Westminster Hall

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 5 March 2025

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

14:09

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on the Government’s support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and I would like to thank parliamentary colleagues who have joined me to contribute to the debate. The complex issues faced in the region were last debated here back in 2021, so it is vital that we have this opportunity to highlight the challenges faced by those living in Jammu and Kashmir.

I am proud that we now have a Labour Government who have returned the UK to its rightful place on the world stage, advocating and working for the protection of human rights across the globe. I therefore welcome the opportunity to ask the Minister about that work and how it relates to the now union territories of Jammu and Kashmir.

When our TV screens are sadly filled with images of conflict from around the world, other international issues often fail to get the exposure they perhaps should, and I see part of my role as a Member of Parliament as being to highlight areas of international concern that we should not neglect to bring attention to as we continue to support our international partners in reaching a just solution.

Let us not forget that this troubled region is one of the most militarised places in the world, and ordinary Kashmiris have lived through decades of conflict and widespread abuse at the hands of state and non-state actors. The population of Kashmir remains divided between three countries, and though it is welcome that elections have now been held after a 10-year hiatus, the Indian authorities have failed as yet to provide a timeline for fully restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. After years of delay, I applaud Jammu and Kashmir for partaking in the democratic process, despite, I am sure, feeling alienated and disempowered after decades of impasse. I want to acknowledge the large Kashmiri diaspora here in Britain, including in Hyndburn and Haslingden, and their aspirations for a just settlement.

As the Minister will know, human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the United Nations, continue to highlight human rights concerns such as the repression of the media and freedom of speech in Jammu and Kashmir and the widespread use of detention before trial.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom occupies a very special position, given our historical connections with the region? Does she also agree it is imperative that, in all trade discussions, the issues of observing human rights and the right to self-determination are consistently progressed by our Government?

[Sarah Smith]

I do agree—that is very important—and I will get to that shortly.

Human Rights Watch has stated that the Indian Government have not fully restored freedom of speech and association since the revocation of article 370 of the constitution in Jammu and Kashmir. It said in its July 2024 report:

“The Indian security forces continue to carry out repressive policies including arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and other serious abuses.”

Many of these violations are enabled by legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, which obstruct the normal course of law, impede accountability and jeopardise the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend’s constituents and mine will recognise well the title of Amnesty International’s report: “Five years of silence and struggle in Kashmir”. Does she agree we are making it very clear that this Government and the MPs present today will not allow that to be the case for human rights in Kashmir?

[Sarah Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is encouraging to see so many Labour Members in the Chamber who share the responsibility for ensuring that we do not stay silent on the issues that matter the most.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act remains hugely concerning, given that it gives the Indian security forces de facto legal immunity from prosecution for any human rights violation. Amnesty said:

“There is almost total impunity for enforced disappearance with little movement towards credibly investigating complaints”.

Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur, said:

“The state must respect its human rights obligations and be held accountable where it violates them.”

Amnesty has reviewed the habeas corpus petitions filed to challenge detentions under the Public Safety Act before the High Court for the periods 2014 to 2019 and 2019 to 2024. It found a sevenfold increase in the number of cases filed under the PSA after 2019, with Muslim-dominated Srinagar consistently recording more PSA cases than Hindu-dominated Jammu.

As Pakistan and India work towards a bilateral resolution for peace, I want to ask the Government how the UK is supporting that aspiration. UN Security Council resolution 47 states that the future of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided by its own people

“through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”.

How will the UK Government encourage the implementation of that resolution, and how will they encourage the Indian authorities to comply with the Indian Supreme Court’s mandate for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir?

Given the evidence of ongoing human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, will the UK Government agree to raise their concerns in ongoing trade talks and other diplomatic negotiations with India? As part of any future UK-India trade negotiations, will the UK Government support the call for the release of journalists, and press for an open media environment that can function in a more meaningful way to promote a healthy democratic process?

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last published an annual report on its activities to promote human rights abroad in 2023, and the previous Government unfortunately did not address Kashmir directly. Do this Government have plans to publish an annual report with reference to the Foreign Office’s activities regarding Kashmir?

I thank the Minister for her time today. The Kashmiri community in my constituency of Hyndburn make an invaluable contribution to the life of our community, but many live with anxiety about the future for their relatives in the region. I share their hope that Jammu and Kashmir will enjoy improved social and political conditions following a return to statehood, that the authorities will adopt a more humane approach to political prisoners, and that the appeal of militancy is reduced as Kashmir moves towards a peaceful resolution.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

09:38

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this timely and important debate.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, for more than 70 years, the people of Kashmir have suffered persecution, oppression and injustice. Their calls for justice have gone unanswered, their fundamental human rights have been violated, and their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied. They have faced enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and the largest military occupation in the world. Even today, mothers wait in vain for sons who never return and wives live in perpetual uncertainty—so much so that the term “half-widows” has tragically entered our lexicon.

That injustice has been facilitated by laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, which even the Supreme Court of India describes as “lawless law”. Those laws grant military personnel extraordinary powers to detain, arrest and even take lives without fear of prosecution. They have been weaponised against human rights defenders, journalists and political activists. Today, Yasin Malik, Khurram Parvez, Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, as well as hundreds of others, remain imprisoned as a result of those draconian and illegal laws. Not one of them has been allowed the right to a fair trial. We must be clear in this House and call it what it is. It is not the rule of law; it is state-sponsored persecution and oppression, used over seven decades to try to silence the voice of the Kashmiris.

In August 2019 the Indian Government took the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of unilaterally revoking articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. That action was not only a direct violation of international law, the commitments made to the Kashmiri people and decades of United Nations resolutions; it was, let us be clear, a blatant attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiri struggle once and for all. The consequences were devastating: a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions, violent crackdowns and the transformation of the region into an open-air prison. Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and basic rights trampled upon. Yet the Kashmiri people have shown remarkable resilience in the face of such adversity.

In the elections of September 2024, held after a decade of political repression, voter turnout reached 63%. It was not merely an election; it was a referendum in which large numbers of Kashmiris took part, and the voice of the Kashmiri people unequivocally rejected the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, and demanded the restoration of the region’s special status. Indeed, the first act of the democratically elected Assembly was to pass a resolution to that effect.

The question that is central to today’s debate is: where has the international community been? Despite the overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses, the response from the international community has been deafening. Although United Nations human rights organisations and Governments worldwide have issued statements of concern, statements alone are insufficient. Action is required.

The silence is not merely inaction; it sends a dangerous message that nations can suppress, oppress and brutalise without any consequences. We have a moral and historic duty to act, particularly given this Parliament’s role in shaping the region’s legacy—a point we can never forget. We have a duty beyond that of other nations, so today I press the Government and the Minister, who is a dear friend of mine. Over the last decade, she and I have discussed this issue on many occasions.

We must start by moving away from the decades-old policy in this area—the policy that has been adopted by Governments of all stripes. The central point is that this is not a bilateral issue. We have to be absolutely clear: this is not an issue for India or Pakistan to determine. There is a central voice here, and that is the voice of the Kashmiri people. That voice has been ignored for far too long, so I urge the Minister to listen. I sincerely think she will, and I hope she responds to that point.

Although I support trade agreements with the region, we cannot in good conscience enter into a clear agreement with India, as talks now begin, without addressing the human rights abuses in Kashmir. Trade must not come at the expense of human rights. Any future trade deal with India must be conditional on tangible actions to end these violations, which include repealing repressive laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Public Safety Act; restoring Kashmir’s special status; and upholding the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. I hope the Minister will address these important points on the UK Government’s position and on the trade deal.

Finally, the voices of the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris in this country will be heard on this important issue. I am a proud British Kashmiri, and Kashmiris stand tall and proud, and will never bow or beg in the face of oppression and injustice. Our voices will be heard, and we will continue to raise our voices loud and clear until our birthright of self-determination is granted.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. As so many Members wish to speak, I suggest that we stick to four-minute speeches where possible, please.

09:46

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate and for her persuasive and articulate speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).

Britain has long been a beacon of justice—a nation that has stood as the gold standard for the rule of law, a pillar of fairness to which the world looked in times of darkness. Our legal system has been revered globally and trusted so profoundly that even international contracts choose English courts as the final arbiters of truth. That is the legacy that we inherited, a legacy of unwavering integrity and of standing for what is right, no matter the cost, but I fear that that legacy has been somehow slipping in these times. In recent years, we have seen the principles that once defined us compromised by political expediency. The fair and equal application of justice has been tarnished by the weight of economic interests, and our moral compass has wavered in the face of convenience.

How can we claim to champion human rights when we turn a blind eye to atrocities that violate the very essence of international law? Kashmir, a region bound by United Nations Security Council resolutions, has been abandoned to decades of suffering. The people of Kashmir endure a brutal occupation, with their voices silenced and their rights stripped away, while we—the nation that helped shape modern international law—remain silent. In Gaza, civilians are caught in an unrelenting cycle of violence and despair, yet our actions remain hesitant and inconsistent. Contrast this with our swift and justified response to Russian aggression!

Why do we pick and choose when to stand for justice? Why do we let economic interests decide who is held accountable and who is ignored? This is not the Britain that we aspire to be. If we are to reclaim our moral authority and restore our standing as the defender of justice, we must hold all violators of international law to the same standard. That means taking a stance even when it is difficult. It means considering sanctions against nations such as India for the ongoing abuses in Kashmir. It means standing resolute, not for profit or political gain, but for the fundamental human rights of every individual, no matter where they live or who they are.

Justice must not be selective. Human rights are not negotiable. Let us be the nation that places international law above all else. I ask the Minister: given the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been ignored, what sanctions will this Government now impose to remain consistent in our legal and moral obligations?

09:50

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the work that my constituents in Sheffield Central have done on this really important issue: they have campaigned for many years to raise awareness of the plight of Kashmiris.

Amnesty International has documented the repression of dissent in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly after the revocation of its special autonomous status in 2019. Quite recently, the case of Farkhunda Rehman, a British Kashmiri woman who was harassed and exploited, was not investigated appropriately. This is not an isolated case. Human Rights Watch has also reported on the ongoing repression, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings and restrictions on freedom of speech and of assembly. Its findings emphasise the use of counter-terrorism laws to target journalists, activists and political leaders. Journalists in Kashmir face extreme levels of harassment by security forces, including interrogation, raids and threats.

For many years, people have relayed to me their constant concerns that the Indian authorities have routinely restricted and blocked internet in Kashmir and prohibited the rights of human rights defenders and impartial independent observers. We must work hard to make sure that all political parties put their candidates up for election and facilitate free and fair participation, regardless of their political beliefs, for the determination of the future of a free and fair Kashmir.

These are my questions to the Minister. Given the scale of human rights abuses, when will we move from condemnation to action? When will we recognise that this is not a bilateral issue? When will we hear the voice of Kashmiris and ensure that their voice is heard in the international arena?

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I call Tahir Ali.

09:52

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I have been promoted!

[Tahir Ali]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today.

In January 1948, India went to the United Nations to ask that the issue of Kashmir be noted. Subsequently, resolution 47 determined the outcome for a plebiscite. To this day—76 years on, and into the 77th year—that resolution has not been implemented. The people of Kashmir are now asking the international community: what has to happen to them before their voices are heard? When articles 370 and 35A were revoked back in August 2019 by the Modi-led BJP Government, there was a deafening silence from the international community. The United Nations failed to act.

Earlier this week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed concerns over human rights violations in India and particularly in illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, but the response from the Indian high commissioner to the United Nations was that he should take

“a long and hard look in the mirror”.

That is nothing but a complete disregard for the United Nations.

India calls itself the largest democracy. That raises the question: if it is the largest democracy, why would it not let international observers into Kashmir, with unfettered access to observe what is happening on the ground? Why are extrajudicial killings happening on the international community’s watch? India is getting away with atrocities against women, rape, torture and even the pelleting of children who are making their way to school. What threat can they be? This is all very well documented.

It is a blatant two fingers up to the international community to shout the loudest and say, “We are the largest democracy. Nothing is happening in Kashmir. We will continue to do what we are doing. What has been happening for the last 76 years will continue, and we will take no notice.”

Kashmir is not a bilateral issue. It is not an issue between Pakistan and India. It is an issue for the Kashmiri people, who have a right to self-determination. It is for the international community to come together to make that happen. If it does not happen now, in the midst of the global turbulence that is happening in all regions, when is the time for the international community to come together? Peace is needed. Peace has to happen in the region. Two nuclear states cannot allow Kashmir to become the hanging fireball in the region that could explode or ignite at any time.

This is unfinished business from the UK Labour Government in 1947. We have a Labour Government now. Perhaps it is up to the UK’s Labour Government to take a leading role and make sure that that unfinished business is dealt with properly once and for all, without putting any more lives at risk and without risking any more atrocities, given the genocide that is taking place in India-occupied Kashmir. Why would a country not even allow its own politicians access to the region of conflict? Why will it not allow its own journalists access, if there is nothing to hide?

Back in 2020, a delegation from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir went to Kashmir. All of us were denied a visa to the India-occupied region. The then chair managed to get to Delhi, but she was returned to Dubai because she was not allowed any further access. When we ended up on the Pakistan side, the then PTI Government allowed us unfettered access to any areas we wanted to visit, without any hindrance. We had to ask for it, but we got access. In fact, we changed the schedules to make sure that we saw parts of the Kashmir region that had perhaps not been seen by politicians before.

On one side, Pakistan allows international access; on the other side, India is hesitant. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out where the problem is. My plea to the UK Government is that unfinished business cannot remain unfinished. It has to be dealt with now. Will the Government take all steps to make sure that the right of self-determination is granted to the people of Kashmir?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that because so many want to speak in this important debate, we need to stick to four-minute speeches and keep interventions to a minimum.

09:59

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. I have many Kashmiris in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, and one of the pledges I made to them during my election campaign was that I promised to stand up for peace, justice and human rights anywhere around the world. Kashmir is their homeland and very close to their hearts and my heart.

A report issued by Amnesty International last year captures the reality of the repression to which the Kashmiri population are subjected. It describes a clampdown on freedom of expression via the use of restrictive travel bans and arbitrary detentions to intimidate critical dissenting voices into not speaking out. It describes how those subject to detention under stringent anti-terror laws are now being detained for much longer without trial than before: the average was 269 days between 2014 and 2019, and about 330 days from 2019 to 2024. This is, in effect, a form of internment. We know from the experience of internment in Northern Ireland in the 1970s that it did nothing more than act as a recruiting agent for paramilitary organisations. Add to that the extrajudicial killings, the police and army abuses, the Indian Government’s decision to strip Kashmir of its autonomy and statehood, and the draconian crackdown that followed in its wake, and it is not surprising that the region is in constant ferment.

What is surprising is how little is known in this country about the state of affairs in Kashmir, especially considering the British Government’s historical role in the creation of Kashmir, the partition of India, and all the chaos that came in its wake. The UK has a historic responsibility for the current situation. It has a responsibility to put rhetoric about upholding human rights into practice and to use governmental pressure on India to that end.

I have no illusions about the difficulties in making the British Government act. As the plight of the Palestinians illustrates, the UK’s commitment to human rights exists more in theory than in practice. Nevertheless, thanks to public campaigning, the issue of Palestine will not leave this Government alone—it is like a stone in their shoe. For those of us concerned about the issue of human rights and self-determination for Kashmir, the challenge is to make it the stone in the other shoe. The Government must take responsibility and a leadership role as a peacemaker and enforcer of international law.

What will the Government do to remove the impunity they provide the Indian Government for their many breaches of international and humanitarian law? What specific steps will the Government take to enforce the UN resolutions that have already been mentioned? What diplomatic engagement is the UK using to seek a peaceful resolution for the Kashmiri people and the right to self-determination? What action are the UK Government taking to enforce human rights in Kashmir? What humanitarian aid are the UK Government providing to Kashmir, and how will that be impacted by the decision to reduce foreign aid by 40%?

10:02

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.

This is a personal issue for my constituents and for me, as my great-grandparents come from Jammu and Kashmir, which is now occupied by India. The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility for this issue: it was during the British Raj when the statehoods of India and Pakistan were created. The principality of Kashmir was predominantly a Muslim area and, from the beginning, there were problems regarding who would run it.

In 1948, the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, went to the UN and asked for UN Security Council resolution 47, which guaranteed that all Kashmiris had the right to choose their future through a democratic vote. That still has not happened 76 years later. Instead, a very right-wing Hindutva-led Prime Minister, Mr Modi—Hindutva is the concept that India is for Hindus first—is in power. Since his Government have been in power, things have got worse for the people of Kashmir.

One of the first things the Indian Government did, in 2019, was revoke article 370, meaning the situation has gone from bad to worse. The revocation of that article, and some others, split occupied Kashmir into three different areas. The revocations have also allowed people who are not from Kashmir to settle there. Thousands of acres of land have been grabbed, apparently for development purposes. Yet the rule in Kashmir is that Kashmiris should be able to settle there. This is a deliberate ploy to change the demographics on the ground so that if ever there was a plebiscite, Kashmir would probably be kept with India.

Apart from that, there have been human rights abuses such as pellet guns being aimed at children. There was a 500-day period when there was no internet for the entire area. People have been arrested and incarcerated without due process under the law if they are critical of the Indian Government.

India is supposed to be the largest democracy in the world—we are told—yet in Kashmir the Assembly has been dissolved. People in Kashmir have no right to vote. The Prime Minister has recently done great work on Ukraine; I ask him and our Foreign Office to get involved in this issue, stop treating it as a bilateral issue—it is not—and for once ensure that the people of Kashmir have the right to decide their destiny as to where they want to be. As so many people have already said, we talk about human rights and we talk about the rule of law; it is about time that people in Kashmir were given their human rights, and one of the fundamental human rights is the right of self-determination.

10:06

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.

Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South care deeply about the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir and have family there, as do many British Asians of Jammu and Kashmiri descent. I have had the honour of attending several meetings in Stoke-on-Trent to discuss the ongoing conflict and human rights abuses occurring in Kashmir. In particular, I am grateful to Raja Najabat Hussain and Tamoor Shafique of the Jammu and Kashmir Self-Determination Movement International for their regular engagement with me since my election. I also thank Councillor Majid Khan and Councillor Amjid Wazir for hosting the meetings, and also Bagh Ali, who first raised Kashmir with me, highlighting the ongoing issues.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour about Majid Khan and Amjid Wazir. Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North have deep ties with Kashmir. Does my hon. Friend agree that the work that Majid Khan, Amjid Wazir and others do locally to raise awareness of the terrible ongoing human rights violations is incredibly important? Too often, there is not enough understanding among our wider constituents of the ongoing human rights violations.

[Dr Gardner]

I of course agree with my hon. Friend.

I am of course aware that we are speaking during the holy month of Ramadan. This is a time of deep reflection when it is very apt that we discuss the need for peace and resolution. It is, of course, the role of India and Pakistan to seek a diplomatic and political resolution and an end to the human rights abuses, and so find a sustainable peace and self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but I ask the British Government to take an active role in mediation.

Crucially, the negotiations must include the voices of the Kashmiri people and, in acknowledgment of International Women’s Day next week, they must include the voices of women. Academics, human rights organisations and the UN rightly point out that it is often women who are frequently the most severely affected emotionally, physically and economically. Of greatest concern is the use of sexual violence and rape, which is so often used as an instrument of war in any conflict. This has been used to intimidate and silence women and communities. The fear instilled in women means that their day-to-day existence, safety, security and mobility are curtailed.

Enhanced security protocols and militarisation have an enormous negative impact on the lives of women, even reducing their access to education and, crucially, healthcare. Conflict results in the loss of husbands, either by extrajudicial killings or imprisonment, which often means women have to work to support their families. We need to support the economic empowerment of women as well as their physical security in Jammu and Kashmir. For peace to be secured and for resolution to be reached, the voices of women must be heard in the dialogues and mediation in respect of the Kashmiri conflict.

