrate how volunteers will be treated with due respect and that it will be understood that this legislation must not put them off, which is why an information campaign is so important. A public information campaign should reassure people.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.
Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, looks at the timing of the payment period across regimes where a time is specified under Clause 17(5). I hope I can reassure him by saying that the period of 28 days in the Bill is a common period across other such regimes. The key point to make to the noble Lord, in relation to his amendment, is that the period currently specified at Clause 17(5) establishes a period that is not less than 28 days, beginning with the day on which the notice is given.
The key point is that the SIA may determine a period for a penalty payment. That might well be 42 days, 62 days or 38 days, but it will not be less than 28 days. It may be greater than 28 days, depending on the person’s circumstances and any representations they make before the SIA issues a notice. Once notice is given, the period may be subsequently varied, and a person has the right to appeal a penalty notice to the tribunal. The Bill is not being prescriptive, except in the sense that there is a minimum period of 28 days. After that, the period is for determination accordingly. I suggest that the noble Lord reflects on his amendment in due course, because I think the Bill meets the objective of his amendment, which is to give individuals a longer period should they require one.
Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, address some really important issues, which are how we encourage, nurture and involve volunteers and make sure that any regulatory regime does not frighten them off or stop them from taking part. It is a noble aspiration from the noble Lord, and one that I would share generally. However, I do not share it in the sense of the amendments he has brought forward. The thought behind them is extremely important, however.
Volunteers, as the Committee will know, play a critical role in communities across the country. The Bill is designed to ensure that we support volunteers at a time of crisis, in the event of a terrorist attack, by providing for a nominated person to act properly and take steps to deal with that attack. I remind the Committee of the main purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure there are plans in place, mostly under Clause 5, with a responsible person making the split-second decisions needed in the moment of a terrorist attack.
The noble Lord has acknowledged the step we have already taken of increasing the threshold from 100 people to 200. There are some 10,000 community centres across the country, and we estimate that only 13% will now be in scope. The vast majority of community halls will not be in scope. But again, I come back to the basic principle of the Bill: someone has to hold the responsibility for devising the plan under Clause 5 for the various measures that need to be taken. In doing that, other volunteers and members of staff are not liable for any action in the event of a breach of those plans; it is only the responsible person.
The basic tenor of the noble Lord’s amendments is whether the responsible person will no longer step up to the plate because they are worried about the consequences of not meeting the obligations under the legislation. Again, I say to him that the purpose of the Security Industry Authority is not to jump from step A, which is a plan, to step X, which is to take someone to court and put them in prison. The purpose of the Security Industry Authority is to ensure that guidance, support, nurturing and help are available. It is to ensure that the people who take on that onerous responsibility have that support to meet the obligations of the Bill. Yes, there is a penalty in the event of a failure; ultimately, however, the purpose of the SIA is to offer the guidance to make sure that the penalty does not happen.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I wanted to speak in support of the amendments from my noble friend Lord Murray, but, as the Minister has summed up, it is putting the cart before the horse, in a way.
However, my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments, which merely seek to protect voluntary, unpaid officeholders and trustees from undue financial, civil and criminal liabilities under the Bill, are noble ones. The amendments address a critical issue: the need to safeguard those who selflessly give their time and expertise to charitable, community and civic organisations. This is vital to the social fabric of our nation.
The amendments are not about weakening the Bill: it is an important security provision. Rather, they are about ensuring fairness and proportionality and we must not create an effect that discourages voluntary services or deters talented individuals from stepping forward to serve on charitable and community boards. It is often said that volunteers are the backbone of our society and they deserve our gratitude, not the threat of financial penalties or personal liability.
I hear what the Minister says about my Amendment 35, in regard to the not less than 28 days. I will go away and consider what he said but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe how information provided to the regulator will be safeguarded.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Suttie. It is a probing amendment in connection with the disclosure of information, which is the subject of Clause 28.
Clause 28(5) provides that:
“In determining whether a disclosure would contravene the data protection legislation, the requirements imposed, and powers conferred, by this Part are to be taken into account”.
The purpose of this amendment is to determine what weight there is in the phrase “to be taken into account”. I have proposed changing that to “do prevail”. In fact, it is the data protection legislation that should prevail, but this seemed to be the shortest way of getting to the probe.
The Events Industry Alliance has told us that there may be extremely sensitive information, including commercially sensitive information, connected with the fulfilment of the requirements under the Bill, and one can understand its concern. I hope that the Minister can tell us how the different interests are weighed, and whether data protection—as I would have thought would be the case—would override everything. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for Amendment 37. I hope I can reassure her that the Security Industry Authority already has robust safeguards and processes in place for discharging its duties under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which ensure that it is therefore compliant with data protection legislation. The Government’s clear expectation is that the SIA will apply the existing safeguards that it has under the 2001 Act when implementing its new regulatory functions under this Bill.
Furthermore, as an arm’s-length body, the SIA must ensure that any disclosures of information under the Bill do not contravene data protection legislation, including the Data Protection Act 2018, or the prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The regulator will be able to share information only in accordance with the parameters in the Bill—shortly to be an Act —and other applicable legal requirements, such as those under data protection legislation as a whole. I hope that those three bits of legislation—the Private Security Industry Act, the Data Protection Act and the Investigatory Powers Act—give the noble Baroness the assurances that she seeks.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure that I am reassured, because I do not understand how opposing points can be taken into account. If it is data protection legislation that governs—if that is what prevails—why do we need this subsection at all? I have not looked at the Private Security Industry Act to which the Minister referred, so I will certainly look at that and at what he has just said. I do not want to be difficult; I just want to get an understanding so that everybody understands it, not just me.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Would it help the noble Baroness if I ensure that I write her a letter between now and Report, which will be announced shortly, so that she has clarity on her concerns? To save her having to look it up, I will also send her the relevant section of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Sending me the reference will do; computers are wonderful—mostly. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.