I urge the Minister, in the light of our global reputation for mediation, to do all that can be done to help to secure peace, democracy and self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir for all Kashmiri people—men women and children.

10:10

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.

This topic is close to the hearts of hundreds of my constituents, and therefore close to my heart. On the doorsteps during the election campaign, and during my time in the House, I have promised to involve myself in it and continue to fight for it. Earlier this year I was proud to host the first Labour Friends of Kashmir event in Bury North, which brought together friends and colleagues from across my community and further afield to discuss the important issues that we seek to address and highlight today.

I am grateful in particular to Raja Najabat Hussain and Tamoor Shafique of the Jammu and Kashmir Self-Determination Movement International for engaging with me since my election; Lord Wajid Khan, who is a Minister and a long-time friend to me and Bury; and our wonderful Pakistan-Kashmiri diaspora. I also thank Councillors Tamoor Tariq, Babar Ibrahim and Tahir Rafiq for their counsel on this issue. Their interactions have deepened my understanding and commitment to advocating for the rights and dignity of the people in this contested region.

These global issues have local resonance. Bury North is home to a proud south Asian community, and many continue to have familial ties to Jammu and Kashmir. Their stories, hopes and concerns resonate deeply with our community, and it is our duty to ensure that their voices are heard. We must not just stand in solidarity with them in these challenging times, but call out injustices. We must also move things along and make progress for them—not to constantly rehearse the objections and assessments but, now that we are in government, to see progress.

As we speak, we are mindful that it is the holy month of Ramadan—a time dedicated to peace, reflection and charity. It is a period when we are reminded of our shared humanity and the importance of supporting those in need. The principles of Ramadan, as with so many of the values of our Abrahamic faiths, inspire us to advocate for justice and compassion—values that are essential in our discussion of human rights. This conflict is taking place thousands of miles away, but we must not, cannot and should not turn away from the human rights abuses, the stifling of democracy and free speech, the ongoing struggle for self-determination, the historic injustices, the need for reconciliation and, as with so many of these contentious issues, the UK’s role originally and our role in resolving it.

Restrictions on free speech in the region have led to the detention of journalists, activists and political leaders under anti-terror laws. These measures supress dissent and limit public discourse. Laws such as the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act enable authorities to detain individuals for extended periods without trial, and often without formal charges, raising concerns about legal abuses and arbitrary detention.

Extended lockdowns have had severe consequences for civilians, restricting access to essential services such as healthcare, education and employment. These measures have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations and exacerbated their hardship. Additionally, religious minorities and migrant workers have faced targeted violence and repression, further marginalising already at-risk communities.

It is fundamentally a matter for the Kashmiri people to be given and to execute their self-determination, but it is a matter for the UK to involve itself with Pakistan and India. We have a global role and reputation, as well as leadership that can inspire the change we wish to see. There are verified reports on human rights violations from credible organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The human impact of the restrictions, and the testimony we have seen and heard from affected individuals, highlight the real-life injustices and consequences.

In closing, I urge the Minister to consider what more the Government can do—not simply to rehearse the assessment we understand, but to progress to resolution. The direction of this ongoing conflict must be towards achieving peace and democracy in the region, and justice for the Jammu and Kashmiri people through self-determination. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s objectives in this Parliament for this historical and current conflict? The remarkable resilience of the Jammu and Kashmiri people demands action and a resolution.

10:15

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for setting the scene so well, and all those who have made incredible contributions. We have seen the new Parliament engage on this issue, including the all-parties Kashmir conference held in the House of Commons. That is an indication of the strength of feeling. I have spoken on the issue on the Floor of the House many times. It is vital that such dialogue translates into meaningful action.

I state an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I speak up for those with Christian faith, other faiths and no faith. I have deep concern for the rights of all communities affected by the ongoing tensions in the region. I acknowledge the deeply troubling reports of press suppression, and obviously the tensions and human rights concerns in India-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

The situation for journalists in particular remains alarming. Reports suggest that some 90% of journalists working in the region have been summoned for questioning at least once—some repeatedly—often under intimidation from authorities demonstrating detailed knowledge of their personal lives and family members. These activities create a chilling effect, deterring independent reporting and limiting the free flow of information. It remains concerning that despite multiple calls for transparency, the regional administration has failed abysmally to provide satisfactory responses. The climate of fear for journalists directly undermines press freedom, which is an essential pillar of democracy, as others have said.

The right to freedom of expression is fundamental to any democratic society, and it is deeply concerning that the ability of the press to operate freely in Jammu and Kashmir remains under significant threat. Beyond press restrictions, we must also consider the broader security situation. Since 2021, Jammu has seen at least 33 militant-related attacks, and in just the first half of 2024, 12 civilians were killed, matching the total number of civilian deaths in the previous year. I believe those statistics underscore a worrying escalation in violence, despite claims that peace has been restored. The Indian Government’s revocation of article 370 in 2019 fundamentally altered the status of Jammu and Kashmir. While officials may claim that that move was to increase development and integration, reports from international rights organisations tell a different story.

The arbitrary arrests, the surveillance and the oppressive environment in which journalists work are clear violations of press freedom. The BBC has documented numerous instances where citizens, particularly journalists, have been detained or harassed for merely exercising their fundamental rights and doing their job. One example is the case of Muneeb ul Islam, a 29-year-old photojournalist who had worked in Kashmir for five years. His career halted in August 2019. For over 150 days the region was left without internet access, making it India’s longest ever communications blackout. Such acts of repression have only intensified since the revocation of article 370 in 2019, which has further suppressed independent journalism.

I will turn to Pakistan, because there are two countries involved in this. We cannot ignore the serious human rights concerns in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The 2018 amendments to the interim constitution, which restrict religious freedoms for the Ahmadiyya community, remain a cause for concern. Reports from human rights groups suggest that enforced disappearances continue. Freedom of expression remains under threat, with journalists facing harassment and restrictions in both Pakistan-administered and India-administered Kashmir.

As I often do in these types of debates, I will quote a biblical text. Proverbs 31:9 says:

“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and the needy.”

In the discussions to continue, I urge the United Kingdom Government, and specifically the Minister who is here today, to engage proactively with their counterparts to seek assurances that human rights will be protected. The international community, including the UK, must use its diplomatic channels to encourage both Governments to uphold fundamental freedoms, allow independent monitoring by UN bodies and ensure justice for those affected by violence and repression.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve a future free from violence, repression and discrimination. It is our duty in this House to stand in solidarity with them and to ensure that their rights are upheld. So, let us continue to push for justice, for accountability and for lasting peace in this region.

10:20

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I give huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.

As other colleagues have said, in 2019 India made the unilateral move to downgrade Jammu and Kashmir to two union territories, revoking article 370 of its constitution. That was a huge move that India made unilaterally and it has had a huge impact on the Kashmiri people. As other Members have said, there was a complete communication lockdown in the immediate aftermath; there continue to be sporadic internet shutdowns to this day.

As has been said, the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act has been used particularly against civil society activists and journalists. I especially mention Khurram Parvez and journalist Irfan Mehraj, who have been detained without trial under the UAPA.

I have spent some time working on Kashmir with colleagues who are present for today’s debate. We have spoken directly with both civil society activists and non-governmental organisations in the region. Consequently, we know that, for example, Amnesty International India had its bank accounts frozen by the Indian Government. We also know that the BBC had to split its news operations to meet the laws that were put in place, and there were serious concerns about the moves that the BBC had to take at the time.

Land laws in Indian-administered Kashmir have been amended or repealed, resulting in evictions, destruction of property and land confiscation. Just this week, there have been reports of books being seized by police, and of bookshop owners trying to go about their daily business but having books seized—a horrific example of what is going on in Indian-administered Kashmir.

I must mention Gilgit Baltistan. The situation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir is far more open. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) mentioned, I joined them on a delegation to Azad Kashmir. We had quite a lot of access, not only to Government officials but to journalists and civil society activists, so we were able to speak to a large group of people. However, there is little or no representation for Gilgit Baltistan in Pakistan’s National Assembly or Senate, and there have been some concerns for journalists in the region. Also, we know that there are projects such as the China-Pakistan economic corridor, which has been seen as a beacon of progress by some in the region, but which has led to some land seizures without proper consultation.

We must ensure that the Kashmiri people and Kashmiri citizens are put at the front of any moves involving their region. The right to self-determination exists under United Nations Security Council resolution 47, and we must do everything we can to support the Kashmiri people. As other Members have said, this is not a bilateral issue; this is an issue for the international community to be involved with.

Finally, will the Minister tell us about the discussions that the Government are having with the Indian Government on trade agreements and human rights?

10:24

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing the debate. I think that it is the first substantive debate on this issue in this Parliament. Given that we are now seven months into this Parliament, that is probably something we should all reflect on, and consider whether we have given due attention to this pressing international issue.

I will begin, much like my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), by paying tribute to Councillors Amjid Wazir, Majid Khan and Javid Najmi, as well as former Lord Mayor Bagh Ali. When I was first elected to this place in 2017, they were the first group of people to come and see me to talk about what was going on in Jammu and Kashmir. They told me about the challenges faced by their families in 2017; issues escalated significantly during that Parliament with the revocation of article 370, the suspension of basic human rights, the curfews, the discontinuation of telephone services and the suspension of the internet.

The fact that today, in 2025, we stand in Parliament having this debate again means that in many ways we have failed them. We have failed those people I spoke to seven years ago. We failed people like Raja Najabat Hussain of the Jammu and Kashmir Self-Determination Movement International, because we are still only talking about this issue. What are we doing about this issue? What are the actions that we can say have happened, since I was first elected seven years ago, that will make this issue better for the people living in Jammu and Kashmir.

With my hand on my heart, I cannot honestly say that the discussions that we are having today and the passionate arguments that I have heard from my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in Westminster Hall are any different from those that I listened to seven years ago. If we are still having this conversation in seven years’ time, it will be a catastrophe for the people in Jammu and Kashmir. It would be a dereliction of the responsibility of any Government of any political party to allow an issue of this significance to continue in the way it has without some form of intervention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) has, I am afraid, temporarily left. He said in his speech that the UK has a global role and a global reputation. He said that wonderfully, but the UK also has a global responsibility; if we do not take our responsibility seriously, if we do not say that now is the time for action, if we do not go beyond the conversations, the debates, the words, the petitions, the conferences we all attend in Portcullis House where we rehearse the same arguments and we hear the passionate cry for assistance from the people of Jammu and Kashmir, then we will have failed to do what we, as legislators in one of the most powerful Parliaments in the world, can do.

Minister, we all know of Security Council resolution 47 from 1948 and we know of the 77-year wait that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have had for the right to self-determination. There is a generation of people who are ageing, and they would like to see some action on this before it is too late for them. These are people who have lived their entire life in hope for the land that they and their families have come from, with which they still have a deep bond and connection.

I know the Minister well. She is a thoughtful, diligent member of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office team and I know that these matters weigh heavily on her shoulders. Can she give us some indication of what we in this House can look forward to? What can we say to our constituents in, for example, Stoke-on-Trent, Bradford, Birmingham or even Strangford, when they ask what action we are now taking to deliver the self-determination and human rights that have been denied to the people of Kashmir for the last 77 years?

10:28

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this vital and overdue debate. As has been said already, while the world rightly focuses on the plight of the Palestinian people and the UN resolutions frequently broken by Israel, all too often there is too little attention on the plight of the Kashmiri people and the repeated violations of UN resolutions by India. From repeated denials of their self-determination to frequent attacks on their human rights, the Kashmiris are truly the Palestinians of south Asia.

Seventy-eight years after Kashmiris were nominally granted autonomy by the creation of Jammu and Kashmir in India and Azad Kashmir in Pakistan, many are still crying out for the self-determination they deserve. We need to vigorously support the United Nations resolutions not just of 1948, but of 1949 and 1960, which upheld the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination through a UN-supervised plebiscite. As has already been said, we the British owe the Kashmiri people an historic debt of honour. We need to fulfil the explicit commitment by Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, to a direct say for the Kashmiri people over their own future.

It is India’s most recent, ongoing breaches of UN resolutions that concern many of us today. Human rights groups have highlighted the repression of the media and freedom of speech in Jammu and Kashmir, the widespread use of detention without trial, and internet shutdowns—all of which have been criticised by the high courts in India itself. As a former journalist, I am appalled by the Indian crackdown on a free press. In September ’23, the BBC reported that journalists in Kashmir felt that the Indian Government were running a

“sinister and systematic campaign to intimidate and silence the press in the region.”

Only last month, police in Kashmir disgracefully raided dozens of bookshops and seized more than 650 books, many of them by Islamic scholars. I know that the UK Government’s position is that Kashmir is a bilateral matter for peaceful resolution by India and Pakistan, and obviously there needs to be diplomacy and a long-lasting peaceful solution, but the voices of Kashmiris themselves should be supported by the UK and the international community. The UK must do much more to call out the most egregious abuses of human rights in Kashmir. We must demand full investigations, real action and real justice.

I stand in solidarity with the people of Kashmir in both India and Pakistan and pay tribute to their amazing resilience, but there is more we can do in the UK to help British Kashmiris. Research by the University of Manchester puts Rochdale’s Kashmiri population at nearly 15,000, but they are almost invisible in public policy terms, because they are not recorded separately in the census and are classed as Pakistani.

We need to recognise the Kashmiri languages and ethnicity in the census. That would allow public services and other services to be properly directed to areas of need. Pahari, the mother tongue of many Rochdale Kashmiris, is not recognised on par with other community languages used by public bodies. Many in the community feel that this is one of the key factors that has led to their marginalisation. There is a democratic deficit too. Although we have many councillors and some MPs of Kashmiri descent—some are here today—not a single Member of the House of Lords is a Kashmiri.

I pay tribute to Councillor Daalat Ali, the founding member of Rochdale’s Kashmir Youth Project and of the Kashmir Broadcasting Corporation, which caters for Indo-Aryan languages in the UK. He has repeatedly raised the issue of human rights abuses back in his homeland. The Kashmir Youth Project in Rochdale was founded in 1979, and every day it helps women and men, young and old, with crucial services. It shows the best of Rochdale and the best of our Kashmiri community.

We should strive to improve the lot of Kashmiris in India and Pakistan and call out human rights abuses, but we also need to do much more here at home to help the Kashmiri community.

10:32

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for bringing forward this important debate.

The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about the ongoing tension between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. This is not a new conflict; it has been a long and oppressive one. It affects many in the UK, particularly those in communities with strong personal ties to the region. We are concerned by the ongoing tension between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers, and we want the UK Government, with the international community, to play an active role in advocating for peace and reconciliation between India and Pakistan in this troubled area, and in recognising the human rights of the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. But it is up to the Governments of India and Pakistan to undertake to engage in a peace process that delivers a sustainable, just and lasting settlement. Our Government must play their part to help find the best way forward.

We are profoundly concerned by the Indian Government’s abolition in 2019 of Kashmir’s special status under article 370 of the constitution of India, along with the continuing unrest and human rights abuses. We believe that the UK must use its influence to support UN inspections and engagement in Kashmir. The Liberal Democrats believe in defending human rights and equality across the globe and think that UK foreign policy should promote these values internationally.

The UK must also reverse cuts to official development assistance and ensure that aid focuses on poverty reduction and protecting human rights in places such as Kashmir, where an estimated 655,000 people are living below the poverty line, with about 47% of the population living without adequate sanitation. The UK’s international development spending must be used effectively, with a primary focus on poverty reduction as we reverse the ODA cuts and get back to 0.7% GNI, putting the United Nations sustainable development goals—including access to clean water, sanitation and health and to quality education, and achieving food security—at the heart of our international development policy.

The Kashmir crisis is a long-standing issue that cannot be ignored. The UK Government must use their diplomatic channels to promote peace, hold human rights violators to account and support those affected by the conflict. We stand for a peaceful, just and humanitarian approach to resolving the situation and helping to build a better, more prosperous future for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

10:36

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, which has clearly attracted a lot of interest from colleagues in the House. This is a deeply sensitive and complex issue that has persisted for decades and requires careful and measured discussion, and it is fair to say that we have seen that in Westminster Hall today.

Naturally, given our history in the region and the role that the United Kingdom played in the partition of these territories, many look to us to mediate. It was not the policy of the last Government to prescribe a solution to the situation in Kashmir, as it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. However, we must not shy away from raising human rights concerns that may arise as a by-product of the dispute. Therefore, it is vital that allegations of human rights abuses are investigated thoroughly, promptly and independently. Can the Minister outline how her Government are pressing both India and Pakistan to ensure that their domestic laws align with international human rights standards?

Central to today’s debate, of course, is understanding what assessment the Government have made of ongoing human rights abuses in the region. India and Pakistan are both close friends of the United Kingdom and, importantly, both are members of the Commonwealth, a unique institution that does so much to foster unity between nations that share the common values set out under the Commonwealth charter. Article II of the charter insists upon a commitment to human rights, specifically

“respect for the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights”.

Both India and Pakistan have expressed their strong belief in the Commonwealth’s role as a platform for constructive dialogue. Given that, what are the Government doing to utilise the Commonwealth as a forum to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan on protecting human rights and on this geopolitical issue more generally? What conversations has the Minister had with the secretary-general of the Commonwealth to prevent any potential future violations of the Commonwealth charter?

Regional instability in south Asia does not exist in a vacuum, so we must consider the broader geopolitical landscape, particularly the influence of China in the region. Continued tensions in Kashmir could create opportunities for external actors to further their own strategic interests, potentially undermining peace efforts and increasing regional instability. It would therefore be helpful to understand what assessment has been made of the potential security implications of China’s involvement in the region. Will China’s role in Kashmir make an appearance in the Government’s China audit?

A crucial part of the human rights discussion is the issue of freedom of religion and belief, which remains a concern in both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where religious minorities continue to face discrimination and persecution. What assessment have the Government made of the state of religious freedom in Kashmir?

The Prime Minister’s recent appointment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief was welcome, but it is important to understand whether the envoy will be tasked with examining these concerns and engaging with counterparts in India and Pakistan on the matter. As we engage in this discussion, I urge the Government to provide clear answers on how they plan to ensure that the UK remains a voice for stability, dialogue and human rights in Kashmir. The people of Kashmir have endured decades of uncertainty and hardship. What are the Government doing to prevent a further escalation of tensions? How do they intend to use their diplomatic influence to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table?

His Majesty’s Government, through their diplomatic networks in New Delhi and Islamabad, must continue to encourage both sides to engage in dialogue and pursue lasting diplomatic solutions. How frequently are the Government raising this issue with counterparts in India and Pakistan? Can the Minister provide specific examples of recent diplomatic engagement on this matter?

With all that in mind, the UK must continue to encourage constructive dialogue, promote and defend international law and human rights, and work towards a future that prioritises peace, security and stability in the region.

10:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship this morning, Dr Allin-Khan.

I will begin by stating the Government’s policy on Kashmir. India and Pakistan are long-standing important friends of the UK and we encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting political solutions to maintain regional stability. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) has secured the debate, and as hon. Members have asked about a voice for Kashmir, I want to reiterate that this is an opportunity to bring our constituents’ concerns to the House of Commons.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, the history of the region is intertwined with our own. It is very important to take account of that, which is why we have regular interventions in Parliament on this important topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said that we had not spoken enough about it. I remind him that he made points about it at the Adjournment debate on International Human Rights Day in December, and there have been a number of other interventions and written questions on the subject.

We recognise that there are concerns about human rights in both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who said that human rights are paramount. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards.

A number of hon. Members mentioned journalists’ freedom of speech. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) be happy if I wrote to her about the woman she mentioned, so that I can provide details? We will follow up directly on that case, and I will put a copy of the letter in the Library. Our position is clear that any allegation of human rights abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said it is important to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected. That is the role of Members of Parliament—to raise concerns, which our Government will then raise with the Governments of India and Pakistan. As Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I have interlocutors in Delhi and other places, and in the high commission here. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who oversees the FCDO’s work with Pakistan, Afghanistan and the middle east, also regularly raises points with his interlocutors, as we both bring forward these concerns.

We undertake diligently the role of monitoring the situation and recording concerns. We understand that several restrictions have been put in place over time in Indian-administered Kashmir. Many hon. Members referred to internet blackouts, which we monitor carefully and ensure we raise effectively. Unfortunately, they tend to spike at times of violent outbreaks.

On the importance of human rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) mentioned the important Amnesty International report. Other Members have mentioned the work of Mary Lawlor. We are clear on the importance of human rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.

Some Members mentioned prison conditions, and that goes to the heart of the issue. We welcome reports that some detainees have been released, but we remain concerned by ongoing detentions. More broadly, the Government note that the people of Indian-administered Kashmir used their collective voice with a 64% turnout in the state assembly elections last October, which is a higher turnout than in the UK local government elections, I might add. The electoral process was largely peaceful, and the state legislative assembly in Srinagar has now been restored.

Some Members have raised the revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution. The UK Government stand by our long-standing belief that any resolution should consider the wishes of the Kashmiri people. For that reason, we continue to urge both sides to ensure that there is constructive dialogue with affected communities. As I said, we are clear on the importance of rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.

The UK is aware of the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment on the validity of the article 370 revocation. Where we have concerns, we raise them directly with the Government of India.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for replying in such detail to the points made, and I fully accept that she and the Government are raising the article 370 suspension with India. Is she able to tell the House what the Indian response was, or share some detail of the importance with which India took that intervention from the United Kingdom?

[Catherine West]

The point is that this is a frequent agenda item. Without wanting to go into private discussions, the fact is this: constituents raise the matter with Members, and we then relay that message. That is as transparent as we can possibly be. As ever in foreign policy, it is almost impossible to control the response of our interlocutors. I also responded to yesterday’s urgent question in the House; if I could control my interlocutor’s response, I would be in heaven.

Many Members raised the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Public Safety Act. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegations of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.

My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), for Sheffield Central, and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about communications restrictions and the worrying situation for journalists. It is wonderful to have a journalist, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, in the House making such effective interventions through speeches, with such heart for his community.

[Jim Shannon]

Is there a role for the special envoy in relation to religious discrimination and abuse in the region? If so, we all believe that there is no better person than the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to do that job.

[Catherine West]

Of course. The work of envoys and the work of the United Nations is very important for providing us with data and up-to-date analysis, but the Foreign Office also has a role in visiting the region. The way our heads of mission are able to go into those parts is really wonderful. Some Members mentioned a journey that UK Members of Parliament made some years ago. Their entrance was blocked because some areas are simply too difficult to enter; they are too violent and not safe enough. We have our own teams—envoys, United Nations teams and our own staff—that are able to give us up-to-date guidance.

I want to touch briefly on freedom of religion or belief, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raises it regularly and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke about its importance. I want to reassure them that when I visited Delhi, I met Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim communities to hear about the different traditions in the region. We had a very impressive visit, which made a huge impression on me, to the Jama Masjid, one of the most ancient religious sites in Delhi.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her graciousness in letting me intervene a second time. The Ahmadiyya Muslims are suffering persecution simply because they are of a different kind of the Muslim religion. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with them the persecution that they are enduring?

[Catherine West]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Ahmadiyya, but that is mainly an issue in other parts of the region. With his permission, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to write to him with more detail.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, the UK Government are aware of reports of the detention of a number of journalists. We are clear about the importance of respect for human rights, and continue to call for any remaining restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible, and for any remaining political detainees to be released.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised the UN plebiscite. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On that point, can the Minister confirm whether adherence to human rights and international law will be included as conditions within any trade agreements with India?

[Catherine West]

Trade is the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to promoting universal human rights, and where we have concerns, we raise them directly with partner Governments, including at the ministerial level. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield also raised trade. Human rights are a golden thread that goes through all the work of the international Departments.

An issue that sits alongside that is aid—we have debated it this week because of the announcement on international aid. I assure the House that we are still assessing the impact in the Indo-Pacific region, and we will come back when we have a clearer picture. As Members are aware, our work is intertwined with that of other donor countries. For example, the United States Agency for International Development has traditionally been a very big partner in aid across the globe. In the light of the recent announcement of the cessation of that aid, Ministers have asked the Department to do an assessment in the coming weeks so that we can understand the impact of the reduction of aid more generally in different regions. As the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I want to know exactly what impact that is going to have, but because the announcement is less than a week old, that work has not yet been completed.

I want to touch briefly on Government visits to the region. The benefit of having in-country expertise is that when it is safe to visit, we can seek and gain the various permissions that are needed. Monitoring the situation in India-administered Kashmir is part of the Government’s duties, and that includes engaging with people from different areas and travelling to different regions, including Indian-administered Kashmir. That is a very important part of our diplomacy, and we will continue to do it. Despite the controls in place, officials from the British high commission in New Delhi request access to Kashmir, monitor the situation and visit the region periodically.

The FCDO advises against travel to certain parts of Indian-administered Kashmir and against all travel within 10 miles of the line of control, whether in Indian-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We encourage all British nationals visiting the region, including our own staff, to follow that advice very carefully. There are limits, therefore, to the frequency and geographical scope of visits. The same applies to our officials at the British high commission in Islamabad, who travel periodically to Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

I want briefly to touch on a couple of other issues raised by hon. Members, but we are getting close to the end of the debate—have I missed anything? One thing I have enjoyed about this debate has been the discussion of the many local organisations, such as the youth organisation in Rochdale mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, of the impact of councillors in our localities and of the important work on International Women’s Day, when we can celebrate the work of our representatives who have deep connections with the area. This work is the tapestry of the UK, and it is important that we bring such matters to the House to reflect constituents’ concerns.

[Mr Frith]

rose—

[Imran Hussain]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Catherine West]

I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North first.

[Mr Frith]

I thank the Minister for her diligent response to the debate. Is it reasonable for my constituents to hope that, within the next four and a half years—a single Parliament of this Labour Government—things will have progressed, rather than being simply being rehearsed and repeated? Her response has been sincere, but do the Government have a clear objective to move things forward and move the dial on this long-standing issue?

[Catherine West]

I impress upon my hon. Friend the importance of these debates in influencing the work of our teams at the FCDO and putting the work that is being done in our communities on the public record. Through that, they can have a lasting impact. However, we have to remember that we strongly hold to the principle of the important role of India and Pakistan in resolving this situation.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. I want to pick up on her point about it not being for the UK to prescribe a solution. I entirely understand why that is the position that she and previous Governments have had, but in 1948 there were eight votes in favour of the special resolution of the Security Council. The USSR abstained. The UK was one of the countries that voted in favour of that resolution, which said a plebiscite should happen. Does the UK no longer support the position that we adopted in ’48—I appreciate that that was a long time ago—or do we think that, although it is a potential solution, we do not necessarily want to push it?

[Catherine West]

Our position is that it is for the two countries to take charge of the overall situation, while obviously listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

[Imran Hussain]

I have a follow-up point. As it stands, the position under international law is very clear; there is a United Nations resolution that gives the birthright of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Do the UK Government support that position? That is the question.

[Catherine West]

A wish and a prayer is one thing, but to resolve this will definitely come down to the two partners and listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are here to support and to monitor human rights, but as has been clear in the debate, we cannot prescribe, take charge or dictate terms.

[Dr Gardner]

Can I at least ask that, in any interactions with the Indian Government, Ministers push for the prosecution of men who use rape and sexual violence as tools of oppression? They are not being prosecuted at the moment.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point—it is International Women’s Day on Saturday. Regardless of where those awful crimes happen, we will always take violence against women and girls extremely seriously—it is one of the Foreign Secretary’s priorities—and raise it with whichever Government have it happening in their area.

Thank you for your patience in chairing the debate, Dr Allin-Khan; I think we will come back to this topic.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

Professional Cycling: Free-to-air Coverage

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of free-to-air coverage of professional cycling.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate.

Growing up, many of us had a sporting hero: a star striker, a gold medal winner or a record-breaking athlete. My sporting hero was Jason McRoy. Most will almost certainly have never heard of him. He was arguably Britain’s first mountain bike superstar. In the early 1990s, when the sport was in its infancy, Jason was a trailblazer. I followed his progress as closely as I could through the media available at the time. It being the 1990s, that was mostly dog-eared copies of Mountain Biking UK which I lugged back and forth to school, reading each month’s copy to destruction, and occasionally via coverage on Eurosport.

Jason finally got his break in 1993, as big companies started throwing money at the fledgling sport. The biggest race in the calendar, aside from the world championships, was the Reebok Eliminator, a one-off head-to-head race on the famous Kamikaze course at Mammoth Mountain in California. Having secured entry after his mum persuaded the organisers, Jason—in his iconic black and white Hardisty Cycles kit, from a local bike shop in Newcastle—took on the top US factory race teams. Jason gave it his all, making it to the final against US favourite Myles Rockwell and narrowly losing. However, he had put his name on the sport’s international map. A professional contract with Specialised USA followed the next season and Britain had its first fully fledged superstar rider.

We will sadly never know how Jason’s career would have panned out. On 24 August 1995, his Harley-Davidson collided with a lorry at Woodhead Pass on the A628 in Derbyshire. Jason’s father Jim took the call announcing his death at 1.50 am.

Without Jason, there might never have been the double Olympic gold medal and world championship-winning Tom Pidcock, and no world championship wins for Gee Atherton, Steve Peat, Danny Hart, Reece Wilson or Charlie Hatton—no Rachel Atherton, Tracy Moseley or Manon Carpenter. Those are not household names, however. Their sporting successes are often difficult to witness as it is. Often the only place to watch those races was on Eurosport but last Friday it was consigned to the history books.

Eurosport’s demise is a hammer blow for coverage of cycling in the UK. Owned by Warner Bros Discovery, the inevitable demise of Eurosport was hidden in plain sight. First their cycling-specific GCN+ app was closed, citing a desire to offer more content on fewer platforms. GCN+ provided almost unlimited access to the global cycling calendar. No race was too obscure. Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, check; Scheldeprijs, check; Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne, check. Cycling bores like me had never had it so good.

Parallel to the slow demise of Eurosport, and almost unnoticed to many outside of the cycling media bubble, Warner Bros Discovery had hoovered up the exclusive British broadcast rights to the Tour de France from 2026. That is comfortably the blue-ribbon event of the global cycling calendar and possibly the only race that everybody has heard of.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue for debate. Does he agree there is a national pride that comes from being able to easily access viewing—the success of the Olympics is an example, as he has very clearly illustrated—and being able to get the fervour and the excitement that comes with watching your team perform as opposed to reading results at the end of the day or in the papers the next day? The sport of cycling is worthy of free-to-air coverage, which encourages every child with a bike. After all, that could be your child or your grandchild.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments. Cycling is one of those sports that people almost fall into by accident. Everybody had a bike when they were growing up; everyone learns how to ride a bike. I think that the inspiration for riding that bike and, potentially, taking that further and wanting to ape some of the successes that we see in the Olympics every four years comes from having that on TV, in front of people.

When the move for the Tour de France to Warner Bros Discovery was announced last October, it was described in The Guardian headline as a

“blow to free-to-air sport coverage”.

At the time, it was to be shown exclusively on Eurosport, but as of Friday, Eurosport itself no longer exists. Cycling coverage will now sit under the sporting umbrella of TNT Sports, also owned by Warner Bros Discovery. The price of a subscription to TNT Sports is £31 a month; Eurosport, when it was not included in an existing package, cost only £7 a month, so there is a more than 400% increase to watch a sport that has limited crossover with other sports in TNT’s portfolio.

The Tour de France has been available free to air on British television for as long as I can remember. This summer, ITV4 will broadcast the race for the 25th successive and final time. Before that, Channel 4 had broadcast the race since I was a child. Indeed, I remember vividly the 1994 Tour de France, when it came to this country for the fourth and fifth stages of the race—the first time since an anti-climactic stage on the Plympton bypass in 1974. In 1994, I was enormously excited to get a glimpse of the great Miguel Induráin in his Banesto kit. It was also the tour debut of Chris Boardman, who had worn the yellow jersey after winning the opening stage time trial. Such were the crowds and the reception that Boardman was quoted as saying:

“I’ll never forget this day as long as I live.”

ITV4 was the free-to-air stalwart. Having covered Le Tour for 25 years—coupled with Channel 4’s coverage before that—ITV4 has been almost singlehandedly responsible for inspiring a generation of young cyclists. Scott Young, senior vice president at Warner Bros Discovery Sports Europe, has stated that providing free-to-air live cycling

“is not on our road map…People can choose to make their decision as to how they want to engage with us in the short term.”

That short term means a 400% price hike for paid coverage of professional cycling and the complete disappearance of live, free-to-air coverage. Young has stated that there are no concerns in Warner Bros Discovery that putting the sport behind a paywall will stunt the growth of the sport’s support, but the European Broadcasting Union’s 2024 report, “The Economic Impact of The Sports Activities of Public Service Media”, clearly states that free-to-air coverage can also encourage participation in sport at grassroots level.

For many, terrestrial coverage of the Tour de France has been their only entry point to a sport that is, fundamentally, extremely niche. The cycling calendar is awash with famous races—from the grand tours of the Giro d’Italia and La Vuelta to the classics such as Paris-Roubaix and Milan-San Remo. Iconic though these races are, they have failed to penetrate our national consciousness, despite British winners in recent years. The Tour de France is more than just a famous cycling race. It is the gateway to a sport that is otherwise comparatively inaccessible and is now made even more so by the decision to remove live, free-to-air coverage from our television screens.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Many of my local cycling clubs have contacted me to encourage me to contribute, and it is also an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Does the hon. Member agree with me that it is such a great shame, if Great Britain is to become the host of the Grand Départ of the 2027 tour, for the first time in more than a decade, that such an exciting event will not be available in free-to-air coverage? That is a big blow to inspiring young children to aspire to cycle professionally or for pleasure. That such a huge event will not be on free-to-air coverage is a blow to the sport’s future.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on to it in a little more detail later, but I think the hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a tragedy that at the same time as we have been awarded the Tour de France, the biggest race in the cycling calendar, in 2027, the easiest place to be able to see that will be in person, rather than on television.

Bradley Wiggins’s Olympic gold medal inspired a generation, alongside his victory in the Tour de France that year—a British first. The following season the torch passed to Chris Froome as he went on to win four times in the next five years. His run of victories was followed by that of Geraint Thomas, another multiple Olympic gold medallist. From 2012 to 2018, three British riders won the Tour de France six times in seven races. The following season, another British rider, Tao Geoghegan Hart, took the pink jersey, winning the general classification in the Giro d’Italia. Geoghegan Hart grew up watching the Tour de France on ITV. It is cited as one of the inspirations that brought him into the sport. On news of the Warner Bros Discovery announcement, Geoghegan Hart publicly stated that

“the sport going behind such a large paywall is a huge problem”

and that it is now time

“perhaps to question the monopoly held over”

the sport’s UK coverage.

ITV is not blameless in this endeavour. Last year, ITV4 chose not to renew its broadcast rights, opening the door to Warner Bros Discovery. The reassuring tones of Gary Imlach and the encyclopaedic knowledge of Ned Boulting would no longer be staples of cycling fans’ summers.

The organic growth in cycling that has accompanied this untrammelled success has been revolutionary, but the cycling boom that formed part of the London 2012 legacy is now in danger of being dropped by the peloton. The Tour de Yorkshire capitalised upon the success of the 2014 Grand Départ, but it became another casualty of the covid-19 pandemic. The 2020 race was postponed by organiser Amaury Sport Organisation in March of that year and after two years of attempts to revive the race, it has never returned, with ASO citing escalating financial challenges and uncertainties.

The Tour of Britain, our very own multi-stage race, lacks the global recognition of the Tour de France, but last year’s men’s and women’s races generated over £30 million for local economies in the towns and cities that the race passed through. However, the future of that race is still uncertain. Last year, it was run by British Cycling after its former organiser, SweetSpot, had its race licence withdrawn because they had failed to pay the fee for it. Subsequently, SweetSpot went into liquidation.

Last year also saw the demise of our last two remaining continental-tier teams, Saint Piran and Trinity Racing; last autumn, both announced that they were folding. As recently as 2021, the UK had five men’s continental teams in Trinity Racing, Saint Piran, Ribble Weldtite, Canyon DHB Sungod and SwiftCarbon Pro Cycling, but now none of them remain.

In addition, RideLondon has been cancelled this year. The event was part of the London 2012 legacy, with its first iteration in 2013, and it had been run every year since. The event’s chief organiser, Hugh Brasher, has said that over the past decade it had:

“inspired more than 300,000 people to get back on a bike or cycle more and also raised more than £85 million for charity”.

Those are phenomenal numbers for a cycling event. However, the strategic pause of RideLondon in 2025 raises concerns that it, too, may not return in 2026 or beyond. Even British Cycling’s membership numbers have steadily dropped, after a fivefold increase from 30,000 to 150,000 in the decade between 2010 and the pandemic.

The last year has seen the demise of major British races, race organisers and domestic teams. Since 2008, the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award has been won by cyclists more times than by participants in any other sport. Nevertheless, last year’s BBC SPOTY event all but announced the end of British cycling’s golden era with Mark Cavendish’s lifetime achievement award after his incredible 11th-hour achievement of eclipsing Eddy Merckx’s Tour de France stage win record, and tributes were paid to both Bradley Wiggins and to Chris Hoy, following his diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. In many ways, the demise of live free-to-air cycling TV coverage is a metaphor for the crisis that has befallen professional cycling in the UK.

My own deeply mediocre recent career in racing cyclo-cross was born from watching Mathieu van der Poel take on Wout van Aert and latterly Tom Pidcock. If I had not watched obscure Belgian Superprestige races and finally decided to get stuck in myself, I would not have joined British Cycling, bought myself a bike from eBay—n+1, I don’t make the rules—found my local grassroots race series and dragged myself off for an hour of the hardest, most heart-pumping physical activity that I have ever participated in. I mean that literally, because men of my age are not meant to hit 200 beats per minute. Mathieu van der Poel I was not, but it was fun to pretend that I could be. I would never have taken up cyclo-cross if I had not had access to watching the sport.

Cycling is so much more than just a sport. It has changed lives and saved lives, and given people both purpose and freedom. It is one of our greatest sporting success stories, but, like all things, its continuing success depends upon the next generation being willing to pick up the torch. To do that, children need to be inspired and parents need to be enthused.

Although the next generation of cyclists to emerge are already in the pipeline, there are limited options available to them domestically, and now they will almost certainly need to go abroad in order to take the next step in progressing their career. Cycling is not football, where we are never more than a stone’s throw from a pub to watch a game in. We see mainstream sports all the time. Even just a glimpse on a news bulletin can be enough, but cycling rarely gets a look in. A British cyclist reaching the pinnacle of their sport and winning the coveted world championship rainbow jersey barely registers in the world of sports coverage. If a British tennis player so much as gets a bye into the second round of a Grand Slam tournament, they carry the hopes of a nation.

In an increasingly fractured media landscape, one in which even our national broadcaster struggles for relevance, linear TV finds itself staring into the abyss of obsolescence, and sports coverage is all but the preserve of those who can afford it. The inclusivity that sport offers appears to be at odds with the options available to consume it.

Cycling is not a wealthy sport. The careers of professional cyclists are hard and precarious; only those who achieve superstar status will make their fortune. For many, it is a journeyman sport, and for many more it is a career too hard to sustain. To be popular, a sport must be visible; to be visible, a sport must have a television presence. The Government would never allow the FIFA world cup, the Olympics or Wimbledon to be put behind a paywall. With an estimated 12 million spectators attending the race each year, the Tour de France is easily the most attended sporting event in the world. Will the Government consider how it can inspire a new generation of Froomes and Cavendishes to take up the mantle and consider what they are doing to restore a sporting jewel, in which we have enjoyed such recent success, to the masses, lest its absence from our screens causes the sport to wither on the vine?

Not so long ago, Britain had a golden age of cycling that made us unassailably the best in the world. Olympics, world championships, Tours de France—they were ours for the taking, and other countries could only look on in envy at the Union Jack-clad winning machine that British cycling had become. Now, the slow puncture of managed decline has reached the point where even the visibility of the sport will be limited to slightly overweight, middle-aged men like me, who pootle around on a Sunday morning in their Lycra, inspiring very few.

I ask the Minister what can the Government do, and what they are doing, to arrest that slide and put British cycling—with a small c—on the right trajectory and stop the sport from fading into obscurity? What support can they give to the grassroots, and what help can they give to the struggling professional scene? What guarantees can they offer that the Tour of Britain and the world championships across all disciplines will not disappear behind the TNT paywall as well? What will they do to use professional cycling as a catalyst and inspiration to get the next generation out onto two wheels and matching their existing commitment to active travel schemes?

I finish with a shameless plug for my constituency of Huntingdon. If anybody from British Cycling happens to be watching this or reading it in Hansard, Huntingdon is a beautiful part of Cambridgeshire with endless rolling countryside that would look fantastic in the helicopter B-roll they use in the Tour de France. With the race returning to the UK with the Grand Départ in 2027, we have a ring road that sets up perfectly for a spectacular sprint finish. For many that may present the best opportunity to actually see the race.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this important debate. His commitment to cycling in all its forms is obvious. His speech was incredibly interesting, thoughtful and, at the very beginning, very moving.

Professional cycling is enjoyed by many across the United Kingdom. It captivates fans with its exciting races and inspires people across the country to get their bikes out every weekend, as the hon. Member spoke about. It is also the sport of many remarkable athletes. During one of my very first visits as the Minister for Sport, I was lucky enough to see the Olympians in action during the road race in Paris. Their speed and athleticism were fantastic to see. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sir Mark Cavendish on his recent retirement—as the hon. Member rightly acknowledged—and Geraint Thomas OBE on his up-and-coming plans to do so. Their long and illustrious careers demonstrate their dedication, and we will miss watching their excellence on the road.

On the issue of broadcasting that the hon. Member has raised today, I will discuss the need to balance revenue, growth and access. I acknowledge right at the start that I very much appreciate the points that he has made, but before I address those points, I want to highlight the contribution that cycling makes both to our economy and to people’s health, wellbeing and enjoyment. It is important to acknowledge that the wider cycling industry has recently faced significant headwinds. Despite this, the industry is stabilising, with some retailers reporting positive financial performance, and there are several signs of potential growth in key high-demand areas such as road, gravel and electric mountain bikes.

More broadly, in October last year, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport published new research measuring the impact of the sport and the physical activity sector on the economy, based on 2021 data. That research showed that the sector directly and indirectly contributed £53.6 billion to the UK economy in 2021. This means that the sector was worth over 2.6% of the UK’s economy. Among the sports that were assessed, cycling contributed the third most of all summer sports to the economy. This was across all three forms: off-road, road and track cycling. These generated £5.4 billion to the UK economy in 2021.

As a Government, we will continue to encourage and support the growth of cycling and the rest of the sector into the future, including through active support for professional cycling. As part of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic and Paralympic cycle, UK Sport has committed long-term investment of over £38 million of Exchequer and National Lottery funding for British Cycling. That is an uplift of under £1 million from the previous cycle, and it will go towards supporting all aspects of the Great Britain Cycling Team, including equipment development and competition costs across road, track, mountain bike and BMX. That is hugely important for inspiring the next generation, because no one can become a professional without proper opportunities for grassroots cycling.

The hon. Member has been a passionate advocate for enhancing cycling infrastructure—I believe he has asked some questions in this place on that issue. On 12 February, the Department for Transport announced the details of almost £300 million of funding for local authorities for active travel in 2024-25 and 2025-26 to provide high-quality and easily accessible active travel schemes across England. The funding will enable an additional 30 million journeys on foot and bike every year, with 53,000 people walking or cycling more regularly, including 15,000 children and young people.

Investment in active travel helps to revitalise high streets, improve air quality and support people to live longer, healthier lives. Although active travel is the responsibility of the Department for Transport, the DCMS is of course committed to working across Government to ensure that everyone, including children, young people and those with disabilities, have access to and benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. Sport England provides long-term investment to British Cycling, the national governing body for cycling, which receives up to £26.6 million over five years to invest in community cycling initiatives. That funding allows British Cycling to invest in sporting pathways, supports the next generation of talented riders and volunteers, and helps to extend its work into England’s diverse communities.

The Government are also supportive of the UK hosting cycling events in line with our global reputation for hosting major events successfully. When Scotland staged the UCI Cycling World Championships 2023 in Glasgow, 95% of Scottish residents said they were proud to see their region host the event. Visit Scotland also reported a boom in interest in cycling across Scotland, in part due to those championships. Our 2024 manifesto committed to delivering international events with pride, as well as seeking new opportunities where we can to create a legacy to inspire the next generation of talent, promote exercise and healthy living, and create safe and cohesive communities.

Given the variety of formats and events in professional cycling, it would be difficult if not impossible to keep up with the sport through physical attendance alone, so it is unsurprising that so many people enjoy TV coverage. I sympathise with the points that the hon. Member made about the cost of TV packages, not least following the decision to integrate Eurosport, the long-time broadcaster of professional cycling, into TNT Sports. That will mean that many will see their subscription to watch cycling, alongside other sports, increase to over £30. The hon. Member is right that, for many people, £30 a month is a lot of money. I am sure that TNT Sports will be thinking about the balance between generating revenue and ensuring that cycling continues to be seen regularly on TV, helping to grow the sport.

As the Minister for Sport, I also appreciate the importance of TV revenue in sustaining these sports, and I recognise that commercial matters need to be considered carefully when making such decisions. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that it is not for Government to intervene on those decisions. On the point the hon. Member made about the Tour de France being on free-to-air television, I recognise that many will have taken great pleasure in watching it on ITV in the last 25 years. It is a matter for the broadcaster with the rights to the Tour de France to determine whether any coverage will be available to free-to-air television in the future. Any discussions would not be a matter for the Government.

I am aware of the speculation around the Tour de France taking place in the UK in 2027. We have in the past made no secret of our ambition to host the Grand Départ here again, following the success of the 2014 event in Yorkshire, in the hope of inspiring more people to enjoy cycling and bringing lasting benefits to our communities. However, nothing has been decided, and it is a matter for the organisers.

This debate has offered a fantastic opportunity to discuss the continued success of professional cycling, and of cycling across the UK. It is a sport that we want to see continue to grow in this country for the economic value it has, for the sporting heroes it generates, which the hon. Member for Huntingdon spoke about so passionately, and for the inspiration it provides to many. I thank those who contributed and the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

14:30

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Renewable Obligation Certificate scheme.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I rise for the first Westminster Hall debate in my name, to speak on an important issue in my constituency: the renewables obligation certificate scheme and the future of our biomass-fuelled power station, which is supported by it. This is an important issue, although I must confess that I had rather hoped that my first Westminster Hall debate would be on something more glamorous than the burning of chicken litter.

Thetford power station, in my constituency of South West Norfolk, is Europe’s largest poultry litter-fuelled power station and has successfully generated green energy for over 20 years. Being a proud Thetfordian, I remember the power station being built, back in 1999. Local people were concerned about the possible noise, about the smell—of course—and about traffic. Those concerns are long gone: the site is now a proud feature on the landscape and is important to our local economy. It produces home-grown electricity, contributing to our energy security, and it is crucial to the farming community across East Anglia.

There are 54 biomass sites in the UK. Were ROCs to expire with no replacement, around 50 of those sites would be forced to close. Critically, the sites at risk of closure are those that provide additional benefits beyond power generation, namely the safe and efficient disposal of waste wood and—as in our case—agricultural residues, preventing waste from being spread on the land or sent to landfill sites. Our power station also has an important role in supporting the environment and efforts to achieve net zero. The station’s output reduces CO₂ emissions by 85,000 tonnes each year by displacing the equivalent amount of generation from gas-fired plants. That is equivalent to taking 33,000 cars off the road.

Thetford power station provides an important source of renewable electricity by burning some half a million tonnes of poultry litter. It provides an income for farmers and, crucially, a means to deal with that waste without the environmental cost. Given its importance to the farming community, I was pleased to welcome the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs to the site just a few weeks ago. Farmers receive a fee for the waste that they provide and it is a welcome source of income for an industry with significant challenges. Importantly, it gives them a convenient means to dispose of a waste product without needing to spread it on the land. There is huge concern about the impact on rivers and streams if more such waste were to be spread in that way.

We have numerous sites of environmental significance across my South West Norfolk constituency, including sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation, but I am particularly proud that it has so many rare chalk streams. Sadly, they are all suffering from pollution and sewage discharge after years of inaction by the previous Conservative Government. We simply cannot risk the inevitable environmental consequences of further spreading of waste.

This Labour Government are undertaking some fantastic work, getting tough with the polluting water companies and addressing sewage discharge, but significant issues remain. Phosphate and nitrate pollution from agricultural operations is of particular concern. That includes poultry litter-related run-off from the numerous poultry farms across Norfolk and neighbouring Suffolk in particular. That pollution would increase if a key means of dealing with that waste was removed.

It is worth mentioning that biomass sites aid disease prevention by incinerating poultry litter, which is one of the primary vectors for transmission of avian flu. Norfolk is the county with the second greatest number of chickens in the country and we are No. 1 for turkeys. Bird flu is obviously a main concern, as we have seen over the past few months and years, so any methods to reduce transmission are to be warmly welcomed. The Government’s clean power 2030 action plan understands that sustainable biomass plants such as Thetford are key to helping to deliver those environmental goals and targets, decarbonising many sectors of the economy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister today about how sites such as Thetford fit into that plan.

In addition to its importance to farming and the environment, our local power station, underpinned by ROCs, is crucial to our local economy and is an important site for jobs. Up to 100 good, well-paid jobs are supported by the station, alongside a greater number of jobs in the associated supply chain, particularly in haulage. On a recent visit with the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I was thrilled to meet a number of apprentices on site and learn about their training programmes, growing the engineers of the future.

Why are we here today? The previous Conservative Government ran a consultation in July 2023 on ROCs, yet they did not publish an outcome or response, as confirmed by the House of Commons Library. That is a real shame, because the clock is ticking, with so many certificates set to begin expiring from 2027, at a time when we need to use all levers to produce electricity and achieve both energy security and net zero.

We know that renewables offer us security that fossil fuels cannot. Under the Labour Government in 2002, the renewables obligation was introduced as a support scheme for renewable electricity projects. The renewables obligation legislation placed a requirement on UK suppliers of electricity to get an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Bioenergy is now the second largest source of renewable energy in the UK, generating 12.9% of the total electricity supply in 2021. When combined with carbon capture and storage, bioenergy may deliver negative emissions, which could contribute to the UK’s legal commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. There has never been a more pertinent time to ensure that renewables are at the heart of tackling systemic problems.

To conclude, renewables obligation certificates, in some shape or form, are crucial to the continuation of the biomass-to-energy industry in the UK. In the case of Thetford power station, and indeed elsewhere, that industry underpins hundreds of jobs, and is important to local economies. For us, what happens to that biomass if it is not burned? That is of great concern. I urge the Minister to confirm whether the Government are committed to the renewables obligation certificate scheme, and therefore the future of not just Thetford power station, but other, similar biomass facilities across the UK.

14:37

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for setting the scene so well. He said he hoped his first debate would be more exciting, but this a practical debate. It is a debate that his constituents want him to focus on, and the reason he has secured it is because he is working on their behalf. I always found that I enjoy this particular type of debate because they really matter to people, and they can relate to them. There has been a focus on constitutional issues, war across the world, and all those things, in this last week—or 10 days, or two weeks, or even the last three years—but people back home in the hon. Member’s constituency will want him to pursue debates such as this one, so well done to him.

The hon. Member outlined the case for the renewables obligation in his introductory speech. I want to give a perspective from Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; before the election, she and I often sat on the Opposition Benches, and would have been alongside each other when it comes to asking for things. Today, I will be asking the Minister about some things in relation to discussions about the renewables scheme and the contracts for difference scheme, which we do not have in Northern Ireland.

There is a willingness in the Government approach to renewables, as there should be. It is important to do this as collectively as we can, to ensure that people can get the best value for money in their energy costs, so it is a pleasure to discuss these vital matters, and to consider the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this conversation.

The renewables obligation scheme was introduced in 2002 to incentivise large-scale renewable electricity generation in the United Kingdom. It was phased out or closed in 2017, in favour of the contracts for difference scheme. For me, that is the key issue, because currently the CfD scheme does not apply to Northern Ireland, although before the election I tried to encourage the previous Government to extend it. I know that this is a devolved matter, but will the Minister please initiate some conversations with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—I think it is Gordon Lyons—to see how we can work together to progress the CfD scheme and include Northern Ireland? There is some work for us to do here at Westminster to get this over the line, so it would be helpful if the Minister did that.

In the past, I have worked closely alongside colleagues on this issue and I hope to do so again in the future, particularly with the inspiration and help of the Minister, because it is important that Northern Ireland has the same opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to renewable energy.

Renewable energy is a path that we must pursue, and there need to be targets for us to achieve—the hon. Member for South West Norfolk outlined that as well. Policy direction for Northern Ireland is important and there have been movements to ensure that companies there can benefit from renewable energy incentives. Agencies such as Invest Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and local councils, including my own, can apply for some smaller grants and loans. However, it is important to note that these grants and loans are not on the same scale as the renewables obligation certificates scheme. If we were part of that scheme, we would be in a much better position.

My constituency of Strangford has an important and, I believe, sustainable poultry sector. Throughout my life, there have been poultry houses all the way down the Ards peninsula, where I live, and indeed around Newtownards town as well. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk focused on a project that could play a role for poultry farmers in Northern Ireland.

To be fair, at this moment in time avian flu has once again cast its shadow all across Northern Ireland. In every part of Northern Ireland, there is a shutdown; there is no movement of poultry, and poultry farms have to keep all their birds indoors as a result of the avian flu scare. That is the right thing to do. At the same time, if we are to look beyond the avian flu crisis in Northern Ireland, which is fairly acute, we have to consider using the hon. Member’s idea in Northern Ireland. Such projects have been discussed in the past, but never really got anywhere, so maybe it is time to encourage Northern Ireland’s Department for the Economy to do a wee bit more.

In 2023, the Department for the Economy consulted on a new energy strategy action plan, but nothing formal has come from that. I know that the Assembly has only just got up and running again—it is good that it is up and running again—but it is time to focus on the renewables obligation certificates scheme and on green energy, and on the potential benefits that we can achieve in the future.

Our renewables projects in Northern Ireland relied on funding and schemes in order to succeed. However, I find it very disheartening that Northern Ireland has not been able to adopt a new scheme since the closure of the prior one. We need a new emphasis and there is a real need for Ministers back home and for Departments back home to co-ordinate their strategy and the way forward with the Minister here in Westminster.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

In rural Britain, particularly rural Scotland, the cost per kilowatt to heat a house is about 24p, whereas those on mains gas in the city pay about 6p, so those using renewable electricity to heat their houses pay four times as much as those using mains gas. The renewables obligation certificate scheme is an important part of all this. Basically, rural Britain is getting absolutely stuffed on the cost of energy, so anything we can do to help those in rural areas is important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I represent the rural constituency of Strangford; indeed, most of Northern Ireland is rural, although there are large population groups in the major towns across the Province. In terms of the price of energy in Northern Ireland, the price oil is the highest it has been for some time, although they said on the news this morning that it would drop. But 68% of households in Northern Ireland have oil as their major source of energy for heating and cooking, so when oil prices rise, energy prices rise—as I suspect they do in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—which puts us under a bit more pressure than most.

Energy is devolved in Northern Ireland, unlike in Scotland. However, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, so there must be greater discussion between Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we are able to contribute to the net zero 2050 goals. I am reminded by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention of the SeaGen project in my constituency about 20 or 25 years ago, which tried to harness the tidal flows of the narrows of Portaferry and Strangford. At that time, it was not sustainable because of the price of energy, but today it would be. There are many projects we could look towards when it comes to contracts for difference.

To conclude, I look forward to working with colleagues to find a way forward that can benefit us all. The world is progressing, and climate change is a huge issue of major importance to many. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk referred to a project that is critically important for his constituency and that could be replicated across this great United Kingdom. Ensuring that we have a replacement strategy that we can take advantage of would be a positive step forward in achieving our goals. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and hearing about her commitment. Through further discussion and integration and by working better together, Northern Ireland will not be left behind. Thank you so much, Sir Andrew.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the accolade. Maybe he knows something that I do not.

14:46

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for securing this debate on a subject that is significantly important to him.

This discussion goes far beyond economic concerns; it is about the future of our energy security, our workforce and our commitment to achieving net zero emissions. The UK has been a pioneer in renewable energy and must continue to lead by example. That means ensuring that the transition to net zero is not just a slogan but a reality backed by practical policies that sustain and expand our low-carbon energy infrastructure.

Stafford is a critical hub for the production of clean energy technologies, supporting local and overseas energy needs. I am proud to have GE Vernova’s largest site based in Stafford, providing more than 1,700 jobs—an incredible investment in my constituency. Last Friday, I met representatives of GE Vernova, whose skilled engineers and craftsmen are dedicated to building the infrastructure needed for a cleaner, more sustainable future. Their work directly supports our crucial transition to net zero, and the decisions we make determine whether companies such as that continue to thrive.

That shift requires clear, stable policies from the Government to ensure that the technologies that companies develop—whether wind, biomass or carbon capture—have a long-term place in the UK energy mix. That is why today’s debate is so important. The renewables obligation has been crucial in expanding our clean energy sector but, as it winds down, we need to plan, to ensure that key renewable power sources, such as biomass, do not fall through the cracks.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the previous Government never published the outcome of their call for evidence on the end of the renewables obligation contracts, leaving the industry high and dry. I urge this Government to provide certainty for the sector, to ensure that those facilities can continue to operate and contribute to our net zero ambitions. If we fail to support this transition effectively, we risk losing a secure energy source and thousands of jobs that depend on it. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can secure a stable and sustainable future for our energy industry.

14:49

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) on securing this important debate.

My hon. Friend told us about the role biomass that plays in delivering energy in the UK and specifically in the east of England. I will not repeat what he said, but I will emphasise the valuable role that biomass energy production plays in the UK’s poultry and agriculture sectors, particularly from the perspective of my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. Biomass energy production not only helps to support farms and food security, but plays a crucial role in environmental protection, helping to manage farm waste, preventing the spread of avian diseases and preventing toxic pollution from entering our rivers.

In Suffolk Coastal, our rivers are the jewel in our crown. If biomass energy production were to cease, poultry litter would otherwise be sent to landfill or spread on the land. If it is spread on the land, it causes significant nitrogen run-off into fragile local waterways. That is already happening across the country and is responsible for much of the pollution in our rivers today. In the River Deben, phosphates and nitrates are already a cause for real concern about the river’s water quality, and those nitrates emanate largely from agricultural run-off. If we reduce nitrogen, we reduce the impact of eutrophication, which is visible each summer in the excess growth of algae such as duckweed. Therefore, although biomass energy production plays a role in the UK’s energy creation and in helping to prevent avian diseases, it also plays a critical role in improving the water quality in our rivers.

Biomass operations rely on the ROC scheme, which starts expiring in 2027. It is critical that we support the continuation of biomass energy production to ensure that we not only deliver on our net zero ambitions, but continue to support water quality improvement in our rivers in Suffolk by tackling nitrate run-off.

14:51

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Murrison. It is also a great pleasure to follow four excellent speeches. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his excellent contribution and for securing this important debate. He said it felt somewhat less glamorous to be here talking about chicken poop, but people will say that I have been talking poop for the last 20 years; certainly, as my party’s water spokesperson, I spend half my life in this place talking about the human variety, so chickens makes a nice change. I also belatedly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to this place, not least because it has allowed us to deploy Liz Truss elsewhere, in our battle to take down the forces of reaction across the world.

On the renewables obligation certificate scheme, we are right to think about what happens next. The scheme is being phased out by the current Government, with the contracts for difference scheme being its principal successor. For what it is worth, I am proud of the role the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition in trying to move on to a better scheme.

That said, hon. Members have rightly pointed out that letting ROCs disappear without being replaced is a particular problem for biomass. All four Members referred to the impact on their constituencies if that was to happen, and they talked about the jobs the scheme has created in Stafford, Suffolk, Norfolk and in Strangford, in Northern Ireland. They recognised that biomass plays an important part in providing diversification of income for farmers and others, and in using organic waste that might otherwise find itself on the land. Indeed, when I am in this place talking about water quality, we are principally talking about the failings of the water companies, but agricultural run-off is clearly part of the issue, so if we can deal with that in a positive way, that will be a good thing. It would be an unintended consequence of moving on to new and better schemes if we allowed important plants such as the one in Thetford to close, with the impact that that would have on the local economy, because we had not thought through the transition and managed it in an efficient way.

I want to say a few words about how ROCs fit in with the nation’s energy security and about the extent to which they sometimes have perverse incentives. Drax power station in Yorkshire enjoyed just over 9 million renewables obligation certificates last year, at a value of £548 million. The material burned at that site includes biomass that has been imported into the UK, which is often wood pellets, mostly from America and Canada. Drax has previously admitted that some of the wood is from primary or old-growth forests—ancient forests of incalculable value in terms of biodiversity and beauty that would be vital in the fight against climate change if they were not felled. The new contract, I am pleased to say, states that 100% of those pellets must be sustainably sourced, which is something. But it is not organic waste, and there is still something not very sustainable about wood imported from across the oceans and then burned. We want to ensure that we invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by the end of this decade. To do that, we will need to call in all our available resources; we do not want a situation where we are meeting our targets by having renewables in name only.

Members have talked about energy security and the importance of getting to net zero, which is vital. In the last few days—hopefully it is longer than that—we have been waking up to our need to protect our national security on a military footing. Yesterday, in Treasury questions, I raised the issue of our failure to step up to the mark when it comes to food security. Only 55% of Britain’s food is produced in Britain; that is a deep threat to the United Kingdom’s food security, and we need to take action quickly to tackle that by undoing the basic payments cut and scrapping the family farm tax.

We also need to look at energy security. It troubles me that some of those who claim to be very patriotic seem to pour cold water on and be sceptical about the environmental imperative. Even if I cannot convince people of the reality of climate change, and of the need to produce renewable energy for that reason, if we care about our energy security, we should surely care about net zero, which is a way of achieving it. To put it bluntly, Vladimir Putin cannot turn off the wind, the waves or the sunshine in this country.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the fact that we have major issues with environmental tariffs being placed on renewable energy but not on the carbon fuel of mains gas? That is really hitting the renewable energy industry and the cost for consumers.

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree. We are talking about incentives that we give to renewable energy generators and providers, but we have an energy market that essentially advantages not just fossil fuels but ones that, to some degree, are in the hands of potentially hostile powers. That is ludicrous for both the environment and our security.

I was pleased to hear Members on all sides of the debate talk about the importance of farmers and farming to the battle against climate change and to clean energy generation. We would love to see a recognition that farmers are primarily food producers but that diversification of businesses and cross-subsidy within them is a good thing. It is right that farmers should be incentivised and encouraged to use their land—for example, by putting solar panels on buildings and land that is not good for food production—so long as that is not displacing good-quality agricultural land.

I want to draw attention to a site near Barrow, which is not in my constituency but next door, in the Westmorland and Furness council area. The council now has a solar farm on unproductive former agricultural land, with the full support of the local farming community. Let us look at the ways in which we can support farmers to do that. I live in a very wet part of the United Kingdom with 1,500 farms within it. Pretty much every farmer has fast-flowing becks and rivers on their land, so why are we not incentivising them to build small but nevertheless powerful hydro schemes? That would be great for the environment and the local economy, and it would ensure that farmers can continue farming.

I sound like a broken record given how regularly I talk about this, but it continues to astound me that the United Kingdom, which has a higher tidal range than any country on planet Earth apart from Canada, does next to nothing with the latent tidal power around our islands. I encourage the Minister to come up with schemes to reward that.

I also want to say a word about grid capacity. A huge barrier to progress with this scheme and those that follow is the fact that 75% of energy sector insiders find timely grid connections to be the biggest single obstacle to growing renewable energy in the UK. To give a sense of the size of the queue, there are £200 billion-worth of projects waiting to be connected to the national grid, and that delays all the benefit that would come with that. We would seek to expand the grid network and unlock those billions of pounds of renewable energy projects through a land and sea use framework that has statutory weight in the planning and infrastructure Bill. That would help us to balance the many competing demands on our land, and the competing priorities of security and self-sufficiency that I mentioned earlier.

Those priorities also include local communities’ experiences, which are important to understand when we are trying to tackle the climate imperative. It is no good building huge energy infrastructure near communities if there is no clear, tangible benefit to them. For example, customers in communities local to such projects should receive energy at a discounted rate. If we build renewable energy schemes on the River Kent or the River Crake, the people of Kendal, Staveley, Windermere and Coniston should benefit from them, at least to a degree. We also want to empower local authorities to develop local renewable electricity generation and storage strategies, because they are best placed to understand where the most and least appropriate sites to place them are.

I return to the issues raised by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk. It is important that ROCs have played a significant part in the transition from fossil fuels to new and renewable forms of energy. I recognise that they have had a big impact on his constituency by creating jobs and ensuring that farmers have additional sources of income. They are part of a range of actions—our arsenal—for tackling water pollution. We must not throw out the good things that ROCs have achieved when we move on to new schemes, which hopefully will make even more progress in our move towards a society run entirely on renewable energy.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I call Opposition spokesman Nick Timothy.

15:02

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Murrison—I shan’t promote you any further than that just yet.

I am pleased to respond to this important debate on the renewables obligation certificate scheme. Although the scheme was closed in 2017, its costs remain with us and are a reminder of how difficult it can be to unwind long Government contracts. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), on securing this debate, which I believe is his first in Westminster Hall. I am sure he will get to debate more glamorous issues than chicken litter in the future.

Like South West Norfolk, my constituency of West Suffolk has chicken farmers grappling with many of the issues raised by Members, including avian flu, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. I echo what the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) said about the cost of energy in rural areas, which is very often overlooked.

I will not join the commentary from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the predecessor of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk. I did plenty of that in The Daily Telegraph before I was a Member of Parliament. It is pleasing that Suffolk and East Anglia are so well represented today.

We must always be very careful when considering how public money is spent, especially when it comes to subsidies. There are lots of reasons why the Government might sometimes provide public support towards outcomes that are not necessarily the most narrowly efficient, but promote a wider social or local economic good, but they must always guarantee value for money for the families who ultimately foot the bill. Renewals obligation subsidies have fallen short of that standard. Originally introduced in 2002 by the last Labour Government, and closed to new entrants in 2017 by the last Conservative Government, the renewals obligation remains a significant drain on the public finances, providing a fixed rate of financial support through 20-year-long contracts.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

By the time that the new renewables obligation closed, the cost of large-scale offshore wind had come down by half, allowing contracts for difference to be introduced, which have seen it grow at scale. It has enabled a brand-new industry to start and progress in this country, has it not?

[Nick Timothy]

I will turn to contracts for difference in a moment. We may discuss them in this debate, or perhaps in other fora, but it is important that we are honest with ourselves about the full costs of some of the renewable technologies upon which we have come to depend. With the hidden costs that apply to wind farms, I do not think that we have been quite so honest. That is not a party political point but something that has been true across the party divide. In 2023-24 the scheme cost £7.6 billion, and it will remain high, at £6.9 billion in 2028-29, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. That proves how dangerous it can be to lock in subsidy schemes under lengthy contracts, with the cost passed on to people’s energy bills.

That is not the only zombie renewables subsidy scheme. Introduced in April 2010, feed-in tariffs were made available for schemes with capacity for 5 MW or less as an alternative for smaller projects, such as rooftop solar panels. Closed to new entrants in 2019, the scheme still sustains 20-year-long contracts, and £1.84 billion of feed-in tariff payments were made last year. Far from saving money, renewables subsidies have come with significant long-term costs.

The phasing out of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs is being used by the Government in their efforts to hoodwink the public on the true costs of their net zero policies. The National Energy System Operator’s 2030 report made several highly questionable assumptions about how the Government’s goal of decarbonising the grid will cut energy bills. One of the points made by NESO was that energy bills would fall due to the expiration of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff contracts, but those contracts will expire regardless of the speed of decarbonisation, so it is misleading to include that as a benefit of the Government’s deeply flawed clean energy plan. We will see costs increase significantly elsewhere, thanks to Government policies.

The renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes should be a warning. The Government are consulting on substantial changes to the next round of contracts for difference, which replace the previous subsidy schemes. They include easing eligibility criteria for fixed-bottom offshore wind, as well as extending the lifetime of contracts subsidising renewables from 15 years to 20 years. We are at risk of wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in a race to meet the unrealistic clean power target.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. What he says is very interesting, but I am not entirely clear where he is headed. Is this a shift in Conservative policy on green industry and the renewables industry, which they have previously championed, or is this just an attack on Labour’s plans because he does not like them?

[Nick Timothy]

I would never suggest that the hon. Lady has tracked everything that I have written through my career, but I have been making these arguments for a number of years. The Leader of the Opposition has made the point that one of the things our party did not get right in government was setting ambitious goals on things such as energy policy without having a clear enough plan to deliver them. My concern, and the concern of the Conservative Front Benchers, is that this Government are making not only a similar mistake but a graver mistake because of the speed and unilateralism of their energy policies. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Lady smiling, and I hope that is in approval of what I said.

[Leigh Ingham]

To clarify, is the Opposition’s position on the energy transition and energy security that the Government are moving too quickly for our country? Would they rather see a different approach? I am interested in what the suggested approach is, given that we face an imperative in the international context, as others rightly pointed out.

[Nick Timothy]

It is absolutely our position that the Energy Secretary is trying to move too quickly. The plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is deemed by many experts to be unrealistic. It is predicated on a report produced by NESO, which itself says that the plan will lead to higher bills, and on calculations based on the carbon price increasing to £147 per tonne. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government’s policy is to ensure that Britain’s carbon price should remain lower than the European carbon price for the duration of this Parliament, because the Secretary of State has so far refused to say that.

On the question of security, the Government are in such a rush with offshore wind farms that they are sourcing the turbines from China, and there are big questions about whether the technology in the turbines will continue to be controlled by the Chinese. We are having a debate right now about security and the threats presented by Russia; we could equally be talking about the same kinds of threats from China, and how our dependence on technologies produced by China and energy that is generated using those technologies leaves us exposed to Chinese influence.

By NESO’s own admission,

“Unprecedented volumes of clean energy infrastructure projects are needed to meet the Government’s energy ambitions.”

As long as policy races ahead of technology, costs will inevitably increase for taxpayers and consumers, and that is before we even consider the consequences of the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget. The committee has recommended a limit on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions of 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which represents an 87% reduction by 2040 compared with 1990 levels. That is an ambitious goal, but it is one that the committee’s own data shows will come at a net cost of £319 billion over the next 15 years. If we are to debate this, the Government should be honest and open about that fact.

No Government have ever rejected a carbon budget, and the Energy Secretary has so far refused to come to the House to make a statement on the publication of that budget, so perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to accept the carbon budget in full. The Climate Change Committee believes that we will need a sixfold increase in offshore wind power, a doubling of onshore wind power and a fivefold increase in solar panels by 2040. To accelerate the growth of renewables at such a pace would require a huge increase in public subsidy.

How do the Government intend to address these climate and energy goals? Can the Government rule out increasing public subsidy under contracts for difference of any kind to reach these goals? By how much will public spending have to rise as a result? By how much will bills have to rise? Will the Minister guarantee that Britain will continue to have a lower carbon price than Europe, and can she still guarantee that energy bills will be £300 lower by the end of this Parliament, as her party promised in opposition?

There are so many questions left unanswered, and so far only silence from the Energy Secretary. That is not because the Government do not understand the scale of the challenge they have set themselves. The Energy Secretary understands it all too well, but he will not admit publicly what his ideological attachment to net zero and his net zero policies mean for us all: nothing less than a revolution in how we live our lives, and the massive expansion of public spending for a system of energy that is less reliable and more expensive in generating power. We need complete clarity, so that the mistakes of the renewables obligation are not repeated. Failure to do so will leave us poorer and exposed to risk and instability in the world.

15:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, as always. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for securing this important debate. I think it is a marker of an MP who is going to achieve things for their constituents that they show persistence and an imaginative approach to lobbying on issues that are important to their constituents. The fact that he has already had the farming Minister down to visit the site and that, having dealt with one Government Department, he has now also secured this 90-minute debate in Parliament, his first Westminster Hall debate, is a sign of somebody who I know will be persistent in all the right ways. I pay tribute to him for that.

I will deal with some of the contributions from hon. Members before I address the more general questions. Some of the issues raised today are the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as shown by the farming Minister’s visit, but it is important to look at that circularity and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke very eloquently about the co-benefits of the site: it is not just about energy production. I can tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) that we are acting at pace to try to deal with issues such as pollution of our waterways, and agricultural run-off, protection of our chalk streams and so on are very much part of that. While that is not a matter for me directly, when we look at energy projects we always look at the co-benefits.

We have had a number of debates on this issue. When I was shadow Minister I replied to a debate—I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was there, because he always is—led by a Lib Dem colleague of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), on consumer energy prices in the highlands and islands. Point were made then about the difference in pricing and how expensive it can be to heat homes there. I am pretty sure that the Minister for Energy has replied to debates on similar subjects since we got into Government, but the hon. Member raises a valid point.

I can give the hon. Member for Strangford, who has raised the question of the CfD regime before, the assurance that the Lords Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero met his Northern Ireland counterpart before Christmas to discuss it; I am told that that dialogue continues. The hon. Gentleman will also, I am sure, be pleased to know that the Minister for Energy will be in Belfast tomorrow—we have an inter-ministerial group from the devolved Administrations that moves around. I discussed the agenda with the Minister for Energy last week and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will be very much involved in those discussions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not ignoring Northern Ireland; it is very much on our radar.

[Jim Shannon]

Not for one second did I think the Minister was ignoring Northern Ireland—that was never the case. I just wanted to ensure that the relationship we have within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland played a clear part. I was aware that the Minister for Energy is coming to Northern Ireland tomorrow and that he has regular discussions with the regional Administration, and that tells me why we are better off as part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I should have known the hon. Gentleman would be on top of things and would be aware of the Minister for Energy’s visit, but it is important that we have that continual dialogue and that the hon. Gentleman comes along to these debates to ensure that the Northern Ireland voice is heard.

I do not want to go too far off piste from the subject of the debate, but to respond to what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), had to say, I am an MP from Bristol, so the Severn estuary, the Severn barrage, the Severn tidal lagoons or whatever are very much on my radar. I went up to the Orkneys last summer to look at what they are doing on harnessing wave energy there, and it was very interesting.

On grid capacity, we know that grid capacity is a real issue, in terms of both our ambition for clean power by 2030 and our wider industrial decarbonisation. The Secretary of State likes to talk about the “four horsemen” standing in the way of us getting there, and grid is very much one of those. We have brought in Chris Stark, the former chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, to head up mission control on that issue, and he is working daily on how we can unblock and accelerate projects within the grid.

To the hon. Member’s point on farmers, I agree with giving farmers support to diversify, and energy from waste or anaerobic digestion and so on is part of that. I met two of the DEFRA Ministers earlier this week—although it might have been last week; it all becomes a bit of a blur—and I am in constant conversation with them about how we can work together on that and on our local power plan, which will be part of GB Energy. Hopefully there will be pots of money available for some of those community projects in rural areas, possibly on farms that he has talked about.

I understand that the company that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned, GE Vernova, is doing innovative things on grid solutions. That is the sort of high-tech new approach that we need if we are to solve the problems that we have talked about, and I congratulate her on speaking up on behalf of a company in her constituency.

Turning to the actual debate, the experience of recent years has reinforced what we already knew: we cannot rely on fossil fuels. We need clean power to reduce vulnerability to volatile global fossil fuel markets, to give us energy security and reduce the cost of energy, and to tackle the climate crisis. That is why one of the Prime Minister’s five missions is to make Britain a clean energy superpower by delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Electricity generated by renewables and nuclear power will be the backbone of a clean electricity system by 2030.

I have told the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) how disappointed I am with the Opposition’s U-turn on this issue. I understand the position they are coming from and that there has been a change from the stance that they adopted in Government, but I have not heard from him what the answer is for our future energy security. What is the answer to dealing with the global fossil fuel markets? What is the answer to tackling the climate crisis? What is the answer to bringing down bills in the long term?

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

I wonder if the Minister could put herself in the position of somebody from the island of Skye who wakes up in the morning, opens his windows, and sees beautiful mountains in the background —it is always sunny there and there are no midges. He sees the wind turbines, but then he goes and looks at his heating and realises he is paying four times as much to get energy from those turbines. Meanwhile, there is negligible community benefit coming to that area. Can she position herself in that person’s or that household’s shoes?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said to the hon. Member, that issue that has been debated numerous times here, and it is not really the subject of today’s debate—but nice try on getting it in there. He might want to secure his own Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on it. As I said, it is very much on our radar to look at the fairness in the system and to make sure that energy is affordable for everybody and that there are community benefits as we roll out that clean power ambition. All those issues are talked about in the Department on a daily basis.

Before I move on from the hon. Member for West Suffolk, I will say that the urgent question on carbon budget 7 was not granted because there is a process for the Government to respond to the analysis given to us from carbon budgets, and we will follow that process. First, though, we have to deal with the carbon budget delivery plan. Before looking to CB7, we must look at how we meet the obligations contained in current carbon budgets.

The previous Government were taken to court because their plan was not deemed adequate. They presented another plan, and the courts again found that it was not adequate, so we now have a deadline from the courts to produce our carbon budget delivery plan this year to show that we are back on track. That is very much our first priority. I am sure that once that is published, we will debate that and then carbon budget 7 as well, but we have to show that we are back on track before we start looking into the future.

[Melanie Onn]

The Opposition’s new-found position is apparently anti-ideological, but I have just read the article in the Telegraph—not my usual source of news—and it is in fact deeply ideological. Furthermore, it now sets the Opposition against the reality of industry in coastal and remote communities that has been generating the jobs, apprenticeships and investment that have long been requested and needed by those communities.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wonder whether the Opposition spokesperson has spoken to businesses on this matter because, in all my conversations with businesses, both in opposition and now in government, it is clear that they want certainty. They need a stable investment environment if they are to make long-term decisions. They cannot invest in renewable energy, in industrial decarbonisation or in the economic growth this country needs without certainty. We know that one reason why we are in the economic situation we are is the lack of stability and the economic chaos at times under the previous Administration, particularly under the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk. Therefore, certainty is what we need to have. Business is crying out for that.

In places such as Grimsby, it is particularly important to have a place-based solution to the current situation, showing what the energy transition would look like in such places. I urge the hon. Member for West Suffolk to take a bit of a tour, to talk to businesses and people who are trying to get much-needed investment into places such as Grimsby, and to see—I am not quite sure what his proposals are—what he can say to them on how to get long-term investment.

[Nick Timothy]

Of course we talk to business all the time. I talk to businesses in my constituency and we have been talking to businesses and organisations representing the more energy-intensive manufacturing businesses in this country. They are clear that energy costs have been too high, partly because of issues such as high carbon prices. They are very concerned about the prospect of the carbon price rising under this Government. The hon. Lady talked about global fossil fuel markets—I have heard the Energy Secretary say that a lot when he has referred to global gas markets. There is no single global gas market in the way he describes. Prices for fossil fuels are so much higher in Europe than America, which is much more dependent on fossil fuels than we are, because of policy choices. Therefore, can she guarantee that we will have a lower carbon price than the rest of Europe by the end of this Parliament?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I understand that the hon. Member asked the Secretary of State that question at the last DESNZ orals and I think he also raised it when we were opposite each other in a statutory instrument Committee. I refer him to the answers that were given then. I think we should get on—I am going to try to talk about the renewables obligation for a while and not be distracted.

The scheme played a fundamental role, as already noted, in getting the UK to where we are now on renewable energy generation. Combined, the UK-wide RO schemes support nearly 32% of the UK’s electricity supply, providing millions of UK households and businesses with a secure supply of clean energy. The scheme is now closed to new capacity, for reasons I will come on to.

Thetford power station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, has been accredited since the first day of the RO, back in April 2002, so it has so far received Government support for nearly 23 years. Over that time, it has generated more than 5.8 TWh of low-carbon baseload generation. That has been a valuable contribution to our transition to net zero. It has also increased our security of supply by generating home-grown energy. As he said, the station has provided 100 jobs in his constituency and co-benefits in handling poultry litter.

The station has another two years of support before its time under the RO ends, in March 2027. We are aware of the concerns about the future of the station once that support ends and my hon. Friend has done an excellent job in outlining those concerns today. My officials have repeatedly engaged both with the owners of the Thetford plant, Melton Renewable Energy, and with DEFRA officials to discuss those concerns.

To explain the overall context, as I have said, the RO has done sterling service in bringing forward the successful large-scale renewable energy sector that we see in the UK today. That has paved the way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) said, for the cost reductions that we have seen over the last few years under the contracts for difference scheme, but its time has passed. The energy landscape has evolved since the scheme was launched in 2002 and it no longer provides the market incentives or the value for money that the transition to clean power requires.

The RO was designed to support renewable energy-generating stations during the early stages of development and generation, and to allow the recovery of high capital costs. For that reason, RO support is often significantly higher than that provided under successor policies such as contracts for difference. We must always bear in mind that consumers pay for the scheme through their electricity bills, and delivering value for money for them is essential. For that reason, we do not plan to extend RO support.

As I said, support under the RO for the early adopters, such as Thetford power station, lasts for 25 years. Stations accredited later in the RO’s life receive support for up to 20 years. All support will end in March 2027, when the last assets fall off the scheme and the RO finally closes, so Thetford—as I am very aware—has two years to run. The limits on the length of support were imposed to balance the need to provide investors with important long-term certainty—for 25 and then for 20 years—with the impact on consumers.

Although we do not consider extending the RO to be a viable option, I assure my hon. Friends that I understand their concerns. In some cases, generating stations may be able to continue generating electricity on merchant terms once their RO support ends, and continue until the end of their operational life. However, some generators have told us that their stations will not be economically viable without Government support.

We are conducting further analysis and assessment to better understand the issue, including the implications for consumer bills and the clean power mission. My officials are working with DEFRA to consider whether there is a case for intervention for biomass-fuelled stations, taking into account the electricity system and the supplementary environmental benefits that some stations provide. That work is in addition to the robust value for money assessments that we undertake to ensure any possible support is in the interests of bill payers.

I appreciate that Melton Renewable Energy and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk are looking for early answers, but I must stress that no decisions have yet been made and we are happy to continue the conversation with him.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Is a potential bridging loan being considered by the Department for the replacement of the ROC?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not aware of the detail of what has been discussed as an option, so I am afraid cannot comment on that. I think it would be wrong to speculate on what the solution will be, but those conversations will continue.

To conclude, renewable energy is critical to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. We understand the concerns of some generators coming to the end of support under the RO and we are looking at ways to maximise the output and potential of those RO sites, while also considering the impact on consumer bills.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk for securing this important debate. I am happy to continue the conversation in the weeks and months to come.

15:33

[Terry Jermy]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. It is right and proper that we have had contributions from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Stafford, as well as a strong representation from Suffolk—I am outnumbered, from a Norfolk perspective, but very grateful for their contributions. I am also pleased that a number of hon. Members picked up on concerns specifically about avian flu, which we have debated in this Chamber a number of times.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), spoke about Putin not being able to control wind and solar. I suggest that he cannot control our chickens either, and I am particularly pleased about that.

The variety of biomass sources is key. If we were to have a conversation about other forms of burning, I might have a different view but, frankly, chicken waste will keep coming whether we burn it or not—unless of course our chickens disappear, which I hope is highly unlikely—so this is an important conversation. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that this is a time-critical issue and that it interlinks with other Departments.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made reference to my predecessor, who was, of course, synonymous with cheese, pork and lettuce. I very much hope that I am not synonymous with chicken litter, but I will continue to raise this important issue on behalf of residents, and I am grateful for everyone’s contributions to this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Renewable Obligation Certificate scheme.

15:34

Sitting suspended.

River Wandle Pollution

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pollution in the River Wandle.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for the reply to my letter of 20 February, received today, and I hope she will shortly be able to provide further clarity in her reply to the debate.

The prompt for the debate is the latest environmental disaster on the Wandle, where 4,000 litres of diesel were spilled by a bus garage in Thornton Heath into the sewage network, and eventually into the River Wandle. As I will go on to explain, the incident was not a one-off but an example of the sort of threat that the River Wandle faces every day. Before I do that, I would like to set out my relationship with the River Wandle. I live right beside the river and, although I have not spent my life as an environmental campaigner, like many people in my area I have formed a bond with the river by walking my dog alongside it every day.

About a year and a half ago, I got together with a group of local filmmakers to make a documentary about the history of the Wandle, the threats it has faced and the community work around it. During the making of that film, my love for the river crystalised and ended up feeling quite protective. I found out about its special status as a chalk stream. There are around 200 chalk streams in the world, famous for their crystal clear water and clean gravel. The River Wandle is globally unique because around 1 million people live in the catchment of the river, which is mostly publicly accessible all the way, running through south London to the Thames. It is probably the only urban chalk stream of its kind in the world.

The Wandle is famous for its industry. The fast-flowing water made it attractive to mills and over time much of the river was straightened to serve those mills. The textile industry was particularly attracted to this river; William Morris was inspired by it. It was said to be one of the hardest-worked rivers in the world. I am told that the historical significance stretches way back. It was used by the Romans and was the location for the statute of Merton, one of the earliest statutes in English history, passed on the banks of the River Wandle at Merton priory in 1235.

After the mills declined, their legacy remained, with the canal-like structure that built up to them. Eventually the river became better known for carrying waste, until the 1970s when it was officially declared a sewer. That was a turning point for the river, with lots of grassroots activism inspired by that moment. We had anglers, other fishermen, the Wandle Trust, which became the South East Rivers Trust, and Wandle Valley Forum, as well as smaller groups such as Friends of Poulter Park.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The River Wandle, which sounds beautiful, does not run through my constituency, but the River Sow does. It was polluted by sewage 59 times in 2023, lasting a total of 816 hours. Does the hon. Member agree that the findings of the Independent Water Commission, established by this Government, will be crucial in finding a solution?

[Bobby Dean]

I absolutely agree. As I hope to describe, the River Wandle is just one example of what is happening to rivers across the country. I am sure the outcome of that review will be extremely important.

I was talking about the revival of the river over time, and it is thanks to the efforts of lots of local community groups. As part of those restoration efforts, I have put my waders on and gone into the river, seeing the effect of the work myself. We have worked inside the channel of the canal and brought it back to its natural state, narrowing the river at points with deflectors, so that the water can flow and clean the gravel much better, bringing back the natural meandering, allowing the river to deposit sediment in the right places, and overall much improving the health of the river.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member has outlined the devastation to the River Wandle caused by a number of spillages. A number of years ago, we had a spillage in our constituency in one of our many waterways. After a lot of hard work by the business community and local volunteers, they were able to restore that waterway. Does the hon. Member agree that those who did the damage must bear the brunt of the cost?

[Bobby Dean]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The polluter pays principle is a key point I am going to come on to. As we are hearing, this is not just an issue that affects my constituency, but constituencies right across the United Kingdom.

The centrepiece of my film was about sewage. We built up to a crescendo where eventually we saw footage of raw sewage running along one of these channels and meeting the River Wandle. This was the moment where people realised that their toilets are plumbed into the river. The latest episode on the Wandle is one that I hope will raise public awareness about the fact that the drains on their streets are plumbed into the river, too.

On Monday 17 February, we released a new film about a brilliant nature restoration project happening just downstream from where I live. Just the week before that, we had a very happy meeting where 60 local people turned up to a local community centre to hear about a further restoration project that will happen around the corner from my house. Yet just 24 hours later, after the high of releasing that positive news, I received images on my phone of a bird covered in oil; it was shocking. I got straight onto the Environment Agency and contacted other local organisations such as the South East River Trust and the regional media.

The next day I was walking my dog, as I have always done, along the riverbanks. I have got to admit that at first I did not really notice the damage, but as I progressed downstream and got to the area near Poulter Park, the smell hit me and I could see the sheen of rainbow-like fluid on top of the river. The reason why I did not see it immediately outside my house is because the diesel had entered the river via the drainage system, and there is a key point, a canal point, where it meets the Wandle, so although the area around my house was fairly protected, once I hit that point the visible shock of the diesel spill was very evident.

I had a call with the Environment Agency that morning, and it reassured me about its response and I met with lots of other conservation charities later on that day. I was glad to hear that booms were eventually put in place to help protect the Wandle.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member, I was born and brought up along the banks of the River Wandle. Today, it is a much more prestigious river than it was all those years ago. In fact, there is a connection with the Chamber today, because the leather on these seats came from Connolly’s leather factory, which was a tannery on the Wandle before Connolly’s moved down to Thurrock to continue its business. It also makes the leather for Rolls-Royce, so its service is very important.

I congratulate the hon. Member on all his work on this issue. It seems to make sense as a layperson that the polluter should pay. My concern, and that of many of my constituents, is that that process will take so long that supreme damage will be done to the wildlife and to the Wandle itself unless we do that more quickly. Does the hon. Member think there is any way we can speed up the process of ensuring that those who are guilty of this spillage actually pay the costs?

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for graciously allowing me to trip over our shared boundary into her constituency now and again to do media reports on this issue. She is absolutely right to point out the polluter pays principle, and also ask how speedily it might be implemented, because the damage is happening right now and we need to rectify it as soon as possible.

Moving on to that accountability process, there are still many questions that the community wants answered. We want to know when exactly the spillage happened. We want to know if 4,000 litres is an accurate estimate of the diesel. We want to know precisely how it made its way through the sewage network into the river. We want to know whether the Environment Agency’s response was quick enough. We want to know whether there was a pre-existing plan for this kind of accident; the way the sewage system is connected means that we would expect there to be one. If there was such a plan, was it put in place immediately? Of course, we also want to know who will pay not only for the response but for the damage that has been done to the river.

I have already said that the Environment Agency’s engagement with me was quick, which I very much appreciate. However, I am also conscious that the agency is marking its own homework on the speed and the detail of the response. Like Thames Water and Transport for London, it has tough questions to answer—all of these bodies do. Key partners, such as the National Trust and the South East Rivers Trust, have had to operate on their own initiative at times, without information cascading down from these bodies or a clear plan to follow. There are some fears among people in the community that the Environment Agency might have been playing down the impact of the incident, and it is not totally clear what actions were taken at what time.

As I have talked to conservationists, I have come to understand that when diesel dissipates, that is not the end of the destruction it can cause, because it will have broken down into the water body, and entered the sediments of the soil and into fish gills.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

It is important to make the point that sewage in rivers filters into our coastlines in constituencies such as mine in Weston-super-Mare. The type of crisis that the hon. Gentleman is outlining very eloquently in his local river demands a generational transformation, with clear penalties for water bosses. Does he agree that the polluters must pay and that bonuses for water bosses must be banned, which will, I think, be achieved through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025?

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he makes the same point that others have made, namely that the polluter must pay. That is a core principle that I hope this Government will implement in the strongest possible terms, including bans on bonuses for water bosses.

Let me finish my point about the Environment Agency. As I have already said, its response to me was quick and I hope that it has acted with all the resources that it can deploy. However, there are some concerns that it has played down the impact of this incident. The email that I received from the agency on the day talked about how the pollution will wash away once it reaches the Thames. The latest update that I have received says that the diesel is clearly dispersing around the river and that reports about it are declining in number. However, as I have just explained, the fact that the number of reports is declining does not necessarily mean that the damage has gone away. A key point is that I do not understand what baseline monitoring the Environment Agency was conducting in the first place in order for it to make the assessment that this incident has caused very little damage to the river.

I have some specific questions for the Minister about the diesel spill; I appreciate that some of them might need to be followed up in writing. Can she advise us on how we can co-ordinate the investigations by multiple stakeholders into a single independent inquiry? If there is such an inquiry, will the Government ensure that it establishes a clear timeline of events and accountability at every stage? Will she enforce the principle that the polluter pays, which so many Members have discussed today, and ensure that any fines will go directly towards improving the River Wandle, rather than into a general fund?

This incident has been truly shocking, not only to me and the local community but to the region as a whole, mostly because of its scale—that is what has caught the public’s attention. However, this kind of pollution happens every single day, not by accident but by design. The combined sewerage system has become high profile as a result of the campaigning against sewage that has been happening over the last year. However, we have heard less about the road run-off network, which makes an urban river like the Wandle especially vulnerable to such incidents. What goes down the drains can end up in our river, and when we think about a massive diesel spill such as this one, we should also think about all the types of pollutants that are running off our road network into our rivers every single day.

At the moment, there is a lack of monitoring, so we do not really know what damage that pollution is having. We have a poor understanding of what the sewerage network looks like. Which drains connect directly into the river? Which ones go via the sewage treatment works? We do not really know the answers to those questions. There are also very limited mitigation measures. I know that fixing the entire infrastructure of this network would be difficult, but there are also measures that we can take further downstream.

We have inadequate resilience, which could be addressed by the nature restoration projects that I referred to earlier. All the industrial adaptation that I also spoke about earlier—basically, how the river been canalised over the years—is choking off the river’s capacity to heal itself. We can see that the Wandle does not have much of a chance when there are 1 million inhabitants and a road network surrounding it.

I am glad that the Government recognise that chalk streams need special protection, but I would love it if they recognised that urban chalk streams, such as the River Wandle, deserve even greater protection.

The renewed attention on water quality in all of our waterways nationwide is extremely welcome. I know there are concerns that progress may be too slow: for example, in my area the major upgrades planned by Thames Water are not due to begin until 2035.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I am the constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend, and my residents enjoy the River Wandle just as much as his do. I am glad he has taken time off from walking along the river with his wife and his dog to speak about this in the Chamber.

When Sutton is building new homes, to try to keep up with the demand for the homes our residents so badly need, the sewage processing capacity at the Beddington treatment works which feed into the Wandle is a concern to all. It is often commented upon at the planning committee on which I frequently sit. In consideration of the infrastructure needed to support these new homes, does he agree we need to make sure that Thames Water ensures we do not end up with more frequent discharges into the river? These would put all the incredible hard work of the groups that have been looking after the Wandle at risk.

[Bobby Dean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am glad to see another of my constituency neighbours in the room today. New housing developments are a massive opportunity for the industry to implement new infrastructure that we need, and to understand what connects where. If we get it right, and companies work with the Environment Agency and other authorities, this should result in a net improvement in sewage discharges.

Coming back to the major infrastructure question we have, and the point that some of that work will be too slow. I understand why. The Institute for Civil Engineers has estimated it could cost over £100 billion to fix this issue over the long term. There is more we can do now, however. Someone who is sitting behind me, Dr Jack Hogan from the South East Rivers Trust, has said,

“There can be a rainbow at the end of this disaster that is not the sheen of diesel.”

I agree with him.

South East Rivers Trust is running a crowdfunder to get increased monitoring along the Wandle. That has got off to a fantastic start, with over £20,000 raised already. Increased monitoring would be a good thing. I have already spoken about restoration projects happening up and down the Wandle, but they could get so much bigger in scope. We are not talking about billions of pounds here; we are talking about millions. There are things called downstream defenders, which are an excellent innovation. We will not be able to fix the entire infrastructure overnight but we do know where the outfalls are and where the sewage network meets the river. If we put interventions in those spaces we can clean up the quality of water before it reaches the river itself. Ultimately, we have the potential to reconfigure parks, wetlands, fish barriers and overall access to the public and to make the River Wandle an internationally significant river park if we put our minds to it.

In addition to answering my specific questions on the diesel spill inquiry, can the Minister outline what support there is to make these improvements to the River Wandle? More broadly, can she explain the fundamental infrastructure problem of combined sewage systems and run-off from roadside drains will be addressed? Will the Department look again at the formalisation of the Water Restoration Fund? This is important for the principle of polluter pays. I know the Government recently did not back an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 on this, but it is important to campaigners, who want to ensure all polluters pay—not just the water companies—and that those payments go directly into affected areas, such as the River Wandle.

I thank the Minister for listening to my speech. I hope it is clear that I love the Wandle just as much as many of my constituents do. This has been a horrible moment for it, but we also hope it is the start of fresh hope.

16:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for bringing forward this debate about this beautiful-sounding river. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for contributing to this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I could of course never forget the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) .

When we have any debate on water and water quality, there is so much interest from constituents, organisations and from hon. Members. I wholeheartedly share the upset and outrage of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington over the diesel spill. He is absolutely right to feel upset about it. This is one of England’s most beautiful chalk streams. It is a fast-moving river passing through sites of natural importance as well as sites of urban development. I wholeheartedly agree that this was an appalling thing to happen to the river.

It is really important to understand why it happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. I understand that the situation along the river continues to improve, with environmental impacts steadily reducing, but I want to be absolutely clear that we will not let any organisation get away with illegal activity, and where breaches are found, the EA will not hesitate to hold companies to account or work with partners as needed. DEFRA works closely with the Environment Agency to ensure it is equipped to carry out its functions effectively and deliver for the public and the environment, with Environment Agency officials at every level to provide constructive challenge and support on Environment Agency performance and delivery.

I have a timeline of exactly what happened on the day. One of the questions was about when people were made aware. On Tuesday 18 February at 8.19 am, London Fire Brigade was notified and arrived on the scene. At 8.32 am, the Environment Agency received a report from the London Fire Brigade of a diesel oil spill from a bus depot storage tank. Nine minutes later, at 8.41 am, the EA duty officer initiated a response and a decision to deploy to the site. At 10 am, the first Environment Agency officer was on the site, and further EA officers were on the site at 12 noon. I thank the Environment Agency: it was made aware of it at 8.32 am, and by 10 am, it had people at the river carrying out an investigation. It has done an exceptionally good job at working at pace.

I understand that, at 6.19 pm, the Environment Agency sent its first email to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington with information about the incident and the actions that it took. Between 19 February and 26 February, the Environment Agency’s response was ongoing; that included regular on-site monitoring, assessment of the clean-up and the environmental impacts, and ongoing briefings and liaison with partner organisations. It has specialist contractors working on the remediation efforts, and I understand that it updated the hon. Member at 9.45 am on 19 February and that another meeting was requested on 21 February.

The incident response concluded on Wednesday 26 February, when the Environment Agency sent its final updates to partners. It is now in the investigation phase, having moved out of the emergency response phase. It has acted at speed and with integrity, and it has done an incredible job. Its enforcement options range from warnings to prosecution or an enforcement undertaking. That is a civil sanction whereby the offender proposes steps to remediate the issue. The punishment depends on the assessment.

I totally agree on the polluter pays principle. The Environment Agency can recover costs from emergency incidents under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991. All costs incurred by the Environment Agency through doing this enforcement work can be recovered. On the wider point on polluter pays, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which got Royal Assent last week, included cost recovery not just for emergency responses, as already existed, but for water companies. I know that, in this case, it was not a water company that was responsible, but sewage pollution has been mentioned. Anywhere that the Environment Agency investigates sewage pollution, all costs can now be fully recovered from the water company.

A question was asked about what happens to the fine moneys. Ofwat are responsible for collecting fine money and, in some cases, that fine money is refunded to customers. In other cases, that fine money is available for environmental aspects. The ratio of how much is refunded to customers is a decision for Ofwat.

A point was made about the problems of run-off. Obviously, there is another one that has not come up in this debate but is also a concern—agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. All those things are being looked at under the Cunliffe review—we have only seven weeks left now for people to respond to the call for evidence. I hope people will look at the document and make their points. There is a 200-page call for evidence, but also a 20-page executive summary, so people can look at the summary. It is not just for Members of Parliament. If I may address those in the Public Gallery, it is for anybody to respond and give their opinion on how our water system should fundamentally work.

We are serious about this. We are taking action and looking at how we can increase polluter pays through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but there will be cost recovery because this is considered an emergency. In terms of what more can be said at the moment, we have to let the Environment Agency do its investigative work. When it comes to its conclusion it will determine what level or type of prosecution happens.

I want to reiterate that we agree that what happened with the River Wandle is deeply concerning and unacceptable. Again, I thank the Environment Agency for acting within an hour and a half of being informed and having people on the ground to carry out that investigative work. This Government will not turn the other way and continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry. We intend to drive long-term transformative change through the entire water sector, and we have only just got started.

Question put and agreed to.

16:26

Sitting suspended.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered anti-social behaviour and illegal use of off-road bikes.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am so pleased to secure this debate about off-road bikes and antisocial behaviour. It is great to see so many Members here today standing up for their communities against the menace of off-road bikes.

Across my constituency, in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, residents have told me over and over again about what off-road bikes do to their lives. Riders scramble across parks and playing fields, turning the turf into mud, disrupting sports games, dog walkers and kids playing or riding their bikes, scaring mums with prams and scattering walkers out of the way. They then shoot off around the roads of our estates, filling the air with the noise of engines and the smell of burning oil, endangering anyone trying to cross the road or sometimes even walk on the pavement. Residents have told me time and again how unsafe it makes them feel. I am going to share some of their stories. Other Members might have stories they wish to share, and I will happily take interventions.

Ian Carroll, the chair of Friends of Sheepwash nature reserve, told me about bikers shooting down the paths and jumping off banks with young children sat on the handlebars. Christine in Great Bridge told me about tripping and falling on the ruts left by bikes. Kelly, a mum to a disabled child, told me about nearly being hit on the towpath. Matthew told me about bikes mounting the pavement and driving at him in Friar Park. Brendan talked to me about wheelies down Wood Green Road in Wednesbury. Jo talked to me about walking down Princes End High Street with her child: a rider raced round the bend onto the pavement in front of them and swerved back onto the road at the last minute with a load of abuse. Jayne told me about riders doing wheelies by Great Bridge island, riding all over the road, on the wrong side, jumping red lights and intimidating drivers and pedestrians.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know from a recent walkabout with the local police in Bean in my constituency, and from conversations I have had in Swanscombe, about residents being extremely concerned about off-road biking. I have had a lot of concern from residents about off-road biking in Darenth Woods. The police know where the hotspots are and they often know who the perpetrators are, but they lack the powers to tackle them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to make it easier for police to seize vehicles associated with antisocial behaviour cannot come soon enough?

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend is correct. I so look forward to the Crime and Policing Bill coming forward in the next couple of weeks. It will give police the powers to seize those antisocial bikes.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this timely debate. The stories she has told about her community match those I heard when I was out with Councillor Laura Carter in Sneyd Green on Repington Road only two weeks ago. We discussed with residents that this is about not just the noise and pollution, but the associated criminality that goes with those bikes—the drug running and the movement of stolen goods. Stoke and Staffordshire have the wonderful Operation Transom, which I urge all Members of this House to look at. It brings together partners to use drones and aeroplanes to chase bikes down and seize them. Although I am sure that this debate will focus on the menace, everyone should look at the solutions that we are trying to deploy in Stoke.

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend is correct. By working together—the police, councils and local communities—we can stop this happening.

I heard more stories, including from Terri-Ann in Hateley Heath, who told me that she is just waiting for someone to get hurt because they go so fast down Jowetts Lane and Lynton Avenue. Paul contacted me one Saturday when there were seven illegal scrambler motorbikes at the top of Brunswick Park, pulling wheelies, ripping up the grass and destroying the football pitch. They were right up close to 15 kids who were trying to play football. As he said to me, it does not bear thinking about what would have happened if one of them had crashed into a kid. This is a problem across Sandwell and in Dudley, but we have particular hotspots in Friar Park in Wednesbury and in and around Tipton Green.

I want to be clear that our local police, the council and our police and crime commissioner Simon Foster all know that this is a problem. Together, we are taking action on off-road bikes. In Friar Park, our No. 1 hotspot, the council leafleted every house so that people know that their tenancy is at risk if they or their kids ride illegal bikes, and it closed off the entrances to our parks and towpaths.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I will build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said about the action that the council is taking. One of the things that residents have brought up with us is their difficulty in phoning 101 and getting a response. The council in Stoke worked collaboratively with the police to set up a hotline number and overlayed the data with the police. This means that they get a good picture of where the activity is taking place so that they can get the drones up, follow the bikes back and seize them. Stoke-on-Trent city council has a really good model that could be rolled out elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Antonia Bance]

It sounds like there is really good work going on in Stoke that the rest of us can learn from, and I encourage everyone to think about doing so.

Back in my area of Friar Park, the police got petrol stations to report when bikers bought fuel. They put up temporary CCTV to spot where bikes went and when they met, and the police stepped up patrols. Our police and crime commissioner sent out his new bike team officers on new Honda CRFs, funded by cash seized from criminals, so the bikes cannot just disappear off into the woodland. All that intel meant that police could go to addresses linked to nuisance bikes, and guess what they found? Not just illegal bikes to seize and riders to arrest, but stolen goods and criminals wanted for robbery, burglary and road traffic offences.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I have three great towns in my constituency—Heanor, Ripley and Alfreton—but sadly, Amber Valley is not immune to issues with off-road bikes. My hon. Friend talks about intelligence leading to solving crimes. Does she agree that community policing and the increased numbers of officers that the Government will provide will be central to intelligence gathering and working with our community to tackle this sort of antisocial behaviour?

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend is completely right. It is neighbourhood policing that will make the difference, and I am so pleased that we are bringing it back.

Most of the bikes in my area are stolen and are often used for other crimes, such as robbery and drug dealing. But this sort of targeted action works, and police reports of nuisance bikes in Friar Park, our biggest hotspot, have halved this year compared with last year. They are still not gone completely, and there is more work to do, but I want to say thank you to the police officers and the Sandwell council teams who got on this issue and kept on it. There is still more to do to spread this approach across my constituency to all the estates blighted by illegal bikes and ASB—from Tipton Green, Princes End, Great Bridge, Ocker Hill, Hateley Heath and Tantany, to Stone Cross and Coseley, too.

We have to make sure that the police have the powers, money and kit to stop these bikes once and for all. Over the years, they have been hamstrung by huge cuts to policing from the Conservatives, meaning that we lagged far behind similar-sized forces. When Labour was elected last summer, there were fewer officers in the west midlands than in 2010—800 fewer officers and 400 fewer police community support officers. That is why I am so pleased that, after 14 years of the Tories, who wrote off these crimes as low-level and left our communities alone to deal with the consequences, things are changing under Labour. Having a neighbourhood police team who know the places, faces and times to expect trouble makes all the difference.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

In my constituency, illegally modified motorbikes and e-scooters are a huge problem, because of not just the noise, but the thefts, shoplifting and antisocial driving in general, as other hon. Members have mentioned. The police are under-resourced and I agree that they need more powers to clamp down on this, but does my hon. Friend agree that the police need to take the initiative to work more closely and co-operatively with councils’ local teams, such as the law enforcement team in Fulham and the street enforcement team in Chelsea, to crack this problem?

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree. Chelsea and Fulham may be some way from my constituency, but councils and the police working together, and consistency of approach, is precisely what will make the difference, just as he outlined.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

My constituents regularly raise concerns about their safety when they are out and about, given the prevalence of off-road bikes being used in antisocial and illegal ways, particularly on pavements and footpaths. Such bikes are a particularly significant issue for elderly people, who might be less mobile and are therefore more likely to be involved in a collision with one. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done about these bikes to ensure that our elderly constituents can feel safer when walking around outside?

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree. Digging up pavements, creating ruts, noise and disturbance, and shooting around the corner with no warning are precisely the sorts of things that may make elderly people afraid for their safety when they are out and about, which is something that none of us wants. That is why, as we promised when we stood for election, we will recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers. Every area will have a named officer. Neighbourhood policing is coming back and we are returning funding to frontline policing, with an overall police funding increase of £1.1 billion this year. In my area of the west midlands, that is £43 million, and I hope that there is more to come.

Our new Crime and Policing Bill will give police new powers to immediately seize these bikes, which cause havoc in our communities.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for supporting my ten-minute rule Bill about police powers on this issue, which I presented in November. I appreciate that the particular powers that I asked for were not exactly where Ministers wanted to go, but I like to think that they have been inspired by my Bill in choosing the additional powers that they have put in the flagship Crime and Policing Bill. I am thinking particularly of the measure that removes the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing these illegal vehicles when they are used antisocially. I thank the other hon. Members who supported the ten-minute rule Bill, and I thank hon. Members for continuing to highlight this very important issue.

[Antonia Bance]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. His work and leadership on this issue are exemplary, and I know that Ministers will have taken note of what he said when presenting his ten-minute rule Bill. Our Crime and Policing Bill will say, “No more warnings” and “No more selling them back to the people they were pinched from”—it is time to crush illegal bikes used for antisocial behaviour. This Government are taking real action, just as we promised at the election, to stop these bikes making people’s lives a misery, so that people living nearby can enjoy Brunswick Park, Jubilee Park, Victoria Park, the Cracker and the Railer, Sheepwash nature reserve, our playing fields, our towpaths and all our green spaces across Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley.

At the election, I stood on doorstep after doorstep, sometimes with bikes roaring down the street behind me, telling residents that Labour would stop them. I am prouder than I can tell you to say: today we will.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues will see that there is significant interest in this debate. I do not intend to impose a time limit, but we will have the Front-Bench spokesmen at 5.10 pm. Do the maths—I suggest two minutes per contribution.

16:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for setting the scene—what energy!

I will set the scene by describing the situation in Northern Ireland and what we are doing there. Last year, there were 44,020 antisocial behaviour issues with motorbikes, which is a decrease from the year before, but still a shocking number. I want to outline some of the things that we have done to help with the process that the hon. Lady is trying to find. The real problem is that the Police Service of Northern Ireland feels that its hands are tied. That is why I welcome the new measures on the seizure of bikes, which the Minister outlined back in November, as a supreme effort that would clearly change the focus.

In Northern Ireland, we have done two things. First, my local council, Ards and North Down borough council, has taken measures to provide an area for off-road biking in Newtownards. Whitespots is a beautiful area that gives those who want to ride their bikes a controlled space in which to do so. That has been constructive, and in my previous life as an Assembly Member and a councillor, something that I promoted in the constituency of Strangford. We had a real problem in some of the areas.

Secondly, we have enhanced the influence of street pastors and the community police. If I am spared until May, I will start my 41st year as an elected representative—councillor, Assembly Member and Member of Parliament. I believe in rehabilitation and not simply incarceration, because I believe in my heart that many young people wish to change. They need vocations, jobs, training and something to focus on. I have seen enough examples to believe that rehabilitation can work.

Antisocial behaviour can make people’s lives a nightmare; I understand that very well—those are the complaints that I am getting. Police need the power to deal with it. I support the desire of the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury to get that right and do it better.

16:47

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this important debate.

My local councillor colleagues and I have received numerous complaints about off-road bikes endangering public safety in Bracknell Forest. They include reports of young men in balaclavas, with no lights or helmets, driving recklessly on footpaths and cycle ways and nearly crashing into individuals and families as they go about their daily lives—walking their dogs, doing their shopping, picking up their children from school or simply enjoying a walk around our lovely town.

These bikes are a public nuisance, and they have substantive, detrimental effect on the ability of people in Bracknell Forest to go about their lives and feel safe in our wonderful community. One constituent reported that an off-road bike driver almost crashed into them and their five-year-old child. Another wrote to us about almost being hit by a group of young men, who then drove off laughing. In the Chamber back in November, I raised the concerns of one resident who has been kept up at night by the noise from the bikes.

We have also received numerous complaints about the same groups of young men grouping around neighbourhoods in Bracknell during the evenings and late afternoons. One parent reported to a councillor colleague their concern at consistently seeing groups of young men with covered faces on e-bikes, hanging around a local school when they pick up their son. However innocent those young drivers may be, they are intimidating to residents, and we need to act on this issue.

It is clear that these bikes, and the antisocial behaviour associated with them, have an impact on the feeling of our community and of communities across the country. That is why I am delighted that the Crime and Policing Bill will bring in concrete measures to address the issue. It will ensure that the police and local authorities no longer need to issue advance warnings to seize off-road bikes related to repeated antisocial behaviour, and it will introduce tough new respect orders so that police and councils can ban hoodlums from hanging around specific areas, such as town centres.

We must get the police on the streets to enforce those measures, which is why it is so important that the Government are committed to 13,000 additional police officers on Britain’s streets, along with a named, contactable officer in every community. That is fantastic news for Bracknell and for the country. The Government are committed to delivering on their safer streets mission, and a huge part of that will be crushing the bikes.

16:50

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing this very popular debate. For far too long, off-road bikes have been driven in an antisocial and dangerous manner. These vehicles tear through parks, speed along pavements and roar through residential areas. The results are noise pollution, frightened residents and a real danger to public safety.

My constituents constantly talk to me about this issue. A woman recently told me that the riders

“do wheelies through the main streets of Dunstable and Houghton Regis, often in small groups, sometimes with up to 30 or more bikes.”

Another constituent told me that the bikes constantly travelled the wrong way down their one-way street; another said that they are an “accident waiting to happen”. An email that turned up in my inbox not long ago said:

“Today boys playing football were almost run over by these idiots. It’s only a matter of time before someone is hurt or killed”.

Many of the riders are balaclava-clad, with a bag slung over their shoulder, and they are checking their mobiles as they go along. This activity is not just antisocial and dangerous; it is clearly linked to drugs.

I commend the police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire, John Tizard, and Bedfordshire police’s Operation Skytree for the work that they have done to start to tackle this problem, particularly in Houghton Regis and Dunstable. Just last month, more than 25 officers were deployed, along with specialist equipment. They were driving around on quad bikes, so they were able to chase these individuals. They even managed to employ one of their new drones, so that they could track the individuals as they went to places where it is normally more difficult to track them. As a direct result of that operation, one man on a bike was arrested in possession of drugs and five bikes were seized. That is a positive first step, but there is clearly much more work to do.

I really welcome, as do many other hon. Members, the introduction in Parliament last week of the Crime and Policing Bill, with the provision to make it easier to seize illegal bikes—ideally, when the crime is actually happening. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could clarify that there is nothing in the law to prevent the police from pursuing riders who are not wearing helmets. People need and deserve to be able to live in communities safe and secure from the menace of misused off-road bikes.

16:53

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this important debate. It is important to note that the Labour party is the party of neighbourhood policing. People can see that when they look at the number of Government Members present and, sadly, the absence of Conservative Members.

I will not go into the entirety of my prepared speech, because I need to keep my contribution short, but I want to mention a conversation that I had on Saturday when I was out talking to residents in Haywood Village in Weston-super-Mare. One woman, Sue, was telling me about her anxiety when taking her dog for a walk—just to the local park. She was shouted at and nearly knocked over by people on bikes who were not exercising basic consideration for others. Her companion is her small dog. She is a carer for her husband. Her local community is so important to her, but the bikes are having the impact of constraining her existence. That is not okay. This activity is not just reckless; it is dangerous—it puts lives at risk. It isolates people from their communities and burdens our police and councils. It chips away at the sense of safety that every community deserves. I am so proud that this Government are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing.

16:54

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this very important debate.

The rise of illegal off-road bikes has been a particular concern for many of us attending this debate, and that concern has been mounting over the last few years. This issue has had an impact on many communities, including in my constituency, especially in Cotmanhay and the north of Ilkeston, and along the Nutbrook Trail.

Off-road bikes too often point to a litany of other crimes, such as shoplifting, mugging and drug dealing. Although our local police work tirelessly behind the scenes to combat those underlying causes, much of that work cannot be publicly disclosed, which leads to frustration among residents who feel that not enough is being done. Such bikes are almost always being ridden illegally, whether on residential streets, public parks or private land, and with a total disregard for the law and without respect to local residents. That illegal activity creates community tension, sows distrust and damages pride in local communities among those who are simply trying to live their lives. It is clear that the present state of affairs is simply unacceptable.

There has also been a concerning post-covid rise in such criminals covering their faces with masks, snoods and balaclavas, making it extremely difficult for the police to identify and punish perpetrators. Those issues extend beyond off-road bikes; e-scooters pose similar problems, particularly in town centres. Again, the use of those bikes and scooters is often linked to further crime.

I am very pleased that the new Crime and Policing Bill will tackle this rampant antisocial behaviour and, as other hon. Members have said, will give the police new, much-needed powers and take away many of the obstacles to bringing criminals to justice. The police will now be able to immediately seize off-road bikes—something I was shocked to learn they simply could not do when a local police officer raised it with me at the Ilkeston classic car show last summer. That will deal a serious blow to the petty gangs that use them to aid everything from shoplifting to drug dealing and assault. I am very pleased to see the Labour Government taking action on this issue.

16:56

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her excellent work on this important matter. I offer my wholehearted support to the Minister and the Government for their important work tackling these terrible forms of antisocial behaviour.

In the time available to me, I want to point out two examples of how serious this problem is in my community of Reading, and the really serious appalling incidents that residents have seen in recent times. In the first case, a group of riders on high-powered electric bikes clad in black with balaclavas and hoodies, with no helmets, were pulling wheelies down the Reading Inner Distribution Road. That is a major trunk road that runs round the town centre. It is full of cars and vehicles, and it has a 40 mph speed limit, so it is totally unsuitable for off-road bikes. That is extremely reckless and dangerous. It puts other people’s lives at risk along with the lives of the riders. I think that incident was appalling and action should be taken. I am grateful to the Minister for her work on tackling the problem.

The second example was in some ways even worse. I saw it myself and reported it to the police. It was an example of a similar group and similar behaviour. They were dressed in the same way, riding motorbikes next to the River Thames in Caversham, which is a suburb of Reading. There is a ramp to a footbridge by the river there, and that ramp is probably 12 or 15 feet above the floodplain, with a gentle grass slope on either side. There was a group of young people clad in black with high-powered bikes using it to do Evel Knievel-style jumps through the air. They were getting about 2 or 3 metres into the air. There were families having picnics nearby and people trying to use the footbridge. That is an example of the sort of appalling behaviour that unfortunately exists around the country.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that many of the illegal bikes that he is describing in his constituency will cross the boundary into mine. People in Tilehurst and the villages in my constituency are absolutely fed up of these bikes. They are dangerous, they are a menace, and they are often associated with criminal activity. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking our local police force, which is working hard to tackle these illegal bikes, and welcoming the new powers that the Government are giving the police to help them do that?

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is a doughty campaigner on this issue, and exactly as she said, it is a huge menace across our county and around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who is just down the road, also mentioned it. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) is absolutely right that the police are doing some excellent work and that they need more powers, and I thank the Government for their work on this matter.

16:59

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for organising this very important debate.

I cannot overstate the nuisance and impact that these bikes have on the residents of Nuneaton. They are used to harass, bully and intimidate our residents, and—as we have already heard—for a vast amount of additional criminality. Such offences are often described as low-level crimes, but the impact on our community is massively underplayed. They are the same offenders over and over again, and Nuneaton residents like me are frustrated by the lack of action. Many tell me that they are bored with reporting and have no faith in the police’s ability to stop the behaviour. Seeing the same repeat offenders week on week, year on year completely undermines not only the residents’ voice but the hard work of our police forces in tackling this antisocial behaviour.

One resident calls it “bike-o-mania Sunday”, as every week 10 or 15 bikes regularly gather. These bikes are dangerous, often illegal and unroadworthy, and are driven dangerously, recklessly and aggressively by unqualified riders. They are weaponised against the members of my community and across Nuneaton, with several areas—Galley Common, Camp Hill, Stockingford —seeing daily incidents. One resident walking down the Black Track was literally rammed off the path, having to throw her pushchair and drag her dog away when a bike missed her by inches.

The damage and disruption caused by these bikes is unacceptable and often the price is paid by the residents, as long-term persistent exposure to that antisocial behaviour and bullying has an enormous impact on their mental health. Many residents have told me they do not want to go out into our beautiful green spaces and enjoy the sunshine in spring. One resident is too nervous to leave her home. To add insult to injury, many of the bikes are uninsured and untraceable, and the costly price of repairing damage is felt by hardworking families. One stood with a police officer watching as a bike rode over the top of his car.

My greatest fear is that somebody will get seriously hurt. There have already been many accidents and numerous near-misses. Following concerns about safety risks and the additional risk of pursuit, guidance was given not to chase children who were not wearing helmets. The result has not been an improvement in safety. I welcome the new powers, measures and intelligence to be used by our police to tackle this scourge on our communities.

17:01

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this debate about the scourge of these illegal bikes. They are a nightmare; they are intimidating; they are used for crime; they keep our residents awake at night when they tear up and down the roads; and they tear up our green spaces.

Before Christmas, we had a terrible incident in West Bromwich when some lovely football fields in Charlemont were fine one day but the next day completely ripped up. A local football club, Bustleholme FC, had spent thousands investing in those pitches. In one night, a few people tore them all up; it was a disgrace. We have beautiful canals in the Black Country that people would like to walk along, but they cannot because they are terrorised by bikers going up and down, nearly knocking them into the water, which is outrageous. I am glad that this Government are finally going to do something about it.

I briefly want to mention the related issue of ghost number plates. They are illegal number plates that look normal to the human eye but cannot be read by police automatic number plate recognition cameras. That means that people, including those using these bikes, can speed, run red lights and even carry out serious crimes, while evading being caught. Those number plates are currently too easy to get. If the police catch someone with them, the punishment is far too little. I worry that, if we do not clamp down on them, those ghost number plates will end up terrorising our communities in exactly the way the bikes have been doing for far too long.

17:03

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I also thank my fellow Black Country hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for bringing this important debate.

The people of Wolverhampton North East have had it with the reckless, illegal use of off-road bikes. The problem has been spiralling for years. They intimidate residents, scare children and pets and churn up our precious green spaces, often involving additional criminality. I have heard from countless constituents who are at their wits’ end. I am working closely with neighbourhood police teams to share residents’ intelligence, in areas where street racing plagues communities at all hours and parks are ploughed up.

I can understand why people feel abandoned. This issue has been debated in Parliament and here in Westminster Hall time and time again—February 2024, July 2023, May 2022—and yet the previous Government failed to act. Instead of strengthening laws and properly funding policing, they chose to look the other way while communities suffered.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the section 59 legislation allowed these bikers to get away with a warning the first time, which just meant that we continued to see persistent biking crime by the same people and the police felt powerless to stop them? That was the consistent position of the previous Conservative Government; they did not listen. Does she welcome the change that is coming through in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I absolutely welcome the forthcoming legislation, because the previous Conservative Government could not say that they were not warned; they were warned again and again, but they ignored the warnings and let down towns and cities across the country. That is why I am working directly with our local neighbourhood police teams to make sure that the worst of these offenders are caught.

However, we must be real—14 years of cuts to neighbourhood policing have left us in this desperate situation. West Midlands police now has 540 fewer police officers than in 2010. Fewer bobbies on the beat means fewer boots on the ground, and it also means less community intelligence. Instead of such community intelligence, the police have to rely on residents to identify offenders and to say where such bikes are stored. Many residents feel uncomfortable, even scared, at the thought of speaking out, so worried are they about retribution if their names should become public. I welcome Labour’s plan to rebuild neighbourhood policing. I support Labour’s Crime and Policing Bill, because it will give police the powers they need. No more warnings—if someone is caught riding illegally, their bike will be seized.

This issue is not just about nuisance; it is about being safe and feeling safe. So, I say to the people of Wolverhampton North East, “I hear you: I am with you, and we are taking action to give police the powers, the officers and the resources they need to tackle the scourge of illegal off-road biking.”

17:06

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this debate. She did so because she knows, as we all do, that antisocial behaviour is not just low-level and unfair; it can devastate communities. Also, people worry that nothing can be done about it, which leaves them suffering, sometimes in silence. Like an iceberg, from afar it can appear that antisocial behaviour is not that large in scale, but when we get closer to it, we realise that it is so much bigger and deeper than it first appears.

In my constituency of Wirral West, I launched an antisocial behaviour survey last week; the results are shocking. It is clear that antisocial behaviour is a gateway drug to criminality, and that if we do not get a grip of it now, it will only spiral. To get a grip of it, we need to do two things.

First, it will not surprise Members to hear that there is a correlation between the lack of investment in an area, including fewer things for kids to do, and a rise in this unwanted antisocial behaviour. So, we need more investment. Secondly, we saw the Tories hollow out our police force and our community support officers. I work with those officers on the Wirral. We have brilliant and dedicated officers, who are being asked to do more and more with less and less. It leads them to be reactive in their work and it also leads communities to feel like they have to accept this antisocial behaviour. So, we need proactive work—plans to stop antisocial behaviour in its tracks, more police officers, and more neighbourhood support officers.

In Wirral West, I will work with anyone and everyone to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. My constituents deserve better than the current situation and I am determined to deliver that for them.

17:08

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing this very important debate.

As with everybody else who has spoken today, my constituents in Hartlepool have raised this issue with me time and time again. Communities across our towns—such as those in The Fens, Owton Manor, Summerfield, Clavering and Hartfields—as well the community in Hartlepool town centre, have been plagued and terrorised by off-road bikes for years.

This issue is personal for so many people in Westminster Hall today. My children walk our streets and play in our parks; my elderly parents enjoy Hartlepool and its many green spaces. I worry for them and for my constituents, just as everybody else present for this debate worries about their constituents. We have to take action.

So, I of course welcome the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, including those that will allow such bikes to be seized without warning. That is an important first step, but there is more that we can do, and I will make a few suggestions to the Minister who is here today.

We should explore providing greater legal protections for our police forces, so that they feel confident to pursue these criminals when they terrorise our communities. I urge the Government to adopt the Off-road Bikes (Police Powers) Bill, a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), which would allow the police to enter private dwellings and seize off-road bikes. We should introduce a requirement to certificate the ownership of off-road bikes in much the same way as we do with firearms, to ensure tighter regulation of who can access these vehicles.

We should be able to destroy vehicles immediately once they are seized. No holding them for periods of time—destroy them on the same day so that they do not re-enter circulation. We should work with retailers to choke off the supply of fuel, which is so often part of the problem with these bikes. This requires decisive action. I welcome the action being taken in the Crime and Policing Bill, but I believe we can go further to end this problem.

17:10

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and on their own streets, but for far too many in the UK, that is simply not the reality.

It is pertinent to begin by considering just how widespread the problem of crime is in our country, and how universal the concern that police forces are not being given the resources they need to clamp down on it is. Every single day, 6,000 cases are closed by the police across England and Wales with no suspect identified. Only 6% of reported crimes result in a charge. Three in four burglaries and car thefts remain unsolved. This is not just a failure; it is a crisis, and the British people are right to expect us to do something about it.

The previous Conservative Government made a disastrous decision when they slashed the number of police community support officers. We have lost more than 4,500 since 2015. That reckless move created a vacuum where crime could thrive completely unchecked in our communities. In London alone, the number of PCSOs in the Met fell from 4,247 in 2008 to only 1,215 in 2023. That was an astonishing cut in capability, losing almost three in four officers, from an average of around 56 in each London constituency in 2008 to only 16 in 2023.

I stood here a few weeks ago and outlined the need for a public health approach to knife crime—a strategy underpinned by a return to good old-fashioned community policing. The argument I used then—not just more bobbies, but more beats—is equally applicable to tackling antisocial behaviour more widely, including and especially in the case of illegal use of off-road vehicles. The legacy of the previous Government has left outer London boroughs understaffed and vulnerable. The few PCSOs we have left are stretched thin, often pulled away to cover the city centre, leaving our local neighbourhoods defenceless against this kind of criminal activity. Such activity does something more nefarious than just instil a heartbreaking lack of security in communities; it actively undermines the sense not just of safety, but of comfort. We should be able to relax and trust that our neighbourhoods are and will remain good places to live. Perhaps more fundamentally, when someone sees a young person speeding down the street on a modified scooter, loitering around in intimidating groups, snatching phones, waiting for drug dealers, or even harassing passers-by, it cannot surprise us that they lose some fundamental faith in the system and feel that something is rotten in our country. I am sure that many of us in this place have been that person themselves, witnessing first hand in our constituencies vehicle abandonment, drug use or utter disrespect for fellow citizens.

This is not just a problem in rural areas. Off-road vehicles and the wider problem of antisocial behaviour plague us even in communities such as mine in the suburbs of London. In Sutton, I have witnessed the use of Sur-Ron dirt bikes travelling at speed on our largely pedestrianised high street. Policing Sutton high street is already a complex task. Stretching almost 1,500 metres, it is one of the longest high streets around. Some of these bikes are legal, but most are not. All of them are motorised, high-powered and capable of evading police capture, helping them to commit not just disruption but crime.

Sutton’s Liberal Democrat-run council has worked incredibly hard to rejuvenate the high street, and we are making great progress, as part of our vision of a high street fit for the future of Sutton. To finish the job, we need our great local police to get the resource they need to return to proper community policing. Having great shops, cafés and community spaces is fantastic, but all this great work will be undermined if the people in places just like Sutton all around the country are worried about antisocial behaviour.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes a really interesting point. I was reflecting on my own constituency, where, from leafy Thorpe Thewles to the infinity bridge in the centre of town, we have this issue with off-road bikes as well. Does the hon. Member agree that no community around the country is immune from this scourge?

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree. It is about the feeling of powerlessness, as a resident—as a citizen—just standing on the high street and seeing these things whizz past, not being able to do anything about it, and knowing that that person could be long gone by the time the police are able to respond.

It is clear, from all the words spoken around this hall today, that the Government must urgently restore proper community policing. To do this, we must get more officers out on the streets, funded partially by scrapping the costly police and crime commissioner experiment and investing the savings directly into frontline policing. We must also, as I have said, reverse the disastrous cuts to PCSOs and to safer neighbourhood team officer numbers.

On the specific point about the illegal use of off-road vehicles, I know that many forces have made some great initial efforts, from increasing patrols in hotspots, to using drones—as we have heard from the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams)—to the use of trackable forensic sprays, but we need more.

I hope the Government will bring forward effective measures on this issue in the Crime and Policing Bill—I look forward to scrutinising it in greater detail on Second Reading next week—but it is also important that everyone in this place urges forces to feel confident in using the powers that are already available to them, despite the flaws with the legislation that have been commented on already.

17:16

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I would like to thank you, Dr Murrison, for chairing today’s debate. I would also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing this important debate. I think the last time this debate was had might actually have been the time that I brought it as a Back Bencher. We were having the same debates then, but it is clear from the contributions that the challenges posed by the misuse of off-road bikes are having an increasing impact in areas right across the country.

In my own constituency of Stockton West, the nature of incidents and crimes involving the misuse of bikes varies, but in all instances they have huge consequences. I have heard stories of people looking to enjoy some of Stockton’s beautiful green spaces and parks, only to be intimidated and threatened by teenagers on off-road bikes, riding incredibly close at incredibly high speeds. I have heard from pensioners kept awake all night by the racket of balaclava-clad yobs flying around residential areas, creating fear and havoc with no regard for others.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

In the last year that the Conservatives were in power, off-roads bike incidents went up by 60% in my Telford constituency. The pathetic spectacle of police officers having to issue warnings to these yobs was at the heart of it. Does the hon. Gentleman want to apologise now for not reforming the police system to remove that?

[Matt Vickers]

That will teach me to take an intervention. I think, actually, one of the big problems is that off-road bike incidents are not recorded in a way that allows us to properly measure what is going on, where they are and what the response is. I think the best thing that was done at the back end of the last Administration was putting more police on the streets than ever before. That was a good thing.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matt Vickers]

I will carry on; I want to make some progress.

Cycle lanes and footpaths running through residential areas of Stockton West have become a crime speedway, used by those dealing drugs and committing thefts and other such crimes to move quickly under cover. Efforts to tackle the issue have seen motorbike inhibitors put in place, police use of drones and community-derived intelligence to locate and confiscate bikes.

The examples that I referred to, both in and around the constituency, reflect a broader national problem. As I understand it, the police have the power, under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, to seize vehicles, including off-road bikes that are used antisocially. That applies when a vehicle is used in a careless and inconsiderate manner, or in a way that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. A vehicle can also be seized under different provisions if it is being driven without insurance.

There are additional powers in other pieces of legislation. For example, anyone who rides a quad bike on a footpath, bridleway or restricted bridleway is guilty of an offence under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. In addition, provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 make it illegal to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on land where permission has not been granted.

I welcome the changes coming forward in the Crime and Policing Bill, in an effort to make it easier for the police to remove vehicles without warnings. That appears to be a sensible measure. However it will be important to assess the impact of the legislation once implemented. Does the Minister intend to collect data on these offences to assess the policy’s effectiveness? Will she also give further consideration to some of the changes proposed by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)?

We already have a range of laws prohibiting much of this activity, which is why allowing the quicker confiscation of these bikes is a logical step. However, much depends on how the police allocate their resources to tackle the issue. As the Minister will be aware, there is a wide array of methods used to police off-road bikes. Ironically these have included providing police with their own off-road vehicles, using similar bikes to the ones they work tirelessly to confiscate. Forces such as Greater Manchester have also attempted to use data and hotspot policing effectively, so as to be in the right place at the right time. Meanwhile, intelligence-led pre-emptive raids have also been conducted by police forces across the country.

I will not take up the House’s time by running through the results of each of those approaches, but they highlight the ability of local police forces to develop strategies best suited to their areas. However, as we routinely discuss, police funding plays a significant role in their effectiveness. As we know, at the time of the last election, there were more police on the streets than ever before. Police services now face a shortfall of almost £118 million, which will put a strain on officer numbers and undermines the ability of police to confiscate more of these vehicles.

Does the Minister believe police forces will have the resources and flexibility to direct investment into this issue? As we know, in many cases police forces confiscate bikes only to sell them back on to the market as a source of revenue. What are the Government doing to prevent those bikes from falling back into the hands of those who would once again use them illegally or antisocially?

17:22

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing this debate and on her very powerful and energetic opening speech. I am grateful to her and all the other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. The number who have been able to speak shows how important this issue is to our constituents.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)—in particular, we heard about the 10-minute rule Bill he brought forward—for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and for Telford (Shaun Davies), and of course the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It just shows the geographical spread of this problem. We are all in agreement that antisocial behaviour is a blight on people and places, wherever it happens. It affects communities in different ways and comes in different forms.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

In Morecambe, local organisations have come together to try to tackle antisocial behaviour. I met with Safe Morecambe to give my support and to find out more about what they are doing. Does the Minister agree that bringing local organisations together is an effective way to tackle antisocial behaviour and these bikes, and that all police forces should be working with other local organisations?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. Bringing together all the key partners is vital if we are to tackle this—I will say something about that in a moment.

The main focus of the debate has been the antisocial use of off-road bikes and other vehicles. In her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury catalogued the very real impact this has on the people in her constituency—I think she must have set a record for the number of constituents and places in her constituency she mentioned. We heard some shocking examples, and I share her deep concerns about all of them.

It is unacceptable for law-abiding citizens to be left feeling unsafe and intimidated by the actions of a selfish, reckless few. The near-misses; the noise; the damage to parks and green spaces—it is simply not acceptable. People have the right to feel safe in their neighbourhoods, town centres and public spaces.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury set out, the police are operationally independent and Government cannot instruct them on what to do, or instruct the local authority to take action on particular cases. However, I want to reassure her and all hon. Members that we are very much alive to the menace and harm that antisocial behaviour, particularly through the use of vehicles, is causing to communities. We take it extremely seriously. As a constituency MP, I know very well this is a real problem in my patch, too.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Every single week, I hear about this issue from constituents in Park End, Easterside and across south Middlesbrough. Will the Minister assure my constituents that passing the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that these bikes are seized and crushed, and that our streets are made safe again?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. I will come to that in just a moment.

It is really important to recognise the role that the police have to play in this. It is reassuring to hear in this debate about the proactive steps that many police forces are taking to get to grips with this issue. I pay particular tribute to the work going on in the west midlands, where police teams are leading the effort that we have heard about. It is really important to recognise that there is good work going on, but we need to give the police the powers they need to tackle this effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury described the holistic approach being adopted in the west midlands, combining technology, enforcement and engagement. I hope that that translates into tangible improvements for the local community; but we know that this is not a problem in just one constituency or one area of the country. We have heard contributions from so many Members this afternoon, and, as was referenced, the fact that this issue has been debated on numerous occasions in Parliament in recent years speaks to the continued toll that it is having in different parts of the country.

I have a real issue with the fact that the previous Government dismissed this type of antisocial behaviour as low level, as was referenced in the examples mentioned in the debate. It has a genuinely detrimental effect on people and places. It is a blight on our society and, under this Government, it will be treated as such. We want to make it easier for the police to act when these incidents occur and to enable them to dispose of the vehicles that they seize from offenders quickly.

Strong measures to deal with the menace of off-road bikes are included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which, as Members are aware, was introduced to the House a few weeks ago. When this Bill comes into law, police forces will have greater powers to immediately seize off-road bikes and other vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner without first having to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allowing police to put an immediate stop to the offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.

We are also considering how we can make changes to secondary legislation to allow the police to quickly dispose of seized off-road bikes. That will help to reduce reoffending. I am also aware of the concerns around criminality facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, which were expressed by many Members. We are progressing research and development on a novel technological solution to stop e-scooters and e-bikes safely and to enhance the police’s ability to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.

As well as working closely with the police on these issues, we are strengthening collaboration across Government. On Monday, I had a constructive and helpful meeting with my colleague from the Department of Transport, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). We agreed that the antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes and other vehicles is unacceptable, and we share a vision of working together to tackle this criminality and improve road safety. That is an overview of some of the steps that we are taking, but I emphasise that we are determined to deliver real change on this issue, and we will be working with partners across Government, policing and beyond to make that happen.

I want to mention a couple of other issues in the remaining seconds of this debate. We have talked a lot about neighbourhood policing. Putting those 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials back into our high streets and communities is going to be really important in providing that reassurance to communities and tackling the antisocial behaviour that we have been hearing about in this debate.

I say gently to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), that £1.1 billion extra is going into policing, over and above what was put in under his Government in the last police settlement. That money is available, but police forces are finding this challenging, because they have had 14 years of Conservative Government and 20,000 police officers have been got rid of. I also say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that his party was part of that coalition Government that got rid of the 20,000 police officers.

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).